There are 5 thoughts on “Prophets and Kings in Lehi’s Jerusalem and Margaret Barker’s Temple Theology”.

  1. Much as I found Bill Hamblin’s refutation credible, I think I find Kevin’s rebuttal a little bit more so. (See: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/vindicating-josiah/) (I must say that as a layman, I like things that both men have said even sometimes when they are in direct opposition the one-to-the-other.) In fact, as I consider the consequences of both their affirmations, it dawns on me that there may be a chance that both of them have correctly identified apostasies in the early Jewish faith and temple worship, but I am still not at all certain that Josiah’s reforms were specifically guaranteed to have been divinely appointed. (For me: the simplest reduction of the argument is to one salient fact only. It is the recognition of the absolute fact that Josiah centralized temple worship EXCLUSIVELY to Jerusalem, while Nephi obviously had no qualms about constructing his own edifice… (For a layman such as myself, this is an exceedingly difficult mountain to climb and interpret in any other way than that Nephi did not exactly ascribe to all of Josiah’s mandates. As to whether it seals the argument from Kevin’s perspective, though, is difficult for a layman such as myself to ascertain, but finally and in addition, I do like his analogy of the tree of life as an affirmative implication regarding his argument. From my perspective, this string or thread gives him at least one more additional strand with which to bind-up and shore his theory.))

    From my perspective, the additional knowledge that the Book of Mormon gives us for this time period, seems (for me at first glance) to suggest some strong correlation with Kevin’s interpretation of ulterior motives behind Josiah’s reformations. Josiah may have been a good man and may have even been trying to “reform” the system. It may be that he wasn’t entirely correct in the methods he used to do so.

  2. I appreciate the comments on Lehi’s vision on the Tree of Life and the connection that the tree was removed through Josiah’s reform. A further analysis of Lehi’s vision should be made that looks at 1 Nephi chapter 8 as an indictment of the religion of Israel. We may just find the great and spacious building with its people of exceeding fine manner of dress to be symbolic of the Temple and its priest and others who worship there. The tree of life was moved out of the Temple and into the waste places, only accessible by traversing through darkness. This would also be similar to the Essenes, who established what they thought was a more pure religion in the desert.

    • In case anyone checks this out at this late date; D. John Butler has done exactly as requested in his book, “Plain and Precious Things: The Temple Religion of the Book of Mormon”, which, along with its companion volume, “The Goodness and the Mysteries: On the Path of the Book of Mormon’s Visionary Men” has some very interesting explorations into the tensions between the Deuteronomists and the Book of Mormon’s theology.

  3. “She discusses how often the texts that refer to this period lament the loss of Wisdom in terms of characteristic teachings as well as the female personification of Wisdom…”
    It is interesting that the female personification of wisdom remains intact in the Book of Mormon: “O how marvelous are the works of the Lord, and how long doth he suffer with his people; yea, and how ablind and impenetrable are the understandings of the children of men; for they will not seek wisdom, neither do they desire that bshe should rule over them! Mosiah 8 :20

  4. “…Josiah’s reign was for the formation of the Hebrew Bible as we have it.”

    I have often wondered why it is that baptism is never mentioned in the O.T., but Nephi certainly makes a big deal of what we acknowledge today as a saving ordinance. Can we blame Josiah for this ommission?

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

All comments are moderated to ensure respectful discourse. It is assumed that it is possible to disagree agreeably and intelligently and comments that intend to increase overall understanding are particularly encouraged. Individual authors are given the option to disallow commenting or end commenting after a certain period at their discretion.

Close this window

Top of Page

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This