Some (mainly Protestant) critics of Latter-day Saint theology often criticises LDS apologists for appealing to the writings of Margaret Barker (e.g., The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God) to support our theology (e.g., Kevin M. Christensen, "Paradigms Regained": A Survey of Margaret Barker's Scholarship and its Significance for Mormon Studies). However, rather hypocritically, Protestant apologists will happily reference Barker too, notwithstanding their claims her scholarship is “marginal” and, to quote my thesis supervisor back in university, “is off the wall.”
In a recent anthology of essays written in defense of Trinitarianism, we find the following positive appeals to Barker’s The Great Angel:
Barker has noted that the Hebrew text of Ecclesiastes 5:6 reads “Let not your mouth lead you into sin, and do not say before the angel that it was a mistake.” The Septuagint renders this to say, “Do not say before the Lord.” Similarly the Hebrew of Isaiah 63:9 states, “The angel of his presence saved them.” The Septuagint renders this, “Not a messenger nor an angel but he himself saved them” (Barker, The Great Angel, 32). (Michael R. Burgos, Jr., “Proto-Trinitarian Christology” in Michael R. Burgos, ed., Our God is Triune: Essays in Biblical Theology [Torrington, Conn.: Church Militant Publications, 2018], 3-19, here, p. 14)
Elsewhere, the same apologist further appeals to Barker thusly:
Barker has similarly argued, “The roots of Christian trinitarian theology lie in pre-Christian Palestinian beliefs about the angels” (Barer, The Great Angel, 3). (Burgos, “Jewish Proto-Trinitarianism” in Ibid., 106-20, here, p. 107)
When Latter-day Saints and others reference and appeal to Barker’s work, such should not be dismissed, but instead, the real questions should be (1) is Barker’s work being accurately presented? and (2) does Barker’s claims hold up to critical scrutiny? It is intellectually disingenuous for Evangelicals and others to simply dismiss LDS appeals to Barker without any critical interactions whatsoever (and I say this as one who finds much of her work hit or miss [for what it is worth, I own and have read all her books. I enjoyed The Great Angel, with some reservations, as well as The Great High Priest, but her recent work on Mary to be poor]).