What has the Father done in LDS theology

[nrajeff]

Here is what you are up against when it comes to Prof. Smith:

External Affiliations: Member, Colloquium for Biblical Research; Member, Society of Biblical Literature; Member, Catholic Biblical Association; Member, Colloquium for Biblical Research; Member, Old Testament Colloquium; Member, Association for Jewish Studies; Editor, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series; Editorial Board, Hebrew Studies

Fellowships/Honors: Golden Dozen Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching, New York University, 2005 and 2007; Frank Moore Cross Publications Award, American Schools of Oriental Research, 2005; Fellow, Center for Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania, 1998; Faculty Merit Award for Research, Saint Joseph's University, 1995; Morse Fellow, Yale University, 1993; Dorot Dead Sea Scrolls Fellow (summer), W. F. Albright Institute of Archeological Research, 1990; Mellon Faculty Fellowship Leave (spring term), Yale University 1989; Recipient of the Mitchell Dahood Memorial Prize 1988, 1990; Post-doctoral fellow W. F. Albright Institute of Archeological Research, 1988; Annual Professor, W. F. Albright Institute of Archeological Research, 1987; Membership in and papers delivered at the Catholic Biblical Association, the Old Testament Colloquium and the Society of Biblical Literature, 1983-present; Mary Cady Tew prize for best first-year graduate student, Yale University, 1982

http://hebrewjudaic.as.nyu.edu/object/marksmith.html

[nrajeff]

Also: Skirball Professor of Bible; Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies
Ph.D., 1985, (Northwest Semitics and Hebrew Scripture), Yale University; M. Phil., 1983, M.A. 1982. M.T.S., 1980, (Old Testament), Harvard Divinity School; M.A., 1979, the Catholic University of America; B.A., 1975, The Johns Hopkins University.

[Bill the Cat]

If you have published peer-reviewed research that refutes hers, I suspect that at least some of the readers here would be interested in comparing yours with hers.

Owen and Mosser deemed her "not worth a reply". I take their word for it.

And don't forget to refute

The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (Biblical Resource Series) [Paperback] by Mark S. Smith

Why would I refute it? It assaults your position as much as it does mine. It assumes a secular evolution of Israel's religion which was usurped from other cultures around them, instead of the divinely instituted religion given from YHWH to Moses. You think that it supports monolatry without damaging the YHWH that you believe created the world. It doesn't. It postulates Ba'al as the creator. El, Baal, Anat and Asherah were equal and competing gods while there was no YHWH in the earliest pantheon. You sure you want to rely on that sort of "evidence"?

[nrajeff]

Owen and Mosser deemed her "not worth a reply". I take their word for it.

Didn't Owen and Mosser also say that LDS apologists are so much more professional in their scholarly defenses of LDSism than anti-LDS Evangelicals are in their attacks on LDSism, that the antis are losing the battle--and they're oblivious to that fact? Do you take Mosser and Owen's word for it?

Why would I refute it?

Because it supports exactly what I said, which means that it refutes your attack of what I said.

It assaults your position as much as it does mine.

Not really. I think my beliefs can handle this research better than yours can.

It assumes a secular evolution of Israel's religion which was usurped from other cultures around them, instead of the divinely instituted religion given from YHWH to Moses. You think that it supports monolatry without damaging the YHWH that you believe created the world. It doesn't. It postulates Ba'al as the creator. El, Baal, Anat and Asherah were equal and competing gods while there was no YHWH in the earliest pantheon. You sure you want to rely on that sort of "evidence"?

How could ALL of the deities have been equal in a monolatrist theology? By definition, one of them had to have been the "god of gods" or "lord of lords" or chief deity.

And sure, I am happy to rely on the parts of the these sources that refute Sparko's head-in-sand claims ("Non-existent evidence...."), and that support my response to him in post 36.

[Bill the Cat]

Didn't Owen and Mosser also say that LDS apologists are so much more professional in their scholarly defenses of LDSism than anti-LDS Evangelicals are in their attacks on LDSism, that the antis are losing the battle--and they're oblivious to that fact? Do you take Mosser and Owen's word for it?

Yes. I think some of the sensationalism from the front lines in the past, like the Tanners and Decker, are uncalled for.

Because it supports exactly what I said, which means that it refutes your attack of what I said.

No it doesn't. Unless you worship Ba'al as the chief god.

Not really. I think my beliefs can handle this research better than yours can.

Your beliefs can handle the theory that YHWH was not even a god to the ancient Israelites, and that they simply stole the idea for YHWH from another civilization?

How could ALL of the deities have been equal in a monolatrist theology?

Because they weren't monolatrist at first according to Smith's study of the Ugaritic texts. They were polytheist and Ba'al, El, and YHWH each took their turn as the chief god of the pantheon as time went on.

By definition, one of them had to have been the "god of gods" or "lord of lords" or chief deity.

Ba'al was at first, then El, then YHWH as the theory goes. The most ancient evidence has Ba'al creating everything and El as his subordinate. As time went on, El became the chief and Ba'al became relegated to a lesser deity. Then even later, YHWH came on the scene as a god of thunder. Next, YHWH took over El's role and assimilated his attributes, relegating El to history. Lastly, Post-Exilic belief dispatched all of the other gods to idols who were not really gods. As I said, this damages your belief just as bad as mine. It proposes a secular invention and borrowing of gods and removes the revelation of who YHWH is.

And sure, I am happy to rely on the parts of the these sources that refute Sparko's head-in-sand claims ("Non-existent evidence...."), and that support my response to him in post 36.

It is an interpretation of the archaeological evidence from several Semitic cultures that Smith et al assume were borrowed and assimilated from each other.

[nrajeff]

Yes. I think some of the sensationalism from the front lines in the past, like the Tanners and Decker, are uncalled for.

Do you think any similar sensationalism has been perpetuated in more recent times, even in such forums as this one?

It is an interpretation of the archaeological evidence from several Semitic cultures that Smith et al assume were borrowed and assimilated from each other.

And it qualifies as legitimate, scholarly research that supports the idea that Israel's theology did in fact undergo changes from henotheism to the strict monotheism that is reflected in the post-Josiah Torah. Anything incorrect in that statement?

[Cerebrum123]

Do you think any similar sensationalism has been perpetuated in more recent times, even in such forums as this one?



And it qualifies as legitimate, scholarly research that supports the idea that Israel's theology did in fact undergo changes from henotheism to the strict monotheism that is reflected in the post-Josiah Torah. Anything incorrect in that statement?

It's also an assumption that everything about God was copied from pagans that made their stories up completely, do you really want to be using that as "evidence" to support your claims? Oddly enough, I find that a lot of false religions rely on atheistic type material for attacks on the Bible, and this certainly appears to be heading in that direction for LDS now as well.

[nrajeff]

It's also an assumption that everything about God was copied from pagans that made their stories up completely, do you really want to be using that as "evidence" to support your claims?

If the research makes a valid case for the claim that Israel was once monolatrist, and you run from it just because you don't like it, you're being irrational.
Shooting the messenger doesn't make the message untrue and therefore okay to not acknowledge.

Oddly enough, I find that a lot of false religions rely on atheistic type material for attacks on the Bible,

and the Book of Mormon

and this certainly appears to be heading in that direction for LDS now as well.

Atheists are able to become competent scholars, I think someone should inform you.

[Bill the Cat]

Do you think any similar sensationalism has been perpetuated in more recent times, even in such forums as this one?

Sure.

And it qualifies as legitimate, scholarly research that supports the idea that Israel's theology did in fact undergo changes from henotheism to the strict monotheism that is reflected in the post-Josiah Torah.

Even more than that, it makes a case that Jewish religion is fabricated from patchwork and stolen ideas, and not the divinely revealed religion that God supplied. As I said, it is just as damaging to your case as it is to mine.

Anything incorrect in that statement?

No, but it is insufficient when examining the WHOLE claim made by the theory.

[Cerebrum123]

If the research makes a valid case for the claim that Israel was once monolatrist, and you run from it just because you don't like it, you're being irrational.

That's not really the case that is being made, and the real "research" is in support of Judaism being borrowed from false religions.

Shooting the messenger doesn't make the message untrue and therefore okay to not acknowledge.

I'm not "shooting the messenger", but I am pointing out that the message isn't valid, and that it's basis is profoundly anti-Christians, anti-Judaism, anti-Mormon, anti- Muslim-, and basically antireligion.

and the Book of Mormon

Can you show me evidence of many false religions using atheistic(and by atheistic, I mean downright anti-religion as whole rather than someone who just doesn't believe in any kind of god) claims as one of their main lines of evidence against the BoM?

Atheists are able to become competent scholars, I think someone should inform you.

Never said that they couldn't, but when it comes to something like this they are often highly negative to ALL religions, and aren't very good when it comes to the scholarship part either.

[nrajeff]

Can you show me evidence of many false religions using atheistic(and by atheistic, I mean downright anti-religion as whole rather than someone who just doesn't believe in any kind of god) claims as one of their main lines of evidence against the BoM?

I think I can show how anti-LDS Evangelicals use the same type of attacks on the BOM that anti-Evangelical atheists use on the Bible.

[Cerebrum123]

I think I can show how anti-LDS Evangelicals use the same type of attacks on the BOM that anti-Evangelical atheists use on the Bible.

Ok then, please do.

[Sparko]

I think I can show how anti-LDS Evangelicals use the same type of attacks on the BOM that anti-Evangelical atheists use on the Bible.

so?

[Cow Poke]

so?

Exactly. I bet a LOT of atheists put their pants on one leg at a time, and eat steak with a knife and fork!

[Sparko]

Exactly. I bet a LOT of atheists put their pants on one leg at a time, and eat steak with a knife and fork!

But that would mean that God doesn't exist!!!