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

[thephilosopher6]

We ought to take the Bible at face value when it says God created man in His own Image per Genesis 1:27, and we ought to take Paul at his word when he says that Jesus is the express image of God per Hebrews 1:3. “express image” means similar in every way. There are no statements less ambiguous than these.

thephilosopher6:

How do you know that? How do you know what is literal or not? You cannot just pick and choose here, you have to interpret based on the whole of scripture, and scripture does not support literal interpretation of these passages.

Except when He’s walking in the Garden of Eden per Genesis 3:8, and in His temple per Habakkuk 2:20.

Yes, this is an anthropomorphism, a literary device that helps relate God to us in human terms or other physical terms. Most of Genesis is an allegory which most wouldn’t take literally except for hardcore creationist. Good and evil is even given an anthropomorphic quality in Genesis, being represented as a tree (Genesis 2:17). I doubt most take this literally save for hardcore creationist.

Some of these verses refer to the righteousness of God, not physical characteristics. As far as God being invisible, how did Abraham (Genesis 17:2), Jacob (Genesis 32:30), Moses (Exodus 33:23), and Stephen (Acts 7:55) come to see the living God?

Once again, these are called anthropomorphism, a literary device used to relate God to us in human or other physical terms. The only people taking these literally are those who don’t understand the Biblical texts. Scripture makes it quite clear that God has no true form; “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” (Colossians 1:15), “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20), “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” (1 Timothy 1:17).

 

[thephilosopher6]

In the Clementine Homilies, Peter is quoted as saying that man is in the image of God: “And Simon said: ‘I should like to know Peter, if you really believe that the shape of man has been moulded after the shape of God.’ And Peter said: 'I am really quite certain, Simon, that this is the case… It is the shape of the just God.” (The Anti-Nicene Fathers 8:316)

Yes, these homilies are considered pseudepigrapha, and are dated to the 3rd or 4th centuries, with the 4th being most favored because they were not mentioned until the end of the 4th century. There are a few theories regarding their authorship, although clearly they were not written by an orthodox Christian. Some have attributed these writings to a short lived 4th century heretical anthropomorphic sect that was present in Egypt, others attribute them to possibly some kind of Ebionite group due to the polemics against Paul found in the text, and finally some attribute them to possibly some kind of late Arian Christian group.

Origen said the issue wasn’t settled in his day. “For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood, – whether as corporeal and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies, – a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching, and the same inquiries have been made regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit”. (The Anti-Nicene Fathers 4:241)

Now in regards to Origen, he is actually talking about some of the Christians at the time who had been influenced by Stoicism, which taught that spirit was simply made of a different kind of matter than that in the physical world. This matter could not be seen, hence spirits were invisible, but they were viewed as being made up of something physical and could possibly be contained in something like in a body, naturally this conception of spirit was extended to God when it got mixed with Christianity for a short period. It was actually first introduced into the Church by Stoic Christian philosopher and theologian, Tertullian, in the beginning of the 3rd century. Though previously spirit, and thus God, had been viewed as completely separate from anything material, Tertullian mixed some of his Stoic philosophy with Christianity and introduced the doctrine. Some of his readers began to spread it in the Church throughout the 3rd century, yet by the end of the 3rd century the Church had recognized it as an outside pagan influence and it became considered heretical, rightfully so, and the Church continued with its original doctrine about spirit, and thus God, not being made of anything material. So this is what Origen is talking about. But the conception Origen talked about being held by some in the Church doesn’t match with the Mormon belief anyway.

Anything you see about the “corporeality of God” in the early Church are actually doctrines that arose in the 3rd or 4th centuries by certain heretical people or groups, and were all relatively short lived. You can’t just pick and choose these things without investigating them first. FairMormon is not a good resource for that.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, noted that other Christian denominations took issue with the new Church because of its teachings about God, noting that in 1830 “the different denominations are very much opposed to us… The Methodists also come, and they rage, for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle” (Lucy Mack Smith, The History of Joseph Smith By His Mother Lucy Mack Smith, edited by Preston Nibley, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1956), 161. AISN B000FH6N04)

This quote actually comes from the 1853 book, “The History of Joseph Smith By His Mother”, not directly from the year 1830. Brigham Young actually criticized the work as a “tissue of lies”, further saying:

There are many mistakes in the work [History of Joseph Smith By His Mother]… I have had a written copy of those sketches in my possession for several years, and it contains much of the history of the Prophet Joseph. Should it ever be deemed best to publish these sketches, it will not be done until after they are carefully corrected. - Brigham Young, Millennial Star, 1855

Now, I encourage you to read some of what was written above before you jumped in. Smith clearly went from a Modalistic view of God, to a ditheistic view, and finally a tritheisitc view, and it’s perfectly outlined in some of the links I provided above. Here, I’ll repost one for you:

Mormon Doctrine and the Trinity | Institute for Religious Research

“Despite Joseph’s claim that he had always taught a plurality of Gods, the evidence clearly shows that in his earliest years he explicitly taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit) were one God, not three Gods (see also our study on chapter 5 of Gospel Principles). We have also seen that for a few years Joseph taught that the Holy Ghost was the shared mind of the Father and the Son, not “a distinct personage.” We may summarize the change in the LDS Church’s theology as shown in the following table.” (See the table in the link)

 

[Vico]

I’m confused by this, as historically, most of Christianity has believed that the Father is pure spirit. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/god-has-no-body
God bless y’all!

The belief is that there has been and there now exists an endless line of Gods, stretching back into the eternities (per Brigham Young and also B. H. Roberts) and that God the Father was once as we are now, and is an exalted man (per Joseph Smith). These beliefs sound similar to the Buddhist that there is no creator God, rather the emergence of Great Brahmā.

 

[adamhovey1988]

That brings up another point, if Mormons are going to use bible verses to prove that God the Father is flesh and Bone, why don’t they use bible verses to say that Jesus, is a literal lamb? There seems to be a bit of inconsistency there.

 

[gazelam]

That brings up another point, if Mormons are going to use bible verses to prove that God the Father is flesh and Bone, why don’t they use bible verses to say that Jesus, is a literal lamb? There seems to be a bit of inconsistency there.

Shouldn’t this approach go both ways? Since Catholics use John 6:53 to justify the believe in the Real Presence, why don’t they also use bible verses to say that Jesus, is a literal lamb?

 

[gazelam]

Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, noted that other Christian denominations took issue with the new Church because of its teachings about God, noting that in 1830 “the different denominations are very much opposed to us… The Methodists also come, and they rage, for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle” (Lucy Mack Smith, The History of Joseph Smith By His Mother Lucy Mack Smith, edited by Preston Nibley, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1956), 161. AISN B000FH6N04)

This quote actually comes from the 1853 book, “The History of Joseph Smith By His Mother”, not directly from the year 1830. Brigham Young actually criticized the work as a “tissue of lies”, further saying:

There are many mistakes in the work [History of Joseph Smith By His Mother]… I have had a written copy of those sketches in my possession for several years, and it contains much of the history of the Prophet Joseph. Should it ever be deemed best to publish these sketches, it will not be done until after they are carefully corrected. - Brigham Young, Millennial Star, 1855

What exactly are you trying to prove here? If you agree that by 1855 Brigham Young is teaching both The Father and the Son have distinct bodies of flesh and bone, wouldn’t he be undercutting his own position by stating that Lucy Mack Smith was really a Trinitarian way back in 1831? Are philosophers supposed to argue in a way that undercuts their assertions?

How about those names of early Mormons who believed in the Trinity?

 

[gazelam]

Now, I encourage you to read some of what was written above before you jumped in. Smith clearly went from a Modalistic view of God, to a ditheistic view, and finally a tritheisitc view, and it’s perfectly outlined in some of the links I provided above. Here, I’ll repost one for you:

http://mit.irr.org/mormon-doctrine-and-trinity

“Despite Joseph’s claim that he had always taught a plurality of Gods, the evidence clearly shows that in his earliest years he explicitly taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit) were one God, not three Gods (see also our study on chapter 5 of Gospel Principles). We have also seen that for a few years Joseph taught that the Holy Ghost was the shared mind of the Father and the Son, not “a distinct personage.” We may summarize the change in the LDS Church’s theology as shown in the following table.” (See the table in the link)

Here’s a link to a document that refutes claims that early LDS believed “modalism”: https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-conte...book-of-mormon-trinitarianism-or-modalism.pdf

 

[gazelam]

Once again, these are called anthropomorphism, a literary device used to relate God to us in human or other physical terms. The only people taking these literally are those who don’t understand the Biblical texts. Scripture makes it quite clear that God has no true form; “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” (Colossians 1:15), “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20), “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” (1 Timothy 1:17).

If you want a small but informative glimpse into how serious LDS scholars approach justifying from the Bible the LDS belief in a corporeal God and other distinctive LDS beliefs, get the DVD “Ultimate Questions”. It contains two interviews by LDS scholar Truman Madsen. The first one is with the renowned Bible scholar David Noel Freedman. (The second interview is with a man known as “The Pope’s Rabbi”.) The DVD can be found here: Ultimate Questions - Deseret Book

Freedman is one of the world’s foremost Bible scholars and a renowned Hebrew scholar. He was editor of the Anchor Bible Series: Anchor Bible Series - Wikipedia

The DVD product description describes the Freedman portion as follows:

DAVID NOEL FREEDMAN, one of the world’s foremost Bible experts and a renowned Hebrew scholar, compiled and edited the 120-volume Anchor Bible project, which includes commentaries by world-class scholars. In his conversation with Truman, Freedman explores how the Latter-day Saint concept of God and man is consistent with the text of the Hebrew Bible. This illuminating discussion between personal friends is spellbinding.

INTERVIEW DIALOGUE CONTINUED IN THE NEXT POST…

 

[gazelam]

CONTINUED FROM THE PREVIOUS POST…

Regarding the nature of God, at the 8:57 minute mark of the interview the discussion is as follows:

Madsen: But now we get to those Hebrew words you said in the image and likeness in Hebrew, that’s “demut” (or “demuth”)

Freedman: Yeah, and there are two words there.

Madsen: And then, the question is what does that mean in the original Hebrew? There are those that say, for example, that the image and likeness of God, since God has to be completely different, than man, has to be something like rationality or consciousness…

Freedman: Abstractions…

Madsen: Yes, but that is not what it says in Hebrew.

Freedman: No, on the contrary, ah… the likeness, the image is almost always understood to be translated as “likeness”, ah… in its physical sense, namely that there’s a correspondence between what you see when you see a man and what you see when you see God

Madsen: So, we’re saying there’s a close similarity in nature.

Freedman: Oh, yes.

Madsen: Between God and man

Freedman: I don’t think myself there’s any question that when the Israelites imagined what God looked like they would see somebody with a form and a shape that they could recognize because it was like them.

Madsen: But you’re aware that theologians and philosophers for centuries have tried to somehow retranslate that or to say, no, we have to make it a metaphor and certainly God does not have a form and therefore cannot have a likeness in a human being.

Freedman: Well, I understand the language, but I more or less congratulate myself that I have never been thought of as or regard myself as a theologian and certainly not a philosopher (chuckle).

Madsen: You are a text man and you’re sticking to text. Now, that would mean coming in the same mode that when Moses says that he communicates with God, your reading of the Hebrew is he in fact talked with a Person.

Freedman: Yes.

Madsen: And that that Person talked with him face to face.

Freedman: Face to face

Madsen: …which suggests both God and man have a face.

Freedman: I don’t see any question about this.

Madsen: What is the exact Hebrew for face-to-face?

Freedman: Oh, panim el panim…

Madsen: Panim el panim…

Freedman: Face to face…

Madsen: Face to face…

Freedman: As a person talks to his friend…

Madsen: Yes.

Freedman: That’s very clear, meaning to understand that the communication was direct and that, umm, there were two people.

 

[thephilosopher6]

What exactly are you trying to prove here? If you agree that by 1855 Brigham Young is teaching both The Father and the Son have distinct bodies of flesh and bone, wouldn’t he be undercutting his own position by stating that Lucy Mack Smith was really a Trinitarian way back in 1831? Are philosophers supposed to argue in a way that undercuts their assertions?

How about those names of early Mormons who believed in the Trinity?

What are you trying to prove? I’m simply going off the available evidence, which is that Young clearly sees Lucy’s work as not completely accurate, and I don’t think it necessarily has do with the theology of her work. (Smith wasn’t even Trinitarian back in 1831, he was probably Modalist or possibly transitioning to ditheism around that time.)

Here’s a link to a document that refutes claims that early LDS believed “modalism”: https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-conte...book-of-mormon-trinitarianism-or-modalism.pdf

Wow, you really do love FairMormon, which is one of the most terrible resources on the internet (not surprising since it’s Mormon), and which has been debunked on multiple issues by this website: Debunking FairMormon - Home - Table of Contents

Now, as for the refutation of your article, here are these links and works:
http://signaturebookslibrary.org/the-word-of-god-05/

https://sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/044-36-44.pdf

(EDIT)
Read this and see some excerpts I pulled from it below:
http://mit.irr.org/joseph-smiths-modalism-sabellian-sequentialism-or-swedenborgian-expansionism

 

[thephilosopher6]

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)

 

[thephilosopher6]

I would also like to refer you to this link which also refutes similar arguments found in the Fair PDF claiming to debunk BOM Modalism:

Joseph Smith’s Modalism: Sabellian Sequentialism or Swedenborgian Expansionism? | Institute for Religious Research

Here’s an excerpt:

CONTINUED BELOW:

 

[thephilosopher6]

Throughout the Book of Mormon, and especially during the account of Jesus’ visit to the ancient people of the New World, we also find language that seems to contradict the idea that there is only one divine person. We are told to pray to the Father in the name of the Christ (2 Nephi 32:9, 33:12, Mormon 9:21; Moroni 3:2, 4:2), or of Jesus (3 Nephi 19:6-8, 28:30; Mormon 9:6, 27; Moroni 8:3). Jesus speaks repeatedly of asking “the Father in my name” (3 Nephi 16:4, 17:3, 18:19-20, 23, 30, 20:31, 27:28, Moroni 7:26) or urges that we call on the Father in his name (3 Nephi 21:27, 27:7; Ether 4:15, Moroni 2:2). Jesus also prays to the Father (3 Nephi 17:14-18, 18:24, 19:24, 27, 31). He speaks of going unto the Father (3 Nephi 17:4, 18:35, 27:28), and of being sent by the Father: “I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me; and my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross” (3 Nephi 27:13-14). We are also told that “Christ hath ascended into heaven, and hath set down on the right hand of God” (Moroni 7:27, cf. 9:26). It is not surprising that passages like these have been pointed to by those who deny that the Father and the Son are a single divine person in the Book of Mormon.

 

[thephilosopher6]

But those who do, do so incautiously since wherever the Book of Mormon pauses to give clarification as to how such passages are to be understood, its clarification runs along modalistic lines. So, for example, when the passage so often used in Mormon evangelism says “if ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true…” (Moroni 10:4), it is hard for us, given what Joseph had already said, to view it as anything other than praying to Jesus as Eternal Father in the name of Jesus the incarnate Christ. Prior to the incarnation the title Eternal Father is used almost exclusively of Jesus (1 Nephi 11:21, 13:4; Mosiah 16:15 Alma 11:38-39). The only exception is the Abinadi’s speech in Mosiah 15:1-7 already mentioned, where the Father and the Son together are the Eternal Father, but that statement appears in the context of explaining how the Eternal Father became the Son by taking on flesh. The Father, as explicitely distinct from the Son, is never referred to as the Eternal Father until after the incarnation of Jesus, and then we find such references in the evangelistic passage already cited and in the liturgy of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in Moroni 4:3 (2x) and 5:2 (2x).5

This restricted usage of the title Eternal Father is especially interesting because the idea of praying to the Father in the name of the Son was used prior to the incarnation in the Book of Mormon.

 

[thephilosopher6]

We are left then with two options: (1) Praying to the Father in the name of the Son is a mere formality. Really we are only praying to Jesus under one aspect in the name of Jesus under another, or (2) Jesus left a part of himself in heaven when he came to earth, to serve henceforth in some sense as a separate God, or representation of God, or added an extra separate something to himself when he came to earth.

A number of factors favor the former option. In the first place, contrary to the claims of writers like Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulson, who feel they can point to a number of passages that “describe two or more members of the Godhead manifesting themselves at the same time,”6 the reality is that in all the instances they cite the language has been carefully crafted to avoid the impression that the Father and the Son anyway are appearing simultaneously. A case in point is what these authors refer to as “one of the most clearly explicit antimodalistic passages in the Book of Mormon,” i.e., “the announcement of Jesus Christ by the Father as Christ descends to the Nephites after his resurrection.” When one reads that passage carefully, however, it becomes clear that the announcement of Jesus Christ does not occur “as Christ descends” as Bruening and Paulson insist, but, in a very self-conscious way, just before he descends. In the context the people hear a voice two times. Yet they do not understand it, nor are they able to tell where it came from. But then:

the third time they did hear the voice, and did open their ears to hear it; and their eyes were towards the sound thereof; and they did look steadfastly towards Heaven, from whence the sound came; and behold, the third time they did understand the voice which they heard; and it saith unto them, Behold, my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name, hear ye him.

And it came to pass as they understood, they cast their eyes up again towards Heaven, and behold, they saw a man descending out of Heaven. (3 Nephi 11:7-8).

The words of the voice from heaven in this case echo the voice of God in the biblical accounts of Jesus’ baptism. This being so it is significant that in the account of the Baptism of Jesus in 1 Nephi 11:27 the Holy Spirit does descend, but there is no accompanying voice from heaven. In both of these instances, and there are others (cf. 1 Nephi 1:8-10), the book of Mormon actually avoids describing “two or more members of the Godhead manifesting themselves at the same time,” at least in cases where the two persons are the Father and the Son.

 

[thephilosopher6]

A further point of evidence of this same type has to do with Book of Mormon’s statements concerning Jesus’ interaction with the Father. We have already noted how Jesus prays to the Father. How could this be unless the Father was a separate person? The same question could be asked, however, about those places in the Book of Mormon where Jesus is said to do the Father’s will or obey the Father’s commandments. “Verily, verily, I say unto you,” says Jesus in 3 Nephi 16:16, “Thus has the Father commanded me….” And in 3 Nephi 11:11 he says: “I have drank out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things, from the beginning.” How could Jesus be said to obey the will of the Father unless the Father was a separate person with a separate will? This time the Book of Mormon provides an explanation. “Behold,” God says at 3 Nephi 1:14,” I come…to do the will, both of the Father, and of the Son [,] of the Father, because of me, and of the Son, because of my flesh.” Thus when the Jesus of the Book of Mormon submits to the Father’s will, he submits to himself, and when he obeys the Father’s commandments he obeys his own commandments. If this is so it is also likely that we should understand references to Jesus’ praying to the Father as his commiserating with himself.

 

[thephilosopher6]

You can read the rest here:

Joseph Smith’s Modalism: Sabellian Sequentialism or Swedenborgian Expansionism? | Institute for Religious Research

 

[ajcstr]

I was actually watching Tim Staples taking about it on youtube. It was one of the times he was on The Journey Home. He mentioned some names but I don’t recall all of them.

Pretty sure Jimmy Swaggart was one

 

[adamhovey1988]

I think you’re right