Margaret Barker And Mormonism

[e=mc2]

Sounds like it'll be a GREAT gig together! WOO HOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now then about Margaret Barker...... I love the woman........ her research that is.... oh heck, her too. Anyone with that kinda fire power in her skull is just all right with me........

And Beowulf...... if yer namesake in the movie looks anything like you or fights anything like you can, then I will show the utmostest respectest for thee and thine, oh great one......

Oh and hey..... who was it that I played chess with online a few years back and absolutely almost beat him? GRIN! Is chess played online here on the MAD? That would be fun. This time I shall have to stick around for more torture after I lost my first 50 games.....wheeeeeeee

[ed2276]

ed2276, you will be impressed...

I keep The Great Angel on my coffee table, as a conversation starter for visitors... It never fails.

Beowulf

I have already been impressed by many of the things Margaret Barker has written about : Israel's second God , the Divine Council , the secret/sacred knowledge. There are other things which I have questions about : most importantly Ahserah / Wisdom , the Queen of Heaven and Israel's lost , but true , temple religion before Josiah and the Deuteronomists changed it. I have my doubts about this.

In reading the Bible , gospel lessons and a talk by Pres. Kimball it seems that King Josiah was seen as a good king , favored of the Lord ; a reformer , who sought to purge Judah from idolatry with the Lord's approval.

One of Barker's reasons for suspecting that Josiah had done away with Wisdom and the true temple religion of Israel was because before the Deuteronimists had emphasized the Law there was no such emphasis on Moses and the Law. In my reading , it seems to me that the emphasis was not placed on the Law prior because the people did not have the Law (scriptures) as delivered to Moses. They had lost the records. When Hilkiah found the Law in the temple and Josiah read it , seeing that the current practices of the people were idolatrous , Josiah naturally emphasized the Law over the idolatry. How could the Law , which the people did not have , be emphasized when the people didn't have it? Since the people didn't have the Law to guide them , isn't it natural to suppose that they were worshipping incorrectly and that it is this incorrect worship which Josiah reformed?

Though Barker may well have identified and described the pre-reform temple worship practices , that doesn't mean that those practices were true and acceptable practices to God. That Josiah made no reforms until such time as he knew better , having read the scriptures , makes me think that his reforms were a restoration of the true worship of the Lord. Barker uses the post-exile laments of some , who blamed the reforms disallowing the temple worship of Asherah / Wisdom for their exile , to suggest that at least some of the people thought that the forbidding of Asherah worship was the cause for the evil that had befallen them. However , the case might also be made that the people were exiled precisely because they still desired to worship Asherah in spite of the true temple worship practices that had been made known to them through the rediscovery of the Law and by Josiah's reforms.

So , I question the strength of Barker's position that Josiah replaced the true and correct religion of Israel with the Law. Still , I need to study this question more closely.

[Yme]

I have to admit I am a bit confused about Margaret Barker's significance within the Lds Theology or claim.

First off, when she speaks at Lds symposiums, such as that in Washington, DC last year or so, does she, and has she ever, get paid by the Lds church, directly or indirectly, to do so? I have heard Ms Jann Shipps does but i do not know for sure.

Second, has she ever come out and actually given an "up or down" opinion on whether she beleives that the history claim of the BOM is true? Does she believe that SMith was truly a prophet? Does she ever give a conclusion as to whether she accepts the foundational claims of the Lds church or does she, as some do, make her way into the hearts of Lds by simply quoting some peripherial comparables so long as she finds a monetary reasons?

I would really like to know if her views are truly independent and/or conclusive, and if she has ever received any compensation from the lds church in doing so. I know, I know, I will be accused of being paranoid. But I have to ask the question!!!!!!

Perhaps not the question that Robert Millet would want anyone here to answer??!!!!

[Aquilifer]

I have to admit I am a bit confused about Margaret Barker's significance within the Lds Theology or claim.

First off, when she speaks at Lds symposiums, such as that in Washington, DC last year or so, does she, and has she ever, get paid by the Lds church, directly or indirectly, to do so? I have heard Ms Jann Shipps does but i do not know for sure.

Second, has she ever come out and actually given an "up or down" opinion on whether she beleives that the history claim of the BOM is true? Does she believe that SMith was truly a prophet? Does she ever give a conclusion as to whether she accepts the foundational claims of the Lds church or does she, as some do, make her way into the hearts of Lds by simply quoting some peripherial comparables so long as she finds a monetary reasons?

I would really like to know if her views are truly independent and/or conclusive, and if she has ever received any compensation from the lds church in doing so. I know, I know, I will be accused of being paranoid. But I have to ask the question!!!!!!

Perhaps not the question that Robert Millet would want anyone here to answer??!!!!

Yes, you're paranoid -- in fact, you're showing classic conspiracy theory symptoms. If a person of note supports the position contrary to yours, they've been bought off.

I have seen no evidence to suggest that Margaret Barker has not been invited to speak at LDS sponsored events in the same capacity as any other academic. This is what the secular academic community does. See, eg, Professor Peterson's recent post on events at the academic conference he attended. http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=30067

Just because she speaks favorably of some of what is contained in the BoM does not automatically mean that she is a shill for the LDS church. I have never heard her express her views regarding the validity of the BoM as a whole or the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, other than an implicit sense of fascination.

[rameumptom]

I have to admit I am a bit confused about Margaret Barker's significance within the Lds Theology or claim.

First off, when she speaks at Lds symposiums, such as that in Washington, DC last year or so, does she, and has she ever, get paid by the Lds church, directly or indirectly, to do so? I have heard Ms Jann Shipps does but i do not know for sure.

Second, has she ever come out and actually given an "up or down" opinion on whether she beleives that the history claim of the BOM is true? Does she believe that SMith was truly a prophet? Does she ever give a conclusion as to whether she accepts the foundational claims of the Lds church or does she, as some do, make her way into the hearts of Lds by simply quoting some peripherial comparables so long as she finds a monetary reasons?

I would really like to know if her views are truly independent and/or conclusive, and if she has ever received any compensation from the lds church in doing so. I know, I know, I will be accused of being paranoid. But I have to ask the question!!!!!!

Perhaps not the question that Robert Millet would want anyone here to answer??!!!!

She continues to be a faithful Methodist pastor in England. So, I don't think she's been converted. However, she does think that Joseph Smith was a genius (as Harold Bloom also does). She believes there are ancient types and shadows in the Book of Mormon, such as in her discourse at the JS Symposium in DC. She stated that we should expect to see things from the First Temple and the time period of Lehi in the theology. And we do, as she notes that the Tree of Life dream signifies the goddess Wisdom/Asherah (or in this case, Mother Mary).

[rameumptom]

I have already been impressed by many of the things Margaret Barker has written about : Israel's second God , the Divine Council , the secret/sacred knowledge. There are other things which I have questions about : most importantly Ahserah / Wisdom , the Queen of Heaven and Israel's lost , but true , temple religion before Josiah and the Deuteronomists changed it. I have my doubts about this.

In reading the Bible , gospel lessons and a talk by Pres. Kimball it seems that King Josiah was seen as a good king , favored of the Lord ; a reformer , who sought to purge Judah from idolatry with the Lord's approval.

One of Barker's reasons for suspecting that Josiah had done away with Wisdom and the true temple religion of Israel was because before the Deuteronimists had emphasized the Law there was no such emphasis on Moses and the Law. In my reading , it seems to me that the emphasis was not placed on the Law prior because the people did not have the Law (scriptures) as delivered to Moses. They had lost the records. When Hilkiah found the Law in the temple and Josiah read it , seeing that the current practices of the people were idolatrous , Josiah naturally emphasized the Law over the idolatry. How could the Law , which the people did not have , be emphasized when the people didn't have it? Since the people didn't have the Law to guide them , isn't it natural to suppose that they were worshipping incorrectly and that it is this incorrect worship which Josiah reformed?

Though Barker may well have identified and described the pre-reform temple worship practices , that doesn't mean that those practices were true and acceptable practices to God. That Josiah made no reforms until such time as he knew better , having read the scriptures , makes me think that his reforms were a restoration of the true worship of the Lord. Barker uses the post-exile laments of some , who blamed the reforms disallowing the temple worship of Asherah / Wisdom for their exile , to suggest that at least some of the people thought that the forbidding of Asherah worship was the cause for the evil that had befallen them. However , the case might also be made that the people were exiled precisely because they still desired to worship Asherah in spite of the true temple worship practices that had been made known to them through the rediscovery of the Law and by Josiah's reforms.

So , I question the strength of Barker's position that Josiah replaced the true and correct religion of Israel with the Law. Still , I need to study this question more closely.

Many scholars believe that the "book of law" discovered in the temple was totally or partially constructed at that time by the Deuteronomists. Many of the laws and views in after the Reforms removed many of the key beliefs of the First Temple. Beliefs in the Tree of Life were removed, because the Deuteronomists removed any worship of Asherah (Yahweh was the sole god). The belief in angelic visitations was removed from the temple, as the sola scriptura was the Torah/writings of Moses and a few other prophets.

This same thing occurred in the early centuries of Christianity, when the proto-orthodoxy attempted to finalize the scriptures in order to obtain a firm grip on what would be doctrine. Too many heretics were claiming revelation, or putting their versions of the gospel down under a prophet/apostle's name; and so they felt they had to seal the heavens shut and rely on only the things already given. This precluded continuing revelation, angelic visits, miracles, the Holy Ghost, etc. We see many of the same things occurring in the Josian Reforms.

I believe Josiah was a good and decent king. However, I believe he was strongly influenced by the Deuteronomist priests, who sought to gain/retain power. There were other factions that sought power, such as Jeremiah with his Mosaic priestly lineage, and Lehi with his Melchizedek priestly lineage (the Deuteronomists believed only sons of Aaron were allowed access to the temple and to power).

[ed2276]

Many scholars believe that the "book of law" discovered in the temple was totally or partially constructed at that time by the Deuteronomists. Many of the laws and views in after the Reforms removed many of the key beliefs of the First Temple. Beliefs in the Tree of Life were removed, because the Deuteronomists removed any worship of Asherah (Yahweh was the sole god). The belief in angelic visitations was removed from the temple, as the sola scriptura was the Torah/writings of Moses and a few other prophets.

This same thing occurred in the early centuries of Christianity, when the proto-orthodoxy attempted to finalize the scriptures in order to obtain a firm grip on what would be doctrine. Too many heretics were claiming revelation, or putting their versions of the gospel down under a prophet/apostle's name; and so they felt they had to seal the heavens shut and rely on only the things already given. This precluded continuing revelation, angelic visits, miracles, the Holy Ghost, etc. We see many of the same things occurring in the Josian Reforms.

I believe Josiah was a good and decent king. However, I believe he was strongly influenced by the Deuteronomist priests, who sought to gain/retain power. There were other factions that sought power, such as Jeremiah with his Mosaic priestly lineage, and Lehi with his Melchizedek priestly lineage (the Deuteronomists believed only sons of Aaron were allowed access to the temple and to power).

Thanks for this insight. This is why I am a bit confused. I see LDS publications and talks by GE's , as I mentioned Pres. Kimball's , praising Josiah's reforms and portraying Asherah / Ashtoreth type worship as false. Yet , as you point out the reforms did take away many of the things that we LDS believe in...continuing revelation , angelic ministrations , theophany. We know from the Bible and present-day scripture that despite the Deutoronomists' claims that Moses had not seen God , only heard Him , the truth is that Moses did in fact see God. So , the Deuteronomists' claims are certainly suspect in other areas , as well. On the other hand , we LDS are a temple-going people and one would think that in the restoration we would have the lost practices in our temple worship that Barker identifies as possibly Israel's true religion. We don't have Asherah / Wisdom worship in our temples.

The case is made that Lehi was preaching against something that was a very serious transgression at the same time Jeremiah began his ministry , which began just after Josiah made the reforms. Was it Josiah's reforms they were preaching against or was it the people's desire to hold onto Asherah / Wisdom worship?

As I wrote , I have a lot more reading and study of this and many other issues to take up. Some of Barker's propositions fall right into place for me , as I noted before. It is the Asherah and reform issue that though she makes sense about are also things about which I have more uncertainties and questions.

[Kevin Christensen]

Before I read Barker, I had read Friedman Who Wrote the Bible?, and had picked up the notion that the Deuteronomist History culminated in celebrating Josiah, and the Jeremiah supported Josiah, and could have been the Deuteronomist.

After reading Barker, I did lots of re-reading of Jeremiah, among other things. I found that despite alluding to Deuteronomy some 200 times, Jeremiah contradicts Deuteronomy on exactly the same points that Barker sees as key the reform. Those direct contradictions have to do with the role of the high priest, the anointed. As she observed at BYU in 2003, "Josiah's changes concerned the high priests and were thus changes at the heart of the temple." After Josiah, the High Priest was no longer the anointed, that is, no longer the Messiah, no longer Christ. She points out that Deuteronomy does not contain the Day of Atonement in the sacred calendar. Lehi's first public discourse addresses those issues of the Messiah and the Redemption of the world, (that is, the anointed high priest, and the Day of Atonement which ritualized the redemption of the world). I noticed that she often cites the Apocalypse of Weeks in 1 Enoch, concerning blindness and the rejection of Wisdom just before the destruction of the Temple. In looking at Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Jacob, and Proverbs, I find the references to blindness and the same loss of wisdom.

It's also worth noting the list of people that Jeremiah is called against, and the same people in Ezekiel 22. The list amounts to the people who put Josiah in power, and the people and institutions who were implimenting the reforms at the time of Jeremiah's call.

See my Meridian essays at www.thinlyveiled.com for particulars.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[ed2276]

Before I read Barker, I had read Friedman Who Wrote the Bible?, and had picked up the notion that the Deuteronomist History culminated in celebrating Josiah, and the Jeremiah supported Josiah, and could have been the Deuteronomist.

After reading Barker, I did lots of re-reading of Jeremiah, among other things. I found that despite alluding to Deuteronomy some 200 times, Jeremiah contradicts Deuteronomy on exactly the same points that Barker sees as key the reform. Those direct contradictions have to do with the role of the high priest, the anointed. As she observed at BYU in 2003, "Josiah's changes concerned the high priests and were thus changes at the heart of the temple." After Josiah, the High Priest was no longer the anointed, that is, no longer the Messiah, no longer Christ. She points out that Deuteronomy does not contain the Day of Atonement in the sacred calendar. Lehi's first public discourse addresses those issues of the Messiah and the Redemption of the world, (that is, the anointed high priest, and the Day of Atonement which ritualized the redemption of the world). I noticed that she often cites the Apocalypse of Weeks in 1 Enoch, concerning blindness and the rejection of Wisdom just before the destruction of the Temple. In looking at Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Jacob, and Proverbs, I find the references to blindness and the same loss of wisdom.

It's also worth noting the list of people that Jeremiah is called against, and the same people in Ezekiel 22. The list amounts to the people who put Josiah in power, and the people and institutions who were implimenting the reforms at the time of Jeremiah's call.

See my Meridian essays at www.thinlyveiled.com for particulars.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Thanks , Kevin. As I wrote , I have alot of study to do on this matter. I appreciate the references. I also read a few of the parts of the article you wrote on Barker at Meridian Magazine. Most striking to me was the representationalism of ritual that she and others mentioned.This tied into the real effect of baptism as the believer , through baptism , following Christ , symbolically doing as Christ had done ; Christ actually doing the will of the Father by doing all things the Father had shown Him and we symbolically doing Christ's will by doing the things He showed us...self-denial , taking up our crosses , dying and rising from the dead (symbolically in baptism) and thus having part with Him.

Now that you mention it , I do remember Barker speaking about the change made with regard to the anointed high priests (annointed with the letter "tau" on their forheads...the sign of the cross).

I have also ordered Barker's , The Great Angel as a beginning. Also , I just finished reading DCP's , Nephi and His Asherah. The article was helpful to me , especially when I saw that legitimate items such as the Brazen Serpent , representing Christ lifted-up , were also removed from the temple and destroyed along with the asherah. It does seem plausible to me , from what I read in Bro. Peterson's article that legitimate Asherah / Wisdom veneration was a part of Israel's true , pre-Reform religion. DCP's insights into Nephi's tree of life / Mary vision were especially helpful.

I'm looking forward to all the learning to come.

[David Waltz]

Hi Kevin,

You posted:

>>After reading Barker, I did lots of re-reading of Jeremiah, among other things. I found that despite alluding to Deuteronomy some 200 times, Jeremiah contradicts Deuteronomy on exactly the same points that Barker sees as key the reform.>>

Me: I know that this is a lot to ask, but have you documented the â??some 200 times, Jeremiah contradicts Deuteronomy on exactly the same points that Barker sees as key the reformâ??

If even half of these â??contradictionsâ?? are accurate and clear to all, then I in all honesty need to do some very deep, and serious reflection.

Grace and peace,

David

[Kevin Christensen]

Hi Kevin,

You posted:

>>After reading Barker, I did lots of re-reading of Jeremiah, among other things. I found that despite alluding to Deuteronomy some 200 times, Jeremiah contradicts Deuteronomy on exactly the same points that Barker sees as key the reform.>>

Me: I know that this is a lot to ask, but have you documented the “some 200 times, Jeremiah contradicts Deuteronomy on exactly the same points that Barker sees as key the reform”?

If even half of these ‘contradictions’ are accurate and clear to all, then I in all honesty need to do some very deep, and serious reflection.

Grace and peace,

David

Just to be clear, the "200" times is a number of allusions to Deuteronomy, not the number of contradictions to Deuteronomy. I got that number from Normon Podhoretz, The Prophets page 219.

The degree of knowledge that number demonstrates also indicates to me that the contradictions are not accidental, but must be concious and deliberate.

First consider the most obvious differences between Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. The keynote of the Deuteronomists is their regard for written law. Deuteronomy 4 depicts Moses as informing Israel:

Keep therefore and do them [that is, the statutes and judgments of the law] for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. (Deut. 4:6)

Jeremiah seems to be commenting on this very passage:

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them? (Jer. 8:8-9)

Friedman and Bright both offer stronger translation. “How can you say, “Why we are the wise, For we have the law of Yahweh”? Now do but see—the deception it’s wrought, the deceiving pen of the scribes.” (Bright, 60)

With respect to the law and those who had charge of it, Jeremiah comments that “they that handle the law knew me not.” (Jer. 2:8 )

Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour. (Jer. 23:30)

And the burden of the LORD shall ye mention no more: for every man's word shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God. (Jer. 23:36)

1st Enoch makes the same charge about evil men changing scripture.

Deuteronomy relates the following: “And the LORD spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.” (Deut. 4:12). Barker notes the direct contradiction with the account in Exodus 24:9-11 which reports that Moses, Aaron, and seventy elders of Israel “saw the God of Israel.” Jeremiah speaks as one who has seen:

For who hath stood in the counsel of the LORD, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it? (Jer. 23:18. Compare II Kings, Isaiah 6, Ezekiel, and 1st Enoch)

But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings. (Jer. 23:22)

Deuteronomy says that “The secret things belong to the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Further, it explains that “For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven and bring it unto us that we may hear and do it?” (Deut. 30:11-12)

Compare these arguments with Jeremiah’s protest that the nation has “forsaken the fountain of living waters,” and adopted a form of Torah-based wisdom that involves “rejecting the word of the Lord.” In 1st Enoch and in 1 Nephi the tree and the fountain, both temple symbols, and are understood to be interchangeable symbols of the LORD.

Against this, Jeremiah speaks as one who has been invited to learn and declare the secret things:

Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not. (Jer. 33:3)

These differences relate specifically to the actions of the reformers in relation to the role of the high priest. This invites us to look closer at both the reformers, and what it was they claimed to reform.

In the Great Angel, Barker discusses a study by Mettinger:

Compare The Great Angel, 100

T.N.D. Mettinger has explored the transformation in detail in his book The Dethronement of the Sabaoth, and his conclusions are important.

"The concept of God in the Deuteronomistic theology is strikingly abstract. The throne concept has vanished and the anthropomorphic characteristics of God are on their way to oblivion. Thus the form of God plays no part in the D work of the Sinai theophany. (Deut 4:12)"

This warns us more clearly than anything else that the traditions which emphasized the throne of God, e.g. those of Dan 7, Matt. 25.31-46, and Revelation must be understood in terms of something other than the Deuteronomic point of view which has come to dominate our reading of the Old Testament.” (Barker, The Great Angel, 100)

Compare this temple image in Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 17:12

12 A glorious high throne from the beginning [is] the place of our sanctuary.

If Mettinger is correct, Jeremiah must oppose the reform. That Jeremiah chapter has other important temple imagery, closely associated with the Holy of Holies, the tree and the fountain:

Jeremiah 17:7-8

7 Blessed [is] the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.

8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and [that] spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.

Also, consider that Jeremiah uses the title Lord of Hosts frequently, 81 times by my count. Deuteronomy never uses it, and rejects the hosts of heaven (Deut. 4:19).

On page 167 of Who Write the Bible?, Friedman cites Jeremiah 4:23-28 as evidence that Jeremiah knew the Priestly creation account in Genesis, since that passage reverses the order of creation. Margaret points to Father Murray's book on The Cosmic Covenant to associate such passages with the Cosmic Covenant, and that covenant with the rites of the Day of Atonement. So the condition of the broken covenant that Jeremiah is describing presupposes the purpose of the Day of Atonement to symbolically repair and renew the creation via the actions of the anointed high priest. And Deuteronomy leaves the Day of Atonement out of the sacred calendar in Deuteronomy 16.

And while there are some passages in Jeremiah that appear to criticize the Queen of Heaven (notably Jer. 44:17-23), I suggest that such passages are akin to the Temple Sermon in Jer. 7. While Jeremiah does criticize what was going on at the temple, he is not anti-Temple. He is against empty forms without the accompanying social reform.

Jeremiah 33:11

The voice of joy, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the voice of them that shall say, Praise the LORD of hosts: for the LORD is good; for his mercy endureth for ever: and of them that shall bring the sacrifice of praise into the house of the LORD. For I will cause to return the captivity of the land, as at the first, saith the LORD.

Jeremiah does have a place for wisdom, akin to that in Proverbs:

Jeremiah 10:12

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.

Such imagery goes along with the Tree and Fountain imagery Jeremiah uses elsewhere.

Then there is this image:

For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! For my soul is wearied because of murders. (Jer 4:31)

Jeremiah describes public violence on Jer. 2:34-35. And the woman in travail returns much later at the exact center of Revelation.

"And she being with child, cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered." (Rev. 12:2). Margaret has shown now neatly the previous verses in Revelation contain imagery of "a woman clothed with the sun" is associated with the Wisdom/Asherah figures removed by the reformers.

Add to this that Jeremiah 1:18 has Jeremiah called against the "kings of Judah, the princes thereof (that is, the government officials, the elders), the priests thereof, and the people of the land. It was the people of the land who installed Josiah as king when he was only 8, and institutionally, it was this group that implemented the reforms. Ezekiel discusses the same list of people in Ezekiel 22 in more detail and he does not flatter them.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Beowulf]

Well, just to add my little bit to Kevin's much more impressive opus...

All the years that I had read 2 Kings, I had always been uncomfortable with Josiah's reform. It was a bloody affair, chopping all these local priests who had plainly been considered orthodox in earlier centuries. And yet it was presented as having been the RIGHT THING to do...

When I encountered Barker, I was convinced right from the start, since her scenario of a Deuteronomic hijacking of the true faith echoed and amplified what I had always suspected (yet could not put it in words).

Beowulf

[LifeOnaPlate]

I enjoy Mrs. Barker.

[oMtonic]

Then there is this image:

For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! For my soul is wearied because of murders. (Jer 4:31)

Jeremiah describes public violence on Jer. 2:34-35. And the woman in travail returns much later at the exact center of Revelation.

"And she being with child, cried, travailing in brth, andpained to be delivered." (Rev. 12:2). Margaret has shown now neatly the previous verses in Revelation contain imagery of "a woman clothed with the sun" is associated with the Wisdom/Asherah figures removed by the reformers.

Having this in mind, could one say that there is more meaning to this design than previously thought?:

[Zakuska]

Or how about this?

[Daniel Peterson]

First off, when she speaks at Lds symposiums, such as that in Washington, DC last year or so, does she, and has she ever, get paid by the Lds church, directly or indirectly, to do so?

I would imagine that the Library of Congress symposium organizers paid her travel and lodging (as they probably did for others on the program). I doubt that she was "paid" for her lecture any more than other academic participants were paid. I'm sure that her expenses were paid when she came over to present a week-long (or two-week? I don't remember) faculty seminar at BYU, and I would imagine that she was paid a stipend for that. It would be only fair, and that's what we typically do in such cases. (We have no right to expect people to come over and teach for us for a week or two for free.)

I've had my expenses paid for numerous lectures in the United States and elsewhere, and I've sometimes received a modest honorarium or stipend. This is pretty much standard operating procedure in academia. But neither UCLA nor the University of California at San Diego nor the Soci

[Kevin Christensen]

Yme said

does she, as some do, make her way into the hearts of Lds by simply quoting some peripherial comparables so long as she finds a monetary reasons?

This is nonsense. I was the first LDS person to contact Margaret, and I am privy to her personal reaction to the discovery that her work had important implications for LDS scholarship. She said, and I quote "I had NO IDEA". She knew almost nothing about the LDS faith. She had written everything up to The Revelation of Jesus Christ before my Occasional Paper was published. She is personally quite outspoken and fearless. For example, after being asked to head up a research project at Cambridge University, she resigned after a few months because she decided that they weren't really interested in truth. She refused to play the game for either monetary or prestige reasons. (See the introduction to The Great High Priest.) She is actively involved in living and doing Christianity, in a ministerial position that requires commitment and personal involvement. She is not a detached academic, but a committed Christian. She is caught up in her work, clearly inspired by it.

There is far more renumeration and support to be had in attacking the LDS than in being associated with them, as the number of anti-LDS ministries involved in recycling old goods will attest. And it takes far more courage and commitment to truth to accept the association with the LDS faith with all the scandals of angels, polygamy and gold plates. Professor Charles Anthon, you may recall, took a rather dim view of the association. Margaret had been struggling outside the academic mainstream for recognition and acceptance until just getting elected as President of the Society of Biblical Literature in 1999, when I contacted her. One LDS scholar wondered to me whether Margaret would think that that the association with the LDS would be the kiss of death for her scholarship. She has instead been warm, open, and insightful.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[rameumptom]

Thanks for this insight. This is why I am a bit confused. I see LDS publications and talks by GE's , as I mentioned Pres. Kimball's , praising Josiah's reforms and portraying Ashterah / Ashtoreth type worship as false. Yet , as you point out the reforms did take away many of the things that we LDS believe in...continuing revelation , angelic ministrations , theophany. We know from the Bible and present-day scripture that despite the Deutoronomists' claims that Moses had not seen God , only heard Him , the truth is that Moses did in fact see God. So , the Deuteronomists' claims are certainly suspect in other areas , as well. On the other hand , we LDS are a temple-going people and one would think that in the restoration we would have the lost practices in our temple worship that Barker identifies as possibly Israel's true religion. We don't have Ashterah / Wisdom worship in our temples.

The case is made that Lehi was preaching against something that was a very serious transgression at the same time Jeremiah began his ministry , which began just after Josiah made the reforms. Was it Josiah's reforms they were preaching against or was it the people's desire to hold onto Asherah / Wisdom worship?

As I wrote , I have a lot more reading and study of this and many other issues to take up. Some of Barker's propositions fall right into place for me , as I noted before. It is the Ashterah and reform issue that though she makes sense about are also things about which I have more uncertainties and questions.

President Kimball and others praised the Josian reforms, because we did not have a complete understanding of them back in the 1970s. Back then, people, including scholars, did not realize how much the Deuteronomists removed from the temple ceremony. It has taken people like Margaret Barker, William Dever, and others to help us better understand the religion of ancient Israel. With this new insight, we can see the pros and cons of the Josian reforms. Their goal was to eliminate the worship of pagan gods (Baal, Molech, etc). It is possible that this reform went further than it initially was intended to do. As far as we know, the reforms did not end with Josiah's death.

As for Lehi, his dream of the Tree of Life, which Margaret Barker discussed in her Joseph Smith Symposium talk, signified Wisdom/Mother of God; as the virgin Mother is represented by the Tree, and the fruit of the tree is Jesus Christ.

Lehi was preaching against those who were rejecting Christ. His first vision, prior to his preaching, included a vision of Jesus descending with the twelve. The Josian reforms would have outlawed such a vision and visionary as Lehi (he called himself a visionary man as an admission to an accusation) and the visitation of angels delivering books, etc. IOW, the Deuteronomists had rejected living prophets, revelation and miracles; and replaced it with a dead version of Judaism. The Jews, meanwhile, were worshiping Yahweh as a second thought; with money and power as their main concerns (look at Laban's desire to get gain by stealing Nephi's treasures). Money and power were their gods, as Nibley mentions that the elders/princes of the Church/Israel had become too powerful and greedy.

[Strindberg]

I have to admit I am a bit confused about Margaret Barker's significance within the Lds Theology or claim.

First off, when she speaks at Lds symposiums, such as that in Washington, DC last year or so, does she, and has she ever, get paid by the Lds church, directly or indirectly, to do so? I have heard Ms Jann Shipps does but i do not know for sure.

Second, has she ever come out and actually given an "up or down" opinion on whether she beleives that the history claim of the BOM is true? Does she believe that SMith was truly a prophet? Does she ever give a conclusion as to whether she accepts the foundational claims of the Lds church or does she, as some do, make her way into the hearts of Lds by simply quoting some peripherial comparables so long as she finds a monetary reasons?

I would really like to know if her views are truly independent and/or conclusive, and if she has ever received any compensation from the lds church in doing so. I know, I know, I will be accused of being paranoid. But I have to ask the question!!!!!!

Perhaps not the question that Robert Millet would want anyone here to answer??!!!!

Yme, I think you're onto something. Keep working at it so that you can find out just how deep the rabbit hole goes. From what I've heard, I truly suspect that "Margaret Barker" is a free creation of the LDS church heirarchy, with the help of Dan Peterson and the FARMS crew. All of which, and all of whom, are ultimately controlled by the Pentavaret: "the Queen, the Geddys, the Rothchilds, the Rockefellers, and . . . the Colonel." What they're attempting here is a deception no less ingenious than the years of secret payments to Jan Shipps (and yes, with tithing dollars. Of course!!!). So keep your guard up, remain suspicious, and by all means continue to cast suspicion on the sundry spokes of this great conspiratorial wheel. I myself suspect that the risks of doing otherwise are greater than you or I, or anyone, can possibly imagine. -- And for the record, I am not afraid of Robert Millet, though I know well his attempt to repress these truths will be both certain and swift.

[Aquilifer]

Yme, I think you're onto something. Keep working at it so that you can find out just how deep the rabbit hole goes. From what I've heard, I truly suspect that "Margaret Barker" is a free creation of the LDS church heirarchy, with the help of Dan Peterson and the FARMS crew. All of which, and all of whom, are ultimately controlled by the Pentavaret: "the Queen, the Geddys, the Rothchilds, the Rockefellers, and . . . the Colonel." What they're attempting here is a deception no less ingenious than the years of secret payments to Jan Shipps (and yes, with tithing dollars. Of course!!!). So keep your guard up, remain suspicious, and by all means continue to cast suspicion on the sundry spokes of this great conspiratorial wheel. I myself suspect that the risks of doing otherwise are greater than you or I, or anyone, can possibly imagine. -- And for the record, I am not afraid of Robert Millet, though I know well his attempt to repress these truths will be both certain and swift.

May the wrath of the Danites fall upon you for this treachery.

[Strindberg]

May the wrath of the Danites fall upon you for this treachery.

I see a van parked at the end of my street. There's no reason for a van to be there . . . oh, oh, the license plate! I can't see it clearly, but I'm sure there's a "D". Gotta go . . . Sssssssshhhhh.

[rameumptom]

I see a van parked at the end of my street. There's no reason for a van to be there . . . oh, oh, the license plate! I can't see it clearly, but I'm sure there's a "D". Gotta go . . . Sssssssshhhhh.

Is it a black van? I hear they are replacing the black helicopters with black vans to save on fuel....

[Strindberg]

Is it a black van? I hear they are replacing the black helicopters with black vans to save on fuel....

. . . . . . it's still there . . . I'll have to tell you later . . . I hope there is a "later" for me . . .

[David Waltz]

Hi Kevin,

I had pretty much forgotten about this thread until posts were contributed today. I see that on the 25th you responded to one of my posts; you wrote:

Kevin C:>> Just to be clear, the "200" times is a number of allusions to Deuteronomy, not the number of contradictions to Deuteronomy. I got that number from Normon Podhoretz, The Prophets page 219.

The degree of knowledge that number demonstrates also indicates to me that the contradictions are not accidental, but must be concious and deliberate.

First consider the most obvious differences between Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. The keynote of the Deuteronomists is their regard for written law. Deuteronomy 4 depicts Moses as informing Israel:

Keep therefore and do them [that is, the statutes and judgments of the law] for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. (Deut. 4:6)

Jeremiah seems to be commenting on this very passage:

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them? (Jer. 8:8-9)

Friedman and Bright both offer stronger translation. â??How can you say, â??Why we are the wise, For we have the law of Yahwehâ?? Now do but seeâ??the deception itâ??s wrought, the deceiving pen of the scribes.â? (Bright, 60)

With respect to the law and those who had charge of it, Jeremiah comments that â??they that handle the law knew me not.â? (Jer. 2:8 )

Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour. (Jer. 23:30)

And the burden of the LORD shall ye mention no more: for every man's word shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God. (Jer. 23:36)>>

Me: Rejection, perversion, stealing of the word/s of God/YHWH does not necessarily mean an alteration of the text itself, it could also pertain to the application (or non-application) and/or interpretation of the text (and I suspect this to be the case). Note the following passage from the Book of Mormon:

25 And now Abinadi said unto them: Are you priests, and pretend to teach this people, and to understand the spirit of prophesying, and yet desire to know of me what these things mean?

26 I say unto you, wo be unto you for perverting the ways of the Lord! For if ye understand these things ye have not taught them; therefore, ye have perverted the ways of the Lord.

27 Ye have not applied your hearts to understanding; therefore, ye have not been wise. Therefore, what teach ye this people?

28 And they said: We teach the law of Moses.

29 And again he said unto them: If ye teach the law of Moses why do ye not keep it? Why do ye set your hearts upon riches? Why do ye commit whoredoms and spend your strength with harlots, yea, and cause this people to commit sin, that the Lord has cause to send me to prophesy against this people, yea, even a great evil against this people?

30 Know ye not that I speak the truth? Yea, ye know that I speak the truth; and you ought to tremble before God.

31 And it shall come to pass that ye shall be smitten for your iniquities, for ye have said that ye teach the law of Moses. And what know ye concerning the law of Moses? Doth salvation come by the law of Moses? What say ye?

32 And they answered and said that salvation did come by the law of Moses.

33 But now Abinadi said unto them: I know if ye keep the commandments of God ye shall be saved; yea, if ye keep the commandments which the Lord delivered unto Moses in the mount of Sinai, saying:

34 I am the Lord thy God, who hath brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

35 Thou shalt have no other God before me.

36 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing in heaven above, or things which are in the earth beneath.

37 Now Abinadi said unto them, Have ye done all this? I say unto you, Nay, ye have not. And have ye taught this people that they should do all these things? I say unto you, Nay, ye have not. (Mosiah 12)

And from the Bible:

But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear. Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the LORD of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the LORD of hosts. (Zechariah 7:11, 12 â?? KJV)

It sure seems to me that the NT enforces (especially Jesus' condemnation/s of the Scribes and Pharisees) the notion that it was the application and/or interpretation of the Law and the Prophets that was being perverted, rather than the actual text itself.

Grace and peace,

David

[Kevin Christensen]

David says

Me: Rejection, perversion, stealing of the word/s of God/YHWH does not necessarily mean an alteration of the text itself, it could also pertain to the application (or non-application) and/or interpretation of the text (and I suspect this to be the case).

Yes. This is true. Abinadi's case is a good example of what you have in mind, and I know there are others. However, there is also evidence of alteration of key texts in the current canon, as well as mention of lost books in the current canon, and recently recovered books not part of the current canon.

For example, from my essay in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, I quoted Barker's The Older Testament as saying:

One is also impatient to know what is missing from the text at certain points. Prov. 30.1ff is completely mutilated, and I shall not attempt to translate it, but the LXX of v. 4 reads the plural, sons. Given the general theme of the passage, namely ascent to heaven and power over creation, this plural form reminds one immediately of the sons of God in the Enochic mythology. It is these sons who have also disappeared from the Hebrew of Deut. 32, suggesting that the opacity of Prov. 30 may not be accidental.152

Texts dealing with Holy Ones and the Holy One have significant elements in common: theophany, judgement, triumph for Yahweh, triumph for his anointed son, ascent to a throne in heaven, conflict with beasts and with angel princes caught up in the destinies of earthly kingdoms. Many of these texts are corrupted; much of their subject matter is that of the "lost" tradition thought to underlie the apocalyptic texts. The textual corruption and the lost tradition are aspects of the same question.153

Barker surveys a number of examples and concludes, "The MT has changed 'sons of God' to 'servants,' and removed all explicit references to the heavenly beings who were to be judged. It is important to remember that the changes in the MT always follow the same pattern, and that this pattern distinguishes it from much at Qumran, and also from much in the New Testament."

In Paradigms Crossed, I noted another passage associated with "the Holy Ones":

She surveys passages in Habakkuk, Jeremiah, and the Psalms, and concludes that

there is a pattern clearly associated with the title Holy One. Many of its elements are of the later apocalypses, such as visions, heavenly tablets, theophany, and angelic judgement, but the royal figure is also prominent, dependent for his power upon the might of the Holy One. The royal figure faces threats and enemies, but, we assume, overcomes them. Judgement upon foreign nations is also part of the pattern, and there are associations with the Temple.

The connection between patterns of corrupt Hebrew Bible passages, and the discernable themes in those passages is obviously interesting to Book of Mormon readers, even those who read only the first chapter of 1 Nephi.

And regarding the New Testament itself, she observes that:

"What was assumed by the New Testament writers was a traditional understanding of the temple rituals and myths of atonement. When the rituals had ceased and the myths were no longer recognised for what they really were, the key to understanding the imagery of atonement was lost." Margaret Barker, "Atonement: The Rite of Healing," Scottish Journal of Theology 49/1 (1996): 2.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA