Is this a Mormon board anymore?

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding Revelation, when it was originated and who it represents, Margaret's view is, I think, both attractive and persuasive:

Quote

At the end of the twentieth century there is new material to bring to the study of the Book of Revelation. There has never been evidence for the persecution of Christians in Asia Minor in the first century CE apart from the Book of Revelation itself, but the Dead Sea texts now offer ample evidence of the situation in Palestine in the years preceding the war against Rome. It was a time of religious and nationalist fervour fuelled by the visions of priestly mystics, and the Book of Revelation belongs with these texts which depict the crimes of the wicked priest and the war of the sons of light against the sons of darkness. Jesus was described in the Letter to the Hebrews as the great high priest, the new Melchizedek, and the Book of Revelation presents itself as his teaching: ‘The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place’.

The Book of Revelation is oracles and visions collected and preserved by John the beloved disciple and his brethren the prophets, the greatest of whom had been Jesus himself. Jesus spoke of what he had seen and heard in heaven (John 3.32), but people did not believe his marturion, his testimony. This testimony, defined in Revelation 1.2 as ‘all that he saw’, is preserved in the Book of Revelation. As the years passed, the prophets interpreted contemporary events in the light of these visions and oracles. These were the people whom Josephus dismissed as the ‘pretended messengers of the deity who led the wretched people astray’ (War 6.286) and inspired the war against Rome with their conviction that the LORD would return to his city. There is a remarkable similarity between the portents and oracles reported by Josephus and those in the Book of Revelation.

In order to understand the Book of Revelation, it must be recognized that the problems at the end of the second temple period originated when the exiles returned from Babylon in the sixth century BCE. Accusations followed: the priests had lost their spiritual sight, the new temple was impure, and the new city was no longer a holy city. There were many who distanced themselves from the new Jerusalem and longed for divine judgement on the faithful city who had become a harlot (Isa. 1.21). They kept alive the memory of the first temple which had been heaven on earth, and of the anointed priest-king, who had been the presence of the LORD with his people. In their writings, the rituals of the old temple became their descriptions of heaven, and they remembered how the priest-king had entered the holy of holies as a man but returned as the LORD to establish his kingdom and judge his enemies. These priestly writings are now known as apocalypses, and have been preserved by Christian scribes.

The court scenes in the Book of Revelation are not modelled on those of the Roman imperial cult; how could a Christian prophet have seen such things? The imperial cult may have been identified as the dark antitype of true worship, but the detail was drawn from priestly memories of the temple ritual. This must have been the first temple with its cherub throne, since the holy of holies in the second temple was empty. The harlot of the Book of Revelation was not Rome; she had been Jerusalem since the time of Ezekiel, even though later interpreters of the prophecy identified Rome as the harlot of their own time. Nor is there any evidence that Patmos was used as a penal settlement in the first century CE: it is quite possible that ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ that brought John to Patmos were the very visions and prophecies which had fuelled the troubles in Jerusalem from which he had been able to escape. The seven letters were given by the LORD in visions to his prophets in Jerusalem, and sent by the pillars of the church to the communities in Asia Minor. They were warnings about Paul whom they described as Balaam, the false prophet. Since the language of the Jerusalem Christians was Aramaic and their Scriptures were in Hebrew, it is unlikely that Greek was the original language of the Book of Revelation. The Book of Revelation was translated into Greek, which explains why its style is not that of the Fourth Gospel.

From Barker's Preface to The Revelation of Jesus Christ, linked here:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Publications/Extracts/Revelationpreface.htm

The book is very much worth reading.  Among other things, she points out many places where Jesus in the Gospels alludes to experiences described in Revelation, tricky to do if it had not been composed or experienced yet.

One of Barker's previous books is The Risen Lord: The Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith:

Quote

Margaret Barker therefore offers a new understanding of atonement drawn from Temple traditions, and shows for the first time how Christology and soteriology were necessarily related in the sacrifice of the Son of God. She contends that Jesus knew who he was and what he was doing - that the so-called Christ of faith was not the creation of the early churches but rather the figure Jesus believed himself to be. The Gnostic post-resurrection discourses are a memory of his private teaching to his disciples and their parousia hope derived from his teaching about the final Day of Atonement. With his death, Jesus would enter the heavenly sanctuary and then emerge again as did the high priest, to bring the Day of the Lord.

This work redraws the map of the New Testament and offers a new understanding of resurrection, Christology, atonement and parousia. The conclusion is that Jesus was indeed ‘the author and finisher of our faith.

He most recent book, King of the Jews: Temple Theology in John's Gospel, extends the arguments of the previous books.  This talk summarizes her direction:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TemenosJesusintheGospelofJohn.pdf

Just saying,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[probablyHagoth7]

35 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Think about it. Who else influences this board other than the posters?

Spirit of God.

Angels.

The adversary.

Admins.

(etc...)

I've thought about it.

So...back to my query...to whose decision was Why Me referring?

And to cite Why Me: How and why was such a decision made?

Edited March 24, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

14 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

...Among other things, she points out many places where Jesus in the Gospels alludes to experiences described in Revelation, tricky to do if it had not been composed or experienced yet...

? Not tricky at all when He had and embodied the spirit of prophecy.

Nephi, Abraham, Daniel, and others did the same...repeatedly....seeing and/or referring (in detail) to events which had not yet happened and citing writings which would not exist for generations. 

For such, the constructs of linear time/perception don't always apply.  

Or am I misunderstanding the gist of your commentary?

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Spirit of God.

Angels.

The adversary.

They affect the BOARD other than through the posters, ya think?  How would they do that, exactly? 

9 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Admins.

(etc...)

etc??? Who the heck is that etc person???

9 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

I've thought about it.

So...back to my query...to whose decision was Why Me referring?

And to cite Why Me: How and why was such a decision made?

Okay, yeah, let's see what he meant by that, or if he will even post his answer.

[probablyHagoth7]

26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

They affect the BOARD other than through the posters, ya think?

Wasn't initially suggesting anything other than through.

But, if you insist on an exception: Mandela Effect is one potential option.

26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

etc??? Who the heck is that etc person???

http://www.metro.us/viral/hire-a-human-elf-on-the-shelf-to-spice-up-your-party-and-creep-out-guests/zsJolp---RNnp0JUTWpM/

...etc...

Edited March 24, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[hope_for_things]

53 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding Revelation, when it was originated and who it represents, Margaret's view is, I think, both attractive and persuasive:

From Barker's Preface to The Revelation of Jesus Christ, linked here:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Publications/Extracts/Revelationpreface.htm

The book is very much worth reading.  Among other things, she points out many places where Jesus in the Gospels alludes to experiences described in Revelation, tricky to do if it had not been composed or experienced yet.

One of Barker's previous books is The Risen Lord: The Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith:

He most recent book, King of the Jews: Temple Theology in John's Gospel, extends the arguments of the previous books.  This talk summarizes her direction:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TemenosJesusintheGospelofJohn.pdf

Just saying,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

I haven't read much of Margaret Barker's work, and I'm curious how widely her ideas would be accepted by mainstream biblical scholars.  It sounds like she's trying to date the book of Revelation to much earlier time period than I've heard before.    I know she's been a favorite of many Mormons, so does her scholarship hold up in the biblical scholarly community from your perspective?  

[why me]

2 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Please elaborate.

I would have to go back at least ten years. When I first came to the board, it was a hard hitting board. Great debate and wonderful elaboration. It was run by FAIR. It saved many members because of the posters on the board. It was a board that backed its truth. Somewhere down the road, the board changed. It was not encouraged to challenge critics with hard hitting posts. People were put on limited etc. Now the board is more post modern. Mega or meta narratives and truth have blurred. People are more about their own problems now and one must be careful not to offend.

Personally, I just think that people have just moved on from doctrinal issues and church history. It is more about where the people see themselves within the lds church.

Edited March 24, 2017 by why me

[why me]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

If it was not the posters, then who made the change and why?  How were they empowered with such authority?  

Someone controls the board. Who owns the board. I think that the Maxwell Institute purge had some influence on the board. It was a management decision and getting the mods on board to the new rules. That being said, the board serves a purpose for others who enjoy the post-modern slant in self verification. There was some influence of identity politics found in the gay threads and in the feminist threads surrounding kate kelly.

Why did some active members leave the board? I think that there was a time when the mods listened to the report button that the critics pushed when apologists hit back hard. Because of this, active members or defenders were put on limited. It was a wonderful moment when all those who were put on limited were allowed to post again in unlimited status.

Edited March 24, 2017 by why me

[rongo]

It is too bad. I also think the glory days for this board were around 2004 to 2007-2008 or so. 

FAIR was overly concerned about nonsense on the board from posters being linked to them ("Guess what I read from FAIR!"), but I think reasonable people have always been able to distinguish between posters and the FAIR list and actual FAIR articles. Also, moderating is a thankless labor of love, and good moderating requires near round-the-clock supervision. I'm not volunteering for the job   , so I can't complain if the moderators wanted to not do it any more. 

I really miss the old board from years ago. And, twice I lost invaluable and irreplaceable stuff with the software changeovers. Yes, I've learned to save it myself, rather than rely on it being in my posts, but it was handy to be able to search and find it.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding Revelation, when it was originated and who it represents, Margaret's view is, I think, both attractive and persuasive:

From Barker's Preface to The Revelation of Jesus Christ, linked here:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Publications/Extracts/Revelationpreface.htm

The book is very much worth reading.  Among other things, she points out many places where Jesus in the Gospels alludes to experiences described in Revelation, tricky to do if it had not been composed or experienced yet.

One of Barker's previous books is The Risen Lord: The Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith:

He most recent book, King of the Jews: Temple Theology in John's Gospel, extends the arguments of the previous books.  This talk summarizes her direction:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TemenosJesusintheGospelofJohn.pdf

Just saying,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

That's really interesting Kevin. Again her theories are really out of the mainstream but then there's not a lot of agreement on Revelation. For Mormons the tie to the temple seems obvious - especially given the interspersion in the messages to the seven churches in chapters 2 - 3 which contain (from a Mormon perspective) the endowment and perhaps from a Jewish perspective ties to Merkabah ascents through seven heavens.

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, why me said:

Someone controls the board. Who owns the board. I think that the Maxwell Institute purge had some influence on the board. It was a management decision and getting the mods on board to the new rules. That being said, the board serves a purpose for others who enjoy the post-modern slant in self verification.

As a recent member although I'd occasionally read ZLMB years ago could you explain what you're talking about here? Are you talking about the old FARMS guard posting at ZLMB and then stopping when the split happened at Maxwell? I have friends on both sides of that so I don't have strong opinions. I can see both sides although I have a soft spot for traditional FARMS approaches even if I wish there were fewer polemics and a better bedside manner.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by postmodern here. That charge gets thrown around a lot but I can never quite tell what people mean by it. Outside of a few writings by Adam Miller and a couple of others I can't think of too much that's postmodern. I'm not sure Adam considers himself postmodern. But postmodernism is such a loose term and usually used pejoratively so that I'm not sure it's that helpful a term.

Edited March 24, 2017 by clarkgoble

[probablyHagoth7]

25 minutes ago, why me said:

I would have to go back at least ten years. When I first came to the board, it was a hard hitting board. Great debate and wonderful elaboration. It was run by FAIR. It saved many members because of the posters on the board. It was a board that backed its truth.

Have been here for about a decade too.

If I may ask, what value is there in truth if it isn't tempered with compassion? When the core message *is* love?

25 minutes ago, why me said:

Somewhere down the road, the board changed. It was not encouraged to challenge critics with hard hitting posts. People were put on limited etc. Now the board is more post modern.Mega narratives and truth have blurred. People are more about their own problems now and one must be careful not to offend.

I think no hitting and avoiding offense are worthwhile changes.

The Gospels and recent counsel from the brethren teach likewise.

Which, after such changes were instituted here, may suggest why some who preferred hard-hitting engagement got bored, or fed up, and left.

Mebbe they'll enjoy returning after they've mellowed? (I had to.)

25 minutes ago, why me said:

Personally, I just think that people have just moved on from doctrinal issues and church history. It is more about where the people see themselves within the lds church.

From the threads, it would appear that doctrine and church history still hold keen interest. And they still do for me.

And I would agree that with the broader reach of 21st-century tech, many have little choice but to work out where they see themselves within the church. Which arguably isn't a bad thing. At all.

Edited March 24, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[USU78]

30 minutes ago, why me said:

Why did some active members leave the board? I think that there was a time when the mods listened to the report button that the critics pushed when apologists hit back hard. Because of this, active members or defenders were put on limited. It was a wonderful moment when all those who were put on limited were allowed to post again in unlimited status.

In large part, this has limited my involvement over the last couple of years, not that I was ever put on limited status.  That and a couple of deaths in the family.

My presence the last couple of days is a test to determine which way the wind is blowing.

I've been very disappointed in the moderation for some time.

Edited March 24, 2017 by USU78

[why me]

37 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

As a recent member although I'd occasionally read ZLMB years ago could you explain what you're talking about here? Are you talking about the old FARMS guard posting at ZLMB and then stopping when the split happened at Maxwell? I have friends on both sides of that so I don't have strong opinions. I can see both sides although I have a soft spot for traditional FARMS approaches even if I wish there were fewer polemics and a better bedside manner.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by postmodern here. That charge gets thrown around a lot but I can never quite tell what people mean by it. Outside of a few writings by Adam Miller and a couple of others I can't think of too much that's postmodern. I'm not sure Adam considers himself postmodern. But postmodernism is such a loose term and usually used pejoratively so that I'm not sure it's that helpful a term.

As for your first paragraph: the maxwell purge had to do with dan peterson a few years ago and the new direction after his departure. I think that this influenced the board. I think that post modern is where there is no meta narrative to cling to when it comes to truth. Rather, there are small narratives that must be respected.

[why me]

34 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Have been here for about a decade too.

If I may ask, what value is there in truth if it isn't tempered with compassion? When the core message *is* love?

 

Unfortunately, the critics would beat the apologist over the head with the compassion remark. The critic can post without compassion but the apologist must be compassionate according to the critic. The same with love. Perhaps this is why the board is now the way it is: love and compassion toward the critic who may not display such to the believer made the board into a postmodern discussion board. Again, nothing wrong in that. But maybe active mormons want more.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

The first verses of Revelation are quite clear about the author....contrary to your assertion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Title.2C_authorship.2C_and_date

Quote

The author names himself as "John", but it is currently considered unlikely that the author of Revelation was also the author of the Gospel of John. Some of the evidence for this was set out as early as the second half of the 3rd century by Dionysius of Alexandria, who noted that the gospel and the epistles attributed to John, unlike Revelation, do not name their author, and that the Greek of the gospel is correct and elegant while that of Revelation is neither; some later scholars believe that the two books also have radical differences in theological perspective.[6] Tradition links him to John the Apostle, but it is unlikely that the apostle could have lived into the most likely time for the book's composition, the reign of Domitian, and the author never states that he knew Jesus.[7] All that is known is that this John was a Jewish Christian prophet, probably belonging to a group of such prophets, and was accepted as such by the congregations to whom he addresses his letter.[8][9] His precise identity remains unknown,[10] and modern scholarship commonly refers to him as John of Patmos.

 

[Gray]

3 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

That's one theory. But generally only finds extensive resilience among those who prefer to believe that God can't foretell the future.

What's your take on genuine, inspired prophecy, if I might ask?

Daniel 8:14 is instead a prophecy for a capstone of the Restoration, a corollary/fractal for Daniel 2.

Daniel 9, which you haven't addressed here, provides a precise timeline for Christ's ministry. To the exact year.

Would be very interested to hear how you address that prophetic precision within Daniel (with the timing of Christ's ministry, and/or with the timing of the Restoration)...since you openly admit that Daniel was written prior to the time of Christ.

Even if you assume prophesy is a possibility, Daniel got things wrong. But there's no real question among experts as to the dating. Nothing I said was controversial. (assuming I understand it correctly!)

Edited March 24, 2017 by Gray

[why me]

40 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

And I would agree that with the broader reach of 21st-century tech, many have little choice but to work out where they see themselves within the church. Which arguably isn't a bad thing. At all.

And if the board is for them, then no problem at all. I think that the OP was wondering where did all the active members go. I suppose that they don't find comfort with such a board. I think that if the board was like this 10 years ago, I would not have gotten help. I would have left the church. What helped me was when the apologists hit hard against the critics and gave interpretations and answers.

[Gray]

3 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

With human nature and confirmation bias, the same could be said of any data point(s).

Genuinely interested: 

Why do you prefer to dismiss Daniel and Revelation? ...when they demonstrate one of God's merciful ways of helping mankind prepare for  (and recognize/benefit from) foretold events?

My presupposition is that higher criticism is the best means to understand the context behind the scriptures. As a non-scholar I defer to what scholarly consensus exists (granting the fact that scholarship has limitations, just fewer limitations than every other option)

[clarkgoble]

42 minutes ago, why me said:

As for your first paragraph: the maxwell purge had to do with dan peterson a few years ago and the new direction after his departure. I think that this influenced the board. I think that post modern is where there is no meta narrative to cling to when it comes to truth. Rather, there are small narratives that must be respected.

Still confused on how you're using the PoMo term. Certainly the broad postmodern label in the 80's and 90's was a distrust in master narratives, although that meant something particular at the time. The master narratives were Kantism, Cartesianism or things like that. Basically an all encompassing philosophical (usually epistemological and ontological) through which all else must be understood.

I definitely agree there's not anything like that. But my sense is you mean something a little different from that.

I ask because I'm pretty familiar with all the philosophers who get cast under the postmodern rubric (often against their will). I didn't mind the label in the 90's but after it got taken over by people in English and Anthropology departments typically with little philosophical background it became abused. The people embracing the term were usually pretty shoddy thinkers adopting bad argument and relativist stances in epistemology and ethics. Further after the Sokal Hoax scandal the term became so pejorative that I wanted nothing to do with it.

Now I find in a Mormon context that the term either means a kind of opposition to a naive positivism or else a claim that people are avoiding truth claims. While I certainly have problem with positivism and scientism my background is physics and I tend to have a fairly scientific stance towards issue. That said I'm also very aware, perhaps because of my physics, just how weak most arguments relative to religion from all sides are. i.e. it's much harder to make firm claim with much justification. I prefer to thus focus on the range of possible interpretations. Not because I don't believe in truth but simply because I think the evidence is more open that some think.

Edited March 24, 2017 by clarkgoble

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

My presupposition is...

Ah. Ever considered that such a presupposition is more limiting/confining than you might otherwise assume?

1 hour ago, Gray said:

...higher criticism is the best means to understand the context behind the scriptures.

? Wouldn't that be like claiming that those who don't like art are somehow the best to teach you how to choose a worthwhile work of art, or even how pick up and skillfully use a brush? I don't quite follow your reasoning here. Feel free to expand upon your meaning please.

1 hour ago, Gray said:

...I defer to what scholarly consensus exists..

Yet the entire premise of scholarly consensus is largely a myth. There ain't no monolithic body in broad agreement...on almost anything. Wouldn't you agree?

And like you, as much as they might disavow such a thing, even scholars enter topics of study/discussion with presuppositions, like yourself. And often disagree with one another, despite the evidence presented.

(My view of most arguments that appeal to secular authority):

Thoughts?

Edited March 24, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Title.2C_authorship.2C_and_date

Quote

The author names himself as "John", but it is currently considered unlikely that the author of Revelation was also the author of the Gospel of John. Some of the evidence for this was set out as early as the second half of the 3rd century by Dionysius of Alexandria, who noted that the gospel and the epistles attributed to John, unlike Revelation, do not name their author, and that the Greek of the gospel is correct and elegant while that of Revelation is neither...

The language shift has been addressed elsewhere in the thread (IIRC in a quote from Margaret) suggesting that the original account was originally recorded in a Near Eastern language, and later translated by others. Hence the disparity in the Greek.

Just try doing a Google-translate passage from English to Chinese and back to English. And tone/syntax/grammar will all shift considerably.

What are your thoughts on the possibility of Dionysius being wrong?

Edited March 24, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Even if you assume prophesy is a possibility, Daniel got things wrong.

Only if you plug his timelines into chronologies for which they were never intended to fit.

Opt to do otherwise, and it opens a number of worthwhile doors:

The timeline in Daniel 9 fits precisely within OT and NT chronologies. To the year. What are your thoughts on that?

The timeline in Daniel 8 was fulfilled precisely to the year, as promised, as attested by millions of people from a broad array of backgrounds and opinions. What are your thoughts on that?

1 hour ago, Gray said:

But there's no real question among experts as to the dating.

There is extensive question/disagreement.

Many who prefer (presuppose) a God who doesn't reveal his will to mankind lean towards Daniel being written long after Daniel *and* plugging Daniel's timelines into chronologies they *know* won't fit. The very definition of a strawman argument.

Many who have no objection to the idea of God revealing his will to mankind see the arguments against dating Daniel to a more ancient time as trifles, and find little cause to question the dating of Daniel.

We each see the world not as it is, but as we are. (Covey).

Scholarly objectivity/consensus is a myth. Presuppositions and prejudices and agendas can and sometimes do dishonestly discount mountains of evidence

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Nothing I said was controversial.

Claiming there is such a thing as scholarly consensus is both endearing, and *quite* controversial. :0)

Edited March 24, 2017 by hagoth7

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Darren10 said:

"Kimchee" reminded me of "kimchee" a Korean coworker once told me about. If it's gross then that's a very good use of it in your concluding statement sir.

Kimchee is indeed the word. Actually, if you can get past the smell, it's really really good. There are various Korean appetizers that fall under the heading of kimchee, but usually it's the fermented cabbage with ginger, chiles, green onion, garlic, etc., basically an Asian version of sauerkraut, but much more robust.

I fear no kimchee because I used to have an annual "Queen of Kimchee" contest for my Korean orchestra students. They were asked to bring a quart of their mom's kimchee to class to be judged by me. My family made me keep it out on the back deck. The all-time winner became the mother-in-law of my son Abogadoso, so I get regular infusions of her delicious bulgogi, japchae, galbi, and spectacular kimchee. 

Also, in our area if you are in a difficult situation it is said "you are in deep kimchee." I fear no kimchee.

[probablyHagoth7]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Also, in our area if you are in a difficult situation it is said "you are in deep kimchee." I fear no kimchee.

Deep kimchee is what you are wont to swim in?

 

Edited March 25, 2017 by probablyHagoth7