The January 2014 Ensign magazine includes an edited version of a General Conference talk given in 1986 by (now deceased) Gordon B. Hinckley of Mormonism’s First Presidency. The 2014 “Gospel Classic” is titled, “The Divine Godhead.” In it Mr. Hinckley explains what he believes about God the Father and relates an experience he had while a missionary in England:
“I believe without equivocation or reservation in God, the Eternal Father. He is my Father, the Father of my spirit, and the Father of the spirits of all men. He is the great Creator, the Ruler of the Universe. … In His image man was created. He is personal. He is real. He is individual. He has ‘a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s’ (D&C 130:22).
“In the account of the creation of the earth, ‘God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ (Genesis 1:26).
“Could any language be more explicit? Does it demean God, as some would have us believe, that man was created in His express image? Rather, it should stir within the heart of every man and woman a greater appreciation for himself or herself as a son or daughter of God. …
“… As a missionary, I was speaking [in London, England, when a heckler interrupted], ‘Why don’t you stay with the doctrine of the Bible which says in John (4:24), “God is a Spirit”?’
“I opened my Bible to the verse he had quoted and read to him the entire verse: ‘God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.’
Speakers’ Corner, Hyde Park in 1944 (Roberts, 1995)
© 1995 Charles C. Roberts, Jr.
“I said, ‘Of course God is a spirit, and so are you, in the combination of spirit and body that makes of you a living being, and so am I.’
“Each of us is a dual being of spiritual entity and physical entity. All know of the reality of death … , and each of us also knows that the spirit lives on as an individual entity and that at some time, under the divine plan made possible by the sacrifice of the Son of God, there will be a reunion of spirit and body. Jesus’s declaration that God is a spirit no more denies that He has a body than does the statement that I am a spirit while also having a body.” (Ensign, 1/2014, 72; ellipses and brackets retained from the original)
When Jesus says “God is spirit” (John 4:24), aren’t His words just as explicit as the statement quoted by Mr. Hinckley (Genesis 1:26; also see verse 27)? No one need be confused about what “God is spirit” means in connection to Mormonism’s assertion that God the Father has “a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s,” for Jesus, in another time and place, explained, “a spirit does not have flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39). Mr. Hinckley’s argument that God the Father has a spirit (coupled with a body of flesh and bones) imposes much onto the words of the apostle John that is not there – or anywhere in the Bible.
Likewise, Mr. Hinckley’s treatment of Genesis 1:26 misses the mark. Mr. Hinckley suggests that man being made in the image and likeness of God the Father can only mean that God the Father is a tangible being of flesh and bones. This is not so. Christian author Dr. Jim W. Adams explains:
“Humanity is distinguished from all other creatures by the fact that it is created in the image (tselem) and in the likeness (demut) of God (Gen 1:26). What exactly the term tselem means in relation to humanity has been the source of scholarly debate. But careful analysis of the various occurrences of the noun throughout the Old Testament leads to the conclusion that a tselem ‘represents’ something. Hence, the most natural understanding of humankind created in the image of God is that human beings are God’s image or representative on earth. This is confirmed by God’s command for humanity to rule over God’s creation on his behalf (v. 28; see also Ps 8:5-8)…
“The term tselem, however, also indicates that to some degree human beings are like God and resemble him. This is enhanced by the use of the similar noun demut (Gen 1:26a; 5:1), which tends to convey the idea of two objects corresponding to one another (see, e.g., 2 Chr 4:3; Ps 58:4). Still, the text never indicates how humankind is like God. An obvious correspondence between God and humankind would include that both speak, hear, see, and feel. However, what is certain is that humanity does not resemble God in nature or in bodily form, for in the Old Testament God is never presented as an embodied being or even a physical being. Furthermore, the Old Testament assumes throughout that human beings do not have the divine nature of God: God creates, but human beings cannot create in the same sense; God is the sole Creator, but humans are creatures; humans die, but God is immortal.” (“The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph Smith?”, The New Mormon Challenge, Beckwith, Mosser, Owen, general editors, 172, 173)
I think Gordon B. Hinckley’s “heckler” at Hyde Park asked a good question those many years ago: Why doesn’t Mormonism stay with the doctrine of the Bible? Like Joshua entreated the people of ancient Israel, so we too beseech you, Mormons: “Then put away the foreign gods that are among you, and incline your heart to the Lord, the God of Israel” (Joshua 24:23). He, the only true God, can be found in the pages of the Bible, explicitly revealed to all who seek to know Him – to all who seek to worship Him in spirit and in truth.
Yes another case of Mormonism deciding what it would like something or someone to be and then applying their own warped interpretation to the Scriptures, not the other way around. This is the primary tactic of aberrant religious sects and cults.
Mormons do this because Joseph Smith told them that God the Father appeared to him. That’s it. We have a false prophet reporting a false vision and to the gullible, it’s true. Did any spirit beings ever appear to Joseph Smith? Since the guy was into second sight vision, I’d say like all of the other miraculous appearances Smith reported, he saw this in his imagination. Even the report went through several versions before he got the one he liked best.
Unfortunately, what the Scriptures say holds very little credence for false prophets and those who follow them. They can either make the Scripture say what they want it to say or they merely say that the Scriptures are wrong and that personal “revelation” is much more important.
That’s why when the Church Fathers did battle with the heretics they always went back to the history and tradition of the Church. It’s the appeal to tradition that gives support to what the meaning of the Scriptures is. Without it, every generation can lay claim to a new revelation.
We need to remember that this heretical view of the Father is just part of the Mormon program when it comes to the nature of God. In the LDS sect of Mormonism, there are millions perhaps billions of God the Fathers in the universe. They were all former men who by following the Mormon system, became gods. These gods, along with their goddess wives, give birth to spirit offspring who then go and populate worlds that these gods the father have created.
So we see that the heresy that God the Father has a physical body is just one part of the total nonsense put out by Joseph Smith. It’s to the detriment of those who follow him in that it has eternal consequences.
Not knowing who God is, is very serious business.
How interesting that the young Elder Hinckley’s answer, as reported to us in his later years, tells us essentially nothing about why Jesus would state that “God is Spirit”, if that is all that it means. Does Hinckley imagine that the Samaritan woman was thinking that God was only an inert body, some sort of heavenly corpse, and needed to be reminded that God was also spirit as well as body? Such is obviously not a reasonable reading, and yet such would be required for the LDS approach to make even minimal sense of the text.
So before any of our LDS friends swoop in and tell us yet again that John 4:24 is consistent with an essentially embodied God the Father, they should consider the literary context in which the passage appears. Jesus is answering someone who asks which of two rival locations is the truest location for appropriate worship. His answer is that neither location is essential to true worship, because this would only apply if God were spatially located, as would be true if he were essentially embodied; on the contrary, he is Spirit, and thus worship is not defined principally by space but by relational positioning: Jesus, together with his new community (who with him comprise the totus Christus, as the Latin Fathers used to say), is the new unique temple of God, the new ‘location’ for true and proper worship, embedded in the Spirit of Truth.
Lest our LDS friends suppose that this is an idiosyncratic reading of the texts, they should take the time to consult some standard Johannine commentaries. Commentators are agreed that the text precludes divine corporeality. For instance, Leon Morris writes that, according to this verse, “we must not think of God as material, or as bound in any way to places or things” (1995:240). Gerald L. Borchert writes that, according to this verse, “God is Spirit and not flesh” (1996:208). Craig S. Keener writes that John 4:24 “intends that God is not physical” and shows that “God’s nature is spirit rather than flesh” (2003, 1:618). Andreas J. Köstenberger writes that John 4:24 “identifies God as a spiritual rather than material being” (2004:156). Jo-Ann Brant writes that, according to this verse, “God is not a physical being and so has no need for a physical building or temple worship” (2011:86). There’s really no getting around it here.
Once Joseph Smith got the idea that he wanted to become an Almighty God it was necessary to
try and convince his flock this was a true doctrine . It became easy to convince people of this
when he told them that God the Father was just a man that He was not always God but had to
learn to be smart enough and strong enough to become the Creator of heaven and earth .
So likewise any man can learn how to become a Almighty God also . Of course if he could
use the Bible to prove this new doctrine then it would sell much easier . So Mormon leaders did
just that . Mormons like Brigham Young used verses in the O.T. that mentioned the eyes, feet, of
the Lord God of Israel to prove that He was God the Father , a man . His flock then , believing
the Bible , simply accepted this egregious doctrine .
Mormon leaders have succumbed to the behavior Paul mentions in 2 Tim 4: 3,4 . This passage
of scripture speaks of what latter days prophets will offer those who do not become like the
Bereans and test any prophet/apostles teachings by the scriptures .
We see that by the time Joseph Smith got to the eighth or so version of his first vision, he gave God the Father a body and in doing so legitimized the man-to-god scenario.
Did God the Father appear to anyone in the Old or New Testament in the manner that Smith reported? That ought to be a tip-off regarding the “prophet”.
Also, does anyone have a list of all of the spirit beings that Smith reported to have appeared to him? I know he said an angel named Moroni did. He had an angel with a sword appear to him, he said, carrying a message that if Smith didn’t practice plural marriage the angel would kill him.
Let’s see did Smith say that John the Baptist, the apostles Peter, James and John also appear to him? Isn’t that how he came up with the restoration of the priesthood; which wasn’t even a part of the NT church? But we quibble here.
Smith was a full-on inventor of religious convention and no amount of hyperbole or speculation was beneath him. The fact that what he said went against conventional thought and Christian doctrine had great appeal to some people.
Falcon,
Let’s take your comment to its logical conclusion. How can the Mormon system or Cycle of the Gods support itself, when it totally contradicts itself by way of the “First” god. Where did that god come from? How did he get a goddess wife to have spiritual children with? How did he get to become a god without having an “earth” to go to, and be “tested”? If he became a god without all that (the Mormon “Plan of Salvation”), why do other gods need it? This whole scenario is extremely discontinuous.
Remember that Jo gave this information to people, to “rip away the veil” so they could “see”. What has he really revealed to us though? Nothing much, and today, this is all classed as a “mystery” that does not need to be answered. And YET, this is why the original founder of Mormonism and his followers proclaimed that Christianity was false. It could not answer to their satisfaction the mystery of God (the Trinity). Yet, now Mormons do EXACTLY the same thing. You see how this hypocrisy has come full circle? Mormons also, were all about “continuing revelation”, not just men saying they were “inspired”, but real REVELATIONS where God communicated to men DIRECTLY and then men wrote it down and it went into a book of scripture. Once again, we see that this is not the case with Mormonism. They have gotten off that path and now we have their “prophets” saying “we have enough scripture”.
Would Jo even recognize his own church? Nope. But he would probably love that it is a RICH church. No more digging for treasures, you have the stock market. No more “peep stones”, you have market analysts, lawyers and investment firms. If the Gospel of Jesus is all about getting rich and living well off, well, Mormonism has that… for those in the Hierarchy. But don’t ask them to share the wealth, nor live by their own “higher law” of Consecration. The SAINTS are “too wicked” for that. The “saints” can’t handle it. The RICH members of the Hierarchy surely could, right? But don’t ever, ever ask them to lead by example IN THIS THING.
Hinckley preached in 1986 in General Conference taught his flock what be believed about God.
He testified that God is ” …. the Father of my spirit , and the Father of the spirits of all men. ”
That was what Brigham Young talk about Adam in the 1854 church Conference : Adam was
the God who is the Father of the spirits of all men .
One thing about Mormon prophets is that when their preaching track record is examined it
becomes evident that these latter days prophets can’t be trusted to be consistently reliable
guides in preaching gospel truths .
Those concerned with being safe from the influence of false prophets in the latter days , who
Jesus warned would come ( Matt 24:11 ) can anchor their beliefs about God in the teachings
of His true prophets/apostles of the Bible and not follow prophets to run past it with their
teachings because they claim to be the ” living prophet ” with new insight from God that is
due to be revealed to mankind who are in darkness because they follow the ” dead prophets”
of the Bible .
The Mormon people have been tossed around doctrinally by their leaders for a long time .
Many Mormons are discovering this fact and are doing the right by choosing to honor God
by dismissing these men and returning to the safe harbor of His true prophets / apostles
whose teachings are a bulwark against imitation gospels from imitation prophets in these
latter days .
“God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24,NASB)
“See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” (Luke 24:39,NASB)
“Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p.126).
I think Brigham Young, that the Bible states that God is a spirit and that a spirit cannot have a body of flesh and bones.
Fail. (Sorry Brigham).
RikkiJ,
You are conflating two things in your post. Being “spirit” is different than being “a spirit.” Spirit is a predication. “A spirit” is a classification.
This is demonstrated quite clearly in the passages you cite as well as John 3. In His conversation with Nicodemus, Christ said that “that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit.” This is in the context of Christ saying that “unless a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” So in this context, a person who is born of the spirit is “spirit.”
So when Christ says that “God is Spirit,” He is not saying that God is “a Spirit.” This is consistent with His additional statement that “those who worship Him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” Are humans “a truth?” Are they “a spirit?” Must their spirits leave their bodies in order to worship God appropriately? No. God is “spirit” in the same sense that a converted and born again human is “spirit” when they worship God appropriately.
Those who worship God as Christ directed still have their physical bodies- they are not “a spirit.” When Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene, He noted that “a spirit hath not flesh and bones.” He was not saying that His form at that point was the same as the Father’s. Two very different things.
Mormons love to create doctrine out of supposed vagaries in the Bible.
Nothing in their doctrine can be seen from clear and indisputable evidence from the Bible.
They see an inch and take a mile. This is something false teachers do.
Does FoF know the difference between ‘in’ and ‘as’? Or that there is no Greek indefinite article?
MJP-show me where I am wrong with the text.
johnsepistle- while it is true that there was no indefinite article in ancient Greek, it does not change my argument. Is there not a difference in the way the word “spirit” is used in Luke 24 and John 4? Are we to assume the form that Jesus had after His death but before His resurrection in order to worship the Father as Jesus instructed (a spirit without a body)? Whether you say Jesus was Spirit or that He was a Spirit, it does not change this.
It is pretty clear- Jesus Said God is Spirit. He also said that those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit. He says this in the chapter (John 4) following His conversation with Nicodemus (John 3) wherein He said that “that which is born of the spirit is spirit.” So human beings can be “spirit.” Humans have physical bodies. So why does the statement that God is spirit preclude Him from having a body? It does not make sense.
FoF,
You misunderstand the criticism. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with your argument. However, beneath there are myriad things wrong. But that is beside the point I am making. I mean to discuss that you take something that can be seen as vague and creating brand new and radically different doctrine from this apparent vagary.
See, saying something is spirit is actually a pretty clear statement, as something that is spirit strongly infers that something is a spirit. You cannot deny this, despite your attempt to differentiate the two phrases. At best, all you can say is that there is room for your interpretation, hence your question to me to show you where you are wrong.
You take a position suggesting that being a spirit and being spirit are different, and assert this is clear. Nonetheless, it is also just as clear that the position that God is spirit means God is a spirit. You cannot prove your position above our position accept by trying rhetoric. This is to say that you have to change meanings to reach your conclusion.
FoF,
I suppose I should add that any one can justify virtually anything in the Bible. That does not make it right. People have justified abortion using it in modern times, and slavery and worse in the past. Further, human logic can also justify anything, with or without the Bible.
It is not unusual to take unclear statements from the Bible and make doctrine from them, which almost invariably is wrong. Your faith is full of such examples– including but not limited to the topic at hand. Just because you can make a logical connection does not make the argument correct.
MJP- thanks for the response. But you didn’t really explain how my argument is wrong. I agree that a person can try to manipulate the Biblical text to justify a wide variety of doctrines and practices. But the differences in the way the text uses the word spirit justifies a closer analysis. What exactly does it mean to worship God in spirit? And if we who have physical bodies can worship God in spirit, the corollary that God is spirit does not preclude Him from having a physical body as well.
I am not trying to demonstrate how your position is wrong. I’ll primarily leave that to others, though I think it is clear that at best your position is a guess and not verifiably true.
This is what I want to emphasize to you: you make a sweeping doctrine statement based on a guess.
The way the text uses the words does not justify, with certainty, your conclusions. Hence, I argue that you make a doctrinal position from nothing more than a guess. You therefore insert something into the text that is not necessarily there.
I am glad you admit that a person can manipulate the text of the Bible, because that must infer that Smith and others in Mormonism may be guilty of this. You have to admit this as a possibility. And do not say that you “know” that is not a possibility, because there is nothing other than your word to support that premise. (Pay attention: I am stating that it is a possibility here.)
So, if it is a possibility Smith is guilty of twisting the Bible to fit a wrong doctrine, and it is possible that LDS have made it up as they have gone along (something you admitted earlier), is it not possible that your faith is just simply wrong as it is based on doctrines that are not supported by the Bible but rather by the twisting of scripture?
FOF does what most others do who don’t understand, or grasp what Jesus was teaching here. What is the CONTEXT of what Jesus says here? Who is he talking to? Reading the whole account may help (those who truly want to be helped that is):
Let’s see. What did Jesus say to this woman? First, she says “Our ancestors worshiped on THIS mountain, but you Jews claim we must worship in Jerusalem. She was concerned with WHERE to worship. But Jesus told her, you know not what you worship, but we know what we worship – for salvation is from the Jews. Then Jesus says, A TIME IS COMING and HAS NOW COME, when the TRUE WORSHIPERS will WORSHIP the Father in the Spirit and in Truth, for they are who the Father seeks. Why, because of the Holy Spirit.
Then Jesus says that GOD IS SPIRIT, and they that worship Him must do so IN THE SPIRIT, and IN TRUTH. FOF’s straw man falls apart if one reads the CONTEXT. GOD is SPIRIT, and IS EVERYWHERE. He is not limited to one location as the Mormons constrict Him to. This is what Jesus was getting at. You don’t need to worship God on a specific mountain, or in a temple made with hands, etc. You must worship Him IN THE SPIRIT and IN TRUTH. What was the truth?
In the Law of Moses God told the children of Israel that when they got established in the Promised Land, He would choose a place where He would “put his name” (See Deuteronomy 12:5-11). That place was later embodied in the temple in Jerusalem. In 1 Kings 8:13-53 in the dedication of this temple by Solomon, he continually makes reference to this. God’s name was there and God’s presence was there. This impressive building was central in their worship of God. Even when they were not there, they would pray toward that place. In the New Testament God is not assigned to one place and to a temple “made by hands.” What did Stephen say?
That was Jesus point to the woman at the well. You must worship IN THE SPIRIT, or, with the Holy Spirit. And where? ANYWHERE, because GOD IS SPIRIT, and HE IS EVERYWHERE! That is why Paul said, “I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting” (1 Timothy 2:8)
Mormons since the beginning have always been centered on buildings and names. The name of the Church, changed three or four times, the Temples, changed between Kirtland and Nauvoo. The plethora of temples built to a God that doesn’t need them on earth with the change of Covenant, to the age of the Holy Spirit!
Even in the Jews’ deviation from their Old Testament revelation, Jesus said that in vain they were worshiping God, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men (Mark 7:7-9). How much more is this true today in God’s completed and final revelation to man! The hour “now is.” We must worship God “in spirit and truth.” The Mormons would go back to the Old Testament “rules and regulations” which KILL the SPIRIT, and limit Him to buildings.
The Father does NOT have a “body of flesh and bone”.
The Father is Invisible. (Colossians 1:15) (1 Timothy 1:17) (Hebrews 11:27)
The Father is Spirit. (John 4:24)
The Father has never been seen. (1 Timothy 6:15-16) (John 1:18) (John 6:46)
Jesus, and ONLY Jesus is our Advocate with the Father. The Father is revealed IN HIM.
FOF,
Did the orthodox Jews and the primitive Christian church believe that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones? Did they believe that he was previously a man who lived on another world and by following the LDS system become a god? Did they believe that this “god” lived on or near the planet Kolob and procreated “spirit” offspring with his many plural wives? Did they believe that there are millions, perhaps billions of gods in the universe all living in polygamous bliss with their many plural wives? Did the orthodox Jews of Jesus’ time or Christians before perform LDS rituals in their temple? Did Christians have temples?
You see FOF you come here and just begin to spin all sorts of scenarios in order to muddy the water. The fact of the matter is you are ignorant, dishonest and you mock God.
Paul described true worship perfectly in Romans 12:
How are we transformed? By the power of the Holy Spirit. Exactly what Jesus was telling the Samaritan Woman. Not by forced “rules” and “regulations” that kill the Spirit. Not by buildings and temple “covenants”. All we need to do, was outlined by James,
Now what I wrote in my above comments (waiting in moderation jail) is to point out the total nonsense of the LDS belief system as it relates to the doctrine of the nature of God. And what I wrote offends the daylights out of these LDS heretics because it slaps them in the heretical face with the truth of what they teach, believe and practice. They don’t want to have what I wrote written because this belief of theirs’ is very offensive.
Their problem, as I have often pointed out, is that they say that we just don’t understand these “plain and precious truths”. We do understand these things and we reject them for what they are, total drivel. We understand it but we don’t believe it. There’s a distinct difference between the two.
FOF is stuck with his FARMS mentality.
FoF,
Grindael and Falcon present evidence and questions that prove my point: you take something that could possibly be interpreted a different way and make something out of it that does not jive with the rest of the text and with God’s existence.
At best, you have nothing more than a guess. You cannot support your premise with the whole of the Bible, and you cannot support a thing without what you “know”. You’ve continually stated there is evidence out there that supports your faith. I’ve yet to see it, and I’ve looked. All you have is a testimony, a guess, and leaders who may be making it all up as they go along.
If you have more evidence of your position here, please provide it. Otherwise, your position is nothing more than creating doctrine out of nothing.
It doesn’t make sense to someone that MUST believe (because of false “prophets”) in an ANTHROPOMORPHIC Father. But FOF will not mention that Jo didn’t always believe this. He evolved his theology. His claimed 1820 vision never happened then, but was made up by Jo in 1832, which doesn’t even mention the Father. Mormons wrote in 1832 that they believed in the Trinity. The Lectures on Faith (1835) AFFIRM that Jo taught that God was A Spirit and Jesus was the Father “in the flesh”. But FOF will not waste his time to explain any of this. (He can’t).
We are “born of the spirit” with the HOLY SPIRIT. Read my posts above and read what Paul said about TRUE WORSHIP. FOF is stuck in Nicodemus’ conundrum of trying to figure out how one can be born out of the womb twice. What Jesus taught goes right over his head, as it did with the Pharisees. God does not and never needed a body. God took on human form ONLY to save us:
In the Spirit and in Truth. Simple, but not to those who complicate it with the pseudepigrapha of Jo Smith, which contradicts itself over and over again:
Why did Jo change the meaning of this verse? If he THEN believed that the Father and Jesus were two SEPARATE beings, it would have been much simpler to leave it as it was. But he didn’t, because he wanted people to know that he believed that Jesus and the Father were ONE AND THE SAME, EXACTLY as is taught in the Lectures on Faith.
C’mon, FOF. Explain all this? Can you? I guarantee, you won’t even try.
MJP says,
This is what I want to emphasize to you: you make a sweeping doctrine statement based on a guess.
I say,
This is a great point.
FOF is not reading the text in order to find out the truth about God’s nature. He is looking for loopholes so that he can continue to hold a doctrine that he had before he came to the text. The technical term for this is eisegesis as apposed to exegesis.
FOF said,
And if we who have physical bodies can worship God in spirit, the corollary that God is spirit does not preclude Him from having a physical body as well.
I say,
Can you see the strained logic here?
A straightforward reading is so simple, God is Spirit so the worship he requires is spiritual rather than physical ie confined to a particular time or place.
But when you are fishing for loopholes you can’t appreciate the simple things. If God is Physical the whole passage looses it’s meaning. Why would a physical being require worship that is Spiritual? a physical being has no problem with special sacred times and places for worship.
That is the whole point. The argument between the Jews and Samaritans was all about where God lives. Does he dwell in Jerusalem or does he dwell on Mount Gerizim. Jesus points out how foolish the such thinking is.
But if God is physical then the grounds of the argument remains. Having the correct physical location where to focus worship becomes something to brag about and fight over.
Peace
peace
Thanks FMM. Well said.
Maybe it’s time to revisit the topic of the attributes of God that He has revealed to us. Then Mormons can compare their man-god the father which Joseph Smith developed over time, to God the Father as He reveals Himself to us.
The Mormon god is a puny god. After all he’s just a further evolved human being. He’s not all that much different from Mormon men except he’s a little further along in the developmental process. And where does all of this come from. From the minds of men who enjoyed nothing more than engaging in endless speculation within the futility of their own imaginations.
But as Christians we know the following about God because this is what He has revealed about Himself.
Omniscient
God knows everything and His knowledge is complete. This is called His omniscience. Isaiah said that Israel had not seen everything that God had planned (Isaiah 40:28). Job said that God had all knowledge (Job 37:16). The psalmist said that God’s understanding was infinite (Psalm 147:5). The New Testament also claims God’s omniscience in 1 John 3:20 and Romans 11:33.
Omnipotent
God is able to bring to pass everything that He chooses. He has no external limitations. His only limits are those He places upon Himself. The book of Job (42:2) says that He can do all things and that nothing can restrain him. Genesis 18:14 simply asks, “Is anything too hard for the LORD?” The answer, of course, is “no.”
Omnipresent
God’s omnipresence speaks to the fact that He is present in all places at all times. While God is in Heaven, His throne, He is also present in every place. Proverbs 15:3 says that His eyes are in every place. Jeremiah says that God is close at hand and that no one can hide himself from God (Jeremiah 23:23, 24). The classic passage on God’s omnipresence is Psalm 139:7-12 where the psalmist says that he can never be out of the sight of God.
Immutable
By nature, God is absolutely unchanging. For this reason, the attributes He possessed before the creation of the world are the same ones He has today. Psalm 90:2 says that before anything was created God was eternal and existed in the same state that He is in now. Malachi 3:6 says, “I am the Lord, I change not.”
Holy
Though all the attributes of God are important and dependent on one another, the fact of God’s holiness seems to be the one He wishes us to put emphasis upon. When God revealed Himself to man (Moses, Job, Isaiah, Mount of Transfiguration, etc.) each encounter mentions His holiness. Isaiah called God “the Holy One” more than 30 times. Psalm 99:9 says, “the Lord our God is holy.” Because of His holiness He cannot accept, nor even look upon sin (Habakkuk 1:13).
Righteous
God’s holiness is manifested in His righteousness. Because He is holy, He is righteous. This attribute of righteousness is the way His holiness is expressed when dealing with men. Psalm 116:5 and Ezra 9:15 say that God is righteous. Many verses declare His righteousness (Exodus 9:23-27; Psalm 129:4; 145:17; Jeremiah 12:1; 1 John 1:9)
Sovereign
God’s sovereignty is how He rules His creation. This is what makes Him free to do what He knows is best for us. Though He is in complete control, He has also given us a free will to obey or reject His leading. The first verse of the Bible says that God does what He chooses to do. The entire first chapter shows God’s authority and sovereignty over His creation. The Bible is full of passages that show God leading or commanding people to do certain things.
Love
If there is one attribute that people love to embrace, it is the fact that God is love. This word encapsulates for us His mercy, grace and loving-kindness. God is not like the deities of other religions who are thought of as angry and hateful. God is loving towards His creatures. He wants to share a personal relationship with us. 1 John 4 talks extensively about God’s love. Not just that God has love, but that He is love.
Merciful
God’s mercy has been defined as God not giving us what we deserve. We, as sinners, deserve eternal punishment away from His presence, yet in His mercy He has chosen to offer us a way for salvation (Ephesians 2:4; Romans 5:8). Deuteronomy 4:31 and Psalm 103:8 say that God is merciful. A beautiful picture of God’s mercy is shown in the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15.
So does FOF know he sounds like some primary school level hack from FARMS? For a guy who likes to promote his intellectual prowess and superior research abilities, what we see is little more than cult psycho-babble.
When it comes to reinforcing LDS sect style Mormonism, there isn’t anything that can’t be spun, shaped, trimmed or retooled to help the true believer continue on his road to spiritual destruction.
This does get, in a way, personal. That’s because there are numerous well meaning, devout and sincere Mormons who listen to these guys and because of them are trapped in a spiritual spiral going down.
Jesus said he didn’t really care if some folks would say to Him all of the things they did in His name. He said they never knew him. The psychological pitch in the Mormon testimony is what they deem the all powerful “I know”. But they don’t know the Lord God the only One who can provide for them eternal life. I’d say to the lurkers, get out while you can. Run. Run into the arms of Our Lord and Savior who is the only one who can provide satisfaction for your sins and eternal life with Our Heavenly Father.
FoF is failing to read John 4:24 in its temple context, and instead is associating it with cherrypicked verses from elsewhere; and, yet again, FoF conspicuously conflates ‘in’ with ‘as’, choosing to read the phrase “in spirit [and truth]” as “as spirit” – which is most obviously not what the text actually says. Notably, FoF has neglected to interact with my first comment on this post, where I head him and his co-religionists off at the pass.
FoF has also failed to even attempt to offer a convincing explanation of the logic of Jesus’ statement in its literary context, which would be essential if he wished to make a serious case. Under his current interpretation, God is only “a spirit” in the same sense that we all inevitably are – i.e., not solely an inert, lifeless body – and so we must worship him as the same sort of entities. But what is the point? How could we not, since we too are by our very nature holistic body-spirit entities? FoF has declined to give any insight into this. Moreover, how does it relate to the discussion that Jesus and the Samaritan woman had been having up to that point? FoF has declined to give any insight into this either.
Commentators stand consistently against FoF’s tortured justifications for the LDS position. They do not make the profound blunders that FoF does. Instead, they recognize the actual points that Jesus is making: that the Jewish-Samaritan temple dispute has faded into irrelevancy, as it inevitably must since God is not material or spatially located, and so the characteristics of true worship are affiliated with God’s new temple, the Messiah, and worship happens in the realm governed by the Spirit of Truth, i.e., the Holy Spirit, which is defined relationally rather than geographically since God is not a material entity, and certainly therefore not a flesh-and-blood or flesh-and-bone one (cf. Luke 24:39).
So the point is……………….
People who are not born again by the Spirit of God, are not going to have the ability to appraise spiritual things.
They end up like FOF wanting to be, as Paul put it referring to the light weights of his time, teachers of the Law without even having the faintest idea of what it’s about.
Mormons are among the absolute worst violators of even the simplest rules of Biblical interpretation. These folks just sort of make it up as they go along. They want to be intellectually and spiritually significant but without possessing even the basic, fundamental principles of research, common sense/logic, and spiritual gifts.
This is what happens when folks depend on a man, like Joseph Smith, and then are stuck with trying to justify the erratic, ever changing pablum put out by subsequent cult leaders. It’s not about truth, it’s about keeping the dream alive; the dream that in reality, is a spiritual nightmare.
Grindael,
When we “read the whole account”, which version of the Bible shall we use? I went through BibleGateway and looked at 20 versions of the Bible (the first 15 then some random ones) including the NIV (which appears to be the one you used) and the KJV (which the LDS usually use) and only 2 of those 20 Bibles use the phrase worship “in The Spirit” as you use – the others just say worship “in spirit”, which as we can all see opens up a number of interpretations of the context. So do we believe the 2 that support your interpretation or the 18 that give it an open possibility?
Falcon,
Which of those points you have written about God (The Father) does not describe the LDS God? Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, immutable, holy, righteous, sovereign, love and merciful? We LDS believe that He is all these things, so why do you say we don’t? And don’t put words into our mouths, prove it from our scriptures. PS – being in a physical body does not mean that He cannot be omnipresent, else your version of the Trinity would mean that Jesus is not omnipresent and thus cannot be God as He has a physical body and is confined to one point in the universe. Also if you say anything about the other points above being restricted because of a physical body you are restricting your Jesus too – again connoting that He cannot be God.
Ralph,
There you go again. The LDS gods are not these things, especially omnipresent. You don’t even know what your leadership has taught.
Prove it from your LDS scriptures? You poor little innocent lamb Ralph. What in the world difference does it make what the LDS sect scriptures say about the LDS gods or anything else for that matter? Your LDS gods are whoever the LDS prophets say they are at any given time.
Brigham Young taught the Adam-God doctrine as truth and those of his era believed it. He’s the guy who said his preaching was as good as scripture. The FLDS continue to believe the BY doctrine of the nature of god.
Are the Mormon gods omniscient? Certainly not. They are progressing and haven’t and will never reach the point of being all knowing. Your Mormon gods had a beginning. They are not eternal and don’t give me that jive about cosmic “material” being eternal, the gods are made of “material” so therefore they are eternal.
You need to get up to speed Ralph. There are many gods in the Mormon pantheon of the gods. They are all created beings having fathers, grandfathers, uncles etc. on and on not including all of the heavenly mothers who are also created beings.
This isn’t even good mythology Ralph.
And if you want to consult the Mormon “scriptures” then take into account where in the BoM taught a fairly conventional view of the nature of God. I believe that got changed with more progressive revelation.
Ralph, at some point you’re just going to have to give it up. You appear foolish and lacking in knowledge and basic common sense and logic.
At the end of the day Ralph, make it up as you go along. Why not? Your prophets have. As long as it’s in your head and it makes you feel good it has to be true. That’s the LDS way!
I’m giving Ralph the, I dont have a clue award for today.
Ralph said to falcon, prove it from the scriptures.
what a hypocrite. 90 percent of Mormonism cannot be supported by scripture, you have prophets that tell you everything. Prove Mormonism and what you believe just from the book of Mormon and the bible alone, you simply cannot do it.
So now you expect falcon to do something you cannot and will not do. But when we quote your prophets were told its folklore, or there opinions, or they did not have all the info and we have more now, or they made mistakes. What a joke Ralph.
Ralph,
Knowing what the LDS sect you belong to teaches about the nature of God and what the Bible says ought to tip you off as to the aberrant and heretical and I’d say blasphemous, teaching of your sect. And knowing this you stubbornly refuse to recognize and acknowledge who God is and give Him all the honor and glory he deserves.
For example:
The LDS teach that god started as a finite man and progressed to godhood.
The Bible teaches that God was ALWAYS GOD – in the past as well as in the future.
“Art thou not from ever-lasting, O Lord my God, mine Holy One?” Hab. 1:12
“For I am the Lord, I change not.” Mal. 3:6
“…from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” Psa. 90:2
“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent.” Num. 23:19
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,…who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.” Rom. 1:22-25
Again, the LDS gods started as a finite men and progressed to godhood.
The Bible teaches that God is ALL KNOWING – Both in the past and in the future. The LDS gods had to learn everything that they currently know and still haven’t learned it all.
“Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? … There is no searching of his understanding.” Isa. 40:13, 14, 28
“Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.” Psa. 147:5
Again. The LDS god had to learn everything.
The Bible reveals God to be ALL POWERFUL while the gods of the LDS have to attain power.
“The Lord God omnipotent reigneth.” Rev. 19:6
“…his eternal power and Godhead.” Rom. 1:20
The Bible reveals God to be OMNIPRESENT while the LDS gods can only be in one place at a time.
“The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; where is the house that ye build unto me: and where is the place of my rest?” Isa. 66:1
“Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.” Jer. 23:23-24
The Bible reveals that there are NO OTHER GODS where as there are a pantheon of Mormon gods with all sorts of fathers, mothers, greats and great greats as far as the eye can see along with uncle gods and aunt goddesses and cousin gods.
“I am he; before me there was no God formed neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.” Isa. 43:10-11
“I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God….is there a God beside me; yea, there is no God; I know not any.” Isa. 44:6 & 8
“To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?…for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me.” Isa. 46:5 & 9
“I am the Lord; that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another.” Isa. 42:8
Ralph wants me to prove from Mormon “scripture” that LDS believe what we contend they believe about the Mormon god.
What a total joke!
Is the Bible part of Mormon “scripture”? Well they say it is with the caveat, “As far as it’s translated correctly”. Of course Mormons never tell us what that caveat actually means. As we can see from my above post, the Bible supports a God that is nothing like the Mormon men-gods.
So what is Mormon “scripture”? I can paper the walls of the LDS temple in SLC with the utterances of LDS prophets and leaders regarding who the Mormon men-gods are. Is this Mormon “scripture”? Is what the Mormon prophet Brigham Young taught about God really being Adam Mormon “scripture”.
You see Mormons have a convenient way of disengaging from the things they don’t like and cherry picking even from their own “scripture” the things they do like. However we all know that what it all comes down to is how something that the Mormon has in his/her head and how it makes them feel, defines individual Mormon reality and truth.
And what about the Mormon hero prophet Smith. Who did he conclude the Mormon god of this world was? As we point out on this blog continually, Smith in his BoA invention, finally depicted the Mormon god as the Egyptian fertility god Min sitting on a throne exposing himself.
Now try as they may, Mormons can’t get around the fact that Brigham Young taught Adam being the Mormon god or Joseph Smith teaching that the Egyptian fertility god Min being the Mormon god.
Having to face these facts is absolutely no fun for Mormons because it blows the cover off of their religion. Suddenly the (religion) is as goofy as it sounds. When Mormons are dressed-up in their costumes parading around their temples like refugees from some Shriner’s convention, it’s all great fun and to them solemn, holy and full of deep spiritual meaning. Back up a few steps and it’s all seen for what it is; a man made invention.
Attaching the words “Heavenly Father” and “The Savior” to aberrant and heretical teachings won’t hide the facts from those who are willing to look.
It’s instructive that the various sects of Mormonism vary greatly in their views on these matters. That also should be a tip-off to those Mormons who are beginning to question their sect as the one true church, Joseph Smith as a prophet, the BoM as an actual history of real events and the current prophet as one hearing directly from God.
The sooner these questioners get out of the religious sect they are trapped in and are born again by the Spirit of God, the sooner they will begin to enjoy the assurance of salvation and eternal life through the only One who can provide it.
So Ralph…………………..
Wanted me to prove from Mormon “scripture” regarding what we say about the Mormon men-gods. I’ve pointed out what a joke that challenge is. So to play along with Ralph, is the BoA considered Mormon scripture? For those lurkers and those questioning Mormonism I offer an excellent article written on this blog by Andy Watson concerning the Mormon fertility god Min. It comes with the tag “for mature audiences only”. It’s a good thing because when we consider the graphic nature of who Joseph Smith said the Mormon god is, it’s disturbing. Yes I know. It’s all just @anti-Mormon material.
http://blog.mrm.org/2009/08/indecent-exposure-part-2-of-4/
Of course Andy’s article had the TBM FARMS types in full spin cycle but there’s no denying that Smith was a total dofus. He had no clue what he was doing and he got caught, in his total ignorance, with his Mormon god’s pants down. Smith wasn’t the only Mormon “prophet” or “apostle” to proclaim stupid stuff but the problem for Mormons is that the religion these guys were formulating isn’t acceptable in today’s world or in polite LDS circles.
So when Ralph wants Mormon “scripture” consulted regarding what Mormons teach about the nature of God, they get caught in a trap of their own making. Where do these Mormon apologist wannabees think that we get this information? Do they think we make it up? It all comes from their own leadership.
I think it’s time for Ralph to bear his testimony and go back to the drawing board.
http://blog.mrm.org/2009/08/indecent-exposure-part-2-of-4/
MJP- I disagree that I am merely throwing out a “guess” in interpreting the text. The text from John 4:24 says “God is Spirit.” (note to grindael: johnsepistle correctly noted that there were no indefinite articles in ancient Greek. Therefore, you really cannot insist that the “a” before “Spirit” is what you claim.) In the previous chapter Jesus explains that “that which is born of the spirit is spirit.” Do you think this statement in John 3 has implications on the statement in John 4? I would be interested in your answer to that question.
And what, exactly, have I “inserted” into the text? I have not inserted anything, actually. I am comparing two verses to demonstrate that the conclusion made by many, including those here, that God does not have a physical body is not justified from the text. If anything, those who make that conclusion are the ones inserting something into the text.
We are commanded to worship God “in spirit and in truth.” Grindael’s posts offer nothing really to answer the question as to what it means to worship God in spirit. The argument that the ability to worship God anywhere means that God does not have a physical body is just plain ridiculous. The same logic would require us to conclude that the ability to call a person on our cell phone from anywhere around the world means that the person we are calling exists everywhere around the world. (Piaget’s concrete thinking rears its head again). And did God’s nature change after the atonement? Did He go from having a physical body to not having a physical body? These are the inevitable problems that grindael’s logic lead you.
I suggest that worshiping God “in Spirit” suggests the qualities of sincerity, humility, and honesty and seeking the Holy Spirit. Think of the old saying regarding the “spirit of the law.” A person can conform to a law, but completely avoid the spirit in which that law was intended. And this type of discipleship is required to have the Holy Spirit. Only after being born again and receiving the Holy Spirit can a person truly commune with God and worship Him. But doing so does not require us to leave our physical bodies. And there is no logical or linguistic reason to conclude that God being “Spirit” does not require that He not have a physical body.
The issue here is the nature of worship rather than the restrictions of God.
And by the way, God’s invisibility is a result of his being hidden, not a result of being incorporeal. The inability of man to see Him was a consequence of the fact that man would die if he saw God. Not because God could not be seen.
Grindael and johnsepistle both suggest that scholar agree with the incorporeal concept of God. Sure- some do. But a great many scholars do not and believe that the Bible (both OT and NT) describe an anthropomorphic God. I can certainly give you plenty of references and citations when I get more time later today.
falcon- yes. The earliest church and ancient Jews believed in an anthropomorphic God.
“I disagree that I am merely throwing out a “guess” in interpreting the text.”
Of course you do, but you cannot seriously conclude that the verses you present prove the existence of God’s physical body. This is what you are doing here, and that is entirely fallacious. The argument presented to you shows the context of the discussion with Jesus and the woman, which leads to a conclusion that does not support your position.
You ask if I think there are implications between John 3 and 4. I say no, not really. Both statements are pretty clear given the context of each: in John 3 Jesus answered a question about how can one be born again if one is already born whereas John 4 indicates a discussion of where God should be worshipped. I do not think there is any correlation doctrinally between the two, except that God is shown as having and being spirit.
“We are commanded to worship God “in spirit and in truth.”” and “I suggest that worshiping God “in Spirit” suggests the qualities of sincerity, humility, and honesty and seeking the Holy Spirit.” I actually would not disagree with these two comments, but that interpretation is still a far cry from the interpretation that God has a physical body.
To be frank, I see you once again ignoring the plank in your own eye while you try to point out someone else’s wood chip. Here, it manifests itself when you say that there is no reason to conclude from these texts that God being spirit does not require a physical body. How so? Because there is no reason from these texts to conclude that He does. Rather, the greater weight of evidence in the entire Bible, from which we use, points to a God without a physical being hiding away somewhere.
The issue is indeed the nature of God. The nature of God addresses the very restrictions you place on Him, and see these very, very differently, you and I. Its not merely the nature of worship, but the very being of God Himself.
You have not come close to showing how you do not take an inch and make a mile from the text. All you have done is double down. And yes, that includes you inserting into the text that God must have a physical body. At best, you can infer, that is to say, guess, that God may have a physical body, but you cannot prove that with these texts.
God does not hide and reveals Himself to all who seek Him. Are you searching for God, or for someone else?
MJP- beware the straw man argument here. Where have I made the argument that any of these passages of scripture provide evidence that God has a physical body? I have not made that argument. My argument is that none of these passages of scripture preclude God from having a physical body as the article from Sharon suggests and as you and others believe. Please keep my argument and statements straight. I am not inserting anything into the text. I am arguing that the text does not state what Sharon, you, and others insist it states. It is you guys who are doing the inserting.
Your last post suggests that I insert “into the text that God must have a physical body.” Again- please be honest and go back and read my posts. I have nothing approaching that. I am arguing that the text does not preclude God from having a physical body.
Like I said, we don’t have to make up information regarding Mormonism because the utterances of the prophets and apostles of the LDS religion have left us a treasure trove of quotes that modern day Mormons would like to bury in the ground, accessible only by a magic rock.
I really love the first one. You see becoming a god just depends on your education and training. It’s like going to school; working your way through the various elementary grades, high school, college and graduate school.
So in LDS lore, the men are going to become gods. They are created beings of course with limited knowledge and skills right now. But in the future? Katty bar the door. These men become super heroes, cape crusaders, full of knowledge and power. They get to hang with other gods. Learning from their up-line. Doesn’t it just give you chills to think about it?
Consider the following:
“Mormonism be it true or false, holds out to men the greatest inducements that the human mind can grasp. And so it does… It teaches men that they can become divine, that man is God in embryo, that God was once man in mortality, and that the only difference between Gods, angels and men is a difference in education and development. Is such a religion to be sneered at? It teaches that the worlds on high, the stars that glitter in the blue vault of heaven, are kingdoms of God, that they were once earths like this, that they have been redeemed and glorified by the same laws, the same principles that are applied to this planet, and by which it will ascend to a perfected and glorified state. It teaches that these worlds are peopled with human beings, God’s sons and daughters, and that every husband and father, may become an Adam, and every wife and mother an Eve, to some future planet.”
– Apostle Orson F. Whitney, Divine Evidences of Truthfulness, Y.M.M.I.A. Annual Conference, June 9th, 1895.
“God our Heavenly Father is still progressing. While He knows all that is, all that has been, and possibly all things that He designs for the future and what will be in the future, yet He is constantly adding to His dominion, constantly increasing His power, constantly developing in His resources and in His glorious aspirations. This, at least, is our understanding of the condition of our Father in heaven. The thought has been expressed and accepted as a truth, that as we are now, God has been, and as God is now we may be; and if we admit this to be a truth—and I have no disposition to dispute it—then I repeat that even God our Heavenly Father has not reached the ultimatum of His greatness, His power, or His capacity, but that He is continually increasing and expanding in power, in dominion, in glory and in greatness, if I may be permitted to use such terms as these which some people who know no better would call blasphemous, in connection with the Supreme Being, the Father of us all.”
– Prophet Joseph F. Smith, Sustaining Each Other in the Gospel, Sunday, February 16, 1896.
“Perhaps there is something else that we will learn as we perfect our bodies and our spirits in the times to come. You and I—what helpless creatures are we! Such limited power we have, and how little can we control the wind and the waves and the storms! We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were said by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: “As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.” This is a power available to us as we reach perfection and receive the experience and power to create, to organize, to control native elements. How limited we are now! We have no power to force the grass to grow, the plants to emerge, the seeds to develop.”
– Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, “Our Great Potential,” Ensign, May 1977, p. 49
“After men have got their exaltations and their crowns—have become Gods, even the sons of God—are made Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles.”
– Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 6, pp. 274-275
“Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome until He has arrived at the point where He now is.”
– Apostle Orson Hyde, Deseret News Weekly, October 27, 1853, p. 78; also see Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, 1979-80, p. 82; online at http://www.spires.net/Historical/230_quotations/230_1.html
“Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000.
“Just think of the possibilities, the potential. Every little boy that has just been born becomes an heir to this glorious, glorious program. When he is grown, he meets a lovely woman; they are married in the holy temple. They live all the commandments of the Lord. They keep themselves clean. And then they become sons of God, and they go forward with their great program—they go beyond the angels, beyond the angels and the gods that are waiting there. They go to their exaltation.”
– President Spencer W. Kimball in Conference Report, Oct. 1975, p. 120; or Ensign, Nov. 1975, p. 80
FoF: provide conclusive evidence of God having a physical body. Additionally, reread Sharon’s post.
“I am arguing that the text does not preclude God from having a physical body.” No, but the greater weight of evidence shows that these texts do not provide evidence that He does.
This gets me back to what I argued yesterday: you take the possibility of the existence an argument and support a doctrinal statement from it. 5thMM called it a loophole, a very apt word. Whether or not the text absolutely denies your argument is beside the point: the text and the rest of the Bible render your position akin to the line in Dumb and Dumber concerning chances to date the girl: “1 in a billion, huh, so you mean I have a chance?”
We know from the Bible that Jesus is the ‘express image’ of Heavenly Father, in fact some of the translations use ‘exact representation of His being’. We know that Heavenly Father and Jesus are both perfect. So what is more perfect – an immortal, glorified, physical body with spirit, or just a plain spirit? And if one is a spirit and the other physical then how can the latter be an express image of the former?
Falcon,
You said ”Are the Mormon gods omniscient? Certainly not. They are progressing and haven’t and will never reach the point of being all knowing.”
I thought we had already got over this part – You know that is from a statement made by Orson Pratt and was rejected by the church even back then when he wrote it. It was also addressed a few years ago when I was a teen in a talk called “7 Deadly Heresies” (I think). We teach and believe that Heavenly Father is omniscient. Or can you prove otherwise?
You say – “The Bible reveals God to be OMNIPRESENT while the LDS gods can only be in one place at a time.”
I guess you are talking about God The Father here and not Jesus as you also believe that Jesus is in one place at a time if you want to push that part, and thus cannot be omnipresent which then omits Him from being ‘God’ in the Trinity. But what does it mean to be omnipresent? What do we know about perfected, glorified, resurrected bodies? We do know that Mary didn’t recognise Him at first when he appeared to her in the garden – is there something different about them?
Anyway, just done my 7th night shift in a row – heading off to bed now. Goodnight.
Ralph said,
We know that Heavenly Father and Jesus are both perfect. So what is more perfect – an immortal, glorified, physical body with spirit, or just a plain spirit?
I say,
A an incorporeal Spirit is obviously greater in the sense that it is impossible for a physical entity to be Omnipresent and Immutable. If this were not the case then the Holy Spirit would be less than God since everyone agrees that He does not have a physical body.
You need to understand that Jesus Christ has two natures one Human and one Divine. His physical body belongs to his human nature. His Human nature is perfect but a perfect human nature is by definition less glorious than a Divine nature. That is what the “emptying” passage in Philippians two is all about.
Ralph says,
And if one is a spirit and the other physical then how can the latter be an express image of the former?
I say,
Jesus was the Image of his father long before he took on a physical body. If a physical body is necessary in order to be to the the express image of the father then Jesus was not God until he was born into this world.
Can’t you see all the difficulties that are created when you get your doctrine form places other than the word of God?
peace
“…a just plain spirit.” Ralph’s description of God. OK, I know he wrote that to state that God is just a spirit and not a physical body, but do you see the attitude that comes out of such language? By golly, if God is just a plain spirit and not real and tangible like us, he’s rather boring an unimpressive. But if God has a physical body like us, gee, he must be something special.
He asks which is better: the plain, boring God or the special one. I’ll let others answer the question for themselves, but his presentation speaks volumes.
FOF said,
In the previous chapter Jesus explains that “that which is born of the spirit is spirit.” Do you think this statement in John 3 has implications on the statement in John 4? I would be interested in your answer to that question.
I say,
In chapter 3 Jesus explains how a person can be born again. The first birth is physical ie of matter the second birth is spiritual ie not of matter.
When I was born of the spirit nothing happened in the physical realm. No new matter was created I weighed the same after as before.
However a brand new “spiritual” creation came to exist one that did not exist before anywhere in the universe.
quote:
From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
(2Co 5:16-17)
and
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you.
(Rom 8:9a)
end quote:
The Regenerate are not some sort of jump-started hybrid of flesh and spirit. We are common flesh that is miraculously and gloriously indwelt with the very spirit of God.
That is the new creation.
Christians are spiritual beings merely clothed in flesh sort of like when Jesus took on flesh in the womb of marry. That is not to say that our flesh is bad. I happen to like my “meat suit” I’m glad I have one but my “meat suit” is not me.
I try not to “regard” the flesh that I carry around and my identity is not wrapped up in it.
Before the Spirit came I was nothing but a rebel zombie. That guy died and now a real live Spiritual man inhabits his carcass.
Eventually my king will give it a makeover to make it more suitable for the glorious cargo it carries around but it will always be a vehicle that carries me around.
Peace
disregard everything after peace
I apologize… I once again posted before I proofread.
Context means the entire context of what is being said. Whether it says “in the spirit” or “the spirit”, it means the same thing in the whole CONTEXT of what the Lord said. What is “in Spirit”? We have FOF’s ridiculous suggestion that one must leave their body to worship, or that I don’t know about Greek. ALL red herrings.
I notice that Ralph does not offer a context at all for what Jesus meant. What did Jesus mean when he said “worship in spirit and truth?” Tell us exactly what He means. I have given what Paul and Jesus and James said about it. You have offered nothing. What does the verse ACTUALLY SAY, in Greek?
ἐν—πνεύματι—-καὶ—-ἀληθείᾳ—-δεῖ—–προσκυνεῖν
IN—-SPIRIT—AND—TRUTH—MUST—WORSHIP
We are translating from an ancient language into modern English. Of course the above makes little sense. From the arguments presented here, it is clear that the Mormons want to gravitate towards this saying something like ” one must worship with one’s spirit and [in] truth” or some such thing, though there is no word for “in” there, it must be placed into the text to make sense out of it, because their God has A SPIRIT. This is simply ridiculous.
This, though, loses the entire context. What Jesus is really saying is, WORSHIP IN TRUTH SPIRITUALLY, or the worship must be truthful and spiritual. But why then, put in there that God is a Spirit? Because Jesus was teaching the Samaritan Woman that God is everywhere and one does not need to go to a specific place to worship Him. HE IS A SPIRIT. That is the context of what Jesus was saying.
Πνεῦμα—-ὁ–θεός——καὶ—-τοὺς—–προσκυνοῦντας—αὐτόν
SPIRIT—GOD [IS]—AND—THOSE—WORSHIPING—–HIM
To illustrate this, let’s take for example, this verse about John the Baptist (Luke 1:17):
αὐτὸς–προελεύσεται——–ἐνώπιον—-αὐτοῦ—ἐν—-πνεύματι—καὶ–δυνάμει—Ἠλίου
–HE—WILL GO FORTH—–BEFORE—HIM—IN—-SPIRIT—AND—POWER—ELIJAH
Do we leave off the preposition “the” in the translation to English? No. We say “in the Spirit and power of Elijah”. But Mormons would have us mistranslate it, or say that John 4:24 CAN’T be translated “in the Spirit”. Ridiculous. Did John have to leave his body to go before Jesus in [the] spirit and power of Elijah? Do we use all the Mormon arguments to prove that this also means something other than it does? Therefore, FOF, according to what you write, one CANNOT translate this as “in THE spirit and power OF Elijah”. You must get absolutely stupid, to get to FOF’s level of logic.
So… Let’s go back to Romans 12. Here, Paul talks about TRUE WORSHIP. What he says, confirms what I am saying:
Paul speaks of “true” and “proper” worship. He links this to what? NOT “conforming to the pattern of the world”, or as James states, keeping yourself “unspotted” from the world. Then what does Paul do? He tells us about the HOLY SPIRIT! The GIFTS that the Spirit gives us, to help us to NOT conform to the world. Thus we worship in THE Spirit, and IN truth. FOF can’t get specific or give us any context for why anyone would take his word that,
I gave actual SCRIPTURES to back up what I said. FOF gives us nothing but FOF’s opinion. He has to create a false dichotomy between what Jesus said in John 3 and what he said in John 4 to make his argument work. But it can’t work that way, as I explained above. How does being “born of the Spirit” PROVE that God has a PHYSICAL BODY? It doesn’t. But FOF can’t answer any of the scriptures that say that the Father HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN.
This is so absolute ridiculous that it defies logic. (FOF’s illogic and bubblemania rears it’s ugly head once again). This is FOF’s false dichotomy folks. Make something up and then claim it was said by another. This is absolutely disingenuous, dishonest and deceitful, but that is FOF’s bag of tricks folks. It leads FOF to conclude this, not anyone else. Remember folks, this is what FOF does… LIE. Just like he says I provide no answers to worshiping in Spirit and Truth, when I showed FROM THE BIBLE how we should do so. FOF just totally ignores this and pulls gibberish out of his deceitful bag of tricks. Such is Mormon logic. Full of lies.
EXCEPT.. that it doesn’t SAY THAT. FOF must INSERT that meaning into the text. It actually says that GOD (the Father) IS SPIRIT. It does not say that God (the Father) is a spirit within a body. That the Father is a Spirit ONLY and is invisible and NEVER SEEN, is backed up by the rest of the Bible.
And do FOF or Ralph answer why Jo changed Luke to read that Jesus IS the Father and the Father IS Jesus? Nope. Do they answer why the Church was publishing in 1832 that they believed in the TRINITY? Nope. Do they answer why Jo taught that God was a Spirit WITHOUT A BODY and that the Holy “Ghost” was the MIND OF GOD, in the Lectures On Faith and that these were accepted as BINDING SCRIPTURE until 1876? NOPE. These embarrassments can’t be answered by the likes of Ralph and FOF. They have nothing to show why their own “prophets” got it so wrong.
So Lurkers, once again, we see FOF’s epic fail, and Ralph’s diversion clearly and concisely answered.
Oh yes he has. He is lying. Here folks, is a classic example of how FOF tries to deceive people. He says that he is not arguing that God MUST have a physical body. But that is EXACTLY what he is arguing. He says,
And
But this is NOT what Jesus said, he didn’t say that we need to worship him as a spirit without a body. False dichotomy and making up false arguments. He then says,
If FOF is not arguing FOR this, then why say ANYTHING? Why say,
What is FOF’s “interpretation”?
FOF MUST insert his false dichotomy of John 3 to try and prove this. But it falls flat, as usual. His “interpretation” is,
And this takes a PHYSICAL BODY, or saying that God is HUMAN, and he uses the scriptures he quotes to TRY and prove exactly this.
FOF continues to lie. He can’t help himself folks. Disgusting.
Once again, let’s go to the Greek, which says,
“in flesh but in spirit”
ἐν σαρκὶ ἀλλὰ ἐν πνεύματι
According to FOF this CANNOT be translated “in THE flesh but in THE spirit”. And we cannot get the meaning out of it that being “in [the] spirit” isn’t talking about OUR spirits, but having the Holy Spirit dwelling IN US, which is the TRUE and SPIRITUAL WORSHIP Jesus speaks of.
FOF’s logic would make this senseless in English. Do we shed our bodies to become “in spirit”? No. Just as we worship in THE Spirit, we are in THE Spirit, when the Spirit of God dwells in us. God is A Spirit and is everywhere, doesn’t need a body to tie him down to ONE PLACE. That is exactly what Jesus meant.
Thank you again, FMM, for shedding light on FOF’s and Ralph’s false dichotomy.
Well Ralph,
I think you may be under the impression that you had the final word on the topic regarding the Mormon god and his progression, especially in knowledge. You gave the impression that it was settled within Mormonism. Let me give you quotes from other Mormon leaders on the topic.
Brigham Young said God was progressing in knowledge.
“God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 120).
Brigham Young: According to [one] theory, God can progress no further in knowledge and power; but the God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children: they will increase to all eternity, if they are faithful.
Journal of Discourses 11:286-287
Wilford Woodruff: If there was a point where man in his progression could not proceed any further, the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent and reflecting mind. God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end. It is just so with us.
Journal of Discourses 6:120
B. H. Roberts: God’s immutability should not be so understood as to exclude the idea of advancement or progress of God. . . . And is it too bold a thought, that with this progress, even for the Mightiest, new thoughts, and new vistas may appear, inviting to new adventures and enterprises that will yield new experiences, advancement, and enlargement even for the Most High?
Seventy’s Course in Theology (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1907-1912), 4:69-70
Perhaps Ralph you should consider how these “blue sky thinkers” in 19th century Mormonism operated within their inner circle.
Reviews – Conflict in the Quorum: Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith (Signature Books)
(From the review)
Writers tend to believe that when the Lion of the Lord (Brigham Young) roared, all the thinking had been done and Utah grew silent. Only the sounds of church members rushing to fall into step filled the mountain air.
Gary James Bergera relates a different story as he details the theological conflicts that raged between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt. Was Mormonism, according to Pratt’s argument, to become a religion primarily bound to scripture or would it continue to find its fundamental strength in the living oracles who led the church, the position espoused by Brigham Young?
Church members were aware of many of these conflicts. Accounts were published in Mormon newspapers and church leaders addressed subjects regarding Pratt’s and Young’s disagreements in public meetings as well as in the private gatherings of the Council of the Twelve Apostles. At the time, more church members sided with Young than Pratt, but in the twentieth century, Mormon leaders found many of the theories of Pratt more acceptable than those of Young. As Bergera points out, “reliance on Pratt has continued to be pervasive and unmistakable in Mormonism to the present” (p. 282).
Pratt’s difficulties with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young began in Kirtland, Ohio, where he and Joseph Smith argued over the pronunciation of a Hebrew word. They disagreed, too, over aspects of plural marriage and Pratt’s belief that Joseph Smith had “made advances towards apostles’ wives, including his own companion, Sarah” (p. 19). Pratt’s conflicts with Smith’s successor, Brigham Young, included disagreements over such theological issues as Young’s Adam-God doctrine, Young’s idea of the eternal progression of God, and on worshiping the attributes of deity.
http://signaturebooks.com/2010/05/reviews-conflict-in-the-quorum-orson-pratt-brigham-young-joseph-smith/
……………….and more:
“Among the conflicts discussed are: Pratt’s feud with Joseph Smith in 1842 when Pratt was dropped from the Twelve; Pratt’s opposition to reconstituting the First Presidency in 1847; Young’s dressing-down of Pratt in the 1850s and 1860s for preaching and publishing doctrines of which he did not approve (the nature of God, the creation, Adam’s role, the Holy Spirit, and God’s omniscience, among others); Pratt’s publishing without authorization Lucy Mack Smith’s history of Joseph Smith; Pratt’s championing of Joseph Smith’s inspired version of the Bible; and ultimately Pratt’s 1875 demotion in seniority in the Quorum of the Twelve.”
So Ralph…………….
Are you planning on becoming a god? I think you would respond in the affirmative, if you do enough and earn that assignment within the Mormon system. Are you omniscient? I believe the answer is “No” you are not omniscient but you are growing/progressing in knowledge.
Will those people you and your wife give spirit birth to and place on the worlds you will create refer to you as the eternal heavenly father? Have you always been, are you now the eternal heavenly father or will you progress to that state? Will there come a point in time where as the heavenly father you will know everything?
Well there seems to be some dispute about that and given how Mormonism operates you folks don’t know the whole story. More could be revealed. Does Mormon scripture address or is it revealed.
You see Ralph, Mormonism is a religion that has thrived on the seat of the pants manner of operation of its leaders. Much of what is expounded in Mormonism isn’t all that well defined. That’s why there is so much in Mormonism that has to be identified as a prophet’s or apostle’s “opinion” or labeled “folklore”.
I would say Ralph that your prophet needs to take a trip down to his vault, haul out Joseph Smith’s magic rock, and get some answers.
So Ralph…………..
Which school of Mormonism are you enrolled in? Are you enrolled in the Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, James Strang, Oliver Cowdery and more recently Bruce McConkey schools? I could name more since there are something like 70 to 100 different sects of Mormonism all with the defining “truth” of what’s what in the restored gospel.
So when you make a statement indicating that a topic like the omniscient character of the Mormon god (is he progressing or has he arrived in knowledge ?) is settled, you need to tell us which of these free thinkers you are following.
Actually it’s the same with just about any topic we could discuss; in this case it’s the nature of God. You’re contending Ralph, that when you become a god, you’ll have it all. You will be complete. Total deity. Your up-line gods won’t have any more knowledge, wisdom or power then you will have at that moment you cross through the veil, become a god, resurrect your wife from the dead and get on with the business of creating your own cosmos. You will be the equal to your father god, grandfather god, great grand father god and various uncle gods.
In fact you’ll even be labeled the “eternal” father by those offspring you and your goddess wife procreate. You will have been god from all ages which is quite a trick since you’re not a god now.
Thus it is so with your heavenly father god, right? He is the eternal god even though he wasn’t always god having once been a man……before becoming the eternal heavenly father(?).
Ralph, I know you like Mormonism. You think you’ve had these spiritual experiences that reinforce and make real that which you desire to believe. The problem is that none of it’s true.
Let me show you a better way. There is One God. He is eternal as the Bible reveals to us. He is omniscient. He hasn’t progressed. Jesus was the visible manifestation of the invisible God. He was fully God and fully man. He became a man, died on a cross for the sins of mankind, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven and will come again with power and glory to rule as the King. This is His final role as He is priest, prophet and also Savior. It’s through faith in Him that we are given the gift of eternal life. We don’t deserve it. We can’t earn it. We are beggars sticking out our hands to receive the gift that God freely offers us.
Jesus is the truth, the way and the life. No one gets to the Father accept through Him. No amount of works can close the gap between our sinful nature and God’s holiness. We are declared righteous through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. We can add nothing to what He has done for us. Having been born again by the Spirit of God through faith in Jesus Christ we pursue holiness out of respect for what has been done for us. We present ourselves as living sacrifices to God out of reverence, respect and gratitude for what He has done for us.
Ralph, don’t delay in taking this step in faith.
MJP- so do you agree that you misrepresented my argument?
I argue that none of the passages cited by Sharon (or by others here) require that God have no physical body. Now you want me to “provide conclusive evidence of God having a physical body.” You have to be kidding, right? We go from me arguing that the Biblical text does not support the conclusions you guys are making about God having/not having a physical body to your demand that I provide conclusive proof that God has a physical body. That is just outstanding. I have no interest in proving anything, except that the arguments leveled her against the church are extremely flawed.
I will respond to falcon’s claim that the ancient Jews or Christians believed in an anthropomorphic God who has a physical body. The Bible does not provide a clear and consistent description of God as either having a physical body or not having a physical body. Some passages appear to describe an incorporeal God while others seem to clearly describe on with a physical body, a person in form. Anybody who claims otherwise really is not that familiar with the text or scholarship in this area.
Most scholars today believe the ancient Jews believed in an anthropomorphic God. That belief changed significantly in the medieval period, largely the result of a few pivotal rabbis like Maimonides, who sought to change the belief among the Jewish people into one engaging more modern philosophical ideas. Shamma Friedman explains this very well in his paper “Anthorpomorphism and its Eradication.” Shamma Friedman is the Benjamin and Minna Reeves Professor of Talmud and Rabbinics at The Jewish Theological Seminary teaching at The Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, and Adjunct Professor in the Talmud Department at Bar Ilan University. http://www.academia.edu/2214865/Anthropomorphism_and_Its_Eradication
Carl Griffin and David Paulsen have written good papers in the Harvard Theological Review on the efforts of Augustine to change the common belief among early Christians in an anthropomorphic God with a physical body. “Augustine and the Corporeality of God.” The Harvard Theological Review Vol. 95, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 97-118
Professor or Theology at Trinity College, Rev. Edmond La Beaume Cherbonnier wrote a nice summary showing how the concept of God changed in the medieval period from a traditional anthropomorphic idea to the more modern abstract concept entitled “In Defense of Anthropomorphism.”
Dragoş Giulea, PhD in Theology, included a discussion of Jewish and early Christian concepts of God in his thesis, “Pre-Nicene Christology in Paschal Contexts: The Case of the Divine Noetic …” He provides a nice review of the rabbinical literature that clearly shows the early belief in a personal God with a physical body.
It was the belief among ancient Jews that Adam’s body resembled the Father’s body almost exactly. The traditions relating to caring for dead bodies largely came from the belief that the body was sacred because it was modeled after the Father’s form.
Right or wrong, the early Jewish religion as well as early Christian religion (1st and early 2nd centuries) subscribed to an anthropomorphic God with a physical form after which man was fashioned.