A friend alerted me to a video on Dave "no intellectual integrity" Bartosiewicz's youtube page, "A Must WATCH! SEE THE TRUTH BEHIND MORMONISM!": (update: it appears that the video has been made private)
This excerpt is from "Millions Shall Know Brother Joseph Again" by Jayson Kunzler, a business management faculty member at BYU-Idaho. One can access the entire talk here.
Dave, in his typical manner of "caught-you" argumentation, is trying to ignore engaging in exegesis and scholarship (which, not only is he incapable of engaging in, but avoids when confronted by informed opponents as our brief email exchange proved) by trying to show that Latter-day Saints have an unhealthy view of Joseph Smith, as well as one that depreciates the role of Jesus Christ in LDS soteriology. However, such an approach was also engaged in (more honestly, mind you) by Bobby Gilpin, a Reformed Baptist in the UK. To read my response to Bobby's interaction with Kunzler's talk and the various biblical and theological issues raised, see:
Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology
Now, if Dave were to be consistent (heaven forbid!), various biblical prophets and apostles would come under his anathema, too! For instance, glorified saints will receive worship (Rev 3:9, 21); Solomon received the same worship Yahweh received (1 Chron 29:20), and so forth. Furthermore, Paul et al. were said to be the instrumental means of the regeneration of others. Let me quote one excerpt from my response to Bobby Gilpin:
Something similar and just as potent is said by Paul in 1 Cor 6:2-3:
Instead of serving to show "Mormonism" to be anti-Christian and the like, Dave has only shown that he is both intellectually bankrupt and biblically inept.
This excerpt is from "Millions Shall Know Brother Joseph Again" by Jayson Kunzler, a business management faculty member at BYU-Idaho. One can access the entire talk here.
Dave, in his typical manner of "caught-you" argumentation, is trying to ignore engaging in exegesis and scholarship (which, not only is he incapable of engaging in, but avoids when confronted by informed opponents as our brief email exchange proved) by trying to show that Latter-day Saints have an unhealthy view of Joseph Smith, as well as one that depreciates the role of Jesus Christ in LDS soteriology. However, such an approach was also engaged in (more honestly, mind you) by Bobby Gilpin, a Reformed Baptist in the UK. To read my response to Bobby's interaction with Kunzler's talk and the various biblical and theological issues raised, see:
Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology
Now, if Dave were to be consistent (heaven forbid!), various biblical prophets and apostles would come under his anathema, too! For instance, glorified saints will receive worship (Rev 3:9, 21); Solomon received the same worship Yahweh received (1 Chron 29:20), and so forth. Furthermore, Paul et al. were said to be the instrumental means of the regeneration of others. Let me quote one excerpt from my response to Bobby Gilpin:
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 he 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.
Instead of serving to show "Mormonism" to be anti-Christian and the like, Dave has only shown that he is both intellectually bankrupt and biblically inept.