Hebrews 8 and Plato
 

The writer of Hebrews seems to be advancing a platonic argument against the need for an earthly sanctuary (such as a temple). After Jesus, such sanctuaries would just be like the shadows in Plato's cave.

The writer of Hebrews is also adamant that Jesus is the mediator of the new and everlasting covenant. I agree with this, although LDS thinking would often have Jehovah the mediator of the old covenant as well.

From the NRSV (8:1-10):

1 Now the main point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent that the Lord, and not any mortal, has set up. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They offer worship in a sanctuary that is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly one; for Moses, when he was about to erect the tent, was warned, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." 6 But Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry, and to that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted through better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one. 8 God finds fault with them when he says: "The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 9 not like the covenant that I made with their ancestors, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I had no concern for them, says the Lord. 10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

OT = Everlasting Covenant
NT = New Covenant

New + Everlasting Covenant = D&C term, means covenant in dispensation fullness of times, which has everything from all dispensations.

you should check out the Stoicism in 2 Ne 9 as well.

I very purposefully didn't capitalize "new and everlasting covenant," but didn't want to ignore that the writer of Hebrews described both something "new" and something "everlasting." I was playing with the words.

Your explanation of the obvious (OT, NT, D&C, and the Stocism in 2 Ne) was unnecessary--but understandable. Sometime we should have a thread on the dispensation of the fullness of times stuff....

so you weren't using new/everlasting cov as a proper noun. understood.

Is Hebrews still holy canon since it was exposed as an apparent forgery of a Pauline epistle? It's still one of the finer parts of the NT.

I'll look into the authorship of Hebrews, but not everything not linked to Paul is considered fraudulent. For example, some of the non-Pauline letters are considered to have been written by a Pauline scribe or student. So some scholars argue that even a non-Pauline letter can represent enough of Paul's ideas to be considered an authentic teaching.

As I seem to recall, Hebrews is not considered to have been authored by Paul, but by somebody close to Paul.

What do you mean by LDS would have Jehovah as mediator of old covenant and what part of that would you disagree with?

It's not a forgery of a Pauline epistle. It was written anonymously and never mentions Paul. It's probably not even an epistle in that it has none of the typical greetings and other elements indicating it's an epistle. It was probably meant to be a sermon. Later Christians attached Paul's name to it to give it more credibility.