A talk from 41 years ago, but it still very very important, especially as how, in many quarters, the life of the unborn is diminished greatly if not outright denied:
Some say, as did the Supreme Court of the United States, that it is only a theory that human life is present from conception. This is contrary to insurmountable medical evidence. Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson recently revealed that he was among those who were militantly outspoken in favor of legalized abortion and joined in using every device available in political action to promote it. He helped set up and became director of the first and largest abortion clinic in the western world. After the center had performed some sixty thousand abortions, Dr. Nathanson resigned as director. He said, “I am deeply troubled by my own increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths. There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy.” (New England Journal of Medicine,vol. 291, no. 22, p. 1189.)
Way back in the sixteenth century, Arantius showed that maternal and fetal circulations were separate, thus clearly demonstrating that there are two separate lives involved. The unborn babe is certainly alive, because it possesses the token of life which is the ability to reproduce dying cells. (Dr. Eugene F. Diamond,Illinois Medical Journal,May 1967.)
For the unborn, only two possibilities are open: It can become a live human being or a dead unborn child.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, referring to the unborn babe in the mother’s womb, said, “The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being.”
Because she feels it, every mother knows there is sacred life in the body of her unborn babe. There is also life in the spirit, and some time before birth the body and the spirit are united. When they do come together, we have a human soul. For the Lord has said, “And the spirit and the body are the soul of man.” (D&C 88:15.)
Experts tell us that the necessity of terminating unborn life is rarely justified for purely medical or psychiatric reasons. (Dr. James H. Ford, M.D.,California Medical Journal,Nov. 1972, pp. 80–84.) Some justify abortions because the unborn may have been exposed to drugs or disease and may have birth defects. Where in all the world is the physically or mentally perfect man or woman? Is life not worth living unless it is free of handicaps? Experience in working with handicapped children would suggest that human nature frequently rises above its impediments and that in Shakespeare’s words, “They say best men are molded out of faults, And, for the most, become much more the better For being a little bad” (Measure for Measure,5, i, 445) in the physical sense. (transcript)
Joseph Smith receiving the plates from the angel Moroni
Today is the 189th anniversary of Joseph Smith receiving the golden plates from the angel Moroni. Interestingly, the appearance of the angel Moroni to the prophet Joseph Smith during 21/22 September 1823-1827 coincides with a number of important Jewish festivals, and 22 September 1827 itself coincided with Rosh Hashanah (the Feast of Trumpets).
Book of Mormon Central has an interesting article on this issue, with a youtube video summarising the article:
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 (seethis 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)
Something similar and just as potent is said by Paul in 1 Cor 6:2-3:
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). Buthereagainthe 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 in1 Enoch90.31 and theApocalypse of Elijah24.11-15. 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 theTestament of Abraham11 and13Adam 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 younot knowthat 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:
Thereisone God and onemediatorbetween 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 toJesusthe 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,ουm: (derivative ofμεσιτεύω'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.'διαταγεὶςδι᾽ἀγγέλωνἐνχειρὶμεσίτου'(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 inThe Babylonian Captivity of the Churchagainst 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 wouldmean 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.
Plates would "never perish" or be "dimmed any more by time." (1 Ne 5:18-19)
. . .
Conclusion
For all the importance which was attached to the brass plates, and in light of the prophecies about how they will never be "dimmed by time" but rather "go forth," containing all the prophets and prophecies not included in our present Bible, it seems that the brass plates have utterly failed in their modern mission. It does not even appear that these scriptures were known by any of Lehi's descendants (supposedly the Native Americans) after the Nephites disappeared about 420 AD. They are gone. Not even the modern prophets of the Mormon church can tell you where they are, or give details about what they contain. Apparently they were not so important, after all.
Packham is guilty of eisegesis of the relevant texts. Here is 1 Nephi 5:17-19:
And now when my father saw all these things, he was filled with the Spirit, and began to prophesy concerning his seed—That these plates of brass should go forth unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who were of his seed. Wherefore, he said that these plates o brass should never perish; neither should they be dimmed ay more by time. And he prophesied many things concerning his seed.
Commenting on this pericope, LDS scholar, Brant Gardner, noted:
The effect of reading the scriptures had a profound effect on Lehi, prompting him to prophesy. Interestingly, Nephi limits his record of that prophecy to the plates themselves. Surely what Lehi had to say about his seed (v. 19) would be more interesting to Nephi than a general prophecy about the effect of the brass plates. Nevertheless, all his records is that the plates would “go forth unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who were of his seed.” This prophecy is apparently directed at the Nephites, rather than at modern recipients of the Book of Mormon, although that new book would surely continue the prophecy of delivering the words (or at least some of those absent from the biblical canon) to all nations.
The reference that the plates “should [not] be dimmed any more by time” may suggest that Laban and previous keepers had not been diligent. The specific reference to being “dimmed” by time may mean that the words on the plates would be preserved and be brightly present in his descendants’ mind, in contrast to Lehi’s lack of specific knowledge of the plates’ contents. Jeffrey R. Chadwick suggests that this statement may be directly related to the metallurgical expertise Nephi shared with his father:
Lehi predicts that the “plates of brass should never perish; neither should they be dimmed any more by time”—a surprisingly accurate statement that could probably be made only by a person experienced with the properties of copper-based alloys like bronze and brass (bronze is a combination of copper and tin, and brass a combination of copper and zinc). Whereas iron, the hardest metal of Lehi’s day (it could even be hardened into steel by Lehi’s time), will oxidize and rust away over time if neglected, copper alloys such as bronze and brass will not. Even the most damp conditions will not cause plates of copper to “perish.” And while it is possible over time for bronze or brass items to be “dimmed . . . by time” with a greenish or greyish patina, even minimal maintenance on a regular basis would prevent this. (Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “Lehi’s House at Jerusalem and the Land of His Inheritance,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, edited by John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, and Jo Ann H. Seely [Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2004], 114).
A reference to this brilliance may have become metaphorical. When Alma2 entrusts the plates to his son Helaman, he notes:
Behold, it has been prophesied by our fathers, that they should be kept and handed down from one generation to another, and be kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord until they should go forth unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, that they shall know of the mysteries contained thereon. And now behold, if they are kept they must retain their brightness, yea, and they will retain their brightness; yea, and also shall all the plates which do contain that which is holy writ. (Alma 37:4-5)
Alma provides the same essential information about the brass plates as Nephi: they must be preserved; they are to go to all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples; and they “must retain their brightness.” Thus, this “brightness” again suggests that they do not tarnish (are not dimmed by age). The close resemblance of this wording to Lehi’s prophecy confirms that Alma knew the prophecy as a keeper of the plates. Of course, on one level the plates would remain untarnished because their keepers cleaned them regularly, but whether literal or metaphoric, such “brightness” was assured because of the plates’ sacred content. Whether achieved by physical or spiritual means, the plates’ brightness symbolized the eternal value of their contents. (Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007], 1:135-36)
This link leads to an excellent BYU-Idaho Devotional (both video and transcription are available) by Sheri Dew. It is a very good discussion of dealing with dealing with seeking answers to questions, dealing with doubt, and so forth. She also urges one to defend the faith (as an apologist, I am totally down with that!) and even deals with current "hot button" topics, such as the controversial gay parents policy.
While this passage may mention the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it does not, however, teach that these are divisions within the Godhead. We find no declaration in this verse that the Father is true God, the Holy Spirit is true God, and the Son is true God, and that all three exist as co-eternal, co-equal members of the same being. If Matthew 28:19 is left as it is, what we have is the instruction of Jesus to baptize in the authority of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
The Jewish crowds in Jerusalem had recognized that Jesus was the king of Israel who came “in the name of Yahweh” (Matt 21:9), that is, that he was coming to them with God’s authority. Similarly, about the angel who wielded God’s authority in Exodus 23:21, God said “my name is in him.” The phrase “in the name of” actually appears several times in Matthew as a reference to a given subject’s authority: “Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?” (Matt 7:22). The authority into which one is baptized need not be God; Paul states that the Israelites “were all baptized into Moses” (1 Cor 10:2), or, by the authority that Moses’ name carries. Jesus’ prescription to baptize in the authority of both the Father and the Son, and also in the authority carried by the Holy Spirit, is similar to a police officer commanding someone to stop “in the name of the Law,” or by the authority that the Law carries. There is no clear and necessary Trinity here. (Kegan A. Chandler, The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma: The Recovery of New Testament Theology [McDonough, Ga.: Restoration Fellowship, 2016], 343)
For Gospel Doctrine teachers and others, this is a very nice resource to bookmark and reference as each page links to various youtube videos and articles from Book of Mormon Central.
