An Objection To Barker-esque Apologetics

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

And personally, I think that the prophecies in the latter part of 1 Nephi 13 are remarkably consistent with Margaret's reconstruction. Personally, I think the prophecies are specific to her work, and I have argued this case in some of my essays (e.g., the first Meridian essay).

[...]

Kevin,

Out of curiosity, does she know your thoughts on this? And if so, what are her feelings on it (i.e. does she see it as a "divine" compliment)?

[e=mc2]

CK:

this thread was actually catalyzed by Kerry Shirts' anthropomorphism podcast, in which he contends that archaeology proves that God has a body.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh........... THANK YOU...... the light bulb just went on in my head as to why some are shaking their heads in disbelief I would even produce a podcast of this nature.

Ahem.........good brother.......AHEM!!!!!!!!!!! Pay attenshun there lil man, koz Ima gonna clarify this here problem of perception.

In my podcast I ***deliberately*** set it up as PROVING in order to illustrate a point. I *NEVER* use the word PROVE intentionally, as no real good Bible or LDS scholar would either, when it comes to archaeology. And absolutely, fundamentally, without question, NONE OF US say archaeology "proves"................ I am mocking the critics who contend the Bible is PROVEN archaeologically, while at the same time claiming there is nothing in Mormonism that is PROVEN archaeologically.

I decided to go to God, and see what has been arhcaeologically found in the texts. I have not found any archaeologically discovered texts that show God as the Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians proclaim him to be (the critic I mentioned on the podcast was from this camp), namely a spirit filling the immensity of space, invisible, without body, parts, or passions. Instead what I found was the BELIEF (an early Jewish doctrine) that God was not only embodied, but he was married (and with more than one wife to boot!), and that the whole point of the ARCHAEOLOGICALLY DISCOVERED TEXT THAT AT LEAST 4 BIBLICAL SCHOLARS HAVE TRANSLATED, PRINTED, AND COMMENTED ON, was that God Used his body to create life, i.e., his penis has a function - duh! And the scholars described that function as producing offspring, in other words, you know......having sex with their lawfully married wives. PLURAL OF ALL THINGS......PLURAL!

MY POINT - If you use archaeology to refute someone with, get ready to die by it also. It NEVER has the last word on anything, and I have said this on the net for over 13 years MANY DOZENS of times. You see the irony? The irony of a Christian contending their own faith is PROVEN by archaeology, when in fact, BIBLE SCHOLARSHIP shows God in fashion, much closer to the Mormon view, than the Evangelical Christian view? THAT WAS MY POINT. My point is, if you are going to use archaeology, then use ALL OF IT, not selectively, and therefore, use it to SAY WHAT GOD IS AND DOES, i.e., He is a man (wow! What a man!), married to many women (in some texts more than one), and he produces children through sexual means. And YHWH is one of his children! YHWH was ******BORN******, according to archaeology........ What Christian would possibly be comfortable with this? Yet it is ARCHAEOLOGICAL.

Thank you CK for finally helping me see why some folks have so misunderstood the whole point of my podcast. I probably ought to clarify it better. The reason weakling craniums like Graham thinks I am an idiot (I probably actually am, but SHHHH! tell no one!) is his inability to understand irony. I am beginning to comprehend his lack of understanding better now. Not that it matters, he doesn't fully listen to context before jumping in and claiming everything is wrong, but my podcast is necessary to listen to through the whole thing to "get it," if ya know what I mean..... Jersey girl was correct! How all those people can think that is what I was thinking is ludicrous in the extreme. Does no one in the world anymore understand irony? Interestingly enough, Bill Hamblin got it, as did David Bokovoy, and Graham has had the temerity to tell me that the Ph.d's don't necessarily mean they are correct all the time, and that Graham's scholarship is vastly superior to my own. His scholarship may be, but apparently his understanding certainly can't match Ph.d's understandings!

The deepest irony of it all however, is in reading through the many postings of so many mockers and people who misunderstand, when in my podcast I said at least half a dozen times that this is not meant as vulgar, lewd, and carnal sex. That is not the understanding of the Kabbalistic Jews either. It certainly is NOT how the scholars such as Mark Smith, Frank Moore Cross, Jr., and Dr Schwartz ever said either. And I absolutely did NOT present it that way! It amazes me how people deliberately misconstrue in order to mock...... the high tower of Nephi's vision filled with mockers is still standing........

Best,

Kerry

[Calm]

CK , have you considered the possibilty that both the young earth and old earth theories are correct? The old earth theory can be correct in that the material from which God organized the earth could be billions of years old. The young earth theory can be correct in that the aged material could have been organized by God into our earth only thousands of years ago. This would account for the testing of the earth's geologic material resulting in an old age and for the biblical account of a young earth. What say you?

Unlikely in my view, as the way the material has been laid out would take way more time than the 6000 years that the bible supposedly discusses . Most of the rock material, for example, have been altered after having been place into their 'final' position in ways that are most likely to take way too long for a 'young' earth theory (think sand being laid out in layers and then compressed over time into sandstone). It's not just the age of the material that matters, but also the way it is laid out, in layers, folds, etc. It would definitely take methods we are not aware of right now in order to form the earth in the form it is now in a thousands years timeline.

Also the combination of materials that you are explaining would also create energy and would alter the materials themselves in ways that haven't been found.

Now if you want to talk about the young earth as a spiritual theory...

[ed2276]

Unlikely in my view, as the way the material has been laid out would take way more time than the 6000 years that the bible supposedly discusses . Most of the rock material, for example, have been altered after having been place into their 'final' position in ways that are most likely to take way too long for a 'young' earth theory (think sand being laid out in layers and then compressed over time into sandstone). It's not just the age of the material that matters, but also the way it is laid out, in layers, folds, etc. It would definitely take methods we are not aware of right now in order to form the earth in the form it is now in a thousands years timeline.

Also the combination of materials that you are explaining would also create energy and would alter the materials themselves in ways that haven't been found.

Now if you want to talk about the young earth as a spiritual theory...

Ok , that's a good point. It's not just the oldest material that was originally used to form the earth that is being measured , but it is the newer material being laid down from the geologic processes of the earth as well ; and if the newer material is also dated at millions or billions of years of age then the young earth model isn't correct.

Just as a side point though , hasn't it been found that some geologic processes that were supposed to have taken millions of years of time to play out have actually occurred in a more rapid fashion? Most of these more rapid processes have been the result of catastrophic events , such as the land form changes that we see with erupting volcanoes and major earthquakes.

Also , if we take the inexactness of the Genesis timeline and allow for a greater period of organization than the six thousand year time period thought to be the initial period of creation ( actually it would be twelve thousand years...six thousand of spiritual creation and six thousand of temporal creation ; but how would we geologically measure spiritual creation?) how might we also make allowance for the division of the earth. It is recorded in the biblical account that the earth was divided in the days of Peleg. If this is referring to continental drifting this would only occur during a very short period of time geologically ; over a period of a few hundred years , as that would seem to have been Peleg's lifespan back then. It would seem that if the Genesis account of the division of the earth in Peleg's day is literal and occurred over a timespan of a few hundred years that the drifting would have to have been accelerated by more violent , rapid geologic action.

[Jersey Girl]

Hello All,

Because CK has chosen not to do so, for the sake of clarity, I'd like to present my comments in context. If anyone cares to see the entire post they can view it on another board. I dislike it when people post my comments on a board where I'm unable to participate, especially posting only partial quotes. For that reason, I've chosen to re-register here in order to make this post. A thread was begun on said "other board" regarding Kerry's podcast. The thread became inflammatory from the start. I chose to post a serious reply. I then took my reply and created a new thread in an attempt to open the door for serious mud-free discussion. And here is the post:

Kerry reply regarding your podcast

I'm extracting this from the thread of origin, the topic of which was your podcast. Consider this a reply regarding your recently reviewed recording of research ;-) on "Proofs for God Having a Body in Archaeology".

Once more, perhaps against my better judgement...we'll see...

Kerry,

I know that you're reading this thread. I happened to check in on MAD and saw your comments about this thread, the board and Kevin posting on your blog. I also read the exchanges between you and Kevin on your blog. I'm not willing to talk between boards or comment on your blog. Recently you made this comment on MAD:

Kerry Quote:

"That's the one. I have my very serious doubts there is any capability on that board of anyone dealing with the Biblical archaeological materials I used in the podcast. They are the finest biblical scholars in the world, so far as I am aware. And I certainly did not use the Graham methodology of reading a mere first few pages of each book and article either."

I listened to the first 23 minutes of your podcast. People can't deal with the material you presented if you avoid engaging them. You're registered on this board and why you're talking on MAD about this thread instead of participating in the thread itself, I have no clue. I am on this board and previously attempted to discuss at least some of the material in a thread on FAIR several months ago. When I began asking you questions, you refused to engage. Based on your above comments regarding the posters on this board...

now is your chance.

Again, I could only hear the first 23 minutes of your podcast so that's all I have to go on at the moment. Here are the areas I would choose to challenge you on:

1. Whatever archaeological evidence you can or have presented to support the idea of God having a body, doesn't prove that at all. What it does, Kerry, is prove that human beings thought that God had a body and wrote about that concept or made carvings or statues of God with a body in order to express it. They are no more accurate representations of God than the artists renderings of Christ. They are merely artistic interpretations.

2. The story of the Caananite God "El" stems directly from Baalism. Baalism is clearly condemned in the Bible. In order to support the theory of God having a body (unless you're discussing Jesus Christ) which would lead one to believe that you're attempting to make a connection between ancient Baalism and Mormonism, what you're doing is replacing Christian theological concepts with the concepts found in the fertilitity religion of Baal which is again, clearly condemned in the Bible.

3. It is my opinion, and only my opinion, that this is a dangerous and slippery slope for an LDS apologist to set out on. It seems to me that you are faced with a choice between supporting Christian concepts or Baalism. Should the choice be to support Baalism, are you willing to put your belief in Jesus Christ aside and accept fertility pantheons, temple sexual rituals (including homosexual acts) and infant sacrifice?

There is your serious reply. Ball is in your court.

Jersey Girl

(aka Lady Sundancer)

[e=mc2]

Yes, I saw your post, and yes you are about the only SANE head over there on Shades board, and I appreciate you being SANE, even though you disagree with my ideas, you do so with class. I apologize for not answering you over there. For one I couldn't register (yeah I didn't try as hard as I probably should have though.)

I shall get to your points. I am right in the middle of preparing for my project due in math on monday (4 of us in the group have to coordinate things Saturday (tomorrow), and my finals are coming up and they are about statistics, and I am sooooooooooo stooooopid when it comes to that subject, so I really have to cram for a week or so, k?

Again, thank you for having the class to call it like it was. I am impressed at your strength to stand up to all that ridiculous mocking, incorrectly done so, and all you had to listen to was 23 minutes! And you got the point of it! I am emphasizing that because your fairness is a complete breath of living fresh air over that in that stagnation of intellectual stupor on Shades board. Though we have had disagreements in the past, I am willing to bury them because of what you have done. God bless you real good, and I mean that in sincerity good Lady..........

Sincerely,

Kerry

[Jersey Girl]

Yes, I saw your post, and yes you are about the only SANE head over there on Shades board, and I appreciate you being SANE, even though you disagree with my ideas, you do so with class. I apologize for not answering you over there. For one I couldn't register (yeah I didn't try as hard as I probably should have though.)

I shall get to your points. I am right in the middle of preparing for my project due in math on monday (4 of us in the group have to coordinate things Saturday (tomorrow), and my finals are coming up and they are about statistics, and I am sooooooooooo stooooopid when it comes to that subject, so I really have to cram for a week or so, k?

Again, thank you for having the class to call it like it was. I am impressed at your strength to stand up to all that ridiculous mocking, incorrectly done so, and all you had to listen to was 23 minutes! And you got the point of it! I am emphasizing that because your fairness is a complete breath of living fresh air over that in that stagnation of intellectual stupor on Shades board. Though we have had disagreements in the past, I am willing to bury them because of what you have done. God bless you real good, and I mean that in sincerity good Lady..........

Sincerely,

Kerry

I am still reeling from seeing the partial excerpt of my post, posted on this board where I (until I just re-registered) had no voice to respond or see my comments, and intentions, clearly stated here in context. I am not willing to take a chance on my words being misconstrued or my intentions misunderstood, nor am I willing to entertain chattering between boards. I have been upfront about who I am here. Whatever the mod's choose to do with that, is their choice. It's one thing when a mod team chooses to take my voice away, it's quite another when a poster who knew my intentions does it.

I simply chose to take it back.

Jersey Girl

[ed2276]

And if we could get back to the actual words of Abraham, Noah, Enoch, and even to Adam, then we would find true and pure doctrine.

Of course, thatâ??s why we call it â??The Pearl of Great Price.â?

It is no mistake that it is the books of Moses and Abraham that are vindicated by this old stuff that has turned up in the past hundred years. That is precisely what we would expect. And that is precisely why we get so charged about each new thing that comes to light that confirms to us, once again, that Joseph Smith knew what he was talking about.

Which is why I appreciate Kevin's work and Barker's work so much in bringing these things to light for someone such as myself , who has little time to do research on these matters myself. They are indeed thrilling. I also have to thank Kerry for his excellent podcasts on Nibley and his methods. I have only listened to the first three podcasts , but the common themes between the BoA , the Apocalypse of Abraham and the Testament of Abraham and their Egyptian connections is quite interesting.

I'm grateful that there are those like you , Kevin , Margaret , Kerry and others out there doing the heavy lifting and sharing what you have found.

[ed2276]

As a Latter-day Saint, I too believe that true religion has moved beyond the ancient Israelite belief system and that we should no longer look to ancient Israelite beliefs as an authoritative source for church doctrine.

Me too.

I also feel that we shouldn't look to the westernized Christian belief system as an authoritative source for church doctrine , as well.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin,

Out of curiosity, does she know your thoughts on this? And if so, what are her feelings on it (i.e. does she see it as a "divine" compliment)?

Margaret does know my thoughts on this [that is, that Margaret's work specifically fulfills the prophecies in 1 Nephi 13:40.] I concluded "Paradigms Regained" with just that point, though I went into more specific detail later in the Meridan essays. And her website includes a link from her description of The Great Angel pointing to "Paradigms Regained" at FARMS.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Benjamin McGuire]

Been meaning to get something into this thread an just not having enough time.

CK writes:

This is precisely the problem with Barker-esque apologetics. They argue that the Deuteronomic reform was concocted by those villains Josiah and Jeremiah, never mind that the Book of Mormon praises Jeremiah and evinces a highly monotheistic/Deuteronomistic bent.

First, I don't think that the Book of Mormon is particularly monotheistic - at least no in the early parts. Second, Jeremiah is a problematic text since it was edited by the Dtr redactors. Third, Deuteronomy itself is made up of late material and early material (like Jeremiah). I find that the Book of Mormon consistently uses the early material and not the later redactive stuff - meaning that the Book of Mormon could be both pro-Jeremiah and pro-Deuteronomy, but also view the Dtr redaction process as a corruption. Wouldn't you agree?

The problems are twofold: 1) none of these pagan ideas genuinely parallels Mormon doctrine, and 2) there are many more things about pre-reform Palestinian religion that not even ancient Israel's most ardent fans would want to revive.

I am not sure this is relevant. After all LDS don't base any of their practices or beliefs on these Old Testament issues. None of them. So to say that we should accept or adopt other OT practices is a non-sequitor. LDS practices and beliefs are largely based on modern revelation.

1) The idea that there were other gods prior to El comes quite simply from the fact that other gods were worshipped by Syro-Palestinians prior to El. This proves only that El's cult was not always the dominant cult among the groups that inhabited Palestine.

What does this mean? It doesn't seem to me to mean anything. Since you are making a rather bold assumption that the inhabitants of Palestine are a rather homogeneous bunch aren't you? If the Israelites are a transplant (as they claim to be) the fact that there are other divinities there which precede El is rather beside the point. And - who are these other deities that precede El? I am curious as to which you think do, and on what basis you make this claim.

As to the point about El being a deified man, of course he wasn't viewed that way. And why should we worry about it? Mormonism doesn't base its belief on these comparisons. We find them interesting, but in the long run, irrelevant to our beliefs and our own view of the cosmos. At the same time, the Israelite El (the Biblical El) is very, very foreign to the God of orthodox Christianity, wouldn't you agree? A God who procreates, who has a physical body, who eats and speaks with his mouth, and so on.

3) Yes, there was a council of gods: El's sons, the product of his marriage to the two mortal women by whom he was aroused by the seahore. The sons were a nasty group, as I mentioned above. There is nothing about this "council" that LDS would find worth of veneration.

But LDS don't venerate this council at all. You raise these issues as if there is some meaning, but there isn't.

4) It's difficult to know for sure whether YHWH was originally a son of El or whether the Canaanites integrated him into their pantheon and made him a son of El after their encounters with the Israelites. I think the latter; probably YHWH originated in Midian and was imported to Canaan from there.

I would disagree with you given that YHWH appears in the Ugaritic texts (they are pretty early, and from an area where we wouldn't see a need to incorporate the local diety of Palestine otherwise). This line of thinking leads me to believe that you are using the term Canaanite without any real knowledge of what that might entail - geographically, politically, or ethnically.

5) As Jersey Girl mentioned, there are plenty of things in pre-reform religion that LDS would find objectionable. Temple prostitution, for example, probably wouldn't catch on down the road at the Sacramento temple, even if I pointed them to Kevin Christensen's essays and informed them that this was part of the true ancient Israelite religion. And what about purity laws? Or stoning disobedient children? Or excluding eunuchs from the community? Or animal sacrifice? Call me Marcion, but I don't think any these things are part of the true religion.

Nor do the LDS - which is why this is such a straw man that you erect here. LDS practices and beliefs have nothing to do with any of this - nor have any Old Testament practices been looked at and adopted on the simple basis that they are in the Old Testament (as read by scholars) and so should be adopted.

Furthermore, if we're going to turn back the clock and take pre-reform religion as authoritative, why stop there? Presumably the further back we go the truer the religion will be, right?

No.

The long and short of it is this - I think you are misinterpreting LDS use of this scholarship. Certainly there might be some abuses by the armchair variety apologist who frequents an internet forum like this one. But your arguments are so far from published LDS thought as to be nothing less than a complete mockery. I think part of the issue here is that we can avail ourselves of this scholarship while Evangelicals cannot. They are tied to the premise of an unchanging gospel given once for all time - they can't read the text within the context of an ancient Israel. The text can only be read in terms of a modern orthodox protestant faith. And this reading is destructive to the text. Protestants are perfectly happy separating faith from critical scholarship of the text.

LDS can pick and choose precisely because we don't actually need to rely on any of it. And our faith encourages us to do so. That is to rely on God to tell us how to live and how to be, and thus we see ourselves reflected in the text. Orthodox Christianity looks in the mirror and pretends not to see themselves. We aren't suffering under the same restriction.

Ben

[Chris Smith]

But your arguments are so far from published LDS thought as to be nothing less than a complete mockery. I think part of the issue here is that we can avail ourselves of this scholarship while Evangelicals cannot. They are tied to the premise of an unchanging gospel given once for all time - they can't read the text within the context of an ancient Israel.

Speaking of complete mockery, the statement I bolded is utterly absurd. It's the Latter-day Saints, not Evangelicals, who believe that the Christian gospel was known to the ancient Israelites! Contra your accusation, Evangelicals are well aware that a process of development has occured in Israelite and Christian religion through the centuries.

I will get back to you about the rest of your post.

[Benjamin McGuire]

CK writes:

Speaking of complete mockery, the statement I bolded is utterly absurd. It's the Latter-day Saints, not Evangelicals, who believe that the Christian gospel was known to the ancient Israelites! Contra your accusation, Evangelicals are well aware that a process of development has occured in Israelite and Christian religion through the centuries.

No, I disagree with you CK. LDS have no problems with a progressive or even incomplete revelation - nor do we claim that we have received all there is to know, or perhaps that we ever will. We don't have a problem with the idea that revelation can disagree with or even reverse what was beleived formerly to be revelation so ....

Ben

[Smith]

And yes, some of the "true religion" was revealed at the time of Jeremiah, but no, it wasn't all revealed at that time. For a full understanding we must look to prophets, sages and philosophers in all times and places, and must also seek God to the best of our ability in the present place and time. I am even more of a fan of Seneca, Zarathustra, Nanak and Kabir than of some of the Israelite prophets.

CK,

I think this has been a most interesting thread so far. (Compliments to all who have contributed) What you offer here raises some questions in my mind if you don't mind, first of all you talk of "true religion" what do you see as the purpose of true religion? Also your "fanhood" (I can't think of a better word right now) of Seneca etc. has me in a bit of a quandry, how do you square that with - I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the father but by me(Jhn 14:6) ? Also if you have the Holy Ghost who will lead us into all truth(Jhn 16:13) then why go outside the Christian religion?