Clarification on Mormon Belief

[Jay53]

I would just like a clarification about the Mormon belief that God the Father has flesh and bones and was once a man like us. I would like to know what Scriptures are used to support this belief.

I believe one of them is from Genesis:

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

But, I don’t know of any Jewish people that interpreted this verse in this way. So, do Mormons then believe that Jewish people had/have this belief all wrong and that Joseph Smith then received the correct teaching?

And I’m just curious as to what other support Mormons have for this teaching in Scripture.

Thank you.

 

[ParkerD]

I would just like a clarification about the Mormon belief that God the Father has flesh and bones and was once a man like us. I would like to know what Scriptures are used to support this belief.

I believe one of them is from Genesis:

But, I don’t know of any Jewish people that interpreted this verse in this way. So, do Mormons then believe that Jewish people had/have this belief all wrong and that Joseph Smith then received the correct teaching?

And I’m just curious as to what other support Mormons have for this teaching in Scripture.

Thank you.

Jay,
The LDS belief from Joseph Smith’s teaching as transcribed in the King Follett Sermon in 1844 is that God the Father lived on an earth as a perfect man like Jesus Christ, and was able to resurrect Himself just as Jesus Christ was able to resurrect Himself.

The Jews generally would not have had that teaching among them, since all of their dealings with the God of the Old Testament was with Jehovah, who was Jesus Christ before He was born into this world. Jesus Christ is the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” He is the Creator, as John described in John 1. He was and is I AM.

Christ said He does everything based on having seen His Father do it, in John 5:19 as follows: “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.”

 

[mjf001]

Jay,
The LDS belief from Joseph Smith’s teaching as transcribed in the King Follett Sermon in 1844 is that God the Father lived on an earth as a perfect man like Jesus Christ, and was able to resurrect Himself just as Jesus Christ was able to resurrect Himself.

The Jews generally would not have had that teaching among them, since all of their dealings with the God of the Old Testament was with Jehovah, who was Jesus Christ before He was born into this world. Jesus Christ is the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” He is the Creator, as John described in John 1. He was and is I AM.

Christ said He does everything based on having seen His Father do it, in John 5:19 as follows: “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.”

It seems to me, Jesus is talking about his divinity in this chapter. The Jews are upset because he healed the blind man on the sabbath, and he’s explaining to them that He’s just doing what his Father would do. He makes reference to giving life and judgment in this chapter, both divine prerogatives (from the footnotes in the NAB at the end of chapter 5), thus revealing his divinity. This chapter makes no mention of God being flesh and blood. The way I read it, everything that was important for us to know, the Bible spelled those things out specifically.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[Eucharisted]

It’s ironic that some Mormons use the King James Bible yet cannot figure out where the Book of Mormons comes from.

Irony aside, Mormons can twist Scripture just like any Christian can. But abuse dose not destroy proper user.

 

[agiosotheos]

Jay,
The LDS belief from Joseph Smith’s teaching as transcribed in the King Follett Sermon in 1844 is that God the Father lived on an earth as a perfect man like Jesus Christ

 

[Jay53]

Jay,
The LDS belief from Joseph Smith’s teaching as transcribed in the King Follett Sermon in 1844 is that God the Father lived on an earth as a perfect man like Jesus Christ, and was able to resurrect Himself just as Jesus Christ was able to resurrect Himself.

The Jews generally would not have had that teaching among them, since all of their dealings with the God of the Old Testament was with Jehovah, who was Jesus Christ before He was born into this world. Jesus Christ is the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” He is the Creator, as John described in John 1. He was and is I AM.

Christ said He does everything based on having seen His Father do it, in John 5:19 as follows: “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.”

I have to agree with mjf on this - I don’t think John 5:19 has anything to do with God the Father being flesh and bones.

Is there anything else in the Bible used to support this, or is it just Joseph Smith’s revelations as described in the King Follett Sermon? I guess that’s part of where my issue with Mormonism is - these “revelations” contradict previous scriptures which leads one to believe they are false. I just don’t see where anyone prior to Joseph Smith believed in this concept that God the Father was/is flesh and bones and was once a man.

I am surmising that Mormons believe that this was the teaching of the Apostles after Jesus, but that it was changed during the “Great Apostasy”. That’s why I’m looking to see what other scripture this belief is based on.

Thank you for your help.

 

[ParkerD]

It seems to me, Jesus is talking about his divinity in this chapter. The Jews are upset because he healed the blind man on the sabbath, and he’s explaining to them that He’s just doing what his Father would do. He makes reference to giving life and judgment in this chapter, both divine prerogatives (from the footnotes in the NAB at the end of chapter 5), thus revealing his divinity. This chapter makes no mention of God being flesh and blood. The way I read it, everything that was important for us to know, the Bible spelled those things out specifically.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael,
A resurrected Person does not have mortal blood, but they do have bones. Humankind were “created” in the “image of God” or in other words the “likeness of God” (Genesis 5:1). If you serve and worship a god who doesn’t “see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell,” then you don’t worship the true God but you do fulfill prophecy. (Deuteronomy 4:28)

 

[ParkerD]

I have to agree with mjf on this - I don’t think John 5:19 has anything to do with God the Father being flesh and bones.

Is there anything else in the Bible used to support this, or is it just Joseph Smith’s revelations as described in the King Follett Sermon? I guess that’s part of where my issue with Mormonism is - these “revelations” contradict previous scriptures which leads one to believe they are false. I just don’t see where anyone prior to Joseph Smith believed in this concept that God the Father was/is flesh and bones and was once a man.

I am surmising that Mormons believe that this was the teaching of the Apostles after Jesus, but that it was changed during the “Great Apostasy”. That’s why I’m looking to see what other scripture this belief is based on.

Thank you for your help.

Jay,
When Stephen saw God the Father and saw Jesus “standing on the right hand of God”, then when Luke described Stephen’s martyrdom and wrote about Stephen’s words, Luke didn’t stop and explain that Stephen was seeing some sort of spirit image. It was a simple concept and Luke knew exactly what he was writing about. He was writing about Stephen having seen two divine Persons who stood side by side. See Acts 7:55-60.

 

[Jay53]

Jay,
When Stephen saw God the Father and saw Jesus “standing on the right hand of God”, then when Luke described Stephen’s martyrdom and wrote about Stephen’s words, Luke didn’t stop and explain that Stephen was seeing some sort of spirit image. It was a simple concept and Luke knew exactly what he was writing about. He was writing about Stephen having seen two divine Persons who stood side by side. See Acts 7:55-60.

Can you clarify this please. I just read Acts 7 and I don’t read anything about where Stephen says he saw God as a man with flesh and bones.

But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

 

[Jay53]

Michael,
A resurrected Person does not have mortal blood, but they do have bones. Humankind were “created” in the “image of God” or in other words the “likeness of God” (Genesis 5:1). If you serve and worship a god who doesn’t “see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell,” then you don’t worship the true God but you do fulfill prophecy. (Deuteronomy 4:28)

Parker,
This is my confusion here. You quote Genesis to support the belief that God had flesh and bones, but no one up until Joseph Smith interpreted this passage to mean that God had flesh and bones. Do you (Mormons) contend that everyone just had the wrong interpretation up until Joseph Smith? Or, everyone had it wrong up until Jesus came and then the Catholic Church reverted back to the old interpretation? Or ??? I just don’t understand.

Thank you for your help.

 

[ParkerD]

Can you clarify this please. I just read Acts 7 and I don’t read anything about where Stephen says he saw God as a man with flesh and bones.

Hi, Jay,
To me those verses convey a simple message: Jesus, who was known to have been resurrected, was standing on the right hand of God the Father. Stephen saw Them both, and saw Their glory. He attested to that as he was being killed. Luke attested to that by relating the experience in simple language, easily understood. Luke wrote words that meant Stephen saw two Beings standing side by side. If one was only a Spirit and the other was a resurrected Person with a body, then Stephen and Luke would have clarified that distinction because it would have been such an important distinction to make. Stephen was testifying of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus and His return to the presence of Heavenly Father.

Those verses also relate to Genesis 5:1 which is also a very simple statement:

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,
This is my confusion here. You quote Genesis to support the belief that God had flesh and bones, but no one up until Joseph Smith interpreted this passage to mean that God had flesh and bones. Do you (Mormons) contend that everyone just had the wrong interpretation up until Joseph Smith? Or, everyone had it wrong up until Jesus came and then the Catholic Church reverted back to the old interpretation? Or ??? I just don’t understand.

Thank you for your help.

Jay,

Mormons believe that Adam knew that God had a body, as did Enoch, as did Abraham, as did Moses. The text of the Old Testament passed on down through the ages and that is now published, does not contain every writing of every prophet who ever lived. When the earliest compilers wanted to leave something out, I would suppose that they left it out in order to keep the prevailing views they wanted to convey to the people.

However that came about, the verse in Deuteronomy 4:28 is unmistakeably clear in describing distinct attributes of the kind of Person Who is the true God.

 

[Jay53]

Jay,

Mormons believe that Adam knew that God had a body, as did Enoch, as did Abraham, as did Moses. The text of the Old Testament passed on down through the ages and that is now published, does not contain every writing of every prophet who ever lived. When the earliest compilers wanted to leave something out, I would suppose that they left it out in order to keep the prevailing views they wanted to convey to the people.

However that came about, the verse in Deuteronomy 4:28 is unmistakeably clear in describing distinct attributes of the kind of Person Who is the true God.

Do you know of anything in Jewish scripture or tradition that would confirm that Adam, Abraham, Moses, et al “knew” and believed that God the Father had flesh and bones. I’m just not seeing this at all from what you are quoting. Stephen did not say he saw God the Father as flesh and bones - that’s an assumption made to fit this belief. He says he saw the “glory of God”. (My personal opinion is that he probably saw the “bright light” that many people claim to see in near death experiences along with Jesus Christ -please note that this is my personal opinion.) I certainly never saw this other interpretation of scripture before so it’s not an obvious interpretation. I don’t even see it now even knowing that this is how Mormons view it. I apologize for being dense, but I truly don’t see how anyone can come up with this interpretation from scripture and honestly say that this is what everyone believed before “someone” in the Catholic Church changed it or apostacized or whatever. Catholics have no problem believing that we receive the actual Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist - which to anyone outside Christianity would seem to be a bizarre concept. I don’t see any reason why the Church would change another belief (God the Father has flesh and bones) if it was in fact what Jesus had taught and God had revealed to man.

 

[flameburns623]

I would just like a clarification about the Mormon belief that God the Father has flesh and bones and was once a man like us. I would like to know what Scriptures are used to support this belief.

I believe one of them is from Genesis:

But, I don’t know of any Jewish people that interpreted this verse in this way. So, do Mormons then believe that Jewish people had/have this belief all wrong and that Joseph Smith then received the correct teaching?

And I’m just curious as to what other support Mormons have for this teaching in Scripture.

Thank you.

Jay:

Throughout the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament, God is described as having physical characterisics: hands, a back, a face, etcetera. Jewish and Christian theologians generally have interpreted these as ‘anthropomorphisms’, poetic ways of comparing human characteristics we can understand to Divine characteristics which we can merely apprehend without comprehending fully.

Joseph Smith, allegedly from the time of his First Vision, rejected this and taught that these physical characteristics mentioned in the Bible are literal. Of course, the Book of Mormon does not readily support this notion, since Smith’s theology had not yet fully developed at the time this work was ‘translated by the gift and power of God’.

The one passage of the BoM which clearly depicts a Divine being as having flesh-and-blood is one which in it’s context refers to Jesus Christ. (Of course, in this passage, in the Book of Ether, Christ has flesh BEFORE the Incarnation in Bethlehem). Most other relevant BoM passages seem to say that God is Spirit. Early Mormonism tended to most closely resemble Campbellite theology, perhaps with a touch of what would later be manfested as Pentecostalism, or at least of early 20th-Century tent revivalism.

Mormon apologists probably WOULD concede that Smith’s theology changed as time went on: continuing revelation is a centerpiece of LDS doctrine. So the doctrine of God the Father as a flesh-and-blood Personage probably did not get full development for some time. However, now that it is a vital piece of Mormonism, yes, most Mormons could and would point to other passages of the Hebrew-Greek Scriptures to help bolster the doctrine.

 

[Jay53]

Jay:

Throughout the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament, God is described as having physical characterisics: hands, a back, a face, etcetera. Jewish and Christian theologians generally have interpreted these as ‘anthropomorphisms’, poetic ways of comparing human characteristics we can understand to Divine characteristics which we can merely apprehend without comprehending fully.

Joseph Smith, allegedly from the time of his First Vision, rejected this and taught that these physical characteristics mentioned in the Bible are literal. Of course, the Book of Mormon does not readily support this notion, since Smith’s theology had not yet fully developed at the time this work was ‘translated by the gift and power of God’.

The one passage of the BoM which clearly depicts a Divine being as having flesh-and-blood is one which in it’s context refers to Jesus Christ. (Of course, in this passage, in the Book of Ether, Christ has flesh BEFORE the Incarnation in Bethlehem). Most other relevant BoM passages seem to say that God is Spirit. Early Mormonism tended to most closely resemble Campbellite theology, perhaps with a touch of what would later be manfested as Pentecostalism, or at least of early 20th-Century tent revivalism.

Mormon apologists probably WOULD concede that Smith’s theology changed as time went on: continuing revelation is a centerpiece of LDS doctrine. So the doctrine of God the Father as a flesh-and-blood Personage probably did not get full development for some time. However, now that it is a vital piece of Mormonism, yes, most Mormons could and would point to other passages of the Hebrew-Greek Scriptures to help bolster the doctrine.

Thank you for the insight. I find it interesting that the doctrine ‘evolved’ and changed over time. What is up with that?

I’m just confused by this whole concept because I had never heard of anyone before Joseph Smith and Mormons believing that God the Father had flesh and bones. My impression from the discussion has been that Mormons contend and believe that this belief was always in existence, but was changed during the “Great Apostacy” and was then restored by Joseph Smith. I’m just not seeing where anyone believed this in the past - either directly in Scripture or in any writings or Traditions throughout history. I’m just thinking that there would be* something* out there that would confirm this belief - something written in Jewish tradition and history, Early Church Fathers, any “mainstream” theologian prior to Joseph Smith.

 

[TheosisM]

what also interests me is that some Mormons say that both the Father and the Son have resurrected bodies of flesh and bones. We know why the Son does, but not the Father. This is where the speculation on the Father living on another earth somewhere (perhaps as a sinless person like Jesus Christ) comes in.

 

[jdobbins]

Jay,

Mormons believe that Adam knew that God had a body, as did Enoch, as did Abraham, as did Moses. The text of the Old Testament passed on down through the ages and that is now published, does not contain every writing of every prophet who ever lived. When the earliest compilers wanted to leave something out, I would suppose that they left it out in order to keep the prevailing views they wanted to convey to the people.

However that came about, the verse in Deuteronomy 4:28 is unmistakeably clear in describing distinct attributes of the kind of Person Who is the true God.

The philosophers have known and proved since the time of Aristotle that for God to be God He has to be both perfect and infinite, and therefore solitary. Any being who does not have these attributes is not God. The Doctrines and Covenants of the Mormon church, when analyzed by topic, show that Joseph Smith had a conventional notion of God, and Jesus, when he began, and that over time, as he wrote the total body of the D&C, his notions changed and he eventually developed the notion that God was one member of a council of many gods (therefore meaning that none of them was truly God), that He has a physical body (impossible for a perfect and infinite being) and is therefore necessarily limited, and that Jesus was not a god until after the Resurrection. This, in itself, mean Mormons can not be Christian for the god in whom they believe is not the God of Christianity. As you read the texts related to God and His nature in the D&C, and mindful that all of these statements are supposedly direct revelations from Jesus to Joseph Smith, and mindful that he says specifically that Jesus is perfect and cannot lie, it is clear that, from the obvious contradictions in the statements about the nature of God as he progresses through the D&C over time, that either Jesus is a liar and does not know what his own nature is, or Joseph Smith was becoming schizophrenic. In any case, the clear contradictions in these statements over time lead one to conclude that the D&C are false and everything that derives from them, including the Book of Mormon, is also false. Trying to impute these notions of god onto the revealed Sacred Scripure is trying to rewrite scripture, which no one has the authority to do. Now, in the D&C, Joseph Smith does say he will “retranslate” scripture. However, this is something he could not do since he had no access to the original sources and he did not have the scholarship to do so. So, clearly he meant he would rewrite, not retranslate, scripture. Interestingly, he said the Gospel of John and Revelation should remain intact. One cannot reconcile the content of the Gospel of John, and what Jesus reveals about the nature and attributes of God therein, with what Joseph Smith describes as the nature of God in the D&C.
Therefore, what you say Mormons believe Adam and Abraham and Enoch knew about God cannot be what these early biblical characters actually believed for that would directly contract what is in the Gospel of John.

 

[Jay53]

The philosophers have known and proved since the time of Aristotle that for God to be God He has to be both perfect and infinite, and therefore solitary. Any being who does not have these attributes is not God. The Doctrines and Covenants of the Mormon church, when analyzed by topic, show that Joseph Smith had a conventional notion of God, and Jesus, when he began, and that over time, as he wrote the total body of the D&C, his notions changed and he eventually developed the notion that God was one of a council of many gods (therefore meaning that none of them was truly God), that He has a physical body (impossible for a perfect and infinite being) and is therefore necesarily limited, and that Jesus was not a god until after the Resurrection. This, in itself, mean Mormons can not be Christian for the god in whom they believe is not the God of Christianity. As you read the texts related to God and His nature in the D&C, and mindful that all of these statements are supposedly direct revelations from Jesus to Joseph Smith, and mindful that he says specifically that Jesus is perfect and cannot lie, it is clear that, from the obvious contradictions in the statements about the nature of God as he progresses through the D&C over time, that either Jesus is a liar and does not know what his own nature is, or Joseph Smith was becoming schizophrenic. In any case, the clear contradictions in these statements over time lead one to conclude that the D&C are false and everything that derives from them, including the Book of Mormon, is also false. Trying to impute these notions of god onto the revealed Sacred Scripure is trying to rewrite scripture, which no one has the authority to do. Now, in the D&C, Joseph Smith does say he will “retranslate” scripture. However, this is something he could not do since he had no access to the original sources and he did not have the scholarhip to do so. So, clearly he meant he would rewrite, not retranslate, scripture. Interestingly, he said the Gospel of John and Revelation should remain intact. One cannot reconcile the content of the Gospel of John and what Jesus reveals about the nature and attributes of God therein with what Joseph Smith describes as the nature of God in the D&C.
Therefore, what you say Mormons believe Adam and Abraham and Enoch knew about God cannot be what these early biblical characters actually believed for that would directly contract what is in the Gospel of John.

Not to go off topic, but the bolded part above just struck me as odd. Do Mormons believe that Jesus was/is God while He was on Earth or He became God/a god only after the Crucifixion and Resurrection?

 

[Marie5890]

Not to go off topic, but the bolded part above just struck me as odd. Do Mormons believe that Jesus was/is God while He was on Earth or He became God/a god only after the Crucifixion and Resurrection?

Was a god in the flesh during His earthly ministry…infact was a god in the pre-exists too…

LDS dogma teaches he was the first born of Elohim in the pre-existance (ie first born of Heavenly father and Heavenly mother) and only begotten in the flesh…

 

[Jay53]

Was a god in the flesh during His earthly ministry…infact was a god in the pre-exists too…

LDS dogma teaches he was the first born of Elohim in the pre-existance (ie first born of Heavenly father and Heavenly mother) and only begotten in the flesh…

Thanks Marie. I’m not sure I understand this concept either since I believe/know Jesus to be God always and eternal/uncreated. As in John 1:1-3.

What/Who is this “Heavenly mother”? God the Father (in Mormon belief) and Heavenly Mother are spirit gods and have spirit children of which Jesus is one who is then sent to Earth? I, sadly, am becoming more and more confused.