Dave Bartosiewicz embarrasses himself on the topic of "Mormonism"

Dave Bartosiewicz continues to embarrass himself yet again, this time on the issue of Jesus and Satan in LDS theology and some miscellaneous issues. Here is his recent video:

On the Pre-Existence of All People (not just Jesus)

While it is true that Protestants and other "orthodox" Christians believe personal pre-existence was only something Jesus experienced, such causes Christological and anthropological problems for Dave and his theology. In reality, Latter-day Saint theology is perfectly consistent on this score. Indeed, manyTrinitarian scholars are forced to admit that one cannot speak of “Jesus pre-existing unless pre-existence is normative of what it means to be “human.” Much work has been done in recent years in what is called, “Spirit Christology,” focusing on what precedes “Jesus”—the Word in John 1—as God. What follows are two quotes from leading studies on this issue, and how only holding that all humans, not just Jesus, pre-existing can one speak of the “pre-existence of Jesus.”

The first comes from Bernard Byrne, "Christ's Pre-existence in Pauline Soteriology," Theological Studies, June 1997, 58/2:

By the same token, it is important to stress that in speaking of pre-existence, one is not speaking of a pre-existence of Jesus' humanity. Jesus Christ did not personally pre-exist as Jesus. Hence one ought not to speak of a pre-existence of Jesus. Even to use the customary expression of the pre-existence of Christ can be misleading since the word "Christ" in its original meaning simply designates the Jewish Messiah, a figure never thought of as pre-existent in any personal sense. But in view of the Christian application of "Christ" to Jesus, virtually as a proper name and in a way going beyond his historical earthly existence, it is appropriate to discuss the issue in terms of the pre-existence of Christ, provided one intended thereby to designate simply the subject who came to historical human existence as Jesus, without any connotation that he pre-existed as a human being.

The second comes from Roger Haight, "The Case for Spirit Christology," Theological Studies, June 1992, 53/2 (emphasis added)

And with the clarity that historical consciousness has conferred relative to Jesus' being a human being in all things substantially like us, many things about the meaning of Incarnation too can be clarified. One is that one cannot really think of a pre-existence of Jesus . . . But one cannot think in terms of the pre-existence of Jesus; what is pre-existent to Jesus is God, and the God who became incarnate in Jesus. Doctrine underscores the obvious here that Jesus is really a creature like us, and a creature cannot pre-exist creation. One may speculate on how Jesus might have been present to God's eternal intentions and so on, but a strict pre-existence of Jesus to his earthly existence is contradictory to his consubtantiality with us, unless we too were pre-existent.

LDS theology, which holds that personal, conscious pre-existence is normative of the human condition, can engage in a Spirit Christology more than other Christologies that have developed since New Testament times, such as various Arian and Trinitarian Christologies, as a result of this notion, and so, "Jesus" as a personal being and a chosen Messiah could pre-exist both as man and as the second member of the Godhead.

Jesus did not create Satan

In Job 1:6, we read the following:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

In this text, Satan is presented as being among the “Sons of God” (בני האלהים) This can be seen in the verb יצב (to take [their] stand/position”) and that Satan is said to be in their “midst,” that is, he belongs among their ranks, clearly demonstrating that the theology of Job holds to a “Satan” who has real, ontological existence, in contradistinction to some Christadelphian interpretation of the "Satan" texts in Job. When one examines the phrase, “among them” (KJV), one finds that the Hebrew is a phrase consisting of the prefixed preposition (בְּ) meaning “in/among” and (תָּוֶךְ). When one examines the other instances of this phrase in the Hebrew Bible, it denotes someone being a member of a group, not independent thereof (e.g., Exo 28:33; Lev 17:8, 10, 13; Num 1:47; 5:3; 15:26, 29, etc.); indeed, commentators such as David J.A. Clines states that the phrase regularly denotes membership of the group in question (See Clines, Job 1-20 [Word Biblical Commentary, 1989], 19). The bare term תָּוֶךְ also denotes membership, not independence, of the group in question (cf. Gen 23:10; 40:20; 2 Kgs 4:13).

Furthermore, the "Satan" in Job 1:6, in Hebrew, is not just the bare term (שָׂטָן), meaning an "adversary," which, in and of itself, can denote anyone who opposes another, whether divine or not (e.g., the angel of the Lord is referred to as an adversary or שָׂטָן in Num 22:22), but is coupled with the definite article (השטן), “the satan,” which denotes the supernatural tempter (cf. Zech 3:2); one should compare this with similar Greek locutions in the LXX and NT such as such as ο σατανας (Sirach 21:27; Matt 12:26; Mark 3:26; 4:15; Luke 10:18; 11:18; 13:16; 22:31; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; Rom 16:20; 1 cor 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14; 1 Thess 2:18; 2 Thess 2:9; 1 Tim 1:20; 5:15; Rev 2:9, 13, 24; 3:9; 12:9; 20:2, 7); ο διαβολος (Matt 4:1,5,8,11; 13:39; 25:41; Luke 4:2,3,6,13; 8:12; John 8:44; 13:2; Acts 10:38; Eph 4:27; 6:11; 1 Tim 3:6, 7; 2 Tim 2:26; Heb 2:14; James 4:7; 1 John 3:8, 10; Jude 1:9; Rev 2:10; 12:12; 20:10) and ο πειραζω (Matt 4:3; 1 Thess 3:5), all denoting the external, supernatural tempter in most of Christian theologies (some small groups denying a supernatural Satan notwithstanding).

Why is this significant? One popular charge is that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus and Satan are “brothers.” Left on its own, it is shocking and seen as blasphemous. However, leaving this on its own, with no explanation, is “yellow journalism.”

In Latter-day Saint Christology Christ has existed for all eternity; many critics claim that LDS theology is reflective of Arianism or some other Christology, but that is a non sequitur. D&C 93:21 and other texts affirm that Christ has existed eternally. Notice the “high Christology” of the following two passages from uniquely LDS scriptural texts (more could be reproduced):

And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he [Christ] is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Alma 11:39)

I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord, yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world. (D&C 19:1)

In LDS theology, properly stated (and not the caricature one finds in works such as The God Makers and other presentations thereof) states we all pre-existed as the spirit sons and daughters of God. In that sense, we are all brothers/sisters of Jesus. However, Job 1:6 proves, unless one is a Christadelphian or some other similar group, “the Satan” is one of the “sons of God,” that is, a member of the heavenly court, one of whom was Yahweh. Note Deut 32:7-9 from the NRSV, reflecting the Qumran reading (see this blog post reproducing what a recent scholarly commentary has to say about this important pericope):

Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the Lord's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.

While much more could be said, it should be noted that, as with so many beliefs, it is Latter-day Saint theology, not Evangelical theology, that is supported by biblical exegesis.

Some may ask about Ezek 28, which is touted as a "proof-text" against such a tenet of LDS theology. According to pp.100-101 of this anti-LDS book:

Mormon men say that Lucifer is the brother of Jesus . . . In contrast, the Bible describes Satan (Lucifer) as a created angelic being.

"You (Lucifer) were in the Eden, the garden of God . . . on the day you were created . . . you were the anointed cherub . . . you were blameless in your ways from the day you were created until righteousness was found in you . . . your heart was lifted up . . . you corrupted your wisdom." (Ezekiel 28:13, 15, 17)

Isaiah 14 presents a taunt directed to the king of Babylon; verses 12-15 derive from an early North West Semitic tradition of a god in the divine council who attempts to usurp the throne of the high deity; see the evidence provided in Mark R. Shipp's Of Dead Kings and Dirges: Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b-21 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002). Biblical scholar Michael Heiser goes so far as to suggest that the reading can be entirely correlated with the Baal-Athtar myth from Ugarit. See Michael S. Heiser, The mythological provenance of Isa. xiv 12-15: a reconsideration of the Ugaritic material, Vetus Testamentum 51 (2001): 354-369. Further, see LDS apologist, Ben McGuire’s article on this issue, “Lucifer and Satan.”

Furthermore, the authors are assuming, when one encounters the concept of “creation,” that it means creation out of nothing (creatio ex materia); however, this is false. For the ancients, God created from pre-existing material. Representative of such scholarship, see Thomas Oord, "An Open Theology Doctrine of Creation and the Solution to the Problem of Evil," in Oord, ed. Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science (Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2009), pp. 28-52; Oord, ed. Theologies of Creation: Creatio Ex Nihilo and Its New Rivals (Routledge, 2014); Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo (T&T Clark, 2004) and Blake Ostler's seminal essay, “Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought.”

We even see this in the verb Ezek 28 uses for the “creation” of the king of Tyre ברא.Notice how it is used elsewhere:

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. (Isa 65:17-18; emphasis added)

What is interesting to note in this particular passage is that the term does not have the subtext “out of nothing,” (ex nihilo) but instead, “from pre-existing material (ex materia), as the New Creation will come from a regeneration of this present creation, not one that is generated/created ex nihilo. For a further discussion of creation ex materia, see my review of Thomas Oord’s essay that was referenced above here. Even conservative Evangelicals are forced to admit this:

The root בָּרָא, Genesis 1, or creation by the word (contra Foerster) cannot explicitly communicate a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. (VanGemeren, W. (Ed.). (1997). New international dictionary of Old Testament theology & exegesis (Vol. 1, p. 732). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.)

As one commentator on the book of Genesis stated:

If this is correct—and there is no other convincing attempt to trace the derivation of ברא—then the Priestly ברא is based on a concrete idea, something like יצר. We do not know if the word was used of creation by God in this concrete sense before Deutero-Isaiah and P. One must be cautious about attributing too much to the word as if it could of itself say something about the uniqueness of the creative act of God. It is clear that it was P’s intention to use a special theological word for creation by God. But it is not correct to regard this word as the only one and to neglect such words as עשׂה or יצר. Nor is it correct to read creatio ex nihilo out of the word as such as, for example, does P. Heinisch: “If not always, then for the most part, the word indicates creatio ex nihilo.” On the other hand A. Heidel is correct: “This concept (creatio ex nihilo), however, cannot be deduced from the Hebrew verb bārāʾ, to create, as it has been done.… There is no conclusive evidence in the entire Old Testament that the verb itself ever expresses the idea of a creation out of nothing,” p. 89. (Westermann, C. (1994). A Continental Commentary: Genesis 1–11 (pp. 99–100). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.)

The critic is out in left field concerning (1) LDS Christology in general and (2) the issue of Satan and Jesus (and all of us) being "spiritual brothers" (their presentation of this is nothing short of yellow journalism). See my article, The "Mormon Jesus" being a "Spirit Brother" of Satan--what the Bible really says for a refutation of this charge, showing the Bible supports Latter-day Saint theology on this matter.

More importantly for this discussion, the critic is guilty of eisegesis of Ezek 28.

Firstly, it is commonly believed that Satan fell from heaven into Eden, or that he gained access to Eden in order to tempt Adam and Eve, but this text says that the person in view was in Eden before he sinned, and only cast out after he sinned. Further, as Duncan Heaster notes:

“Thou hast been in Eden”, refers to where the king of Tyre was in place, not in time. Pharaoh and Assyria are similarly described as being a “cedar in Lebanon”, no “tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty...all the trees of Eden envied him...yet shalt thou be brought down with the trees of Eden unto the nether parts of the earth: thou shalt lie in the midst of the uncircumcised” (Ez. 31:2,3,8,9,16,18). Thus "You have been in Eden" has similarities with the language used by Ezekiel about Egypt in Ez. 31. Egypt is described in language which recalls the trees in the garden of Eden, watered by many waters- and then cut down. In the same way as the Garden of Eden was ended, so would Egypt be.

The trees in Eden are not to be taken literally, they represent the nations whom Pharaoh and Assyria conquered, possibly referring to the fact that they were all within the old geographical boundaries of the garden of Eden. Pharaoh being the greatest of the trees in Eden and the most appealing maybe, suggests that he was taking to himself the place of the tree of knowledge, which was in the midst of Eden and probably the most attractive of them all, seeing that it fascinated Eve so much with its tempting fruit. Pharaoh was not literally that tree, but in the parable he was making himself like it. Similarly the king of Tyre is likened in this parable to the cherubim in Eden.

In reality, competent biblical scholars reject the idea that Satan before his fall is in view in Ezek 28, to the critic’s use of this passage rests on eisegesis, not sound exegesis. Notice the following:

Direct equation of Eden with the garden of God (gan-ʾĕlōhı̂m) is found in Ezek 28:13. Here the king of Tyre is described residing in Eden, the garden of God, enjoying its privileges, and exhibiting a life commensurate with that until iniquity is found in him (v 15). He is then driven out to die without dignity on earth (vv 17–19). Equation of Eden with the garden of God is also found in Ezek 31:8–9 in an oracle describing the pharaoh of Egypt as a mighty and splendid tree with its top in the clouds and its roots watered by subterranean springs. It was luxuriant and provided shelter for animals and birds (vv 3–7). !e trees of Eden which were “in the garden of God” were jealous of it (v 9). Further reference is made to the trees of Eden in the subsequent oracles speaking of the downfall of the pharaoh (vv 16–18) . . . Some scholars have argued that the oracles of Ezekiel 28 and 31 show direct literary dependence on the Eden narrative of Genesis 2–3. Certainly some motifs are held in common (the magnificent trees, the rebellion against God and subsequent expulsion, wisdom, precious stones, cherubim, and fire) and the oracles reveal some knowledge of the Eden tradition, but the stories also show marked differences. It is easier to assume that the Ezekiel passages come from a fluid oral tradition, and while they have drawn on the same theme and used some of the same motifs, they nevertheless have been composed independently of Genesis 2–3. (Howard N. Wallace, "Eden, Garden of" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary)

According to another source:

28.11-19: Dirge for the king of Tyre. While it was the “ruler” who was condemned in vv.1-10, here the lament is for the king. This prophecy is to be understood against the background of the king of Tyre being in a bejewelled Garden of Eden. References to the Garden of Eden are very rare outside of Gen. chs 2-3. The king boats of his wisdom and beauty, qualities that the ancient Near Eastern kings were expected to have. 12: Seal of perfection, a unique expression, here is a sign of royal authority. 13-15: Ezekiel employs the imagery of the Garden of Eden story to describe the Tyrian king’s downfall. 14: He employs the imagery of the cherub to stress the Tyrian king’s power and high position. The once perfect creature is shown to have sinned and therefore was struck down. (The Jewish Study Bible [2d ed; Oxford, 2014], 1084)

Even scholars who tie Ezek 28 back to the “serpent” in Eden will admit that the King of Tyre is not Satan before his fall. See, for instance:

Michael S. Heiser, The Nachash and His Seed: Some Explanatory Notes on Why the "Serpent" in Genesis 3 Wasn't a Serpent

Some disagree that this refers to the serpent, and believe that it instead refers to Adam (but still in the Garden of Eden which is clearly identified here in Ezekiel). In this case, to harmonize with the language of divinity, it would be asserted that Adam was divine in some way before his fall. At any rate, we have part of the narrative of Ezekiel's oracle referring to the King of Tyre and part of it referring to one of these two beings in the Garden of Eden - and then a comparison between the two of them. Adam/the Serpent lose their glory when they are expelled from the Garden. So too, the King of Tyre will lose his glory and will come to a horrible end in the eyes of all the nations, as a just repayment for his sins - so too was Adam/the serpent's punishment just.

On this, Old Testament scholar Dexter E. Callender, jr. wrote:

In Ezek 28:11-19 we encounter a presentation of the primal human that is fundamentally different from what we observed in the traditions of Genesis. It is a prophetic oracle built on allusions to the primal human. In it, mythological elements are invoked to make a point. The primal human becomes an expression of another protagonist—the king of Tyre, the putative focal point of the oracle. The text tells us something of the myth of the primal human in an indirect way. Here the primal human is not cast within simple linear history, or as the past progenitor of humanity responsible for the ills of the race. Rather, he emerges in the mind of the trident as a mythical paradigm whose identity coalesces with that of the Tyrian monarch. The king of Tyre is not simply “like” the primal human, he is the primal human . . . . Verses 12-14 describe the glorious exalted state of the primal human. There are some difficulties in the language that present obvious problems, but the state of exaltation is nonetheless clear. The information given in these verses suggests both royal and priestly imagery. The picture I believe we are given is that of the primal human, endowed at his creation with royal and priestly accoutrements, a common topos in the ancient Near East. As in the Genesis 2-3 account, the primal human is set within the context of the divine habitation and cohabits with the divine . . . The phrase ba’eden gan ‘eolhim hayita in v. 13 is obviously reminiscent of the Genesis 2-3 narrative . . . Eden represents the divine abode. Just as in the first oracle of Ezek 28:1-10, so here the protagonist is placed in the divine habitation. It was referred to as the seat or dwelling of the gods in 28:2, and here it is referred to as Eden, the garden of God. The phrase may also be translated ‘garden of the gods’ or ‘divine garden’. But this location is also called har qodesh ‘elohim, ‘the holy mountain of God’ in v. 14 and har ‘elohim ‘the mountain of God’ in v. 16; the garden and the mountain are equated as the divine habitation. There is, no doubt, significance in the fact that the protagonist is stated to be in the divine habitation: the protagonist was a human living in a divine place—a situation identical to that presented in the first oracle in 28:1-10.(Dexter E. Callender, Jr. Adam in Myth and History: Ancient Israelite Perspectives on the Primal Human [Harvard Semitic Studies 48; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000], 87, 90, 100)

Concluding the discussion of Ezek 28, the author writes:

The theme of conflict between God and the primordial being is perhaps the most recognizable of the elements in the text. In this oracle, the conflict stems from the figure’s location and relation to divinity, particularly with respect to wisdom. The conflict is explicitly called ‘sin’ and is represented in the abuse of wisdom.

The misdeed leads to the primal human’s expulsion from the divine abode, and death. The imagery is much like that found in Genesis 3. He is expelled (‘profaned’) from the holy mountain of God—a place also referred to as Eden, the garden of God—and driven out (literally ‘made to perish from’) the divine beings . . . Eze 28:11-19 reveals a structure that features a contrast of states or conditions and it is this contrast, reiterated several times over, that captures the essence of the conflict. (Ibid., 135)

Interestingly, on Ezek 28:14, Callender notes that:

There are two traditions in 28:14 with regard to the identity of the cherub. The consonantal text is ambiguous regarding the relationship between the primal human and the cherub. The Masoretic pointing suggests quite clearly that the cherub and the first human figure are one and the same. The Greek and Syriac suggests that the phrase ‘att kerub ‘you were the cherub’ should probably be read ‘et-kerub ‘(you were) with the cherub’. What is more, the tradition preserved in Gen 3:24 seems quite clearly to make a distinction between human and cherub. Because of the Greek and Syriac witnesses and Gen 3:24, I have adopted the reading ‘I placed you with the anointed cherub’. (Ibid., 109)

Notwithstanding, it is clear that this attack on Latter-day Saint theology, as with so many arguments, greatly misses the mark and shows our critics to be poor exegetes of the Bible. There is nothing in Ezek 28 that is in conflict with “Mormon” theology.

On Col 1:15-20, one should read my exegesis of the text in my article, Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism"

Bartosiewicz on the atonement

Dave continues to spew the time-worn Protestant view of the atonement by saying that Christ paid for our sins--i.e., Penal Substitution. In reality, such is a heretical view of the atonement. Such has been refuted time and time again, and Dave knows this, so he is again guilty, not just of lousy exegesis, but deception. See, for e.g., Why Latter-day Saints cannot believe Evangelical Protestantism is True: A Response to Dave Bartosiewicz which features a full exegesis of John 19:30 and other pertinent texts.

The statue of Moroni on many LDS Temples: An idol?

Further proving how way off in left field Dave is, he argues that the statue of the angel Moroni that adorns many LDS temples is an idol, similar to the Golden Calf. This is nothing but sheer stupidity. If it came from anyone else, I would be surprised--it being Bartosiewicz, it is par for the course.

Firstly, with respect to the Decalogue/Ten Commandments in Exo 20:4-5 (cf. Deut 5:8-9), we read the following:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

This pericope is not against the making of images per se, but their use in religious devotion, such as one bowing down to them (חוה) and serving them (עבד). That this is the case can be seen throughout the Torah itself, such as God commanding Moses to forge the brazen serpent and His using it as an instrumental means of saving the Israelites from their ordeal in the wilderness (Num 21:8-9), which the author of the Gospel of John uses as a type of Jesus Christ (John 3:14-17). Furthermore, in the historical books of the Old Testament, we read of how God commanded Solomon to make statues which would be within the temple (cf. 1 Kgs 6-8). However, such was proper as they were never the recipients of worship, and when they were, the “orthodox” response of the time was to destroy them due to the idolatry attached thereto (in the case of the serpent, it was destroyed during Hezekiah’s reforms [2 Kgs 18:4]). The LDS practice is consistent with the biblical witness—the images of Moroni adorning most LDS temples and the paintings depicting scenes in the life of Christ one finds in LDS chapels and homes, for instance, are never given veneration by members of the Church.

In the New Covenant, there are two “images” that are allowed explicitly by Jesus, namely the bread and wine (in modern LDS practice, water) that represent his body and blood as potent reminders of His atoning sacrifice (Matt 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-27). However, there is no evidence that that the bread/wine, even after consecration were the recipients of worship/veneration, notwithstanding the claims of the Council of Trent commanding such Eucharistic adoration. When one examines the Greek grammar of these texts, they support the “symbolic” understanding of the Lord’s Supper.

Within early Christianity, there was an allowance for images, but again, only if they were not given any worship, such as stylised manuscripts, chalices with carvings, and even paintings. For a good historical analysis, see the work of Eastern Orthodox scholar, Stephen Bigham, Early Christian Attitudes Towards Images. To be sure, there were some early Christian writers who were totally opposed to any images whatsoever. Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid, is forced to admit that Epiphanius (a father often abused to “prove” the assumption of Mary was known in the late fourth century) was, according to modern Catholic theology, heterodox in his views:

[Epiphanius] was not free from all error . . .[as] revealed by his fanatical opposition to icons. (Patrick Madrid, Any Friend of God’s is a Friend of Mine: A Biblical and Historical Explanation of the Catholic Doctrine of the Communion of Saints, 114).

Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, stated the following, showing the late development of Catholic dogma of the veneration of images (which would become defined at the Second Council of Nicea in 787):

Owing to the influence of the Old Testament prohibition of images, Christian veneration of images developed only after the victory of the Church over paganism. The Synod of Elvira (about 306) still prohibited figurative representations in the houses of God (Can. 36). The original purpose of the images was that of instruction. The veneration of images (by kissing, bowing down before them, burning of candles, incensing) chiefly developed in the Greek Church from the fifth to the seventh centuries. The Iconoclasts of the eighth and ninth centuries saw in the veneration of images a relapse into paganism. Against them St. John Damascene (died 749), the Patriarchs Germanus (died 733) and Nicephorus (died 829) of Constantinople and the Abbot Theodor of Studium (died 826) defended the Church practice. They stressed above all the relative character of the veneration and also pointed out the educational value of the images. (Ludwig Ott, The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 320-21)

The Council of Trent in 1563, emphasising the teachings of Second Nicea, stated:

The holy Synod commands all bishops and others who hold the office of teaching and its administration, that in accordance with the usage of the Catholic and apostolic Church, received from primeval times of the Christian religion, and with the consensus of opinion of the holy Fathers and the decrees of sacred Councils, they above all diligently instruct the faithful on the intercession and invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the legitimate use of images, teaching them that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for men; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly (DS 984)

Interestingly, Trent (and Second Nicea) are incorrect with respect to the so-called unanimous consent of the Fathers on this issue. Note the following quotes which are representative of the understanding of images by the early Christians (the following are only representative examples):

Clement, Stromata, Book II, XVIII: "The Law itself exhibits justice. it teaches wisdom by abstinence from the visible images and by inviting us to the Maker and Father of the universe." Ibid., Book V, V: "[Because God does not want us] to cling to things of sense . . .For familiarity with the sense of sight disparages the reverence of what is divine."

Origen, Against Celsus, 7.4-5: "The Scythians, the nomadic Libyans, the godless Seres, and the Persians agree in this [rejection of images] with the Christians and Jews. However, they are actuated by very different principles . . .For none of these other group abhor altars and images on the ground that they are afraid of degrading the worship of God and reducing it to the worship of material things."

Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, Book II, II: "What madness is it, then, either to form those objects that they themselves may afterwards fear, or to fear the things they have formed? However, they say, 'We do not fear the images themselves, but those beings after whose likeness they were formed and to whose names they are dedicated.' No doubt you fear them for this reason: because you think they are in heaven." Ibid. "So why then [since you think they are in heaven], do you not raise your eyes to heaven? Why do you not invoke their names and offer sacrifices in the open air? Why do you look to walls, wood, and stone--rather than to the place where you believe them to be? What is the meaning of temples and altars? What, in short, is the meaning of the images themselves, which are memorials either of the dead or of the absent?"

Notice that these authors were not just arguing against the use of images, but also that the veneration one gives to the images ultimately is given, not to the image, but to the heavenly prototype, which is part-and-parcel of Catholic dogmatic theology on this issue. The Catholic apologist is in the unenviable position of having to defend a dogma that is absolutely unknown to the biblical authors; is condemned as idolatrous by these very same authors, and furthermore, goes against the writers of the early Christian authors. Furthermore, it shows that Rome’s claims to infallibility on this issue, when held to the bar of both Scripture and history, are found wanting on this issue and so many other issues (e.g. the entirety of the Marian Dogmas).  To see the Catholic inability to argue for their position from Scripture and so-called “tradition,” see this exchange between Robert Sungenis (RCC) and Eric D. Svendsen (Reformed) on the veneration of images here.

Interestingly, Martin Luther, while opposing the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) understanding of images, equally opposed those who were “image-breakers” (Iconoclasts); see, for instance, his work against Andreas Karlstadt et al. from 1525, “Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments.” One can find an online edition here or consult pp. 153-301 of The Selected Works of Martin Luther, Volume 3: 1523-1526, ed. Theodore G. Tappert. I reference Luther, not because I am a huge fan of him (I am not), but because it shows that one can hold a balanced view of images; not the "all-or-nothing" approach one finds within the polemics about the propriety or lack thereof of the veneration of images (i.e. if you don't venerate images you automatically must hold to Iconoclasm).

Overall, the Latter-day Saint attitude towards images is consistent with the witness of both the Bible and earliest Christian commentators on this particular issue. While not a teaching unique to either Joseph Smith’s time period or even in the modern era, it is another (albeit, small) piece of evidence consistent with the Latter-day Saint claim to be a Restoration of New Testament Christianity. Furthermore, Bartosiewicz' arguments on this point, among others, are, well, nonsense (no surprise there).

UPDATE: Dave, after this video, would convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, so his "arguments" against the statue of the angel Moroni adorning most LDS temples would result in his veneration of icons being labelled truly repugnant and idolatrous by Dave when he made this video!

I could go on, but it is again evident that Bartosiewicz is ignorant and deceptive on the topic of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do pray that he will repent of his false gospel and lies before it is too late (cf. Rev 21:8).