Heaven or Las Vegas (The Verse-by-Verse Bible Preacher vs. The DJ)

[RevTestament]

16 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Have to confess, I hadn't thought of it this way.  Moses as the original Martin Garrix, "mixing" the Books of Moses/Torah. 

;0)

I do recall reading Harold Bloom's The Book of J, Bloom's effort to get back to the original Yahwist (the "J-Writer").  But to tell you the truth, I wasn't greatly persuaded.  As a side note, Bloom would go on to flatter LDS in a subsequent book, The American Religion, in which he predicted Mormonism would become the predominant religion in the American West, akin to the Southern Baptist Convention in the American South.  How different things look in 2016 then they did in the 90's!

But let's explore the tangent.  You'd consider yourself a pretty devout LDS, wouldn't you, halconero?  Does contemporary biblical scholarship along the lines of your post help or hinder the cause of Mormonism?  Does it strengthen or weaken your confidence in Joseph Smith's creation account in the Book of Abraham, for example?

--Erik

I cannot speak for Halcanero, but personally, I am not a fan of "contemporary biblical scholarship." I do not speak of a "Yahwist" or "Elohist" version of Genesis. Further, I do not believe such critical scholarship is particularly helpful to the LDS Church of Christ. Some aspects help show that for instance, the Book of Mormon wasn't written by a single author, but much is based upon faulty assumptions - such as God cannot really know what the future holds, and cannot prophesy. As for "Mormonism" it may not become a predominant religion, but the Church of Jesus Christ will spread, and the majority of gentiles in the US will accept it as holding the true gospel once their eyes have been opened, and their blindness made plain to them.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I cannot speak for Halcanero, but personally, I am not a fan of "contemporary biblical scholarship." I do not speak of a "Yahwist" or "Elohist" version of Genesis. Further, I do not believe such critical scholarship is particularly helpful to the LDS Church of Christ. Some aspects help show that for instance, the Book of Mormon wasn't written by a single author, but much is based upon faulty assumptions - such as God cannot really know what the future holds, and cannot prophesy. As for "Mormonism" it may not become a predominant religion, but the Church of Jesus Christ will spread, and the majority of gentiles in the US will accept it as holding the true gospel once their eyes have been opened, and their blindness made plain to them.

The documentary hypothesis isn't so new. But conservative Mormonism and fundamentalist Christianity at large has long had an aversion to Biblical scholarship. Hopefully someday we'll make good on our philosophy of "truth, no matter what the source"

Edited December 8, 2016 by Gray

[Five Solas]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think all good scholarship is helpful in the long run because those who use it in good faith can only further the cause of Mormonism, not due to the content of the material or their comprehension of it, but because of the spiritual training that acting in good faith provides.

Good scholarship in good faith furthers the cause of Mormonism because there's a spiritual element involved in the process, in the "acting" as you put it.  Interesting.  Appreciate the response, CV75. 

Follow-up question if I could:  Supposing there was a piece of scholarship that was unequivocally detrimental to the truth claims of the LDS Church.  Whatever the process, the outcome was an unmitigated PR disaster for the LDS Church, perhaps a few members even resigned because of it.  In your view, could it still be good scholarship conducted in good faith?  Or does the implication for the LDS Church help you determine the goodness or badness of scholarship and whether the author was acting in good faith?

--Erik

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Good scholarship in good faith furthers the cause of Mormonism because there's a spiritual element involved in the process, in the "acting" as you put it.  Interesting.  Appreciate the response, CV75. 

Follow-up question if I could:  Supposing there was a piece of scholarship that was unequivocally detrimental to the truth claims of the LDS Church.  Whatever the process, the outcome was an unmitigated PR disaster for the LDS Church, perhaps a few members even resigned because of it.  In your view, could it still be good scholarship conducted in good faith?  Or does the implication for the LDS Church help you determine the goodness or badness of scholarship and whether the author was acting in good faith?

--Erik

There are professional standards for good scholarship, and if these were adhered to in good faith, then I believe we have good scholarship on both fronts, regardless of the implications. I think for most people, Church membership is not an entirely rational process. In another thread, I shared this which I think is pertinent:

---

The full context of that quote ["If we have truth, [it] cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed."] is in a D. Michael Quinn book, "J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years” (notably pages 24-26). While he began his faith inquiry with the sentiment... (taken from a personal memo he wrote when he was 46 years old… a mid-life crisis?), and had to do with his quest for a fact-based rational theology than with correcting Mormonism, he ultimately confessed to a friend in a letter:

"I came early to appreciate that I could not rationalize a religion for myself, and that to attempt to do so would destroy my faith in God… I have always rather worshipped facts, and while I thought and read for a while, many of the incidents of life, experiences and circumstances led, unaided by the spirit of faith, to the position of the atheist, yet the faith of my fathers led me to abandon all that and to refrain from following it.... For me there seemed to be no alternative. I could only build up a doubt. --If I were to attempt to rationalize about my life here, and the life too come, I would be drowned in a sea of doubt." According to the author, “All the confidence of J. Reuben Clark's commitment to rational inquiry in religious matters evaporated.”

Over the intervening years, he either he became less childish, he got over it, or both!

---

[boblloyd91]

21 hours ago, snowflake said:

Sure I have read the BOM. And I would say that it does sound like the KJV of the Bible.  What is your point?

Seriously? My point is I disagree with you strongly and directed you to a website that challenges your assertions about Mormons loathing the Bible.

[halconero]

On 12/8/2016 at 8:00 AM, Five Solas said:

Have to confess, I hadn't thought of it this way.  Moses as the original Martin Garrix, "mixing" the Books of Moses/Torah. 

;0)

I do recall reading Harold Bloom's The Book of J, Bloom's effort to get back to the original Yahwist (the "J-Writer").  But to tell you the truth, I wasn't greatly persuaded.  As a side note, Bloom would go on to flatter LDS in a subsequent book, The American Religion, in which he predicted Mormonism would become the predominant religion in the American West, akin to the Southern Baptist Convention in the American South.  How different things look in 2016 then they did in the 90's!

But let's explore the tangent.  You'd consider yourself a pretty devout LDS, wouldn't you, halconero?  Does contemporary biblical scholarship along the lines of your post help or hinder the cause of Mormonism?  Does it strengthen or weaken your confidence in Joseph Smith's creation account in the Book of Abraham, for example?

--Erik

Neither strengthen or weaken. I have no problem with Moses "remixing" accounts simply because he had the prophetic authority to do so. I can reach the same conclusions Bart Ehrman does about the origins of scripture and not be particularly bothered or shaken by it. I have zero problem with the idea of Matthew or Luke using Q and Mark in the development of their scripture, as I believe the original writers probably had the apostolic/prophetic/priesthood authority to do so. Luke is quite explicit that his account isn't firsthand, but one developed from the reports of others.

With regards to my devoutness. I'm odd. On political and social issues I lean liberal, with some doctrine I lean fundamentalist, with my activity I wholeheartedly and with enthusiasm sustain the priesthood keys, leadership, counsel and policies of the Church.

Likewise, I have my own opinions on the origins of Abraham, but I also have zero problem with Joseph receiving the account by revelatory experience and composing it, simply because I believe he had the authority to do so.

[Vance]

On 12/6/2016 at 9:43 AM, Five Solas said:

Worth noting he never actually calls himself a preacher or pretends he has a congregation to preach to.

--Erik

????

Then what does this,

Quote

The Baptist Version
of
The Book of Mormon

Protestant Doctrines
within the Book of Mormon

by
Lynn Ridenhour,

Southern Baptist Minister

I’m a licensed Southern Baptist minister and I embrace the Book of Mormon.

 

mean, exactly?

[Five Solas]

19 hours ago, Vance said:

????

Then what does this,

mean, exactly?

Not a lot.  Minister is very broad ("Every member a minister"--as the Presbyterians down the street like to say).  Someone gave him a certificate once upon a time.  He's authored a pamphlet he'll sell you.  He'll come speak at your fireside or conference for a fee.  Details on his website that bluebell linked previously.  And he does get invited (at least by LDS). 

I think the real question here is why are LDS so eager to inflate this guy, to call him a preacher, to pretend he leads a congregation in a Christian church.  Some take the fantasy further and imagine he slips a little BoM into sermons, and that the local membership appreciate his insights, while having no idea the origin.  All the breathless enthusiasm of someone at BYU notwithstanding, Ridenhour makes no such claims for himself. 

Why do LDS want to make such a big deal out of so very little?  He scratches a particular itch they have, an outsider validating Joseph Smith's book.  Really nothing more to it than that, is there Vance?

--Erik 

 

__________________________________________________________

And mother always told me be careful of who you love
And be careful of what you do 'cause the lie becomes the truth

--Michael Jackson, 1983

[Atheist Mormon]

On 12/4/2016 at 9:49 PM, Five Solas said:

Spent last week in Las Vegas, stayed at the Wynn resort on the strip.  All for work, attending AWS re:Invent with colleagues and clients.  (Okay, there might have been a little time at a craps table--the only game I'll play.)  Donny & Marie perform there on occasion—don’t judge. 

 

Love Vegas.....Stay in Hooters or MGM couple times a year. The place is extraordinary for the lovers of Deserts, that's what I do...Go hiking and come back late night to have a good buffet and very luxurious room to sleep. If they know what I do in Vegas I'm sure they would put me in boycott list... But I like magic shows...Believers should go to David Copperfield or Penn&Teller (may favorites). Copperfield's shows are out of this world, very entertaining.

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Not a lot.  Minister is very broad ("Every member a minister"--as the Presbyterians down the street like to say).  Someone gave him a certificate once upon a time.  He's authored a pamphlet he'll sell you.  He'll come speak at your fireside or conference for a fee.  Details on his website that bluebell linked previously.  And he does get invited (at least by LDS). 

I think the real question here is why are LDS so eager to inflate this guy, to call him a preacher, to pretend he leads a congregation in a Christian church.  Some take the fantasy further and imagine he slips a little BoM into sermons, and that the local membership appreciate his insights, while having no idea the origin.  All the breathless enthusiasm of someone at BYU notwithstanding, Ridenhour makes no such claims for himself. 

Why do LDS want to make such a big deal out of so very little?  He scratches a particular itch they have, an outsider validating Joseph Smith's book.  Really nothing more to it than that, is there Vance?

--Erik 

 

__________________________________________________________

And mother always told me be careful of who you love
And be careful of what you do 'cause the lie becomes the truth

--Michael Jackson, 1983

Because he is a preacher and does lead a congregation?  

And your definition of "making a big deal" out of someone sets the bar pretty low.   

 

[Calm]

He used to stop by this board and ZLMB on occasion, but it has been awhile.  Here is one of his profiles (there tended to be large gaps between visits so he probably just signed up under a new name when he was here):

 http://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/17870-lynnridenhour/

[rodheadlee]

13 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Love Vegas.....Stay in Hooters or MGM couple times a year. The place is extraordinary for the lovers of Deserts, that's what I do...Go hiking and come back late night to have a good buffet and very luxurious room to sleep. If they know what I do in Vegas I'm sure they would put me in boycott list... But I like magic shows...Believers should go to David Copperfield or Penn&Teller (may favorites). Copperfield's shows are out of this world, very entertaining.

We lived in Vegas for 4 years or so. We water skied almost every day from Memorial day to Labor Day. If it was blown out on the lake we went sailing. We also went dirt bike riding in the fall. We love the desert we would camp out with no toys just to be out there. I hated working there though, the wages were to cheap for my trade.

[Calm]

He calls himself a preacher in this copy of a Facebook post that someone who rejects him posted:

"MEET A DEAR FRIEND. Meet Dr. Paul Richardson, Pentecostal minister who loves and preaches out of the Book of Mormon. A few years back we hosted a Book of Mormon seminar in Independence. Two protestant preachers—a Baptist and a Pentecostal—preaching out of the Book of Mormon. I remember the night. The place was packed! We had an LDS Bishop there, missionaries were there. RLDS brothers and sisters were there. A Catholic priest came."

https://beggarsbread.org/category/lynn-ridenhour/

He refers to himself as a preacher and reports others doing so as well in his book:

https://books.google.com/books?id=4XZzAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq="lynn+ridenhour"+preacher&source=bl&ots=Gzk8C5nXzj&sig=EkqCS_PrSnIzCETqz9no_nEkar0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz5oL1rOvQAhXELmMKHfLfB5A4ChDoAQhcMBI#v=onepage&q=Preacher&f=false

Edited December 11, 2016 by Calm

[Vance]

On 12/10/2016 at 9:11 AM, Five Solas said:

Not a lot.  Minister is very broad ("Every member a minister"--as the Presbyterians down the street like to say).  Someone gave him a certificate once upon a time.  He's authored a pamphlet he'll sell you.  He'll come speak at your fireside or conference for a fee.  Details on his website that bluebell linked previously.  And he does get invited (at least by LDS). 

I think the real question here is why are LDS so eager to inflate this guy, to call him a preacher, to pretend he leads a congregation in a Christian church.  Some take the fantasy further and imagine he slips a little BoM into sermons, and that the local membership appreciate his insights, while having no idea the origin.  All the breathless enthusiasm of someone at BYU notwithstanding, Ridenhour makes no such claims for himself. 

Why do LDS want to make such a big deal out of so very little?  He scratches a particular itch they have, an outsider validating Joseph Smith's book.  Really nothing more to it than that, is there Vance?

--Erik

I think the real question is why are you so eager to disregard who this guy is and what he has to say.   You attempt to minimize him by first claiming that he isn't a "preacher", which clearly he is.

Why do you want to minimize the value of his testimony?  Is it simply because he validates Joseph Smith's prophetic accomplishments?  There is really nothing more to it than that, right Erik?

 

Also, are you attempting to minimize his "preacher" status because it exposes one of the many fatal flaws of Evangelical Christianity?  You know, the fact that ANYONE can claim to be a minister/preacher.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Vance

[Five Solas]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

He calls himself a preacher in this copy of a Facebook post that someone who rejects him posted:

"MEET A DEAR FRIEND. Meet Dr. Paul Richardson, Pentecostal minister who loves and preaches out of the Book of Mormon. A few years back we hosted a Book of Mormon seminar in Independence. Two protestant preachers—a Baptist and a Pentecostal—preaching out of the Book of Mormon. I remember the night. The place was packed! We had an LDS Bishop there, missionaries were there. RLDS brothers and sisters were there. A Catholic priest came."

https://beggarsbread.org/category/lynn-ridenhour/

He refers to himself as a preacher and reports others doing so as well in his book:

https://books.google.com/books?id=4XZzAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq="lynn+ridenhour"+preacher&source=bl&ots=Gzk8C5nXzj&sig=EkqCS_PrSnIzCETqz9no_nEkar0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz5oL1rOvQAhXELmMKHfLfB5A4ChDoAQhcMBI#v=onepage&q=Preacher&f=false

Hi Calm--

Would you kindly provide the actual quote where Ridenhour claims, in the first person and in the present tense, to be a Baptist "preacher."  And please give us the name of his church where he leads his congregation (because what sort of preacher doesn't have a congregation?).  Providing some long-winded links and telling us it's in there, somewhere--not terribly helpful.  In fact, please consider this a CFR.  I don't do these often, but this tangent and the LDS willingness to double-down on unsubstantiated claims is getting silly.  Let's do our readers a service and resolve this once and for all. 

Thank you in advance,

--Erik

_________________________________________________________

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run

--Kenny Rogers "The Gambler"

[Calm]

If you go to his book in google books which I linked to and type in "preacher", a number of quotes will come up, most of which are describing others, but a few are describing himself.  Unfortunately don't know how to pull only those up so it is directly linked.

I have no clue if he has a congregation now.  My memory says he spoke of having one in his ZLMB visits, but that was eons ago.

The Beggars and Bread site I linked to has a picture of an advertisement of Lynn's describing him and his co-speaker as "preachers" (are you suggesting he didn't at least agree to the ad) as well as a copy of a facepost Lynn made back in Oct 2014, which unfortunately has gone missing on his Facebook page as these things often do, where he states "two protestant preachers---a Baptist and a Pentecostal---preaching out of the Book of Mormon.

I don't have a problem if you think he is not a legitimate Protestant preacher, I just think it far fetched that he doesn't view himself as one.

[Calm]

Also this:

http://www.greaterthings.com/Ridenhour/Bio/Baptist_background.htm

BTW, he is listed here as a published faculty member to address documentation for the first part of the letter:

https://www.liberty.edu/media/1420/documents/archivefindingaids/FAM_RG-01.pdf

"

My Baptist Credentials.

I did find one thing. I had my licensing ceremony, not in 1963 but 1965. August 10, 1965 to be exact. I have a copy of the clerk's church minutes. I called my sister, Joan Abel, not too long ago and asked if she could check with the church clerk and ask her to go back through the church minutes. My sister mailed me a copy. Mrs. Erline Robertson, church clerk back in '65 is still the church clerk. I couldn't believe it. She's still living there in Belle and was, of course, there that day during my actual ceremony.

As for an actual certificate, I was mailed one years ago. It was signed by our pastor L.M. White (now deceased) and I believe our church clerk and Deacon Al Bledsoe. We have moved so many times throughout the years since 1965 that I honestly have no idea where it is. But there are people in my home town that was at my ceremony that are still living. As I said, I do have a copy of the handwritten church minutes taken by Mrs. Robertson on August 10, 1965. In it includes the statement "...Deacon's recommendation was to grant a license to preach to Lynn Ridenhour. Bro. Bledsoe made a motion to accept the Deacon's recommendation, was second motion carried..."

Our First Baptist Church in Belle, Missouri, is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville, TN. When Sara said she called the convention, unless I was "politically active" there with many who work at the headquarters, there is a good reason they have not heard of me. No need to. Sara must understand that certification among Baptists is authorized on a local level. Each local church carries its own autonomy, and authority to ordain and license.

And finally, Sara wrote, "...I have checked with the American, Conservative, and Southern Baptist Conventions and none have ever heard of him. I do not believe he ever was a pastor, nor is he one now…"

A couple things:

One, Sara, as I said, needs to understand the dynamics of the national conventions. The national headquarters for the Southern Baptist Convention is located in Nashville, TN. There would be no particular reason for them to know me, or even to know of me. Not unless I was high up in their ranks. Which I’m not.

And two: regarding record-keeping on pastors. Pastors come & go all the time within the Baptist circles. The average stay for a Southern Baptist pastor in one place is seven years. Record keeping, to say the least, is not up to snuff.

And three: within the structure of the Baptists, there are typically three choices one has for full-time service. 1) pastor, 2) missionary, and 3) evangelist. I say that to say this--during my active years as a Baptist, I not only pastored, but I was a youth evangelist as well. In other words, I did not always hold down a local church. I was on the move as an evangelist. Baptists are big on evangelists.

Nevertheless, there were times when I did pastor. It would have been in the early seventies. I am going to try and contact some of the church members in those churches and have them write letters, verifying that I was indeed their pastor at such & such church. May take me a few weeks but I'll try. Then we'll post those letters on my website.

We must keep in mind, however. It was during the year 1972 that Joe Hoover, one of my Baptist deacons, came by our home, left me a set of tapes to a charismatic conference that he had just attended. I listened to the tapes and was filled with the Spirit. Our ministry purpose and direction, from that time on, took a drastic turn. I no longer pastored Baptist churches, but became heavily involved in the charismatic renewal. That does not mean that I left my Baptist roots. I still embraced those cardinal doctrines such as the born again experience that Baptists are so fond of proclaiming.

That's primarily why today I refer to myself as a Baptist minister. The longer I am around the restoration movement, the more I'm convinced the experience of the mighty change of heart is not preached. Many, I believe, have never been born again but who are active within the restoration movement. They lack that personal relationship with the Lord. That's not a criticism but an observation.

I also still refer to myself as a Baptist minister because I am a Baptist minister. I have never been X-communicated. They have never revoked my license. To be perfectly exact, however, I refer to myself as "charismatic Baptist." For most Baptists do not embrace and practice the spiritual gifts. I do.  Another thing--since the mid-eighties, my wife and I have been heavily involved in the house church movement.  Some refer to it as "cell churches."  We strongly believe in a plurality of eldership leading a local group of saints."

------

If you are narrowing the term "preacher" to someone who is a current minister/pastor of a permanent congregation, I have no clue if he qualifies for that.  I am merely dealing with his personal perception of himself as a preacher, not if he actually qualifies for that by some standard somewhere.  Since he still carries the same phrasing as he did before, I am assuming his opinion explained in the letter and the term "preacher" in his book and in the ad is the same now as it was then.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Calm

[Five Solas]

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 8:43 AM, halconero said:

Neither strengthen or weaken. I have no problem with Moses "remixing" accounts simply because he had the prophetic authority to do so. I can reach the same conclusions Bart Ehrman does about the origins of scripture and not be particularly bothered or shaken by it. I have zero problem with the idea of Matthew or Luke using Q and Mark in the development of their scripture, as I believe the original writers probably had the apostolic/prophetic/priesthood authority to do so. Luke is quite explicit that his account isn't firsthand, but one developed from the reports of others.

With regards to my devoutness. I'm odd. On political and social issues I lean liberal, with some doctrine I lean fundamentalist, with my activity I wholeheartedly and with enthusiasm sustain the priesthood keys, leadership, counsel and policies of the Church.

Likewise, I have my own opinions on the origins of Abraham, but I also have zero problem with Joseph receiving the account by revelatory experience and composing it, simply because I believe he had the authority to do so.

Appreciate the reply.  The notion of "authority" is obviously a big deal to you, halconero.  It permeates your post.  It transcends scholarship.  Some people have it/had it (e.g., Moses, Joseph Smith, Thomas S. Monson), and the rest didn't/don't (e.g., Bloom, Ehrman).  And those who have it can author scripture by any means whatever, whether it's "re-mixing" (as you put it) ancient oral traditions or staring at a rock in a hat.  And you can tell--you possess the requisite discernment.  Follow up question if I might--how did you obtain your discernment?  How do you detect the man with authentic authority to mix or otherwise author scripture from the faker? 

--Erik

_____________________________________________________________

I got a letter from the government
The other day
I opened and read it
It said they were suckers
They wanted me for their army or whatever
Picture me given' a damn, I said never
Here is a land that never gave a damn
About a brother like me and myself
Because they never did
I wasn't wit' it, but just that very minute
It occurred to me
The suckers had authority

--Public Enemy "Cold Steel"

[Vance]

On 12/11/2016 at 6:11 PM, Five Solas said:

(because what sort of preacher doesn't have a congregation?). 

Thank you in advance,

--Erik

_

 

Duh!!

An itinerant preacher.

 

[Five Solas]

11 hours ago, Vance said:

Duh!!

An itinerant preacher.

 

Right. 

I was going to let Calm have the last word on the topic of Dr. Ridenhour.  It was a pretty thorough treatment and also serves as a reminder that the early to mid 1960's were a tumultuous time, that record-keeping requires discipline, and no doubt many other learnings to be gleaned, time permitting.  (Whether the actual CFR was met, I'll leave our readers to decide.)

Suggest we let our itinerant preacher ride off into the sunset, at least for now.  If past is prologue, LDS will resurrect him on another thread to demonstrate, "Not all Protestants agree..." and to argue their Book of Mormon possesses legitimacy outside of Mormonism.  We'll keep this page handy when it does. 

--Erik

 

[boblloyd91]

4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Right. 

I was going to let Calm have the last word on the topic of Dr. Ridenhour.  It was a pretty thorough treatment and also serves as a reminder that the early to mid 1960's were a tumultuous time, that record-keeping requires discipline, and no doubt many other learnings to be gleaned, time permitting.  (Whether the actual CFR was met, I'll leave our readers to decide.)

Suggest we let our itinerant preacher ride off into the sunset, at least for now.  If past is prologue, LDS will resurrect him on another thread to demonstrate, "Not all Protestants agree..." and to argue their Book of Mormon possesses legitimacy outside of Mormonism.  We'll keep this page handy when it does. 

--Erik

 

Have you heard of Margaret Barker? She is a Methodist who had some interesting things to say about the BoM. If I have time I'll find some links for you that you may find interesting. She is known for her study of Temple Theology. 

[Five Solas]

18 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

Have you heard of Margaret Barker? She is a Methodist who had some interesting things to say about the BoM. If I have time I'll find some links for you that you may find interesting. She is known for her study of Temple Theology. 

Unfamiliar.  Please give a quick synopsis, in addition to any links.  

Thanks Bob,

--Erik