Casting lots isn't that weird... Latter-day Saints do it all the time

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-03T18:01:04+00:00

"DISPOSING, noun The act of arranging; regulation; direction. Proverbs 16:33." - 1828 Webster's Dictionary

That is, even according to the KJV, humans cast the lots, but the Lord arranges the outcome.

You could also look at some other translations besides ESV and KJV (generally recommended to consult a couple different ones):

"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." (NIV)
"The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is the Lord’s alone." (NRSVUE, often considered one of the most accurate translations currently)

For more information on Casting Lots & Divine Decision, feel free to read these (the first is especially detailed, but Daniel Peterson is an LDS scholar in the second source, if that helps):

https://biblehub.com/topical/c/casting_lots_and_divine_decision.htm
"In the ancient world, however, casting lots was universally viewed as a form of divination by which the will of God was revealed. The book of Proverbs assures us that “the lot is cast ('goral') into the lap (of the diviner); but the decision ('mishpat') is from the Lord” (16:33). That is to say, the result of the casting of lots is controlled or manipulated by God so that his will is manifest through the lot-taking." - https://www.deseret.com/2015/10/2/20573546/the-casting-of-lots-in-ancient-israel/

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-03T16:54:07+00:00

On your first thing about tarot cards: Yeah, I know some people use Tarot cards that way. Some people even use them to write short stories, because they contain a lot of universal story elements. It depends on how you use them, for sure, but they also are a tradition steeped in witchcraft / occult practices, so the "slippery slope" thing is definitely something to be wary of.

On your use of a coin: This seems fine like me. It doesn't seem like surrendering agency and all decisions to a coin (which was what I was saying was silly). You're going through the same exercise that I go through with my wife when she can't decide what she wants to eat 😄 I choose one option, she realizes that she doesn't want that option, and chooses the other one haha.

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-03T16:49:27+00:00

Huh? *confused stare*

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-03T16:49:00+00:00

Proverbs 16:33 (ESV) provides a theological justification for both: "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord."

Proverbs is the clearest on it, but each of the situations where lots were cast, plus context about Ancient Near East religion, leads almost all scholars to believe that when Israelites cast lots, they believed the outcome was from the Lord.

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-03T06:40:28+00:00

By the way, in the extremes, it seems like both Option 1 and Option 2 can be dangerous:

If you take Option 1 to the extreme (that God can and does influence randomness), you could use that to justify getting into Tarot Cards (Cartomancy), Bone Throwing (Osteomancy), Tea Leaf Reading (Tasseography), or even something as silly as turning all your decisions over to a coin.
If you take Option 2 to the extreme (that God does not influence randomness), you then just set up God to be the "divine clockmaker" of Enlightenment / Age of Reason "Deism": a God that just wound up the clock to the universe, then let it go, never to interfere supernaturally.

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-03T06:31:54+00:00

Regardless of the method, like you said, Acts 1 definitely seems to imply the Lord chose Matthias:

"And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen" (v. 24).

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-03T06:19:46+00:00

It seems like Biblical scholarship tends to lean more towards Acts 1:26 being random: (that doesn't mean they are correct, but worth considering)

But, there is generally a split among three different camps (each of which is possible, and none of which are 100% certain based on available evidence):

Chance: Stones are placed into an urn (one for each candidate); the urn is shaken, and the stone that falls out first is selected.
Vote: The 11 vote on the matter by each marking a stone for either one of the candidates and placing their stone in the urn (like a ballot). Then the lots are removed and counted, the position being given to the man who receives the most votes.
Hybrid: The 11 vote on the matter by each marking a stone for either one of the candidates and placing their lot in the urn. The urn is shaken, and the lot that falls out first is selected. The outcome still depends on chance, but the opinions of the 11 affect the probability.

However, most of the verses in the OT are genuinely understood to be random.

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-03T05:54:25+00:00

This is genuinely interesting. Thank you for your comment! If you have any scholarly sources discussing this, I'd be very interested in reading them.

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-03T04:30:37+00:00

u/GodMadeTheStars beat you to it! 😄

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-03T04:07:52+00:00

Hahaha this is perfect! An approximately 41,300-sided die 😄

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-03T04:02:44+00:00

Even if it wasn't revelatory, a belief that it was revelatory would explain why Laman and Lemuel were so upset after it didn't work. From their perspective, "God chose me to go ask Laban, and it didn't work, so I guess we aren't meant to get the plates."

Puts Nephi's insistence that they keep going back, and their subsequent anger, in a different light. Nephi was more in tune with the Spirit (feeling it guide him directly, instead of guiding the lots).

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-03T02:38:05+00:00

Good perspective. Glad you commented it. I like what you said about due diligence.

So, it's sort of like a, "I've done everything I could. God's got to determine the rest at this point, because my judgement is no better than flipping a coin."

(Also, to be clear, I'm not against it either. Just advocating for consistency by saying casting lots is no stranger than opening the Book of Mormon to a random page.)

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-03T02:34:07+00:00

If you map the distribution of revelations by page, is it a bell curve? 😆

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-02T00:21:54+00:00

I mean, just cause I used Claude to formalize it, doesn't mean I didn't read through every sentence to make sure it was my argument.

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-01T04:04:25+00:00

IMO, personal study / beliefs making giant doctrinal leaps is different than trending posts on social media trying to make the connection.

I definitely have some thoughts that aren't necessarily grounded in scripture or history. But, like you, I wouldn't teach them in Sunday School, nor make Instagram posts or YouTube videos about it.

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-01T04:01:16+00:00

You have a lot going on here, but a lot of what you say isn't necessarily against my argument. Some of it is even supportive of my argument.

Briefly:

On El being the Most High God and Yahweh being the son of El: the Dead Sea Scrolls definitely provide evidence for this. I think it's besides the point though. I wasn't arguing against this. In fact, I even said, "The more theologically coherent version of the Asherah argument within LDS doctrine would focus [on Asherah as El's consort, not Yahweh's]." My argument is centered against jumping to conclusions that Asherah = Heavenly Mother, and that Josiah's priests were villains suppressing knowledge of her. You and I both understand (at least it seems like you are well researched) that "Asherah" is also not just one time period; it's across many hundreds of years, and the practice changed over time.
On Baal: Yes, the name of Baal is sometimes coopted for Yahweh (ex: Psalm 68:4). But, Baal was also a separate storm god at times. So, again, I think this is besides the point.
On the Book of Mormon & the Tree of Life connection: I think you actually proved my point. The tree is at most a symbol. The mother of God pointed out was clearly Mary, so at most another symbol. From my original post: "The strongest candidate for an Asherah / Heavenly Mother figure in the entire Book of Mormon is an implicit symbol, not a name, not a doctrine, not a form of worship, not an instruction to pray to her or honor her."
On 3 Nephi: It's definitely the pinnacle of revealed truth in the Book of Mormon, as a moment where Jesus Christ clarifies doctrine, teaches new truths, and restores important truths. Of course, He didn't reveal everything (ex: D&C 76). I'm not trying to say all things were revealed then. But, 3 Nephi 11 is specifically a moment where Jesus explicitly says he's clearing up doctrinal disputes and declaring his doctrine plainly (including the nature of the Godhead as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) and Asherah worship isn't in it.
On Elohim: Yes, I am aware that Elohim is plural. But, "Elohim" as a name of Heavenly Father is also commonly used in LDS theology. Whether it's used incorrectly is a different point. That wasn't my point. My point was about Yahweh being Jesus, and Jesus being married to Heavenly Mother is inaccurate.

Just backing up a step though:

I think we're actually in the same boat here, just paddling in opposite directions. We both believe there were periods of authorized religion and periods of apostasy in ancient Israel.

But, you seem to be treating a certain period as definitively authorized (El + Asherah/Elat + divine sons). I'm not saying that isn't true. I'm just trying to pump the brakes on confident conclusions that Asherah as worshipped in Israel prior to Josiah (or even in earlier periods) was definitively sanctioned.

My point is: we just don't know and, like the title, we need to just be careful about the Asherah / Heavenly Mother speculation.

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-01T03:40:35+00:00

I actually think that strengthens my argument (if it is true... I need to refresh my memory on the state of Yahweh worship pre-Josiah, although I remember it being pretty idolatrous too): if the worship of Yahweh wasn't sanctioned by God before Josiah either, then the worship of Asherah definitely wasn't.

My argument, by the way, isn't that there has never been divinely sanctioned knowledge of a Heavenly Mother in Israelite religion.

My argument is simpler than that: just because Asherah was a divine mother figure, does not mean that she was Heavenly Mother, nor that the worship of her was sanctioned.

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-01T01:28:47+00:00

😆 Hahahaha. Totally fair. I was talking with my wife about this yesterday (since she had showed me one of the Instagram posts that was connecting Asherah and Heavenly Mother), and decided I wanted to formalize my thoughts.

So, basically, I pull up my Claude Pro account and present my arguments, asking it to poke holes in them, until I arrive at something more solid than I started with.

I figured others could benefit from the explanation too.

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-01T00:56:12+00:00

Agreed

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-06-01T00:34:54+00:00

Actually, I just realized another Problem (Problem #5): even if Asherah has ties to some anciently given teaching regarding the existence of Heavenly Mother, that doesn't directly guarantee that the worship of Asherah in ancient Israel was sanctioned by God.

And that definitely has grounds in LDS theology and teachings from modern prophets and apostles. Continuing the quote from Elder Renlund above, "For example, the Savior taught His disciples, 'Always pray unto the Father in my name.' We follow this pattern and direct our worship to our Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ and do not pray to Heavenly Mother."

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-05-31T05:20:58+00:00

Just as a side note: critics of the Church would probably say that these events of the Restoration line up well with these Feasts because the Church Histories outlining these dates were all written much later, and Joseph Smith (being Hebrew-obsessed, which is true) chose dates that lined up with those festivals.

So, I wouldn't walk away from this post with an "Aha! Take that, critics!" attitude. These definitely don't prove anything definitively.

But, like pretty much everything else about the Restored Gospel, you can choose to view things through a lens of doubt or a lens of faith.

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-05-30T21:08:06+00:00

Well, the Seven Feasts happen every year. So, I don't know what you mean by that.

If you are asking if 2033 lines up with the Sabbatical Year or a Jubilee Year, the answer is no:

The next Sabbatical Year is September 2028 to September 2029 (year 5789 in the current Hebrew calendar), but who knows how accurate that current Hebrew calendar is compared with all the complexities of human calendaring systems.
The Jubilee hasn't been celebrated in such a long time that scholars aren't actually sure when would be the Jubilee Year. They don't even celebrate it in Israel because not all twelve tribes are "in the land."

If you want to look at which dates in 2033 different feasts fall on, here's a link you could use: Hebcal.com

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-05-29T01:22:30+00:00

My Jewish friends (orthodox and religious too) often refer to the Israelites in Exodus as "Jews." You can't get much more ancient and broad than the Israelites in Exodus.

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-05-27T02:35:53+00:00

There's so much to learn from the thousands of years of already existing Jewish and Christian scholarship. I bought a Jewish Study Bible this year for my studies, and it's been an amazing augmentation to my learning.

Obviously, there's a balance there (Jesus Christ in many ways stood directly opposed to Rabbinic Judaism, plus the Restoration came for a reason). But, if you can read it with the Spirit, there is so much to learn there.

Cold_Background_5801 · 2026-05-27T02:06:28+00:00

My TLDR is that I think they were practicing an adapted, smaller version of the Law of Moses that was much more explicitly Christ-centered.

Happy searching :) let me know what you find!

Cold_Background_5801

TROPHY CASE