Why do Mormons believe that God the Father has a physical body?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adamhovey1988
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thephilosopher6 said:
David Noel Freedman in his work, “Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible”, includes this as his definition of anthropomorphism found in the Bible:
“Anthropomorphic language is interspersed throughout the Bible, but is is more prevalent in the OT (esp. The Pentateuch and Psalms) than in the NT. Figurative description of God as having a human features includes references to God’s face (Ps 34:16/MT 17), eyes (2 Chr. 16:9), lips (Prov. 16:27), mouth (Isa. 1:20), ears (Jas. 5:4), hands (Exod. 15:7), finger (Luke 11:20), arm (John 12:38), and foot (Lam. 1:15). Other anthropomorphic imagery implies human characteristics, God is depicted as walking in the garden (Gen. 3:8) and smelling sacrifices (8:21). While other ancient religions imagined their deities as actually being animal or human form - or as a hybrid of animal and human characteristics, as in Egypt - the ancient Jewish religious tradition reflected in scripture refrained from such. Although Gen 1:27 provides an apparent rationale for anthropomorphic imagery, the inherent danger is that such figurative language, employed to express how humans have experienced a transcendent God, is mistaken for literal language, particularly with respect to God’s gender.” - Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (David Noel Freedman)
Click to expand...
Seems one Jeffery T. Tucker actually wrote this entry…

Click to expand...
 
Just adding, the changes in Smith’s accounts of his “First Vision”, align to his evolving doctrine on deity.
 
The interesting thing about it is that you could not possibly teach the LDS version of the nature of God from the Book of Mormon, the most perfect book of scripture.
 
gazelam said:
Seems that charitable Catholics disagree. Please see Catholic Scholar Stephen Webb’s gracious remarks while speaking at a FAIR Mormon conference beginning at the 1:20 mark here:
Click to expand...
Ok? Great. But as I have show, Fair is a pretty bad resource, especially after I have refuted it multiple times and you don’t ever have any good responses. There is literally a whole website devoted to exposing FairMormon anyway.
gazelam said:
Seems one Jeffery T. Tucker actually wrote this entry…
Click to expand...
Yes, I realize that, and he included that as the preferred definition in his own dictionary. Most of the definitions in his dictionary were not directly written by him, but rather written by other trusted scholars, and he obviously preferred them when he included their work as definitions in his very own dictionary. What you don’t understand is that this would be the position of many Old Testament scholars. There are dissenting voices, yes, but not as significant as you think.

First, if you knew anything about OT scholarship, you’d know scholars agree that the Deuteronomist (the authors of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 King, and Jeremiah) were heavily opposed to anthropomorphic views of God, due to multiple polemics found against the idea in these books. Much of the anthropomorphic language (in the Torah) was added in later by the Priestly source (the redactors and editors of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers; authors of Leviticus), which was really just an expansion of the JE source (the original authors of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers), not because they saw God as literally anthropomorphic, but because as priests were heavily attached to the Temple, which was viewed as the actual house of God, and representing him anthropomorphically would only promote this idea of the Temple. Other anthropomorphic references found about God outside of the Priestly source (which compared to the Priestly source is relatively small) like that in the Psalms or Isaiah is, again, considered to be mostly figurative in relating God to man and have no actual theological value to them. Indeed, we also see non-human anthropomorphic traits used for God in these works like God having wings (Psalms 91:4). It’s clear that these references have no real theological value to them and are being used in figurative ways.

This is how most scholars would view the anthropomorphic verses of God in the OT. All of them being figurative, either being added in later by the Priestly authors to promote the Temple, or there as general literary devices that have no theological meaning behind them. Mormons take these things entirely out of their historical and theological context and attempt to fit them into their modern day doctrine which is at odds with the Bible and intentions of the original authors of the Bible.
 
Last edited:
There used to be a poster here who was his own kind of Mormon. He believed JS, the BoM and was a Trinitarian. This is also the position of the Community of Christ (RLDS).
 
Before I saw where you said RLDS, I was just getting ready to say that! Mormonism is an interest of mine, possibly because there are so many different denominations for something that Joseph Smith bragged about being able to keep together. I don’t mean that as an insult to Mormons, it’s just something I find interesting. I can’t remember the denomination, but there’s one in Independence Missouri that has 12 people. And across the street from them, there is a denomination that has 40 people. And they both claim to be the true Mormons. I don’t know what all their positions on the godhead are, but it actually reminds me of bit of the Protestant Reformation to be honest with you, just a lot quicker.
 
RebeccaJ said:
There used to be a poster here who was his own kind of Mormon. He believed JS, the BoM and was a Trinitarian. This is also the position of the Community of Christ (RLDS).
Click to expand...
Now called Community of Christ.
 
Here are a few more delicious tidbits regarding this topic.

Adolph Harnack wrote:

God was naturally conceived and represented as corporeal by uncultured Christians, though not by these alone, as the later controversies prove (e.g., Orig. contra Melito; see also Tertull. De anima). In the case of the cultured, the idea of a corporeality of God may be traced back to Stoic influences; in the case of the uncultured, popular ideas co-operated with the sayings of the Old Testament literally understood, and the impression of the Apocalyptic images. (Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma (New York: Dover, 1961), 1:180 n 1.)

Regarding John 4:24, Origen wrote:

I know that some will attempt to say that, even according to the declarations of our own Scriptures, God is a body, because . . . they find it said . . . in the Gospel according to John, that “God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” . . . Spirit, according to them, [is] to be regarded as nothing else than a body. (Origen, De Principiis 1.1 (ANF 4:242)

Harvard Historian Harry Austryn Wolfson wrote:

in Scripture . . . there is no indication that by spirit and soul were meant any such principles as form or immateriality. (Wolfson, Philo, 2:95.)
 
gazelam said:
Here are a few more delicious tidbits regarding this topic.

Adolph Harnack wrote:

God was naturally conceived and represented as corporeal by uncultured Christians, though not by these alone, as the later controversies prove (e.g., Orig. contra Melito; see also Tertull. De anima). In the case of the cultured, the idea of a corporeality of God may be traced back to Stoic influences; in the case of the uncultured, popular ideas co-operated with the sayings of the Old Testament literally understood, and the impression of the Apocalyptic images. (Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma (New York: Dover, 1961), 1:180 n 1.)
Click to expand...
This is not the majority view though among scholarship, and I have already explained that to you, yet you refuse to accept it. You can cherry pick a few dissenting scholars here and there, but it’s not going to hold.

Now, you do know that Adolph Harnack was active primarily from the early 1870’s, to the early 1910’s, right? He died in 1930. His views are old and considered outdated, and based on nothing but speculation. He was a liberal scholar, he denied the virgin birth of Christ and many of his miracle’s, and dismissed the Gospel of John, and of course denied any divinity to Christ. His theology was quashed by the rise of neo-orthodoxy, and while some liberal scholars hold him in esteem today, he simply not that authoritative anymore. He is seen as part of the collapsed movement of post-enlightenment liberal theologians.

As I have said before, there is absolutely no evidence that the early Church viewed God in the way Mormons do, everything we see from the writings of the earliest Fathers indicate much to the contrary.

Now, I suggest you read “Breaking the Mormon Code” by Matthew A. Paulson. Its description is:
In Provo, Utah, there exists the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) renowned as a Mormon think-tank, FARMS is owned and operated by Brigham Young University (BYU) and the Mormon Church. Their mission seeks to repudiate the opposition, applaud its supporters, and justify many peculiar Mormon doctrines. This book demonstrates that FARMS often twists the truths to justify Mormon doctrines. To justify their position they often will utilize inane accusations, misquotes and equivocation. This collection of deceit from Mormon scholarship is what Matt Paulson has identified as the breaking of the Mormon Code.
Click to expand...
Likewise, here you are doing just that in attempting to use the below quote ⬇️
gazelam said:
I know that some will attempt to say that, even according to the declarations of our own Scriptures, God is a body, because . . . they find it said . . . in the Gospel according to John, that “God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” . . . Spirit, according to them, [is] to be regarded as nothing else than a body. (Origen, De Principiis 1.1 (ANF 4:242)
Click to expand...
But as I have already explained to you, Origen here is primarily speaking about certain Stoic conceptions of God that had entered into the Church at the time.
 
Last edited:
Noted Biblical scholar, Thorleif Boman, states:
“Is there an unbridgeable chasm between the theriomorphic and anthropomorphic expressions of Yahweh’s essence? If we are thinking in a Greek way, yes, for a person cannot be simultaneously theriomorphic an anthropomorphic. If we are thinking Hebraically, no, for neither theriomorphic nor anthropomorphic express God’s appearance but only his being and properties… It is quite as wrong to take literally the anthropomorphic expressions about Yahweh… Western minds naturally infer that that if Yahweh carries out definite actions analogous to man, he must also possess the members and bodily parts necessary for the action… This conclusion is not demanded according to Israelite thinking, for it is possible for the Israelite to say the trees clapped their hands and the mountains shouted for joy (Isa. 55:12)… We should not, in the first place, conceive of the anthropomorphic actions of God more grotesquely than the text plainly states.” - Thorleif Boman (Hebrew Thought Compared With Greek [The Impression of God])"
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I’m not going to accept FARMS scholarship anyway. You can be biased and objective, I’ve seen only bias from them.
 
Indeed, they really attempt to manipulate the information to look like it’s in support of Mormonism.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I already mentioned them in an above post. They were present in Syria and Egypt in the 4th century. They were condemned as blasphemous for their anthropomorphism. Other beliefs they held include Quartodecimanism, and they were known to practice and encourage fornication.
 
Last edited:
I did not see it, I’m sorry. If I did, I forgot. Do you think it possible that some Mormons came up with this idea because a flesh and bone God is more relatable? From what I know about Mormonism, is that they think Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics are all in error.
 
I do not know why Smith chose to include the doctrine of the corporeality of God in Mormon doctrine, you’d have to ask him. 🤷‍♂️
 
Personal opinion here, is that it is an expression of his narcissism. I think if he had lived long enough he would have proclaimed himself to be God (or a god).
 
Do Mormons believe that just a Smith was exhausted? If that is the case then wouldn’t that make him a god?
 
RebeccaJ said:
Personal opinion here, is that it is an expression of his narcissism. I think if he had lived long enough he would have proclaimed himself to be God (or a god).
Click to expand...
Mormons believe he’s a God. They sing praises to him. One line of a song says, “mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren. Death can not conquer that hero again.”

They also believe that he stands at the gate as a judge and that anyone who enters the highest kingdom will have to pass by him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top