Margaret Barker And Mormonism

[David Waltz]

Hello again Kevin,

Thanks for responding. You posted:

>>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.>>

Me: The point I was trying to make is that is that Jer. 8:8, 9 passage is probably not a good choice in support of textual alteration, and that it fits much better with the type of corruption depicted in the Mosiah 12 passage.

Now, what I keep seeing in so much of Barkerâ??s works is a depreciation of the Law of Moses. She even states that the â??first Temple religionâ? is older than the â??religion of Mosesâ?; and yet this seems historically untenable, for it was via the law/commandments given to Moses that tabernacle and subsequent temple worship was instituted.

She also seems to emphasize, and contrast, â??lawâ? with â??wisdomâ?, and yet I personally find such a contrast to be a false dichotomy. In the Psalms we read:

Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

And interestingly enough, one of Godâ??s post-exilic prophets, whom Barker affirms was an upholder and practitioner of â??wisdomâ?, had this to say:

Malachi 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.

A key aspect of the new covenant is that the LORD â??will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their heartsâ? (Jer. 31:33); and this work of God is made mention of by Paul who said of the early Christians that, â??the work of the law written in their heartsâ? (Rom. 2:15).

The importance of â??lawâ? permeates D&C; such that I would say that it emphasized at least as much as â??wisdomâ? within the CoJCoLDS. Perhaps this is why one sees little (any?) of the key aspects of the â??wisdom traditionâ? that Barker believes was removed by those nasty Deuteronomists, and Josiahâ??s reform (e.g. the production of apocalyptic literature, assents by the anointed ones to Godâ??s heavenly throne, divination, etc.).

Anyway, I hope to put up some more material on these issues on my blog within the next few daysâ?¦shall be looking forward to your comments.

Grace and peace,

David

[Kevin Christensen]

David says

The point I was trying to make is that is that Jer. 8:8, 9 passage is probably not a good choice in support of textual alteration, and that it fits much better with the type of corruption depicted in the Mosiah 12 passage.

Here, I disagree.

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? (John Bright, Jeremiah, p 60)

Elsewhere, Jeremiah quite forcefully denounces hypocrisy, injustice, idolotry, empty ritual, greed, corruption, disobedience to moral commandments, various political judgements, false prophets, and more.

Yet the "decieving pen" in the hands of some loudly professing that their possession of the Law of Yahweh makes them wise, seems to me to point directly at the Deuteronomists who wrote Det. 4:6, that the Torah would be their wisdom. The existence of corrupt and opaque passages in the Hebrew that Margaret cites certainly suggest that someone had a decieving pen. That passages in such a condition tend to cluster on distinct themes serves to help identify the issues over which there was controversy. Jeremiah strikes me as disagreeing with the Reformers on those themes. Hence, I find the statement about a decieving pen in the hands of Torah-applauding reformers to be quite compelling personally. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

Now if there was not evidence of textual corruption on specific themes of interest to Jeremiah, I'd be more open to seeing the passage more as simply a criticism of misbehaving priests like Alma the Elder being stung by Abinadi's forceful observations.

Regarding the relative ages of the temple traditions, and the relation of Moses to the temple, I'm not as worried. She has a point that Isaiah 2-36 doesn't seem to be concerned with the 10 commandments. The sins that Isaiah denounces are those of the fallen angels, and of people blinded by and in the power of them. Yet the underlying morality is the same as expressed in the 10 commandments.

Jeremiah seems to know about Moses, as do Lehi and Nephi. Traditions and texts come in and out of prominence, depending on the surrounding circumstances and availability. Traditions are colored by the concerns and values of those who transmit them. I've cited Friedman's The Hidden Book of the Bible, where in his appendices, he argues for the antiquity of the Moses traditions via linguistic evidence. But even texts with an ancient core and a long history can be tinkered with by those who transmit them. (Consider Ben McGuire's intriging observations on Proto-Deuteronomy compared to the Book of Mormon.)

While evangelicals who criticize the LDS overlook a great many points that we have in common with them, to get to the favored hot-button heresies, I think that the distinction between Barker's vision of Wisdom and the Law, does not compell me to ignore the fact that Jeremiah, Lehi and Nephi value Moses and the Law. And Lehi's valuation of the Law does not mean I can ignore the Reformer's rejection of the kinds of vision associated with Wisdom when they appear so conspicuously in the Book of Mormon.

It seems to me that some people went overboard, responding to excesses on one side (say, neglect of the Law because of misunderstanding of the Day of Atonement rituals and/or corruption in Temple priesthood), by rejecting the Day of Atonement rituals, and emphasizing individual responsibility and the Law. I see the Reformers as Zealous and Idealistic according to their lights, though with a healthy dose of self interest. But the utter failure of the Reform suggests that there was something seriously wrong in their approach. Being human, zeal for the law and acceptance of my personal responsibilities can only take me so far, before I fall short. I know that I need Atonement, not at the end of my efforts, but from the beginning.

Remember Margaret's essay in Temple Theology linking Jeremiah's reference to the "law written in their hearts" to the Everlasting Covenant (page 34), renewed and dramatized in the Day of Atonement rites, and realized in the life of Jesus.

Ancient texts can be ignored by otherwise very skilled and learned scholars. For instance, I've read several other books on Josiah over the past few years. Dever, Barrick, Sweeney, Leuchter, for instance, all look closely at Josiah. None of them refer to Margaret, and none refer to 1 Enoch. None of them so much as murmur that there is no Day of Atonement in Deuteronomy.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[David Waltz]

Hi Kevin,

I want to apologize for not getting back to your response earlier, but I have been busy getting ready for a huge storm that is about to hit our area. Before I loose power (which always happens during any big storm it seems) I would like make a few commentsâ??in response to my comments on Jer. 8:8, 9 you said:

K:>>Here, I disagree.

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? (John Bright, Jeremiah, p 60)

Elsewhere, Jeremiah quite forcefully denounces hypocrisy, injustice, idolotry, empty ritual, greed, corruption, disobedience to moral commandments, various political judgements, false prophets, and more.

Yet the "decieving pen" in the hands of some loudly professing that their possession of the Law of Yahweh makes them wise, seems to me to point directly at the Deuteronomists who wrote Det. 4:6, that the Torah would be their wisdom. The existence of corrupt and opaque passages in the Hebrew that Margaret cites certainly suggest that someone had a decieving pen. That passages in such a condition tend to cluster on distinct themes serves to help identify the issues over which there was controversy. Jeremiah strikes me as disagreeing with the Reformers on those themes. Hence, I find the statement about a decieving pen in the hands of Torah-applauding reformers to be quite compelling personally. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

Now if there was not evidence of textual corruption on specific themes of interest to Jeremiah, I'd be more open to seeing the passage more as simply a criticism of misbehaving priests like Alma the Elder being stung by Abinadi's forceful observations.>>

Me: The scribes not only transmitted the Torah, but were also interpreters of it. D.A. Hagner in his ISBE article â??Scribesâ? points out:

In a quite natural development, scribes came to be valued not simply for their technical skills but for the wisdom and understanding they frequently possessed (cf. 1 Chr. 27:32). The scribe came to be known as â?? the wise manâ? (cf. Isa. 33:18, LXX; 1 Cor. 1:20). In the viewpoint that was soon to emerge in all clarity, the scribe was considered a wise man particularly because of his expertise in the interpretation and application of the Torah. (ISBE 4. 360 â?? bold emphasis mine.)

We know as a fact of history that huge amounts of written commentary on the Torah was being produced. The following quotes from Jeremiah (parallel themes exist, as you know, in the BoM) strongly suggest to me that the â??lying/deceivingâ? pen pertained to the written TRADITIONS of the scribes:

Jeremiah 2:8 The priests said not, Where is the LORD? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.

Jeremiah 6:19 Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it.

Jeremiah 9:13 And the LORD saith, Because they have forsaken my law which I set before them, and have not obeyed my voice, neither walked therein;

Jeremiah 16:11 Then shalt thou say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the LORD, and have walked after other gods, and have served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my law;

Jeremiah 18:18 Then said they, Come, and let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet. Come, and let us smite him with the tongue, and let us not give heed to any of his words.

Jeremiah 26:4, 5 And thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD; If ye will not hearken to me, to walk in my law, which I have set before you, To hearken to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I sent unto you, both rising up early, and sending them, but ye have not hearkened;

Jeremiah 32:23 And they came in, and possessed it; but they obeyed not thy voice, neither walked in thy law; they have done nothing of all that thou commandedst them to do: therefore thou hast caused all this evil to come upon them:

Jeremiah 44:10 They are not humbled even unto this day, neither have they feared, nor walked in my law, nor in my statutes, that I set before you and before your fathers.

Jeremiah 44:23 Because ye have burned incense, and because ye have sinned against the LORD, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, nor walked in his law, nor in his statutes, nor in his testimonies; therefore this evil is happened unto you, as at this day.

Now, it seems quite clear to me that the scribes and people to whom Jeremiah was writing had â??the Lawâ?, and that they were perverting it via their interpretation/application (and non-application). Jesus accused the scribes and Pharisees of His day of the very same thing...

So, I guess we will have to agree-to-disagree on the meaning of Jer. 8:8,9 for I think it is quite a stretch to read textual corruption of the Torah into it. However, this in and of itself does not mean that textual corruption has not occurred, for it has; but if I was LDS, I would argue with Nibley that it is not so much the textual variants of the transmitted text that is problematic, but rather, the exclusion of texts.

Grace and peace,

David

[Kevin Christensen]

Hi David,

I hope you're weathering the storm.

Regarding Jeremiah 8:8-9, you may recall that Friedman (Who Wrote the Bible?, 209) translates it thusly:

"How do you say, "We are wise, and Yahweh's torah is with us"? In fact, here it was made for a lie, the lying pen of the scribes."

He argues that Jeremiah was arguing against the P source, rather than Deuteronomy (the interpretion that Friedman attempts to counter), which I think is interesting. However, there are a couple of things that Friedman said that provided my own background expectations when I encountered Barker. To Friedman, an attack on Deuteronomy "meant seeing Jeremiah as attacking a book written in the same style of his own book. It meant seeing Jeremiah attacking a book with with he agreed on every major point." (Ibid.) Friedman also thinks Jeremiah was the author. Ben McGuire points out that Holliday sees Jeremiah and the Deuteronomist influencing one another. I just got a book called Jeremiah, Deuteronomy by Elizabeth Achtemeier, arguing for roots in a common tradition. Leuchter refers to a number of views, and gives his own based on a different reading of the verse. (Josiah's Reform and Jeremiah's Scroll, 129-130.)

Of course, I see the points at which Jeremiah disagrees with Deuteronomy are major, and very telling. As LDS, I can also be impressed with John Tvedtnes' essay on Jeremiah's Prophecies of Christ (in The Most Correct Book.) Deuteronomy as we have it is completely this worldly, whereas the snippets associated with Jeremiah that show up in Christian writings imply a spirit world.

Regarding who were the "wise," I think it is the Deuteronomists saying that of themselves. I like Margaret's argument that Deuteronomy 4:6 the "statues and judgements of the law" (Deut.4:1) as a substitute for an older wisdom. She arrives at her definition of the older wisdom via Enoch. (See The Older Testament.) And I do find several interesting points of contact between the Enoch based wisdom she reconstructs, and Jeremiah. Things like the tree of life by the fountain of living waters, wisdom in the creation, and the bindings that make up the cosmic covenant, the angel shepherds of the nations. And the Book of Mormon joins in, of course, with Lehi's visions starting everying off in the direction that links so beautifully with Barker's picture of wisdom.

You quote Hagner on scribes being descibed as wise "particularly because of his expertise in the interpretation and application of the Torah."

I think it would be of interest to consider how Jeremiah uses the term. Wise appears 9 times, and Wisdom 5. Some of the critical uses do fit your view, but others strike me as resonating with Margaret's reconstruction. The most important is in Jer. 9:9 that these self proclaimed, torah wielding wise men (Jer. 8: have "rejected the word of the Lord."

How can an expert on interpreting and applying the Torah be described as rejecting the word of the Lord?

Aren't they experts in the word of the Lord? Well, you do argue that Jeremiah's wise are equivalent to Alma and Amulon in Mosiah. Misinterpreting, and writing commentaries. But Mosiah also brings in Abinadi, a prophet who speaks the word of the Lord. Jeremiah also reports his conflicts with those who prophesy out of their own heart and vain imaginations. Whereas one who has been shown the divine council would get the people to repent.

Deuteronomy as we have it now says "For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from three, 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 to us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea [and this sea would be the brazen sea in the temple, not the Mediterranian sea], and bring it to us, that we may hear and do it. But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou sayest do it." (Deut. 30:11-14)

This attitude is like Deut. 4:6.

But not like Jeremiah who brings new words, new revelation, which are forcefully rejected by the establishment priests and scribes. The Deuteronomist picture here has it all written down. Since I am LDS, it's clear where my sympathies are going to be.

Jer. 10:20 says "My tabernacle is spoiled..." Does that refer to Josiah sending Hilkiah into the Holy of Holies of the temple to remove and destroy items to which only the High Priest should have access, only once a year on the day of atonement?

One of the books I just looked at, Lundbom's Anchor book on the first part of Jeremiah cites a relationship between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy in Jer. 12:7-10. Lundbom sees the reference to the Lord's "heritage

verses 7 and 9, as pointing to Deuteronomy 32:8-9, which refers to the Yahweh's inheritance as Israel. The question is, which version does Jeremiah refer to? What condition was that passage in when he alluded to it? One like the Septuagint and DSS version with El Elyon and sons of El, or one like the Masoretic text? Jeremiah does talk about the Lord as a shepherd, and rival false pastors in ways that strike me as resonant with the Fallen Angel stories in Enoch. And the Enoch stories presuppose the angels over the other nations in ways that Deut. 32:8-9 suggests. Was Deut. 32:8-9 a council vision of the kind that Jeremiah says that he is privy to? Margaret cites evidence that the different versions of Deuteronomy (and other OT texts) tend to show evidence of editing and corruption in passages that deal with such themes.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[David Waltz]

Hi Kevin,

You posted:

>> I hope you're weathering the storm.>>

Thanks much for your concern; I made it through the storm, which was quite intense at times. I have posted a brief summary of my storm experience on my blog:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2007/12/...-big-storm.html

And I have also managed to post â??Part 2â? in my Margaret Barker series:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2007/12/...ker-part-2.html

Hope that you (and anyone else who may be interested) can contribute a few commentsâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

[Kevin Christensen]

I notice that most of the passages that David quotes to establish that Margaret Barker offers some unorthodox beliefs regarding the Divine Feminine come from passages where she is discussing Gnostic teachings. The issue is the problem of the one and the many as applied to the Divine Feminine in relation to the One. I notice that the problem does not go away by claiming that Margaret is a heretic that the LDS should shun. The key ideas occur in the canonical writings as well, and she demonstrates this in her work. Itâ??s not just a Gnostic or Kabalistic problem.

â??In the beginning, God (Elohim, plural in the Hebrew) created man his own image (singular), male and female (plural and mixed gender).â? Margaretâ??s essay â??Wisdom, the Queen of Heavenâ? does not shy away from highlighting and discussing such passages in the text. There are the mixed genders and mixture of plural and singular in Ezekielâ??s visions of the Living One leaving the Jerusalem temple. There are passages in which Wisdom is depicted as feminine (Proverbs and Ben Sirach and Mathew), where Wisdom becomes the Mother (Matthew on â??Wisdom is justified of her childrenâ?) and in which Jesus is identified with Wisdom, as Margaret shows.

Nibleyâ??s The Meaning of the Atonement essay refers to the perennial theological/philosophical problem of the one and the many. The LDS prefer a social trinity model. As Barry Bickmore observes, we are not avoiding the issue of whether God is One, but how God is One. And while we all see through a glass darkly, as Joseph Smith observes, â??It donâ??t prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine.â? Also that, â??I want the liberty of believing as I please.â?

Personally, I think it is valid for LDS to consider the issues that Margaret highlights in the same way we approach the problem of the one and the many for disciples of Jesus, and Jesus and the Father. The Menorah is a starting point. A temple symbol, it depicts the one (the object itself), and the seven branches (the many). When Jesus talks of the unity, he starts with this image. â??I am the vine; ye are the branches.â? And he describes the oneness between himself and his father as the same as that he requires of his apostles. â??Ye shall be one, even as I and my father are one.â? I can reconcile the interesting identity statements in the same way. If Jesus can say to his Apostles â??If ye have seen me, ye have seen the Father,â? we still have the issue of plurality that arises in his prayers to his father compared to his declarations of identity. Eliadeâ??s discussion in Cosmos and History helps me. To the extent that we imitate the actions, roles, of the God, the Hero, the archetype, we can become identified with them. One in purpose, repeating the actions, submitting to the will. Hence, when Elisha repeats Elijahâ??s acts, he becomes another Elijah. And later, so does John the Baptist. Again, the one and the many. Jesus says he has done what he has seen his father do, and therefore, can be identified with his father. As the Apostles do the works of the Jesus, they become identified with him.

Why shouldnâ??t the problem of the divine feminine work the same way? If Jesus does the works of Wisdom, can he not be identified with Wisdom in the same way that he can be identified with his Father? "Neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman withouth the man, in the Lord." "The two shall be one flesh." The issue of the one and the many can be resolved the same way here.

The Gnostic terminology regarding â??emanationsâ? actually fits quite nicely with the image of the Menorah, the vine and the branches. It is as easy for me to read â??emanationsâ? as a vivid metaphor for the kind of unity that the Menorah image presents. The oldest definition of Gnostic, as both Nibley and Barker discuss, is knowledge of Christ. And as Barker says, we need to follow consistency in the sources.

And Iâ??m also in mind of John 6, after the Bread of Life sermon, in which many found a hard saying, and left following Jesus. â??Will ye also go away?â? Peterâ??s answer, â??Where shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life?â?

I donâ??t need everything settled right now. My perspectives are limited by my mortal condition. But eternity is long. I think I have time to work things out, and find resolution to my questions. And certainly, any questions I may have concerning Barkerâ??s approach has to be balanced against the remarkable fit that I find between our Book of Mormon, and her reconstruction of Temple Theology.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[David Waltz]

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for taking the time to read through my newest post, and sharing your thoughts with the rest of us.

You wrote:

>>I notice that most of the passages that David quotes to establish that Margaret Barker offers some unorthodox beliefs regarding the Divine Feminine come from passages where she is discussing Gnostic teachings.>>

Me: â??Unorthodoxâ? in what sense? As for the quotes from Gnostic sources, it is important to keep in mind that Barker believes that much of the Gnostic trajectory of thought concerning Wisdom has its roots in Israelâ??s first temple theology; that such teachings are in line with those of Philo; and perhaps most importantly, that they represent the earliest teachings of the apostolic Church.

>>The issue is the problem of the one and the many as applied to the Divine Feminine in relation to the One. I notice that the problem does not go away by claiming that Margaret is a heretic that the LDS should shun.>>

Me: I donâ??t believe I have ever said that Barker is a â??hereticâ?.

>>The key ideas occur in the canonical writings as well, and she demonstrates this in her work. Itâ??s not just a Gnostic or Kabalistic problem.>>

Me: Agreed. But, the relationship of â??the Oneâ? to the Many is rarely discussed in LDS circles. Further, a key aspect of â??the Oneâ?â??that â??the Oneâ? is the source/beginning of â??the Manyâ?â??is not a part of traditional LDS theology. I cannot begin count the numerous references to such a notion as being â??Platonicâ? (in, of course, a negative sense) by LDS authors. Yet Barker believes that the basic metaphysics of Plato has its roots in the first Temple.

>>â??In the beginning, God (Elohim, plural in the Hebrew) created man his own image (singular), male and female (plural and mixed gender).â? Margaretâ??s essay â??Wisdom, the Queen of Heavenâ? does not shy away from highlighting and discussing such passages in the text. There are the mixed genders and mixture of plural and singular in Ezekielâ??s visions of the Living One leaving the Jerusalem temple. There are passages in which Wisdom is depicted as feminine (Proverbs and Ben Sirach and Mathew), where Wisdom becomes the Mother (Matthew on â??Wisdom is justified of her childrenâ?) and in which Jesus is identified with Wisdom, as Margaret shows.>>

Me: I think you are missing the point I am attempting to make, namely that preexistent Wisdom in Barkerâ??s thought has little common elements with Mother in Heaven in LDS thought.

>>Nibleyâ??s The Meaning of the Atonement essay refers to the perennial theological/philosophical problem of the one and the many.>>

Me: It has been well over a decade since I last read this essay. Will try to get to it this afternoon; may post some reflections on it if led to do so.

>>The LDS prefer a social trinity model.>>

Me: I know of but a hand-full of members of the CoJCoLDS who advocate social Trinitarian view.

>>Personally, I think it is valid for LDS to consider the issues that Margaret highlights in the same way we approach the problem of the one and the many for disciples of Jesus, and Jesus and the Father. The Menorah is a starting point. A temple symbol, it depicts the one (the object itself), and the seven branches (the many). When Jesus talks of the unity, he starts with this image. â??I am the vine; ye are the branches.â? And he describes the oneness between himself and his father as the same as that he requires of his apostles. â??Ye shall be one, even as I and my father are one.â? I can reconcile the interesting identity statements in the same way. If Jesus can say to his Apostles â??If ye have seen me, ye have seen the Father,â? we still have the issue of plurality that arises in his prayers to his father compared to his declarations of identity. Eliadeâ??s discussion in Cosmos and History helps me. To the extent that we imitate the actions, roles, of the God, the Hero, the archetype, we can become identified with them. One in purpose, repeating the actions, submitting to the will. Hence, when Elisha repeats Elijahâ??s acts, he becomes another Elijah. And later, so does John the Baptist. Again, the one and the many. Jesus says he has done what he has seen his father do, and therefore, can be identified with his father. As the Apostles do the works of the Jesus, they become identified with him.

Why shouldnâ??t the problem of the divine feminine work the same way? If Jesus does the works of Wisdom, can he not be identified with Wisdom in the same way that he can be identified with his Father? "Neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman withouth the man, in the Lord." "The two shall be one flesh." The issue of the one and the many can be resolved the same way here.>>

Me: Personally, I have never seen the divine feminine as a â??problemâ?. Personifications of God in the Scriptures abound (including animals, and inanimate objects such as â??The Rockâ?).

>>The Gnostic terminology regarding â??emanationsâ? actually fits quite nicely with the image of the Menorah, the vine and the branches. It is as easy for me to read â??emanationsâ? as a vivid metaphor for the kind of unity that the Menorah image presents. The oldest definition of Gnostic, as both Nibley and Barker discuss, is knowledge of Christ. And as Barker says, we need to follow consistency in the sources.>>

Me: Amen.

>>I donâ??t need everything settled right now. My perspectives are limited by my mortal condition. But eternity is long. I think I have time to work things out, and find resolution to my questions. And certainly, any questions I may have concerning Barkerâ??s approach has to be balanced against the remarkable fit that I find between our Book of Mormon, and her reconstruction of Temple Theology.>>

Me: I shall reserve my comments on this issue for some upcoming blog posts.

Once again, I truly appreciate your time and effort. I am sincerely enjoying our discussions; and for what it is worth, take all of your comments very seriously.

Grace and peace,

David

[Kevin Christensen]

Hi David,

Where you say I missed the point, yes. I'd read your page a few days before I responded, and responded at work without re-reading, and recourse to my books. I hasten to amend my comments to be more to the point.

Regarding Margaret's view of Wisdom being different that Mormon doctrine... subjectively, my own personal response in reading things like her Wisdom, the Queen of Heaven, has been general excitement and enlightenment. I don't feel much conflict because I've never felt like an LDS doctrine of a Mother in Heaven is all that well defined. What we have is not much more than an open door, rather than a defined structrue. A lovely Hymn by Eliza R. Snow (Oh My Father), a few slender comments here and there, some obvious cultural projections that fit Joseph Campbell's description as one function of myth being to justify and sustain a social order, and some rationalizations and statements regarding reasons for our ignorance. (Around 45 years ago, I heard a Bishop say our ignorance on the topic was to protect her from being blasphemed. Clearly a Victorian projection, rather than a revelatory insight.)

Other than Oh My Father, the good stuff is quite limited, and mostly fairly recent.

I liked Margaret Toscano's first paper (The Missing Rib), but was not impressed with her more recent, much more politiczed version. I did not care for Allred's heavily speculative papers. (Justifying a social order. Lots of projecting, where Mother in Heaven turns out to be a Giant advocate for one's political and religious asperations.)

I did like Eugene Seiach's essays, his delving into interesting sources. And John Welch has a very good FARMS paper comparing Oh My Father to the Hymn of the Pearl, going into more detail than Nibley in An Egyptian Endowment.

I like Kevin Barney's essay as a well informed, model approach. I love Daniel Peterson's Nephi and His Asherah essay. I took a "type scene" approach to the Book of Mormon in RBBM 10:2. Margaret's essay, I think, extends the insights of these essays. And with her essay/review of Dever, Alyson Von Feldt takes things further, showing how new information casts light on scripture.

Most LDS discourse on the topic of the Mother in Heaven had been hampered by a sense that we don't know anything, and the the scriptures don't say much. Allred's excommunication seemed to put a damper on what little discussion that was going on, up until Daniel Peterson's and Kevin Barney published.

The recent work is an antedote to the presumptions about a lack of information, and a cure for Allred's overly speculative, overtly political approach. There is much more discussion on the topic in the canon than we thought, much of interest in the non-canonical texts, and much of interest in recent archeology, both in the Old World and the New. Margaret's Wisdom paper in The Great High Priest excells in these things. And Alyson has another Wisdom paper forthcoming.

There is the issue that the Divine Feminine concept is larger than the Mother in Heaven concept. Mother in Heaven is a title that focuses on one particular role. There are other titles, and, evidently, other roles. That could mean that a Divine Feminine can play more than one role, and perhaps, that that there is more than one player involved. In that case, a mismatch between older LDS concepts of a Mother in Heaven and Wisdom may not necessarily conflict with other roles and or players. The question of the One and the Many can recur here too. As long as we approach the question as scholars, exploring what has been taught, and thought at different times, and not confuse ourselves with prophets who can declare doctrine, I'm quite happy to enjoy Margaret's insights. And Daniel's and Alyson's and Kevin Barney's.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Calm]

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

Didn't you play a game or two with RichardMDBorn over on ZLMB?

ZLMB needs some traffic to keep it alive---a chess thread would be fun.

Sorry for the interruption, back to this fascinating conversation...

[e=mc2]

AHA! Was it Richard that I *let* beat me? LOL! SO, this means I shall have to get back over to the Z and get some chess excitement going on over there.