Mormonism and Margaret Barker - Part 6

In my five previous posts under the label, "Margaret Barker", I have referenced a number of Barker's interpretations of the Bible that directly conflict with promulgated Mormon doctrine. In this sixth installment of the series, I bring to the attention of AF readers a thread from a website that I discovered earlier today:

Margaret Barker on the Radical Original Understanding of Resurrection

The above contribution is an excellent supplement to the third installment of this series, and brings back to mind the somewhat odd obsession that many Latter-day Saints have with Margaret Barker.

Grace and peace,

David

Mormonism and Margaret Barker - Part 5

Four of my earliest posts here at AF (11/07 thru 01/08) were part of a series titled: Mormonism and Margaret Barker. This post will be the fifth installment of this series.

Yesterday, I received in the mail volume 56.1 (2017) of the BYU Studies Quarterly journal (see this link for full content). This issue included, "a lightly edited transcript of a lecture delivered by Old Testament scholar Margaret Barker at Brigham Young University on November 9, 2016" (p. 75).

Barker's contribution was titled, "The Lord Is One", which is an interesting one, given the primary content of the lecture—deification/theosis in the Bible. This topic of deification/theosis in the Bible is a common theme in a number of Barker's articles, books, and lectures. In part 3 (link) of my aforementioned series, I contrast some of Barker's reflections on deification/theosis with those within the Mormon paradigm. I concluded that post with:

A careful analysis of Barker’s teachings on first Temple deification offers little (if any) resemblance to deification/exaltation in LDS theology. Not only does deification take place prior to ones death and entrance into heaven, deification has nothing to do with the resurrection of the physical body; which is a non-negotiable element of Latter-day Saint deification/exaltation.

The edited transcript of Barker's 11/09/16 lecture presents no new material that would give me cause to change any of my previous assessments contained in the first four installments of this series. Though Barker's contributions are always an interesting read (IMO), her unwavering commitment to a number of liberal presuppositions and theories advanced by critics and skeptics of the Bible makes it extremely difficult for me to embrace, and/or endorse, the general thrust of a number of the conclusions she has reached—e.g. Yahweh is not the one true God of Israel, the "Deuteronomists" changed and corrupted the original teachings of the "First Temple Theology", the king of Israel was "the Lord in human form", et al. (See Barker's website for a listing of all of her contributions; a good number of her published papers are available there for free.)

One glaring flaw contained in the edited transcript is her belief that the, "Deuteronomists also denied the ancient belief that the Lord was seen in human form, what the Christians would later call incarnation" (p. 82). She appeals to Deut. 4:12 to support this belief, stating:

The Deuteronomists, however, said that no divine form was seen, even when Moses received the Ten Commandments: “The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice” (Deut. 4:12). (Page 82)

Barker is unable (unwilling?) to harmonize Deut. 4:12 with those numerous verses contained in the Bible which state that God was "seen". Why is it that she cannot accomplish what so many other scholars/theologians have done? I cannot help but think that her liberal presuppositions and theories are at play here.

Complicating Barker's assessment is her enlisting of a number of verses from the Gospel of John which she believes contradicts Deut. 4:12, and the so-called teaching of the Deuteronomists. And yet, it is from the writings of John that one finds the strongest statements that God has not been seen, nor can be seen! (See my previous thread for germane references.)

Anyway, I wanted to bring to the attention of my readers this latest contribution by Barker. I am confident that my future posts concerning the visio Dei or vision of God will expose certain weaknesses in Barker's assessments, and also demonstrate that the verses she finds so contradictory are in fact harmonious.

Grace and peace,

David

Mormonism and Margaret Barker - Part 4

This fourth installment of my MMB series will delve into the following “observation” from my initial MMB post:

Fourth observation – Barker teaches that much of the Bible has experienced significant corruption, and many important “other” Scriptures have either been suppressed or lost.

Certainly the later portion of the above is a definitive part of LDS apologetics, theology and the LDS Scriptures. However, Barker’s first premise has some significant criticisms within the historical setting of the LDS paradigm. Though a few LDS authors have embraced many of the assessments associated with the “higher-criticism” of the Bible, such views are at odds with some prior LDS presidents, apostles and scholars. It would literally take an entire volume to give full justice to this issue, but with that in mind, I shall limit myself to the following selections, which should (IMHO) prove to be satisfactory in establishing some credence to my assertion:

Such dissecting as this [higher criticism] can have but one general result—death of reverence for the Bible; death of faith in it, as the revealed word of God. The authenticity of the Bible by it is left doubtful; for while this method of criticism succeeds, with those who affect it, in proving that Moses is not the author of the five books for so many centuries accredited to him, it fails to tell us who is the author of those books. This Higher Criticism tells us that there are two and perhaps more, authors of the book of Isaiah's prophecies; that the last twenty-seven chapters were not written by the great Hebrew prophet whose name the book bears; but it fails to tell us who is the author of them. Nor can it be determined even when the unknown author lived. The same is true as to the other books of the Old Testament upon whose authenticity this system casts its shadow. The system is wholly destructive in its tendencies; it unsettles everything, it determines nothing, except that everything with reference to the authenticity, time of composition, inspiration, and credibility of the Old Testament is indeterminable. “It leaves everything hanging in the air,” says one able critic of Higher Criticism. “It begins in guesses and ends in fog. At all events the result leaves us in a hopeless muddle, and, when that is the only thing settled, the proposed solution is self-condemned.” (B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, Vol.2, pp.6, 7.)

It is here where it can be proclaimed as the voice of the western hemisphere proclaiming the sublime truth that God did not leave himself without witness among the races and nations of men that inhabited the western world. It is here that its importance is felt as the voice of sleeping nations speaking as out of the dust to the whole world, not only vindicating the quality of justice in God, in that he did not leave the inhabitants of the western hemisphere to perish in ignorance of himself and the plan of life and salvation which had been ordained for the redemption of mankind; but also in that it bears witness to the world that the collection of books known as the Bible is the word of God, authentic, credible, and binding upon the consciences of men. It is a Witness for the Gospel of Jesus Christ and of the truth of the Bible, which in value far surpasses all the evidences discovered in Egypt, the valley of the Euphrates, the Sinaitic Peninsula, and the land of Palestine throughout the nineteenth century. (B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, Vol.2, p. 23.)

What a testimony we have here for the truth of the Bible! What a number of its incidents are here confirmed! The Higher Criticism questions the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, but here is an entry made in an ancient record in America at least 575 years B.C., attributing the authorship of five books to Moses, specifying that they gave an account of the creation of the world and also of Adam and Eve, "who were our first parents;" so that there can be no question as to this record brought by Lehi's colony from Jerusalem to America being identical with the Pentateuch of our Bible. In addition to the incident of the creation, and Adam and Eve, this entry upon the Nephite records also confirms the Bible narrative concerning Jacob and also of Joseph, his son, who was sold into captivity and taken to Egypt. Reference is made also to the subsequent exodus of Israel from the land of Egypt. Mention also is made of the prophets and their prophecies in this record, making special mention of the name of Jeremiah. Some of the writings of Jeremiah were also included in this record. The first Nephi also makes special mention of Isaiah by name, and describes in what manner he read from his writings upon the plates of brass, to his brethren. And what is better yet, he quotes, in his record, many passages from the prophet Isaiah. At this point it is well to call attention to the fact that the Higher Criticism holds that the book of Isaiah in our Old Testament is composite; that is, it claims that it is composed by at least two, and perhaps by seven different authors; that the last twenty-seven chapters certainly were not written by Isaiah. The best answer that can be made to these claims, on the part of those disposed to defend the Isaiah authorship of the book of prophecies which bears that prophet's name, is to say that from two hundred years B.C. the authorship of the prophecies, as they now stand in the Bible, have been attributed to Isaiah. But here is testimony, in this first book of Nephi, which shows that as early as 550 years B.C., a certain collection of prophecies in a record taken from Jerusalem, are attributed to Isaiah; and what is best of all a transcription is made from these prophecies into the Nephite record, which corresponds to chapters 48, 49, 50, 51 and 59, and also fragments of chapter 29; being a very large amount of the very part of Isaiah's prophecies of which the authenticity is questioned. Here are at least five of the twenty-seven chapters in dispute accounted for and fragments of another, while of the first part of the prophecies of Isaiah there is a transcription into the Nephite record corresponding to chapters from two to fourteen; so that so far as the authenticity of the book of Isaiah's prophecies is concerned, and the five books of Moses, the Book of Mormon is the most important of all witnesses. (B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, Vol. 2, pp.25-27.)

After he had completed his ministry in Judea, the resurrected Messiah appeared among the Nephites, in fulfillment of his promise to their fathers by the prophets. He announced his divinity, taught them the gospel, conferred divine authority upon certain men whom He chose among them, authorized the establishment of the Church for their instruction and development in righteousness. He taught them every moral truth which He had imparted to those living on the eastern hemisphere. He fulfilled all the prophecies relating to him up to this point in the Jewish scriptures, which their fathers had carried with them from Jerusalem. He assured them of the reality of life beyond the grave, and, in a word, planted here the whole system of truth which makes for the salvation of men, and is called the fulness of the everlasting gospel. The Book of Mormon gives a voice to the ruined cities and half buried monuments upon this land of America. It confirms all the revealed truths made known in the Jewish scriptures. In sustaining the truth, inspiration and authenticity of the Bible, the Book of Mormon is more valuable than a thousand Rosetta Stones; it is superior to all the clay tablet libraries found in old Babylon and Egypt….(B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.1, p.364.)

The present position of “higher critics” is, that the Hexateuch, as they call it, is composed of, at least, four independent documents: The Yahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist, and the Priestly Code, which, for the sake of brevity, they call J, E. D, and P, respectively. The Yahwist and the Elohist documents may, they think, have been written some time between 800 and 700 B.C. The Deuteronomist they assign to some year between 650 and 625 B.C. The date of the Priestly Code they give as any time between 525 and 425 B.C. Some of the critics hold, however, that the entire Pentateuch belongs to some time after the Babylonian exile. The five books of Moses were, accordingly, not written by Moses, but by authors who lived much later, and by editors who pieced their work together the best they could. There were a number of such editors. Wellhausen found traces of, but Kuenen thought would answer the purpose. [p.261] Nephi refers to the five books in question as “the Books of Moses.” That is his testimony to a skeptical world. Thus, the Book of Mormon confirms the Bible at a time when so-called higher critics are doing all in their power to destroy the belief in the divine authority of the Scriptures. It is a ‘new witness’ as President B. H. Roberts so aptly has called it, for the authenticity of the Bible. It claims no other position in sacred literature. It is the ‘stick of Ephraim,’ joined to the ‘stick of Judah,’ according to the word of the Lord. (Ezekiel 37:15-19) (Reynolds and Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 4, p.260.)

DURING the second half of the nineteenth century there was a determined effort launched on the part of certain scholars to tear asunder and destroy the authenticity of the holy scriptures. They were influenced by the same spirit which prompted the organic evolutionists. This plan has been called “Higher Criticism,” but in reality it should be called "destructive criticism." The advocates of this theory assumed to have the wisdom by which they could discover, without Urim or Thummim, but by their own wisdom, a difference in style in the various books of the Bible. This difference they proclaimed was discovered within paragraphs as well as in chapters of the various books. Moreover, they taught that in many of the books, particularly the five books of Moses and Joshua, Isaiah and others, there was evidence that indicated that parts could not have been written at the time indicated by these books, but at some later date. In this manner of criticism unknown writers had to be provided to take care of these theories. Some of the passages, like that dealing with Isaiah's prophecy naming Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1-4), they maintained were written by authors after the prophetic events had taken place. To their way of thinking even God could not predict the birth of a man over one hundred years before he was born. In the Book of Genesis they thought they discovered combinations of writers, and that the account of the creation and of Adam's advent in the Garden of Eden was in conflict with itself. These critics were not like the prophets of old of whom Peter speaks: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:20-21.) These learned men do not claim to have the guidance of the Holy Ghost, but by their scientific training they have spoken and given utterance.

In their contention, through their uninspired skill, they maintain that they were able to discover that the five books of Moses were not the works of Moses. So they concluded to give these books to several authors living at various times. Genesis, said they, was compiled by some enterprising scribes hundreds of years later. So the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua had to be assigned to writers of various and later times. Moreover, their doctrine was that the stories of creation, the Garden of Eden, Adam's fall, recorded in Genesis, were taken from the myths and legends of the Assyrians and Babylonians. It was the accepted view at that time that “the Mosaic age was outside the scope of written records.”

In addition to this severe criticism of the Pentateuch these critics assigned the Book of Isaiah to three, at least, different writers. The entire study was, of course, speculative, and could be nothing more. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny, pp. 490 – 491.)

However, from the competent advocates of Biblical authenticity, we may make a brief summary. We have learned:

That writing and record keeping, from the archaeological discoveries were long anterior to Abraham.

That many parts of the Bible formerly considered legendary and mythical, have been confirmed by archaeological research.

That many events recorded in Genesis, previously viewed skeptically, are now confirmed by records that have been discovered.

That Moses did not get the accounts of the Garden of Eden, the fall, the flood, from Assyrian or Babylonian sources.

That the “four accounts,” J., E., P. and D., are without any foundation in fact.

That there is no sound and justifiable reason for dividing the Book of Isaiah among two or three authors, and placing a great part of it as late as the sixth or fifth centuries B.C.

That the earliest religion known was not worshiping multiple gods. The worship of idols and multiple gods came later, contrary to what is written in every school textbook on ancient history at the present day. The earliest religion was the worship of one God.

That the so-called “higher criticism,” which is destructive criticism, is based on “unsound assumptions,” that are unreliable.

Above all of this, members of the Church have double assurance. We have the word of the Lord that Isaiah wrote the book that bears his name. Chapters called in question by these critics are found, or quoted in part, in the Book of Mormon. The Five Books of Moses were in possession of the Nephites on this continent, and therefore Deuteronomy or any other part could not have been written after Lehi left Jerusalem.

Our Savior quoted constantly from Isaiah, and the books of Moses and other parts of the Old Testament. In his conflict with the devil in the wilderness the Savior gave all three quotations from Deuteronomy. After his resurrection, when talking with the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, it is written: “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:27.) Later when he met with the disciples in an upper room, it is written: "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me." (Luke 24:44.) This quotation the destructive critics should memorize:

And it came to pass, that the begger died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house:
For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. (Luke 16:22-31.) (Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny, pp. 513 – 514.)

And the surprising thing that the Scrolls show us that the text of the Bible has not been so much altered—for actually they show that it has been on the whole preserved with astonishing integrity—as mutilated by the removal of material from the original…By furnishing us with older texts of the Bible than any heretofore known, they show very clearly that present misunderstanding of the scriptures are not due to corruptions of the text but rather to serious omissions and deletions. (Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah, 1967 ed., p. 26.)

Ancient American prophets, six hundred years before Christ, foresaw the coming of Columbus and those who followed. These prophets saw the establishment of the colonies, the War for Independence, and predicted the outcome. These prophecies are contained in a volume of scripture called the Book of Mormon. This sacred record, a companion to the Holy Bible which it confirms, is an added witness to the divine mission of Jesus as the Son of God and Redeemer of the world. How I wish every American and every living soul would read the Book of Mormon. I testify to you that it is true. (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.50-51.)

[Note: all bold and underline emphasis in the above quotes are mine.]


One should also take note of the following collection of essays by Dr. Sidney B. Sperry:

The Book of Mormon and the Problem of the Pentateuch

The "Isaiah Problem" in the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon and Textual Criticism

Some Problems of Interest Relating to the Brass Plates


Now, I sincerely wonder to myself if the future generations of Latter-days Saints will embrace the methodologies of the liberal higher critic school of thought (which certainly includes Margaret Barker), or if they will perhaps give greater stock to what their presidents, apostles and former scholars of renown have said…


Grace and peace,

David

Mormonism and Margaret Barker - Part 3

This installment of my MMB series concerns my “third” observation from part 1:

Third - Barker teaches that Israel’s “First Temple” religion believed in and taught the doctrine of deification.

Barker’s view of deification is significantly different than that taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In fact, in all my readings on the different views of deification, Barker's is unique. I believe that this uniqueness stems from her views on resurrection and incarnation. The following are some of her thoughts on resurrection:


In temple theology, resurrection was not a post mortem experience. It was theosis, the transformation of a human being into a divine being – which came with the gift of Wisdom; and theosis, described in various ways, was at the heart of temple tradition, together with the belief in a resurrected anointed one, a resurrected Messiah. (Temple Theology – An Introduction, p.23.)

Just as there were two creations, so there were two bodies for each human being. The once described in the second story, formed ‘from the dust of the ground’ (Gen. 2.7) was ‘vastly different’ from the one in the first story, made ‘in the image’ of God (Creation 134). The one from the dust was body, soma, and soul, psuche, man or woman, and by nature mortal. The one ‘after the image’ was incorporeal, neither male nor female and incorruptible. These tow are described elsewhere as the two Adams, the heavenly, ‘made after the image and without part or lot in corruptible or terrestrial substance’, and the earthly one made of clay (All. Int. I.31). When Paul contrasts the physical body and the spiritual body he uses this terminology. The physical body, soma psuchikon, is raised as a spiritual body, soma pneumatikon. In other words, the resurrection body is the body of the first creation, incorporeal, invisible, made after the image and incorruptible (1 Cor. 15.42-50). It is neither male nor female, just as Paul elsewhere described those who are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3.28). (The Revelation of Jesus Christ, pp. 23, 24.)

The Christian resurrection belief was not one of resuscitation, but of rebirth as a child of God. (The Revelation of Jesus Christ, pp. 338, 339.)

What Paul meant by a spiritual body, soma pneumatikon, in contrast to the physical body, soma psuchikon, is best illustrated by comparison with Philo’s account of the Adam…Philo explained the two accounts of creation (Gen. 1.1-2.4a and Gen. 2.4b-3.24) by saying that the first was the creation of the heavenly archetypes and the second of the material world. The earthly Adam, said Philo, was ‘vastly different’ from the man made in the image of God…the man made after the image, the man of Genesis 1, was incorporeal, invisible, neither male nor female, and by nature incorruptible (Creation 134). (The Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 339.)

Jesus himself says very little about resurrection, but what he does say is revealing. The dead were those who did not follow him: Follow me, he said to a would-be disciple who hesitated, and leave the dead to bury their own dead (Matt. 8:22/Luke 9:60). It is also celar from the answer to the Sadducees that he did not envisage a physical resurrection. They asked about the marital statue of a woman who had had seven husbands and Jesus replied that in heaven there would be no marriage: ‘…They are equal to angels and are sons of God because they are sons of the resurrections’ (Luke 20:36), The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was a God of the living and not of the dead; the patriarchs were alive in his presence…Jesus did no envisage the resurrection as a physical resuscitation in the distant future; it was an angelic state, living in the presence of God. (The Risen Lord, p. 10.)

What the earliest church understood by the resurrection of Jesus was not the resuscitation of a body but the exaltation of the king, the Servant, the Melchizedek priest. (The Risen Lord, p. 23.)

Barker’s views of resurrection, incarnation and deification are intertwined to such an extent that it is impossible to separate any of them from the each other; and one important aspect is an integral ingredient of all three: one experiences resurrection, incarnation and deification in this life.

A careful analysis of Barker’s teachings on first Temple deification offers little (if any) resemblance to deification/exaltation in LDS theology. Not only does deification take place prior to ones death and entrance into heaven, deification has nothing to do with the resurrection of the physical body; which is a non-negotiable element of Latter-day Saint deification/exaltation.


Grace and peace,

David

Mormonism and Margaret Barker – Part 2

In this second part in my MMB series, I shall delve into certain ‘negative’ aspects of my “second observation” concerning Barker’s teachings. From Part 1:

Second observation - Barker teaches that Israel’s “First Temple” religion believed in, taught, and worshipped a Mother Goddess.

SECOND OBSERVATION NEGATIVES –

The vast majority of temple Mormons (all?) believe that they have a literal Mother Goddess in heaven (and some maintain that their heavenly Father has multiple wives, which translates to multiple Goddesses). [For an excellent summation of the LDS doctrine of a Mother in heaven SEE.]

Like God the Father, the Mother in heaven for members of the CoJCoLDS has a body of “flesh and bones”, and their respective genders are to be understood in a literal sense. However, such a doctrine/interpretation is not what Barker has in mind when discussing the religion of the first Temple Israelites. The following quotes from Barker's writings should give the reader some important insights into her understanding on this matter:


The fact that no complete correspondence can be found between the Israelite deity and any other known goddess argues for her being native to Israel rather than an import from Egypt or the imposition of Assyrian overlords. My purpose here, however, is not to study the goddess as such but to show just how many fragments of the older cult survive, and how the ancient goddess was indistinguishable from Yahweh, being simply the female aspect. (The Great Angel, p. 57.)

Wisdom was not forgotten; the female aspect of Yahweh was know to the first Christians. Paul described Jesus as the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, a twofold incarnation (1 Cor. 1.24). (The Great Angel, p. 67.)

Yahweh was known as Yahweh of Hosts, the chief of the heavenly hosts. He was also Yahweh Elohim, which may once have indicated something very similar, viz. Yahweh of the Elohim. In addition there had been a female deity or rather, a female aspect of Yahweh. (The Great Angel, p. 162.)

The Logos was the Wisdom of God, ‘highest and chiefest of his powers’ (Allegorical Interpretation II.86). The initial objection, that the Logos is a male figure and Wisdom a female figure is met by Philo himself, and the change of gender was not thought by him to be significant. Since Wisdom was second after God , he said, it was deemed feminine to express its subordinate place: ‘Let us pay no heed to the discrepancy in the gender of the words, and say that the daughter of God, even Wisdom, is not only masculine but also father, sowing and begetting in souls aptness to learn’ (On Flight 52). Philo’s imagery is consistent with the tradition of the second God’s double gender…(The Great Angel, p. 130.).

Note the second deity has male and female aspects. Below this divinity were two further stages: the androgynous image of the unbegotten First Father had an androgynous son, named Son of Man, and he in turn had a son named Saviour. (The Great Angel, p. 171.)

God was such that the image of God in human terms had to be both male and female. God was not necessarily two, but needed two forms for the divinity to be expressed in human terms. In other words, the divinity was as much female, in so far as no gendered words can ever be appropriate to describe what is beyond the material world of life and death and human reproduction. (The Great High Priest, p. 229.)

The older divinity had been both male and female (I AM being a gender free name in Hebrew), ‘present’ in the anointed ones, and depicted as present in the creation in so far as she was beneath the firmament of heaven. (The Great High Priest, p. 245.)

An anointed guardian angel high priest thrown out in the time of Ezekiel can only have been the Queen of Heaven, Wisdom, especially as the cherub was female. (The Great High Priest, p. 250.)


Barker’s above reflections, especially when combined with her teachings on “The One”, yield a significantly different concept of Israel’s ‘female’ deity, Israel’s ‘second’ God. Not only is the preexistent nature of this second God non-physical/material, the ‘feminine’ nature of this deity is but one of TWO ASPECTS, the other being ‘masculine’. Both aspects of this second divinity are incarnated in Israel’s anointed kings and high priests, and most importantly, in Jesus Christ:

The God of Israel took two forms, male and female, the high priest was the human manifestation of both. Hence Jesus was described as Christ, ‘the Power of God and the Wisdom of God’ (1 Cor. 1:24). (The Great High Priest, p. 94.)

And interestingly enough, Barker believes that the worship of this “Queen of Heaven, Wisdom” (an “aspect” of Israel’s “second” God) was a very important part of the first Temple’s liturgy. However, worship of ‘Mother in Heaven’ is strictly forbidden by the General Authorities of the CoCJoLDS—yet another important contrast IMHO.

Ultimately, my reading of Barker suggests that little commonality exists between the theology of the God/Gods as presented in her books, and the theology of the CoJCoLDS.


Grace and peace,

David

Mormonism and Margaret Barker - Part 1

Before I get to the ‘meat’ of my post, I feel a bit of a need for a brief introduction. I have been deeply interested in Mormonism since 1987. It was in 1987 that two young missionaries from Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter LDS Church) dropped by my home one day and left me a copy of the Book of Mormon, challenging me to read it; which I did, but doing so to find ‘errors’, for I had been raised (as a Jehovah's Witness) to believe that the LDS Church was false (I have now read the BoM 6 times cover-to-cover, and each subsequent reading starts with considerably different presuppositions). Interestingly enough, I had already planned a business trip to Salt Lake City, but after the missionaries visit, thought it wise to drop by a local Christian bookstore, and see if they had anything on Mormonism that I could read on my flight. I picked up a small book titled, Mormon Claims Answered, by Marvin W. Cowan (I now believe this work to be unscholarly, anti-Mormon drivel—one of hundreds!), and finished the book before I landed in SLC. During my trip I decided to pay a visit to Temple Square (my first), but on my way there I noticed a large Deseret bookstore across the street. Given my passion for books, I went there first and ended up purchasing enough books to fill an entire suitcase! Thus began my studies into Mormonism and the LDS Church—1,700 plus LDS books later, the study continues…

Now to the ‘meat’ of this post: Margaret Barker; Barker is a Cambridge (UK) trained OT scholar, and former President of the Society for Old Testament Study. She has written extensively on what is now termed “Temple Theology” (see her WEBSITE for details). Mormon scholars began to take notice of Barker’s writings in the early 1990’s. For instance, Bill Hamblin made the following comments concerning his first reading her book The Great Angel:

As I began reading through the book on the flight home, I would come across passages that made me stop and ask, “Could Barker be a Mormon?” Reading further I would conclude she probably wasn’t. But a few pages later I would again be forced to wonder, “Well, maybe she really is a Mormon.” Every Latter-day Saint I've talked to about Barker's research has had a similar reaction. (Full context HERE.)

In addition to Bill Hamblin, Barker’s research has been utilized by such Mormon writers as Daniel Peterson, Kerry Shirts, David Bokovoy, Barry Bickmore, Alyson Von Feldt, and especially Kevin Christensen (whom a good friend of mine affectionately terms a “Barkerite”). She presented a forum address at BYU back in May, 2003, and another at “The World’s of Joseph Smith – A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress” in May 2005. (See this WEBSITE for both talks, and numerous published articles.)

I have read all but one of her books, all of her published articles that are available online, and listened to and read both addresses—though I would not say I am an “expert/scholar” of Barker, I believe I am informed enough (IMO) to make some important observations on why many Mormons have ‘fallen-in-love’ with much of her research:

First observation – Barker teaches that Israel’s “First Temple” religion was not monotheistic.

Second observation - Barker teaches that Israel’s “First Temple” religion believed in, taught, and worshipped a Mother Goddess.

Third - Barker teaches that Israel’s “First Temple” religion believed in and taught the doctrine of deification.

Fourth observation – Barker teaches that much of the Bible has experienced significant corruption, and many important "other" Scriptures have either been suppressed or lost.

Anyone who is even remotely familiar with LDS theology will immediately recognize why the above observations hold great interest for Mormons.

However, I believe that each of above observations have only superficial relevance to the Mormon faith, for certain aspects concerning each observation presents more negatives than positives for the LDS position. And further, it seems that other key ingredients of Barker’s theology are virtually ignored, due to their explicit antithesis to the Mormon faith.

FIRST OBSERVATION NEGATIVES –

Though Barker clearly asserts that the “First Temple religion” was not monotheistic, the type of worship she believes was being exercised by the monarchy, priests, and lay people has little common ground with the who and how LDS folk exercise their worship. According to Barker, “First Temple” Israelites worshipped Israel’s earthly king as an incarnation of Yahweh[1], practiced cultic child sacrifice[2], and invoked the Mother Goddess in cultic worship[3].

Another key aspect of Barker’s assessments concerning “First Temple” theology involve certain hierarchical dimensions that are clearly found in early Christian Gnostic writings—writings which are copiously cited in most (all?) of her works on “Temple Theology”. Barker is convinced that that early Christian Gnostics owe much of their teachings to “First Temple” theology, and even states that the earliest (and as such) Christian theology was much more “Gnostic” than “orthodox”.

IMO, much of her reassessment of monotheism is due to her Gnostic theology—a theology that has little common ground with ‘traditional’ Mormon theology.

The following quotes provide solid support for my assessment that a number of Barker's interpretations contain Gnostic tendencies:

The unity within the holy of holies meant that all the angels were derived from the One. The lesser were each a part of the greater and the greater were part of the even greater. Collectively they were the Fullness of God, because all the angels were aspects of God. (Temple Theology – An Introduction, p.25.)

Thus all are one, just as seconds are parts of a minute, and minutes parts of an hour.

This important concept illuminates John 17…The perfect unity is the sign of divinity and proof of Jesus’ origin. He has come from the One, he is part of the One, and he makes his disciples One. (Temple Theology – An Introduction, p.26.)

The most ancient understanding of the LORD was as a manifold divinity with both male and female natures, but nevertheless one 'The LORD our God is One LORD’ (Deut. 6.4). (The Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 40.)

A text found at Nag Hammadi, of uncertain date but of great interest, links the angel beings to aspects of time, suggesting that the angels are all ‘contained’ within each other and ultimately within God, just as small units of time are each parts of a greater unit and thus of the all-inclusive Time itself.

Time came to be as a type of the first begetter, his son. This year came to be as a type of the Saviour, the 12 months came to be as a type of the 12 powers, the 360 days of the year came to be a type of the 360 powers who were revealed by the Saviour. In relation to the angels who came out of these, who are without number, the hours and the moments of the days came to be as a type. (CG III.3, Letter of Eugnostos 84)

The God of Israel took two forms, male and female, the high priest was the human manifestation of both. Hence Jesus was described as Christ, ‘the Power of God and the Wisdom of God’ (1 Cor. 1:24). (The Great High Priest, p. 94.)

Thus angel beings, when they come into the material world, are received as fragments of something greater, just as seconds and minutes are fragments of Time. Beyond and encompassing them all is the Antecedent of Time, one possible translation offered for the more familiar title the Ancient of Days. In terms of angel beings, this all encompassing One was the Fullness (the pleroma), and was equated with the sate of Light, Day One, the holy of holies. (The Great High Priest, p. 109.)

Footnotes:

[1] “In the cult of the first temple, the king was anointed and became the Firstborn Son…The LORD was Israel’s second God, the one who was present with the people in human form, originally as the Davidic king and later as the high priest…In the first temple, the king had become the LORD at his coronation and the people worshipped him. (The Revelation of Jesus Christ, pp. 35, 37.) [See also The Great High Priest, pp. 61, 62, 189, 190, 217, 218.]

[2] Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, p. 527; The Great High Priest, pp. 148, 149.

[3] “Wisdom, The Queen of Heaven”, The Great High Priest, pp. 229-261; “Wisdom”, Temple Theology – An Introduction, pp. 75-93.


TO BE CONTINUED