Was Margaret Barker an element in FARMS Being Dismantled?!

[Philo Sofee]

Something just gonged in my head while re-reading Margaret Barker's materials (right now her book "The Mother of the Lord" just finished "On Earth as it is in Heaven" a nifty little book)

Barker is unconventional to say the least! But she knows her materials and languages. She isn't just whistling in the dark, but does minute examination of texts and writes very well. Hers is a detective story, and in many cases sort of melded into the Mormon apologetics themes of lost religions and future restorations. She has written a LOT. And FARMS began using her, praising her, inviting her to world conferences, interviewing her on video and posting on You Tube, encouraging the reading of her books, buying her materials, quoting her constantly in positive ways, etc. She was becoming THE go to "outsider" for some confirmation in some areas of apologetics, easily eclipsing the other outsider female author/scholar Jan Shipps. She became famous, well loved, well read, and everyone was being encouraged to read.

Now from a Mormon leadership (a.k.a. "The Brethren") point of view:
1. Who is this woman? Why is she being touted more than the prophets and apostles here concerning Mormonism?
2. She's a woman and does not have priesthood authority. How come she is more important than male Mormon authors who do have priesthood authority?
3. She is a non-Mormon, a Methodist preacher. Her word cannot possibly be more accurate, true, or right than ours from the Lord Jesus Christ himself.
4. Her Methodism should not be seen as valid, therefore quoting her so much cannot be acceptable.
5. Her insights cannot be had by the Holy Spirit because she has not and will not join the Church and accept proper Priesthood authority. Therefore why is her reading of the scriptures more used, appreciated, and supported than ours?
6. She is a woman minister. Others will see that this is a tacit admission that it is ok for women to lead a church, and Mormonism cannot abide by this. It is a very bad example and a threat against us.
7. Her books sell far better out of the BYU bookstore than anything we write or have written. This cannot be even implicitly good for our reputations.
8. For a non-Mormon to have a greater appreciation, following, and authority on how to interpret scriptures than we, the inspired brethren," cannot be allowed to stand. Her appreciation and evidence in favor of a powerful Divine and Worshipped Mother in the temple is absolutely forbidden! Even if she finds Her in the temple being worshipped and throughout Israel. We do not advocate that, and therefore her influence here has just got to be stopped.
9. Her research undermines the biblical priesthood authorized lines of proper descent as Joseph Smith taught. We cannot allow her materials to become more important than our own in this subject. We have the priesthood properly descended through the Fathers. Her work threatens this.
10. She is dividing our Mormon scholars. Some who accept our version of the truth and use our reasoning are implicitly shown to be out of touch with new scholarship, and many others of our brethren are persuaded by a woman and her research which is different than Joseph Smith's view. This cannot be tolerated.

Crazy as it seems on the surface, I now suspect Barker came to be more perceived as a threat than a help, but as she was so enmeshed and coordinated with apologetic efforts to confirm Mormon scriptures (at least how the apologists were using her materials) that she, as an outsider could not, of course, be directly told to go away, but the threat she posed could be eliminated handily if apologetics was to be changed. She had everything going against her ironic enough, from the Mormon hierarchy point of view, and she was without any malice or intent on her part, giving them all an ugly black eye. THEY were the ones who were supposed to be able to actually be able to defend the doctrines and historical interpretations defending Joseph Smith, not an unauthorized priesthoodless woman from another religion! There is simply no possible way to imagine Boyd K. Packer, Dallin Oaks, and Jeffrey Holland as being ok with her stardom within Mormonism, her materials being quoted and used in Sunday school lessons and Sacrament Meeting talks, and LDS firesides. They were and are thoroughly outclassed by her remarkable biblical scholarship and knowledge. Her place, as all other LDS women from the leadership point of view, was in cleaning the churches and their bathrooms, and providing food for the congregations at their parties and gathering, and doing the dishes afterwards while the men talk together at the tables about their latest research among themselves, not taking a lead in analysis of scripture and historical criticism, and doctrinal issues. She was to be an helpmeet, not the leader of our own priesthood bearing men. That is for the men to determine doctrine, not a mere non-Mormon woman.

Hey, to me that makes a great deal of sense.

[Kishkumen]

I dunno, Philo. Why would the Brethren care what some friendly non-member had to say that resonated somewhat with LDS theology? They didn't care about Jan Shipps did they? And how many Mormons were even aware of her? Was she really a threat to priesthood authority when 99.99% of Mormons have not the smallest clue who she is? I mean, think of it. How many know Nibley? How many read his stuff? How many know DCP? How many people have read a single thing he has written? Now Margaret Barker?

This is the most insider of insider knowledge I can think of. I think Barker's biggest LDS detractors are the rare male FARMS type like Yahoo Bot. I know he does not agree with her at all.

[Philo Sofee]

I dunno, Philo. Why would the Brethren care what some friendly non-member had to say that resonated somewhat with LDS theology? They didn't care about Jan Shipps did they? And how many Mormons were even aware of her? Was she really a threat to priesthood authority when 99.99% of Mormons have not the smallest clue who she is? I mean, think of it. How many know Nibley? How many read his stuff? How many know DCP? How many people have read a single thing he has written? Now Margaret Barker?

This is the most insider of insider knowledge I can think of. I think Barker's biggest LDS detractors are the rare male FARMS type like Yahoo Bot. I know he does not agree with her at all.

Ah! Well, now I gotta rethink this a bit.... yes, all valid points my friend! Even if I do like my theory better, yours appears to make very good sense... hmmmmmm, the one thing I have always loved about you man, you make me think and then go re-think!

[Kishkumen]

Ah! Well, now I gotta rethink this a bit.... yes, all valid points my friend! Even if I do like my theory better, yours appears to make very good sense... hmmmmmm, the one thing I have always loved about you man, you make me think and then go re-think!

Well, take it for what it's worth. I am not really that savvy on what LDS leaders care about because, well, I don't really care what they care about. With each succeeding prophet after GBH my interest in Mormon leadership has decreased progressively. Nelson jumped the shark for me. Between the disastrous November Policy and his thing about Mormon being a word that Satan rejoices over--good heavens, talk about stooopid!

Can you imagine that, the word Mormon makes Satan rejoice?

The name of a Book of Mormon prophet?

The name on the Book of Mormon?

The name that Joseph Smith prophetically translated as meaning "More Good?"

Is the More Good Foundation going to be forced to change its name now?

So, anyway, you may be right. With gaffes and boners like the Mormon embargo . . . sweet fancy Moses that is dumb . . . they very well may get their panties in a bunch over Margaret Barker. Anything that makes Mormonism interesting may just be too much for them.

[Moksha]

I dunno, Philo. Why would the Brethren care what some friendly non-member had to say that resonated somewhat with LDS theology? They didn't care about Jan Shipps, did they? And how many Mormons were even aware of her? Was she really a threat to priesthood authority when 99.99% of Mormons have not the smallest clue who she is? I mean, think of it. How many know Nibley? How many read his stuff? How many know DCP? How many people have read a single thing he has written? Now Margaret Barker?

This is the most insider of insider knowledge I can think of. I think Barker's biggest LDS detractors are the rare male FARMS type like Yahoo Bot. I know he does not agree with her at all.

Ah! Well, now I gotta rethink this a bit.... yes, all valid points my friend! Even if I do like my theory better, yours appears to make very good sense... hmmmmmm, the one thing I have always loved about you man, you make me think and then go re-think!

Do you think that with the moon's closer orbit to earth, you may have been tapping into the thought process of Bought Yahoo?

[Aristotle Smith]

--

[Bought Yahoo]

rare male FARMS type like Yahoo Bot.

Holy Cow. Or Wholly Cow. How to pigeonhole me.

My objections:

1. Margaret Barker has been promoted constantly, for years, and without a break by Kevin Christensen who can't get over her. I guess there is nothing wrong with that. but like he's the only one who beats the drum.

2. She doesn't have a doctorate, I mean, a real doctorate.

3. She advances the "feminist" theology of Canaan. [Link here to DCP and "Nephi and His Asherah."] Now before you jump down my throat, I'm just saying that if South Park got a hold of the political correctness of that theology they'd have a field day with it. That theology teaches that the "true" worship of God is that of the femine divine, with its idols and temple figures, and that patriarchy has done its best to write that out of history. (More below on this.) This theory did not appear in literature until about 1970. Dever has run with it.

4. She teaches that the Josian reform is bogus and was meant to write true Hebrew history out of the books.

Now: She might be right. (I say she's wrong.) But what she teaches is so diametrically opposed to what the institute manuals say, and the rare things said in conference talks, that Christensen's adoration of her is simply apostate. All I'm pointing out is the rank inconsistency of her views and what Mormons teach. Christensen should point out that inconsistency.

[Kishkumen]

Hey, BY. No offense intended there. I just recalled that you were not a supporter of Barker’s work. Guess it was kind of heavy handed of me to throw that “male” part in, as though being male were the reason you object. I don’t get why you think she is on the fringe side of feminist though. Does she say the divine feminine is greater than the masculine part?

[malkie]

deleted

[Kishkumen]

You mean BY, right? We don't want to imply that BY and YB are one and the same.

D’oh!