Bobby Gilpin, a Reformed Baptist from England who runs the “Mormonism Investigated” blog and who is also associated with the anti-LDS UK Partnerships for Christ and Ephesians 2 Ministries, has recently posted an article, “Is Joseph Smith Worthy of Worship?” In this post, he argues that, while Latter-day Saints do not explicitly worship Joseph Smith, implicitly, their high view of Joseph Smith crosses acceptable lines and is rank heresy in both its form and what he views to be its theological consequences.
Let me say at the start that Bobby seems to be a nice guy (I am sure he genuinely believes “Mormonism” to fall under the anathema of Gal 1:6-9 so is sincere [even if sincerely wrong] in his convictions), and we are friends on facebook (it is for this reason I will refer to him using his first name, as we are online acquaintances; it is nothing disrespectful [and hey, he is a fellow Star Trek fan, so he can’t be that bad ;-) ). However, just as he is convinced LDS theology is heretical, I view his Reformed theology as being rank heresy, so at least, we have enough respect for the other’s theological system to reject theological ecumenism and realise that there can only be one true saving gospel, not plural true gospels, and at least one of us are guilty of preaching a damnable false gospel.
For a previous refutation of some of Gilpin’s arguments, in this case, against various elements of Latter-day Saint Christology and soteriology, see my paper, “Latter-day Saints have chosen the true, Biblical Jesus,” a response to his article “Choose the Right Jesus.”
To be fair to Bobby, he does not charge Latter-day Saints with venerating/elevating Joseph Smith to a level of deity equal to God the Father, as some more extreme critics have engaged in, such as Richard Carroll, who once wrote:
Mormons do not discuss the deity of Joseph Smith with outsiders; however, they consider him as a god and equal to God the Father in every respect. (Mormonism and the Bible [Mustang, Okla.: Tate Publishing 2015], 37)
While still very errant, Gilpin’s paper has more intellectual integrity than Carroll and some other critics who have raised this argument against Latter-day Saint theology and practice; of course, this is not so much a compliment to Bobby as it is an example of how many (not all) Evangelical critics of the LDS Church are grossly ignorant and/or deceptive in their modus operandi towards Latter-day Saint theology and the lack of any meaningful scholarly research in their “literature.”
In his blog post, Bobby interacts with a talk entitled, "Millions Shall Know Brother Joseph Again" by Jayson Kunzler, a business management faculty member at BYU-Idaho. One can access the talk here. I would recommend one listen to the talk and read Bobby’s article before progressing further to get the most out of this paper.
As previously noted, this is not the first time anti-Mormons have raised this “criticism,” and sadly, won’t be the last time in light of the fact most critics of the Church don’t’ meaningfully interact with and engage LDS scholarship and apologetics--Bobby’s fellow British Evangelical Protestants, the late Doug Harris and former Latter-day Saints Mike and Ann Thomas (then-members of Reachout Trust, a UK-based “counter-cult” group [Mike is now the chairman of ROT]), raised this issue, and were soundly and thoroughly refuted by Mike Parker, Daniel Peterson, and other LDS apologists in the late 1990s. One can read the entire email exchanges here.
Bobby’s words will be in red, followed by my comments in black.
However like many people reading, I have been to a Mormon sacrament meeting when the hymn "Praise to the man" starts being sung, and felt uncomfortable about the words of devotion being sung about a man who Mormons apparently do not worship.
If the words "Praise to the Man" makes one uncomfortable, one will have to explain away, in a consistent manner, other "uncomfortable" words of praise given to biblical figures (this "argument" is just another prime instance of double standards and ignorance of the Bible from Evangelical Protestants). Consider the following pertinent examples from the Bible:
In Zeph 3:20, we read the following:
At that time will I bring you again, even in the time that I gather you; for I will make you a name and a praise among all the people of the earth; when I turn back your captivity before your eyes saith the Lord.
In this verse, the people are given a promise that they will inherit a great “name” and be praised among the people of the earth. This should give some pause to those who argue that the hymn “Praise to the Man” is, ultimately, an act of idolatry, as it is about Joseph Smith and not deity (or, at the very least, is a hymn that detracts emphasis on Jesus and putting an allegedly undue emphasis on the Prophet Joseph Smith, as per Bobby’s complaint in the above-quoted paragraph).
That the Bible knows of, and approves of, praise (in some limited sense) being given to mortals and non-deity is seen throughout its pages, such as the use of the Hebrew verb חוה or the Greek verb προσκυνεω in the LXX of mortals (often translated as “worship”/”bow down [to]”). A potent example would be 1 Chron 29:20 and King Solomon being the recipient thereof (emphasis added):
And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the Lord your God. And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads and worshipped the Lord, and the king.
Within a context of temple sacrifice and worship, the Israelites are commanded by David to “bow down” and “worship” both Yahweh and the king--the Hebrew construction of the sentence italicised above ( וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לַיהוָה וְלַמֶּלֶך) does not allow for a distinction between the veneration Yahweh receives and what is given to the king from the assembly as does the LXX rendition (καὶ κάμψαντες τὰ γόνατα προσεκύνησαν τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ).
As another example, one scholar in a recent volume dealing with the Christology of the Synoptic Gospels, noted the following about the worship of the (mortal) Davidic King and Psa 72:
As another example, one scholar in a recent volume dealing with the Christology of the Synoptic Gospels, noted the following about the worship of the (mortal) Davidic King and Psa 72:
In Psalm 72 wild creatures and enemies, kings and nations, all bow down and serve the king (vv. 9-11). The pairing of the roots חוה and עבד in verse 11 is precisely the pairing of words that one finds in the commandment forbidding the adoration of idols (Exod 20:5; Deut 5:9). Thus, while it is possible to separate cultic worship from courtly obeisance, we have begun to see enough of the confluence of idealized human figures and actions and ascriptions typically reserved for God to keep us from being able to rule out “worship and serve” reserved for God to keep us from being able to rule out “worship and service” of the king as a rite appropriate even for Israel’s monolatrous belief and practice. The Priestly creation story has already opened up the possibility that idealized, original humanity stands as the image of God that grounds the prohibition of images made by human hands. It is no great leap from such a creational theology of idealized human figures to such a figure playing precisely the role of God’s proxy in worship and service, such that what is forbidden to images made by human hands is allowed to the image formed by God. The idea would be that God is worshipped through this service because God stands behind this king.
In the succeeding verses, the king is deemed worthy of such adoration because he is deliverer (v. 12), savior (v. 13), and redeemer (v. 14). And so the king’s name, like God’s own glory, is celebrated as something that should last forever (v. 17). “The psalm seems to hold out the possibility that a king might be granted life to a fuller and greater extent than an ordinary human being. Here again, the Judahite conception of divine kingship is less explicit and exalted than what we find in Egypt . . . but it still has a mythical dimension that goes beyond the common human condition” (Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, 23). Even beyond this, the petition that the king’s name flourish “before the sun” (לִפְנֵי־שֶׁמֶשׁ, v. 17) became an opening for the idea that the name of the king existed before the sun. (J.R. Daniel Kirk, A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2016], 101-2)
There are many other instances of this, but let us focus on Isa 45:14 where God promises that the Gentile nations will offer supplication/prayer to Israel:
Thus saith the Lord, The labour of Egypt, and the merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee and they shall be thine; they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, and they shall make supplication unto thee, saying Surely God is in thee, and there is none else, there is no God.
Apart from the Masoretic Text and LXX using חוה and προσκυνεω, respectively in this verse, the LXX also uses the term προσευχομαι, which means “to pray to.” The Latter-day Saint hymn, “Praise to the Man” pales in comparison to such, as prayer is never given to Joseph Smith (in fact, I am pretty sure one would be excommunicated for such if such were given to Joseph Smith(!)
Here is a listing (not exhaustive) of some other verses that are rather a propos for this discussion where mortals or objects are the recipients of praise, not deity:
Gen 49:8 Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise (חוה/προσκυνεω): thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down
before thee.
before thee.
Deut 26:19 And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the LORD thy God, as he hath spoken.
Prov 27:2 Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips.
Prov 31:28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.
Prov 31:30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that
feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.
feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.
Prov 31:31 Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her own works praise her in the gates.
Eccl 4:2 Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive.
Song 6:9 My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.
Isa 62:7 And give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth.
Jer 13:11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.
If Gilpin and other Evangelical Protestants were consistent, they would have to (1) abandon this inane argument of Latter-day Saints implicitly worshiping the prophet Joseph Smith and/or crossing acceptable boundaries which depreciate the efficacy of Christ’s work in salvation or (2) argue that the Bible is internally inconsistent, further arguing that, according to these and other texts, one must accept David, Solomon, et al or the work of Jesus is not efficacious and other such nonsense (mirroring the verbiage of Gilpin). That is an unenviable position to place oneself in. Additionally, Gilpin would have to, if he wishes to be consistent, argue that Jesus Christ Himself advocated idolatry, promising something only reserved to deity (in the Trinitarian view, and, as a result, in the theological view of Bobby) to glorified Christians. How so? Note one of the glorious promises to those who endure in Rev 3:9, 21 (this is Christ Himself speaking through John):
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee . . . To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
In 3:21, believers are promised to sit down on Christ’s throne, which is the Father's very own throne! Interestingly, Christ sitting down on the throne of the Father is cited as prima facie evidence of his being numerically identical to the “one God” (see the works of Richard Bauckham on “divine identity” on this issue), and yet, believers are promised the very same thing! This is in agreement with John 17:22 in that we will all share the same glory and be one with Christ and God just as they are one. Sitting in it does not indicate, contra Robert M. Bowman, Richard Bauckham, et al, ontological identification with God (cf. Testament of Job 32:2-9, where Job is promised to sit on God’s throne, something that is common in the literature of Second Temple Judaism and other works within the Jewish pseudepigrapha and elsewhere).
As for Rev 3:9, believers are promised that they will be the future recipients of προσκυνέω. While some may try to downplay the significance of this term, in all other instances where it is used in the book of Revelation it denotes religious worship (Rev 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1, 16; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; 15:4; 16:2; 19:4, 10, 20; 20:4; 22:8, 9). Only by engaging in special pleading and question begging can one claim it does not carry religious significance in Rev 3:9 (cf. my discussion on whether Jesus receives λατρευω in the New Testament).
To add to the discussion, here is the exegesis provided by New Testament scholar, Jürgen Roloff, on these important verses:
[3:9] With the same words that are in 2:9, the claim of the Jews to be the assembly (synagōgē) of God and the people of God's is rejected as false. Because they rejected Jesus as bringer of God's salvation, in truth they subordinated themselves to the dominion of God's adversary. Israel's heritage and claim are completely transferred to the Christian community. To it, therefore, also belongs the promise, originally made to Israel, that at the end time of the Gentiles will enter the city of God and subjugate themselves to the people of God (Isa. 60:14 and elsewhere). Indeed, among those who then come will be the unbelieving Jews, who will realize that Jesus loved them and that means he chose them; (cf. Isa. 42:1) and made them into the people of God. When mention is made of "bowing down" before the feet of the church, this assumes full participation of the church in the kingdom of Christ and sitting with him on his throne (v. 21) . . . [3:21] The final word about overcoming in the series of letters has particular importance. It summarizes in conclusion the central promise of salvation, which is the promises heretofore was sounded several times with variations and modifications, by using another Synoptic expression of Jesus (Luke 22:30b; Matt 19:28 [Q?]: to those who overcome is promised here participation in Jesus' heavenly kingdom. Thus, just as Jesus sits on his throne (cf. 5:6) beside God as equal ruler on the basis of his having overcome and thereby shares his dominion, so also will those who have overcome for his sake receive a place in his messianic rule (cf. 20:6) with unlimited communion, and even equality, with him. (Jürgen Roloff, Revelation [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993], 61, 65-66)
Interestingly, Solomon in 1 Chron 29, the very same chapter he received the same worship as Yahweh, he also sit on the throne of Yahweh. On the topic of people other than Yahweh sitting on the throne of Yahweh, Patrick Navas (author of Divine Truth or Human Tradition? A Reconsideration of the Roman Catholic-Protestant Doctrine of the Trinity in light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures) wrote the following which serves as another refutation of the “divine identity” argument based Jesus sitting on the throne of Yahweh:
This is yet another area where Latter-day Saint theology and practice is more commensurate with “biblical Christianity” and not the theologies of our Evangelical opponents.
Another text that helps to underscore the fallaciousness of Wallace’s reasoning is found in 1 Chronicles 29:[23] which says:
“Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Jehovah as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.”
Here Solomon is portrayed as one who “sat on the throne of Jehovah as king.” Does this text imply that Solomon therefore “shares all the attributes of Jehovah,” or that Solomon is ontologically “Jehovah,” or that he is a member of the “Godhead”? No. It simply means that Solomon occupied a position of supreme/royal authority over the people of Israel as Jehovah’s agent or representative. To sit on Jehovah’s throne does not make one ontologically Jehovah (or one who has all of Jehovah’s attributes as Wallace wrongly implies), but makes one an individual whom Jehovah has invested with kingly authority as his appointed and ruling representative. Solomon sat down on Jehovah’s earthly throne in Jerusalem. Following his resurrection, the supremely exalted Messiah, Jesus, sat down “at the right hand of the majesty on high”—in heaven itself, with all things in subjection to him, with the obvious exception of God himself (Heb. 1:3; 1 Cor. 15:27). (Patrick Navas, Response to Daniel Wallace)
This is yet another area where Latter-day Saint theology and practice is more commensurate with “biblical Christianity” and not the theologies of our Evangelical opponents.
So you cannot have Jesus without Joseph according to this. If you drop Joseph, then you drop Jesus. The implications of this are clear, the work of Christ is useless without Joseph. To some degree this helps explain why so many people who leave Mormonism walk away from all things faith in Christ as well, for years they will have been taught that this is how it is. This is maybe one of the biggest tragedies of Mormonism, that it makes Jesus useless, without Joseph.
I have to ask Gilpin and his Evangelical cohorts the following question: Can you have salvation if you reject the apostle Paul (or any other single prophet or apostle of God)? Of course not--when it comes to the truth of God and His one Gospel, one cannot pick and choose which divinely revealed truth(s) to accept. If Joseph was a prophet of God, one is under condemnation if they reject such a truth; the same applies for Paul (or any other inspired prophet and apostle of Jesus Christ). We could rework the above paragraph thusly:
So you cannot have Jesus without Paul according to this. If you drop Paul, then you drop Jesus. The implications of this are clear--the work of Christ is useless without Paul. This is, perhaps, one of the biggest tragedies of Protestantism, that it makes Jesus useless, without Paul.
The words of Christ Himself are rather instructive on this issue; speaking to His disciples:
"The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me." (Luke 10:16 NASB; cf. Matt 10:40)If we reject a true prophet/apostle of Christ, we are rejecting Christ Himself (and, by extension, God the Father). Ultimately, the question boils down to, not whether the LDS view of Joseph Smith results in an unhealthy elevation of Joseph and/or a denial of the efficacy of Christ's work of salvation (they clearly do not, as this paper shows), but whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.
[on JS-H 1:33] I have heard Mormons before use this as evidence for the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's ministry. Joseph being told by this angel that his name should be had for good and evil is confirmed in the mind of many a Mormon whenever someone speaks critically of Joseph. The problem is that anyone in history that has made bold claims can have this said of them. However here I think it is again used for the purpose of confirming Joseph as a Prophet.
I view the on-going fulfilment of Moroni's words to Joseph as something that is consistent with his being a prophet of God; I agree with Gilpin that this is not overwhelming evidence of Joseph Smith being a true prophet of God, as many historical figures have had both good and bad spoken of them throughout the world, so, I would view this as evidence, but not "proof" of Joseph as a prophet. However, Bobby does not dwell on this point, and neither will I (I myself never present this as evidence in favour of Joseph Smith, as I think there is better evidence for Latter-day Saint claims). I know Bobby is a fan of the “documentary” The Bible vs. Joseph Smith produced by “Source Flix” (PKA: Living Hope Ministries), a ministry of Joel Kramer et al. I helped research a paper that a friend, Stephen Smoot, wrote in response to this “documentary,” so here is a shameless plug for the paper:
The paper was written in 2010 and to this day, it has not been touched upon by Joel Kramer et al, and I can guarantee it will never be meaningfully interacted with. Further, this paper is a very sound presentation of many of the prophecies of Joseph Smith, a topic which is often given short-shrift by Evangelical critics of Joseph Smith as a prophet.
Kunzler, in his speech, gives a quote from Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses 7:289), which Bobby also replicates:
No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, Junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are—I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation.
Bobby then offers the following commentary:
I was blown away when I heard this, I think this is actually the first time I had heard this quote used by someone speaking in favour of the church, generally I have seen this used by critics and seen Apologists trying to explain it away. But here we have it, you do not get into the Celestial kingdom, or the presence of God, without the consent of Joseph. We see in 1 Timothy 2:5 in the New Testament that there is one mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus, again Jesus has been found to be insufficient without Joseph.
Again, we must ask, if someone rejects, say, Moses and Jude, as inspired prophets and apostles of God, can they be heirs of salvation? As we discussed earlier, if one knowingly rejects a truth of God, they are rejecting the entire gospel. Gal 1:6-9 is a great case study, as the Galatians added just one thing to the gospel, and for that reason were accursed (ἀνάθεμα) by Paul.
Furthermore, Brigham in his comment clearly limits Joseph’s role in the final judgment to those living within this dispensation and, is subordinated to the role Christ will play:
Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the vail in the great work of the last days...no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.... I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy...he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.... It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption. (JOD 2:289)
Joseph's function is subordinated to that of Christ ("[under the] direction . . . of the Son of God.”) Also, notice the high view of Christ Brigham held, as well as the subordinate role Joseph Smith played, in Brigham's theology:
I have taught for thirty years, and still teach, that he that believeth in his heart and confesseth with his mouth that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith is his Prophet to this generation, is of God; and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fulness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is antichrist. (JOD 9:312; emphasis added).
This issue has been dealt with rather cogently by many LDS apologists (see this page, for example). Perhaps in the future, Gilpin will interact meaningfully with LDS scholarship and apologetics on this and other issues he will discuss (that is if he wishes to be taken seriously by Latter-day Saints and is not merely engaging in “boundary control” [trying to scare off Evangelicals from investigating LDS claims]).
LDS apologists have often appealed to texts such as Matt 19:28 and its parallel in Luke 22:30, where Jesus promises the twelve a role in the eschatological judgement of the twelve tribes of Israel, similar to the role some early LDS leaders expected the Prophet Joseph Smith to play for those in this dispensation:
And Jesus and unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt 19:28)
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:30)
Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels--to say nothing of ordinary matters? (NRSV)
Methodist New Testament scholar, James D.G. Dunn, commenting on these texts and the theme of the apostles and the Saints playing a role in the eschatological judgment, wrote the following which I think LDS readers will greatly appreciate:
The exalted Jesus [promises the disciples a] sharing in divine functions, particularly that of judge: 'God will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed . . .' (Acts 17.31; similar Rom. 2.16); 'We must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ” (II Cor. 5.10). But here again the most striking parallel feature of the then current Enoch speculation is precisely the role attributed to Enoch in the final judgement . . .Enoch is linked with Elijah in this role in 1 Enoch 90.31 and the Apocalypse of Elijah 24.11-15. In 11 QMelchizedek, Melchizedek is depicted as a heavenly being—apparently the angelic leader ('elohim') of the holy ones who execute judgement on Belial and his host (lines 13-14). In the Testament of Abraham 11 and 13 Adam and Abel are shown in similarly exalted roles. Perhaps above all we need to recall that in our own texts first the twelve are said to be given share in the final judgement (Matthew 19.28/Luke 22.30—sitting on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel), and then the saints as a whole--'Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? . . .Do you know that we are to judge angels?' (I Cor. 6.2-3). (James D.G. Dunn, The Parting of the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity [2d ed.; London: SCM Press, 2006], 246).
If Latter-day Saints are guilty of an unhealthy view of Joseph Smith, the New Testament and Christ Himself are guilty of an unhealthy view of the apostles. Furthermore, the comment of Dunn shows that the attempt by some Evangelicals who try to “counter” the LDS appeal to Matt 19:28/Luke 22:30 as only legal, and not salvific eschatological judgment, have to engage in eisegesis. Furthermore, they would be in the unenviable position again of putting the Bible against itself, and positing that Christ and Paul were advocates of a theologically unhealthy veneration of the apostles and other mortals.
Furthermore, one has to wonder how Bobby would react to passages where mortal persons are said to have spiritually begotten believers? Would the apostle Paul fall under the same condemnation Bobby places under the Latter-day Saint view of Joseph Smith that is, depreciating the efficacy of the atoning work of Christ?
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. (1 Cor 4:15)
The underlying Greek of the phrase in bold is ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς ἐγέννησα. It is through the human instrumentality of the apostle Paul believers were begotten (εγεννησα the indicative aorist of γενναω, "I [Paul] have begotten [you]") through (δια) the gospel.
In Phlm 1:10, Paul wrote:
I beseech thee [Philemon] for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds.
Paul teaches that he (spiritually) fathered (εγεννησα "I have begotten") the slave Onesimus. Now, if Gilpin were consistent, he would be arguing that Paul was an anti-Christ, as he was clearly teaching "no salvation in Christ without Paul!" Of course, he won't be consistent, but that only shows how fallacious his hermeneutic is, as well as his approach to "Mormonism" is with respect to his own theology (inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument, after all). In reality, God uses human instrumentality, as well as other instruments, even in the meeting out of salvation and the efficacious benefits of the atonement, something that is consistent with both biblical and Latter-day Saint theology (e.g., as seen in the theology of baptism in Acts 2:38 [and all throughout the New Testament], where water baptism is the instrumental means of one having one’s sins remitted). This is entirely consistent with Latter-day Saint and biblical theology (cf. 2 Nephi 1:24; 3:24; Mosiah 23:30; 27:36; Alma 1:8; 2:30; 17:9, 11; 26:3, 15; 29:9; 35:14; 3 Nephi 22:16 D&C 111:2; 112:1 for expressions of this theological concept in uniquely LDS Scriptural texts). It is not a case of Jesus being insufficient; instead, it is following the entirety of biblical teaching on soteriology and related fields. On this score, Latter-day Saints are on firmer exegetical grounds biblically than Reformed Baptists, or at the very least, Bobby Gilpin.
With respect to 1 Tim 2:5, as I explained elsewhere with respect to its Christological and soteriological implications:
[T]his text poses a huge problem for Trinitarianism, as there is a differentiation, not just between the persons of the Father and the Son, but “God” (θεος) and the Son. Furthermore, let us examine this text and provide exegesis:
εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς.
There is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ (my translation)
The term translated as “mediator” is μεσιτης, and it is used in the New Testament corpus to refer to an individual who inaugurates a covenant, which is what Jesus did:
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator [Moses] (μεσιτης). Now a mediator is not a mediator (μεσιτης) of one, but God is one. (Gal 3:19-20)
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator (μεσιτης) of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (Heb 8:6)
And for this cause he is the mediator (μεσιτης) of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. (Heb 9:15)
And to Jesus the mediator (μεσιτης) of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. (Heb 12:24)
Louw and Nida (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains [2d ed.])offers the following definition of the term:
μεσίτης, ου m: (derivative of μεσιτεύω 'to bring about an agreement,' 31.21) one who causes or helps parties to come to an agreement, with the implication of guaranteeing the certainty of the arrangement - 'go between, mediator.' διαταγεὶς δι᾽ ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου '(the Law) was put into effect through angels by a mediator'
What Gilpin wants to read into this verse is that there is no need for human instruments helping people come closer to God, similar to Luther’s claims in 1520 in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church against the sacerdotal priesthood of Roman Catholicism, and continuing to the present in many Protestant circles. The problem is that the New Testament evidences the use of such instrumentality, consistent with the LDS concept of priesthood (e.g., Matt 16:16-19; 18:18; John 20:23; also, note the rather potent words of Paul in 1 Cor 4:15, "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel"), and there are a plethora of Old Testament prophecies about the New Covenant having an ordained, ministerial priesthood (e.g., Isa 66:18-22; Jer 33:17-22, as discussed in my paper on the NT evidence of a New Covenant priesthood). Gilpin is in the unenviable position of having to reject an ordained ministerial priesthood as part of the New Covenant which would mean if he was consistent, his rejecting Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other Old Testament prophets as false prophets.
At the end of his post, Gilpin makes the argument that, according to Latter-day Saints:
He [Joseph Smith] was without sin.
I would like to ask Bobby to substantiate this claim from LDS sources. Indeed, he is either grossly ignorant or very deceptive in making this point (I will give him the benefit of the doubt and vote for the former, not the latter), as official LDS sources portray Joseph Smith as a sinner, not someone who was free from sin. Notice the following from the Doctrine and Covenants:
And behold, how oft you [Joseph Smith] have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men. For, behold you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words. Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary and he would have been with you in every tie of trouble. Behold, though art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware, though wilt fall. (3:6-9)
And now I command you my servant Joseph, to repent and walk more uprightly before me, and to yield to the persuasions of men no more. (5:21)
Now, behold, I say unto you [Joseph Smith], that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them. And you also lost your gift at the same time, and your mind became darkened. Nevertheless, it is now restored unto you again; therefore, see that you are faithful and continue on unto the finishing of the remainder of the work of translation as you have begun . . . Pray always that you may come off conqueror; yea, that you may conquer Satan, and that you may escape the hands of the servants of Satan that do uphold his work. (10:1-3, 5)
And it was truly manifested unto this first elder [Joseph Smith] that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world; but after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness. (20:5-6)
Contra Bobby’s bald assertion, official LDS sources teach that Joseph Smith was not free from personal sin.
It would have only taken a cursory glance through the Doctrine and Covenants to have encountered these texts explicitly refuting Bobby’s contention of Joseph Smith being sinless per LDS theology. His shallow grasp of uniquely Latter-day Saint Scriptures is mirrored by his rather shallow grasp of the Bible and biblical exegesis. If he wishes to be taken more seriously by Latter-day Saints, he should try to become more acquainted with the relevant texts and scholarship, and demonstrate a knowledge thereof in any future writings and presentations on such issues.
Bobby did try to make the claim of Joseph being free from sin earlier in this post (but failed) by quoting Kunzler who stated:
"Joseph Smith declared, “I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I shall die innocent…” And he was innocent! “He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people.” He said, “…I do not the wrongs that I am charged with doing…Do you think that even Jesus, if He were here, would be without fault in your eyes? His enemies said all manner of evil against Him—they all watched for iniquity in Him.”
Bobby then offered the following comment:
So it seems that Joseph was completely without any flaws at all, and never sinned, or at least all accusations of sin are false, does that remind you of anyone? As it seems often with Joseph, the comparison is made, between him and Jesus. As the song "Praise to the man" says. "Endless is His Priesthood", "Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven." When you stand back and look at the things said of Joseph, you cant help but feel uncomfortable at times.
I am sorry that Bobby is “uncomfortable” with this, not because he is uneasy, but because this is a sure sign he is unregenerate and we should pray for him (the truth of God tends to make some people uneasy, especially within a system like Calvinism that ultimately makes God the author of sin). Be that as it may, Joseph’s comments were specifically about the false accusations made by him by his enemies vis-à-vis the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor and related accusations that led up to his murder in Carthage Jail as anyone would easily ascertain from the context (Kunzler is quoting from D&C 135 after all, a text eulogizing Joseph and Hyrum Smith after their deaths in Carthage!) Joseph never claimed to be sinless in this comment or any other comments he ever made. Bobby is not only guilty of eisegesis of the Bible, but eisegesis of Mormon literature too. Again, I will be generous and give him the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to poor exegetical and research skills and not deception, and hope that, in the future, he will interact more meaningfully with both the biblical data and LDS literature on these and similar issues.
Bobby then quotes Phil 1:20-26:
"20 According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death.21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.25 And having this confidence, I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith;26 That your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again."
He then offers this comment:
While it would be unfair to expect Paul to have mentioned Joseph at this point, as he was obviously not born yet and also not of this dispensation as Mormons would say. We can see that Paul had one vision in mind, Christ. Nothing else, no Prophet, no Priest no King, Other than Jesus who is really all of that anyway.
This is nothing but an argument from silence that could easily be turned on Bobby--indeed, in this pericope nothing is said of the Bible and its formal sufficiency, and yet that is a central tenet of Reformed theology (Sola Scriptura is the formal doctrine of the Reformation, although there is no sound exegetical biblical basis for this doctrine/practice); nothing is said about a host of doctrines and persons, so are we really meant to believe that this is meaningful evidence against LDS claims to authority? Nothing is said about the gospel and epistles of John--should we reject that, as, to paraphrase Bobby, "While it would be unfair to expect Paul to have mentioned John at this point, as he obviously did not write yet, we can see that Paul had one vision in mind, Christ. Nothing else, no gospel of John, no epistles of John, no Apocalypse of John." Only by being inconsistent can Bobby get away with such eisegetical and logical nonsense. While I oppose his theology vehemently, another Reformed Baptist and anti-Mormon, James R. White, quite rightly states in debates against Muslim apologists that "inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument." Hopefully, Bobby will listen to his fellow Reformed Baptist apologist and learn to be more consistent in his exegesis and logic.
In addition, this pericope is “kosher” to Latter-day Saints; after all, Paul lived when the gospel of Christ was still available in its pure form and had not been perverted to a point where it was readily unavailable to people, a gospel that is antithetical towards Bobby’s Reformed theology on issues such as Christology and baptism, as representative examples. This is only heightened by the fact that Paul foresees his death, and how he is addressing his current and future personal state; there is no dogmatic statement either approving or denouncing prophets arising after his death. Indeed, Paul wrote during a time of revelation; according to historical understandings of Sola Scriptura, such a principle is only operative when times of revelation had ceased. Absolutising (and eisegeting) the text as Gilpin is, one will have to hold the view that any revelation after the death of Paul is to be rejected (again, the gospel, epistles, and Apocalypse of John, among other texts, would have to be thrown out of the canon!) With the sentence “no Prophet, no Priest no King, Other than Jesus who is really all of that anyway,” there is no way that Bobby could be consistent and argue against someone who wishes to jettison the Bible, correct theology, the importance of the local Church (Bobby is Reformed, and they, to their credit, tend to have a higher ecclesiology than most within modern Evangelicalism), etc., and just have the “Me and Jesus, no need for anything else" type of Christianity? I would argue that he could not; I, as a Latter-day Saint, can be consistent in all these respects.
The rather ignorant protestations of many critics aside, Latter-day Saint theology is focused upon the person and work of Christ. As one representative example, from Joseph Smith himself:
The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121)
Additionally, note the following revelation from 1831 to Joseph Smith, showing the central role of Christ and His atoning sacrifice is to LDS soteriology, as well as Christ’s continual intercessory work for His people (cf. 1 John 2:1-2; Heb 7:24-25; Rom 8:34):
Listen to him [Christ] who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy son which was shed, the blood of him who thou gavest that thyself might be glorified. Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name that they may come unto me and have everlasting life. (D&C 45:3-5)
In the weekly religious service of Latter-day Saints, one partakes of the bread and water in remembrance of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, His resurrection, and His glorious final coming (parousia). Note the words of D&C 20:77, 79 (same as those in Moroni 4-5 in the Book of Mormon), which shows the Christo-centric (not Joseph-centric) soteriology of “Mormonism”:
O God the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen . . . O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember thee, that they may have his Spirit to be with them, Amen.
Commenting on these prayers, one of my favourite LDS theologians wrote:
These prayers of consecration are the most perfect forms of sacred literature to be found. So perfect they are that one may not add to them or take ought from them without marring them . . . these prayers of consecration form a rallying point—raise a standard that will make for the holding together in union and fellowship the followers of the Master, beyond all other formulas known to man; and for that purpose, beyond all doubt, were they given, as well as to call up to man's consciousness the sacrifice God made for man's redemption, and man's covenant to remember and to keep God's commandments, that he might always be in union with God. (B.H. Roberts, The Truth, the Way, the Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology, p. 443)
Further proving (1) that LDS theology is Christocentric and (2) that such is not a novelty in recent years can be seen from the following paragraph of a book, What Jesus Taught by Osborne J.P. Widtsoe (Deseret Book Company, 1926), p.326, which was published for the Deseret Sunday School Union and well before the time when critics claim the Church tried to become more "ecumenical":
The stone which the builders rejected has become the Christ, the Savior of the world. He is the Keystone of our salvation, He is our Master, our Teacher, our Friend. He has restored His Gospel to us with all its blessings and privileges. Him will we follow, and His commandments will we keep; for it was He Himself who said, “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”
Only by engaging in eisegesis, double-standards, engaging in logical fallacies, and ignorance of LDS theology, Scripture, and practice, can Bobby (and other critics) make the (false) claim that, implicitly, worship is given to Joseph Smith and/or Latter-day Saint theology is not truly centred on Christ (cf. my post, "Wilford Woodruff on the Necessity and Rationality of the Atonement")
Notwithstanding, on the other hand, Latter-day Saints have to realise how shocking our claims about Joseph Smith truly are—in fact, on the face of things, they are simply outrageous. Not only do we claim that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God who saw God and Jesus Christ, as well as numerous other heavenly beings; found ancient golden plates and translated them “by the gift and power of God” resulting in the Book of Mormon, as well as being the recipient of other authoritative scriptures, which alone is an affront to our modern secular society where metaphysical naturalism is the norm, but we would claim, to the horror of the so-called Christian world, that such events happened in space and time, and are not simply parables to instil in us a greater morality, and, furthermore, that they are part-and-parcel of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that Joseph Smith is just as much of a prophet and apostle of God as Isaiah, David, Peter, James, etc, and that the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are just as “God-breathed” (cf. 2 Tim 3:16) revelation as the Bible is. Of course, the message about Jesus is just as shocking (e.g., the idea that a bloodied, mutilated Jewish criminal’s death on a cross is somehow affecting salvation is preposterous on the face of things). In that respect, we have to understand and appreciate how truly difficult it is for many to accept our faith’s teachings about the person and work of Joseph Smith, though at the same time, not to shy away from them and to teach them forcefully and truthfully, though not to the detraction of the centrality of the Lord Jesus Christ.
As for the Gilpins of the world, I do have a final statement that will be shocking to them, but I do mean it with Christian love and sincerity—I truly hope and pray for the day when you can sing this hymn with me: