To continue on with a recent conversation on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Bryce commented, “As Krister Stendahl, a prominent Lutheran, has pointed out, the best way to learn what another faith believes is to ask them directly, not their critics or enemies. You can learn more about the LDS Church by visiting lds.org or mormon.org.”

Fair enough, so I did, and I will blog on this from time to time.

From an article called “The Restoration of Truth: God is your loving Heavenly Father” at Mormon.org.

God is your Father in Heaven (Matthew 6:9).  We call God Heavenly Father because He is the Father of our spirits and we are created in His image ( Genesis 1:27).

What does it mean that we are made in God’s image?

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them, (Genesis 1:26-27, ESV)

The Hebrew words for “image” and “likeness” refers to something that is similar, but not identical to the thing it is the image of or represents.  So keep that in mind when you read the next paragraph in this statement.

God has a body that looks like yours, though His body is immortal, perfected, and has a glory beyond description.  He knows you personally and loves you more than you can comprehend.  To help you find happiness in this life and guide you to return to live with Him, Heavenly Father provided a plan called the gospel of Jesus Christ, a guide based on the life and teachings of His Son, Jesus Christ, (emphasis mine).

And in the bold print lies the primary error in this statement of faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

God the Father does not have a physical body.  He is a spirit being.  In John 4:23-24, Jesus says,

“But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking people to worship him.  God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth,” (ESV – emphasis mine).

Not God is not “the” Spirit.  God is spirit.  It is His essence.  God is immaterial.  God is invisible, (John 1:18).  Some may say, Jesus had a body!  Also you see God mention aspects of his body (his back, his hand, etc.)  Dr. Tony Evans responds to that objection in Our God is Awesome.

Jesus does have a body, but that’s because He became man, not because of His eternal essence.  God’s essence is immaterial.  Now, the God of the Bible knows that we have trouble with that because we function in a world that needs bodies for us to understand things.  So the Bible contains many anthropomorphisms, a word for your theological dictionary.  This term is made up of two Greek words: anthropos, which means “man”; and morphos, which means “form.”

In other words, God speaks to us in “man-forms.”  The Bible may say, “The hand of the Lord is mighty to save,” or  “The eye of the Lord can see.”  The Bible may talk about God’s back, His face, or His ears.  Those are anthropomorphisms, the use of human descriptions to help us relate to a spirit being we could not relate to otherwise.

But even though God allows Himself to be described in human terms, when it comes to worship He says, “You must worship Me in My essence.”

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

135 comments
  1. You are right on here but if you ever spend any time with Mormons you will quickly find out they do not like to be confused with facts. They are more comfortable with contradictions than anyone I have ever come across.

  2. You are right on here but if you ever spend any time with Mormons you will quickly find out they do not like to be confused with facts. They are more comfortable with contradictions than anyone I have ever come across.

  3. You are right on here but if you ever spend any time with Mormons you will quickly find out they do not like to be confused with facts. They are more comfortable with contradictions than anyone I have ever come across.

  4. “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth,”
    Does this mean we must worship in spirit-form (sans bodies)?

    Maybe it means God has a spirit (as we do), and is represented by the Holy Spirit. We also worship through the Holy Spirit/Ghost, whose job is to testify of truth.

  5. “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth,”
    Does this mean we must worship in spirit-form (sans bodies)?

    Maybe it means God has a spirit (as we do), and is represented by the Holy Spirit. We also worship through the Holy Spirit/Ghost, whose job is to testify of truth.

  6. “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth,”
    Does this mean we must worship in spirit-form (sans bodies)?

    Maybe it means God has a spirit (as we do), and is represented by the Holy Spirit. We also worship through the Holy Spirit/Ghost, whose job is to testify of truth.

  7. True that Alan. I had Mormon reps at my house for about 2 months (4 of them) and I presented them with their own actual history and the contradictions involved – not one of them so much as batted an eye. I had to think to myself – whatever happened to logic and reason within faith systems? Oh well, they live good lives so what can I truly say – except – keep on being nice to people.

  8. True that Alan. I had Mormon reps at my house for about 2 months (4 of them) and I presented them with their own actual history and the contradictions involved – not one of them so much as batted an eye. I had to think to myself – whatever happened to logic and reason within faith systems? Oh well, they live good lives so what can I truly say – except – keep on being nice to people.

  9. True that Alan. I had Mormon reps at my house for about 2 months (4 of them) and I presented them with their own actual history and the contradictions involved – not one of them so much as batted an eye. I had to think to myself – whatever happened to logic and reason within faith systems? Oh well, they live good lives so what can I truly say – except – keep on being nice to people.

  10. I’m amazed at how much you are able to read into the absence of that little article “the.”
    However, you entire argument is based on a mistaken translation.
    When Jesus says “God is spirit,” in John 4:24, what he actually said was: πνεῦμα ὁ θεός
    That little omicron there is an article. This literally translates as “God [is] the god.”
    So your argument actually falls apart once you realize that in the original “God is THE spirit” is PRECISELY what that passage says.
    Best to think of English translations as just a handy tool for getting the gist of it. But when you are trying to make complex theological arguments based on translation… well, maybe you just shouldn’t.

  11. I’m amazed at how much you are able to read into the absence of that little article “the.”
    However, you entire argument is based on a mistaken translation.
    When Jesus says “God is spirit,” in John 4:24, what he actually said was: πνεῦμα ὁ θεός
    That little omicron there is an article. This literally translates as “God [is] the god.”
    So your argument actually falls apart once you realize that in the original “God is THE spirit” is PRECISELY what that passage says.
    Best to think of English translations as just a handy tool for getting the gist of it. But when you are trying to make complex theological arguments based on translation… well, maybe you just shouldn’t.

  12. I’m amazed at how much you are able to read into the absence of that little article “the.”
    However, you entire argument is based on a mistaken translation.
    When Jesus says “God is spirit,” in John 4:24, what he actually said was: πνεῦμα ὁ θεός
    That little omicron there is an article. This literally translates as “God [is] the god.”
    So your argument actually falls apart once you realize that in the original “God is THE spirit” is PRECISELY what that passage says.
    Best to think of English translations as just a handy tool for getting the gist of it. But when you are trying to make complex theological arguments based on translation… well, maybe you just shouldn’t.

  13. OK, I think what you’re saying is, “God is spirit” means “God is the spirit”?
    Again, maybe the spirit is refering to the Holy Ghost, who always represents God. When the Holy Ghost speaks to you, it’s the same as if God speaks to you.
    Isn’t the entire Bible a translated work? What else would you base “complex theological arguments” on?

  14. OK, I think what you’re saying is, “God is spirit” means “God is the spirit”?
    Again, maybe the spirit is refering to the Holy Ghost, who always represents God. When the Holy Ghost speaks to you, it’s the same as if God speaks to you.
    Isn’t the entire Bible a translated work? What else would you base “complex theological arguments” on?

  15. OK, I think what you’re saying is, “God is spirit” means “God is the spirit”?
    Again, maybe the spirit is refering to the Holy Ghost, who always represents God. When the Holy Ghost speaks to you, it’s the same as if God speaks to you.
    Isn’t the entire Bible a translated work? What else would you base “complex theological arguments” on?

  16. Everybody thanks for commenting.  BWB – what I mean is that God is spirit, mainly  dealing with God the Father, but also applies to God the Son in preincarnate form, and of course God the Spirit.  I don’t want to get into a detailed discussion on the Trinity in this comment – that’ll come later.   So to be clear I mean He is not composed of matter and does not possess a physical nature.
    So God is Spirit, not has a spirit.  Regarding worshiping Him in spirit – that is worshipping Him in His essence (see Evans quote).  If you look at the context of the passage (v. 21) Jesus is telling her that she will not be bound by a physical location to worship God (Jerusalem or the mountain in Samaria).  To apply it to today – we are not limited in our worship of God by location – we can worship Him in our cars, in our homes, in church, in the shower… I think you get the point.  yhc – I’m not sure where you got your information about the Greek.  πνεῦμα is transliterated as pnuema – which is always translated as spirit.  The best literal interlinear translation of  πνεῦμα ὁ θεός would be God (is) spirit.  All major English translations translate it that way, except two – the King James Version and American Standard Version both translate that phrase “God is a spirit” which really doesn’t change the meaning.  No translation that is a literal, word for word translation has “the” in that phrase in John 4:24.
    This attribute of God is also implied in several references regarding his invisibility

    No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known, (John 1:18, ESV). 

    Basically through the incarnation of Jesus we can know God, but in His eternal essence he is spirit and is invisible.
    Also in 1 Timothy we see:

    To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever.  Amen, (1 Timothy 1:17, ESV – emphasis mine)
    …who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see.  To him be honor and eternal dominion.  Amen, (1 Timothy 6:16, ESV – emphasis mine)

    God is also not bound to a particular space.  He is omnipresent.  If God were in a limited physical body like what is suggested by the LDS church then he could not be omnipresent.  One of the places we see this attribute is in Acts 17:24, “The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man.
    Also you see this clearly in Psalm 139.
    The point to this entire post (and future posts) was to demonstrate that there are differences between LDS doctrine and what is historic, traditional Christian doctrine, and I wanted to show this using statements from their own website so I can’t be accused of using information given by critics.

  17. Everybody thanks for commenting.  BWB – what I mean is that God is spirit, mainly  dealing with God the Father, but also applies to God the Son in preincarnate form, and of course God the Spirit.  I don’t want to get into a detailed discussion on the Trinity in this comment – that’ll come later.   So to be clear I mean He is not composed of matter and does not possess a physical nature.
    So God is Spirit, not has a spirit.  Regarding worshiping Him in spirit – that is worshipping Him in His essence (see Evans quote).  If you look at the context of the passage (v. 21) Jesus is telling her that she will not be bound by a physical location to worship God (Jerusalem or the mountain in Samaria).  To apply it to today – we are not limited in our worship of God by location – we can worship Him in our cars, in our homes, in church, in the shower… I think you get the point.  yhc – I’m not sure where you got your information about the Greek.  πνεῦμα is transliterated as pnuema – which is always translated as spirit.  The best literal interlinear translation of  πνεῦμα ὁ θεός would be God (is) spirit.  All major English translations translate it that way, except two – the King James Version and American Standard Version both translate that phrase “God is a spirit” which really doesn’t change the meaning.  No translation that is a literal, word for word translation has “the” in that phrase in John 4:24.
    This attribute of God is also implied in several references regarding his invisibility

    No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known, (John 1:18, ESV). 

    Basically through the incarnation of Jesus we can know God, but in His eternal essence he is spirit and is invisible.
    Also in 1 Timothy we see:

    To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever.  Amen, (1 Timothy 1:17, ESV – emphasis mine)
    …who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see.  To him be honor and eternal dominion.  Amen, (1 Timothy 6:16, ESV – emphasis mine)

    God is also not bound to a particular space.  He is omnipresent.  If God were in a limited physical body like what is suggested by the LDS church then he could not be omnipresent.  One of the places we see this attribute is in Acts 17:24, “The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man.
    Also you see this clearly in Psalm 139.
    The point to this entire post (and future posts) was to demonstrate that there are differences between LDS doctrine and what is historic, traditional Christian doctrine, and I wanted to show this using statements from their own website so I can’t be accused of using information given by critics.

  18. Everybody thanks for commenting.  BWB – what I mean is that God is spirit, mainly  dealing with God the Father, but also applies to God the Son in preincarnate form, and of course God the Spirit.  I don’t want to get into a detailed discussion on the Trinity in this comment – that’ll come later.   So to be clear I mean He is not composed of matter and does not possess a physical nature.
    So God is Spirit, not has a spirit.  Regarding worshiping Him in spirit – that is worshipping Him in His essence (see Evans quote).  If you look at the context of the passage (v. 21) Jesus is telling her that she will not be bound by a physical location to worship God (Jerusalem or the mountain in Samaria).  To apply it to today – we are not limited in our worship of God by location – we can worship Him in our cars, in our homes, in church, in the shower… I think you get the point.  yhc – I’m not sure where you got your information about the Greek.  πνεῦμα is transliterated as pnuema – which is always translated as spirit.  The best literal interlinear translation of  πνεῦμα ὁ θεός would be God (is) spirit.  All major English translations translate it that way, except two – the King James Version and American Standard Version both translate that phrase “God is a spirit” which really doesn’t change the meaning.  No translation that is a literal, word for word translation has “the” in that phrase in John 4:24.
    This attribute of God is also implied in several references regarding his invisibility

    No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known, (John 1:18, ESV). 

    Basically through the incarnation of Jesus we can know God, but in His eternal essence he is spirit and is invisible.
    Also in 1 Timothy we see:

    To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever.  Amen, (1 Timothy 1:17, ESV – emphasis mine)
    …who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see.  To him be honor and eternal dominion.  Amen, (1 Timothy 6:16, ESV – emphasis mine)

    God is also not bound to a particular space.  He is omnipresent.  If God were in a limited physical body like what is suggested by the LDS church then he could not be omnipresent.  One of the places we see this attribute is in Acts 17:24, “The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man.
    Also you see this clearly in Psalm 139.
    The point to this entire post (and future posts) was to demonstrate that there are differences between LDS doctrine and what is historic, traditional Christian doctrine, and I wanted to show this using statements from their own website so I can’t be accused of using information given by critics.

  19. Also, the Jewish would have been appalled to hear the very notion that God would have a physical body.
    This concept runs throughout the bible.

    A physical body suggests a creation.

    Now, to say that the physical creation of the shell that contained Jesus is God is outright blasphemy.

    The trinity concept still stands.

  20. Also, the Jewish would have been appalled to hear the very notion that God would have a physical body.
    This concept runs throughout the bible.

    A physical body suggests a creation.

    Now, to say that the physical creation of the shell that contained Jesus is God is outright blasphemy.

    The trinity concept still stands.

  21. Also, the Jewish would have been appalled to hear the very notion that God would have a physical body.
    This concept runs throughout the bible.

    A physical body suggests a creation.

    Now, to say that the physical creation of the shell that contained Jesus is God is outright blasphemy.

    The trinity concept still stands.

  22. Pneuma translates as breath to be more precise, or Holy Spirit depending on context, and ho theos is “the deity.” It is absolutely not the same as what we think of as the English word “spirit” which is an entirely different concept the Greeks called the “animus.” Hence, very literally it reads “Breath/Holy Spirit the deity.” More sensibly in this context since they both share the nominative case, is a tautological reading, like “The Holy Spirit (is) the god”

    My point is simply that neither “God is the spirit” nor “God is spirit” is representative of the original Greek. Both are equally inaccurate. Although handy, you simply cannot make the leap you have done.

    You say that the passage says: “Not God is not “the” Spirit. God is spirit. ”

    This is reading more into a passage than is actually there. The Greek makes no distinction, and in fact the absent article (which seems to be the crux of your argument against LDS) is present in the Greek. Nothing in this passage rules out LDS doctrine, nor does John 1:18, which simply states that God the Father has not been seen by men, not that he is invisible. Nor 1 Timothy 1:17 which reads:
    τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων, ἀφθάρτῳ, ἀοράτῳ, μόνῳ θεῷ
    But the King of Forever, uncorrupted, unseen, only God

    As a matter of fact, there isn’t even a Greek word that I’m aware of that means “invisible” in the modern English sense of the word, as in “impossible to see.” In Greek the word “a-oratos” only means not-visible, as in “away from the view of the eyes.”

    Likewise, that which “no one has ever seen or can see” in 1 Timothy 6:16 more probably refers to the unapproachable light, since they share the aorist case, rather than God which is in the nominative.

    Admittedly my Greek is a bit rusty, but I only mention this to illustrate how problematic is can be to go by these literary and inexact translations.

    You might do well to realize that “traditional Christian doctrine” is a product of mortal men– men just like Joseph Smith– and men who are equally apt to get it wrong.

    Believe what you will, but know that there are as many holes in the ideas of the men you choose to indoctrinate yourself with.

  23. Pneuma translates as breath to be more precise, or Holy Spirit depending on context, and ho theos is “the deity.” It is absolutely not the same as what we think of as the English word “spirit” which is an entirely different concept the Greeks called the “animus.” Hence, very literally it reads “Breath/Holy Spirit the deity.” More sensibly in this context since they both share the nominative case, is a tautological reading, like “The Holy Spirit (is) the god”

    My point is simply that neither “God is the spirit” nor “God is spirit” is representative of the original Greek. Both are equally inaccurate. Although handy, you simply cannot make the leap you have done.

    You say that the passage says: “Not God is not “the” Spirit. God is spirit. ”

    This is reading more into a passage than is actually there. The Greek makes no distinction, and in fact the absent article (which seems to be the crux of your argument against LDS) is present in the Greek. Nothing in this passage rules out LDS doctrine, nor does John 1:18, which simply states that God the Father has not been seen by men, not that he is invisible. Nor 1 Timothy 1:17 which reads:
    τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων, ἀφθάρτῳ, ἀοράτῳ, μόνῳ θεῷ
    But the King of Forever, uncorrupted, unseen, only God

    As a matter of fact, there isn’t even a Greek word that I’m aware of that means “invisible” in the modern English sense of the word, as in “impossible to see.” In Greek the word “a-oratos” only means not-visible, as in “away from the view of the eyes.”

    Likewise, that which “no one has ever seen or can see” in 1 Timothy 6:16 more probably refers to the unapproachable light, since they share the aorist case, rather than God which is in the nominative.

    Admittedly my Greek is a bit rusty, but I only mention this to illustrate how problematic is can be to go by these literary and inexact translations.

    You might do well to realize that “traditional Christian doctrine” is a product of mortal men– men just like Joseph Smith– and men who are equally apt to get it wrong.

    Believe what you will, but know that there are as many holes in the ideas of the men you choose to indoctrinate yourself with.

  24. Pneuma translates as breath to be more precise, or Holy Spirit depending on context, and ho theos is “the deity.” It is absolutely not the same as what we think of as the English word “spirit” which is an entirely different concept the Greeks called the “animus.” Hence, very literally it reads “Breath/Holy Spirit the deity.” More sensibly in this context since they both share the nominative case, is a tautological reading, like “The Holy Spirit (is) the god”

    My point is simply that neither “God is the spirit” nor “God is spirit” is representative of the original Greek. Both are equally inaccurate. Although handy, you simply cannot make the leap you have done.

    You say that the passage says: “Not God is not “the” Spirit. God is spirit. ”

    This is reading more into a passage than is actually there. The Greek makes no distinction, and in fact the absent article (which seems to be the crux of your argument against LDS) is present in the Greek. Nothing in this passage rules out LDS doctrine, nor does John 1:18, which simply states that God the Father has not been seen by men, not that he is invisible. Nor 1 Timothy 1:17 which reads:
    τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων, ἀφθάρτῳ, ἀοράτῳ, μόνῳ θεῷ
    But the King of Forever, uncorrupted, unseen, only God

    As a matter of fact, there isn’t even a Greek word that I’m aware of that means “invisible” in the modern English sense of the word, as in “impossible to see.” In Greek the word “a-oratos” only means not-visible, as in “away from the view of the eyes.”

    Likewise, that which “no one has ever seen or can see” in 1 Timothy 6:16 more probably refers to the unapproachable light, since they share the aorist case, rather than God which is in the nominative.

    Admittedly my Greek is a bit rusty, but I only mention this to illustrate how problematic is can be to go by these literary and inexact translations.

    You might do well to realize that “traditional Christian doctrine” is a product of mortal men– men just like Joseph Smith– and men who are equally apt to get it wrong.

    Believe what you will, but know that there are as many holes in the ideas of the men you choose to indoctrinate yourself with.

  25. Your reading of John 4:24 is incorrect. There are other scriptures that tell us that God is love, or God is light, or God is fire, etc. Do those scriptures mean that God is ONLY those things? No. They are only certain qualities of Him, but not the end of His nature.

    The original Greek scripture of John 4:24 only contains two words, theos pneuma, or “God spirit”, which is not conclusive. “Pneuma” has been rendered elsewhere as “life” or “breath”, so the scripture might as likely say “God is life” or “God is breath”.

    God has a spirit, yes, just like all the rest of us. But that does not preclude Him from having a physical body. The spirit is housed in a physical body, which makes a soul. God has an immortal, resurrected, glorified, and perfected physical body, just like the Son, for the Son is not greater than the Father (John 14:28). If Christ thought it was of such supernal importance to raise up His physical body in the resurrection, the spirit and body never to be separated again, than we can’t consider the Father without one either. And this does not preclude Him from being omnipresent either, for His glory and spirit emanate from Him to fill the immensity of space.

    Yes, the LDS doctrine is different than the traditional, historic, orthodox Christian doctrine, you are right. If that is what you are trying to show, you are right. The LDS Church would agree with you, whole-heartedly. The LDS Church has never claimed to follow traditional, historic, orthodox Christianity. We reject post-New Testament Christian history because we believe in a general widespread apostasy from the true doctrine of Christ following the martyrdom of the apostles, which we claim was prophesied would happen (2 Thes. 2:3; Amos 8:11; Matt. 24:5, 24; Acts 20:29; 1 Cor. 11:18; Gal. 1:6; 1 Tim. 1:6; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:16; Isa. 60:2). Mormons are not traditional Christians. Mormons believe in restored Christianity, which we also believe was foretold (Matt. 24:14; Acts 3:21; Rom. 11:25; Eph. 1:10; Rev. 14:6; Dan. 2:44; Isa. 29:14). We believe that the original New Testament church formed by Jesus Christ has been restored today.

    Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier of Trinity College (a non-Mormon scholar) summarizes this phenomenon as follows:

    “In short, to use the forbidden word, the biblical God is clearly anthropomorphic (i.e. “in the form of man”)—not apologetically so, but proudly, even militantly.”

    Christopher Stead (another non-Mormon scholar) of the Cambridge Divinity School agrees that

    “The Hebrews…pictured the God whom they worshipped as having a body and mind like our own, though transcending humanity in the splendour of his appearance, in his power, his wisdom, and the constancy of his care for his creatures.”

    For more on the corporeality of God, see: http://en.fairmormon.org/Corporeality_of_God

  26. Your reading of John 4:24 is incorrect. There are other scriptures that tell us that God is love, or God is light, or God is fire, etc. Do those scriptures mean that God is ONLY those things? No. They are only certain qualities of Him, but not the end of His nature.

    The original Greek scripture of John 4:24 only contains two words, theos pneuma, or “God spirit”, which is not conclusive. “Pneuma” has been rendered elsewhere as “life” or “breath”, so the scripture might as likely say “God is life” or “God is breath”.

    God has a spirit, yes, just like all the rest of us. But that does not preclude Him from having a physical body. The spirit is housed in a physical body, which makes a soul. God has an immortal, resurrected, glorified, and perfected physical body, just like the Son, for the Son is not greater than the Father (John 14:28). If Christ thought it was of such supernal importance to raise up His physical body in the resurrection, the spirit and body never to be separated again, than we can’t consider the Father without one either. And this does not preclude Him from being omnipresent either, for His glory and spirit emanate from Him to fill the immensity of space.

    Yes, the LDS doctrine is different than the traditional, historic, orthodox Christian doctrine, you are right. If that is what you are trying to show, you are right. The LDS Church would agree with you, whole-heartedly. The LDS Church has never claimed to follow traditional, historic, orthodox Christianity. We reject post-New Testament Christian history because we believe in a general widespread apostasy from the true doctrine of Christ following the martyrdom of the apostles, which we claim was prophesied would happen (2 Thes. 2:3; Amos 8:11; Matt. 24:5, 24; Acts 20:29; 1 Cor. 11:18; Gal. 1:6; 1 Tim. 1:6; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:16; Isa. 60:2). Mormons are not traditional Christians. Mormons believe in restored Christianity, which we also believe was foretold (Matt. 24:14; Acts 3:21; Rom. 11:25; Eph. 1:10; Rev. 14:6; Dan. 2:44; Isa. 29:14). We believe that the original New Testament church formed by Jesus Christ has been restored today.

    Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier of Trinity College (a non-Mormon scholar) summarizes this phenomenon as follows:

    “In short, to use the forbidden word, the biblical God is clearly anthropomorphic (i.e. “in the form of man”)—not apologetically so, but proudly, even militantly.”

    Christopher Stead (another non-Mormon scholar) of the Cambridge Divinity School agrees that

    “The Hebrews…pictured the God whom they worshipped as having a body and mind like our own, though transcending humanity in the splendour of his appearance, in his power, his wisdom, and the constancy of his care for his creatures.”

    For more on the corporeality of God, see: http://en.fairmormon.org/Corporeality_of_God

  27. Your reading of John 4:24 is incorrect. There are other scriptures that tell us that God is love, or God is light, or God is fire, etc. Do those scriptures mean that God is ONLY those things? No. They are only certain qualities of Him, but not the end of His nature.

    The original Greek scripture of John 4:24 only contains two words, theos pneuma, or “God spirit”, which is not conclusive. “Pneuma” has been rendered elsewhere as “life” or “breath”, so the scripture might as likely say “God is life” or “God is breath”.

    God has a spirit, yes, just like all the rest of us. But that does not preclude Him from having a physical body. The spirit is housed in a physical body, which makes a soul. God has an immortal, resurrected, glorified, and perfected physical body, just like the Son, for the Son is not greater than the Father (John 14:28). If Christ thought it was of such supernal importance to raise up His physical body in the resurrection, the spirit and body never to be separated again, than we can’t consider the Father without one either. And this does not preclude Him from being omnipresent either, for His glory and spirit emanate from Him to fill the immensity of space.

    Yes, the LDS doctrine is different than the traditional, historic, orthodox Christian doctrine, you are right. If that is what you are trying to show, you are right. The LDS Church would agree with you, whole-heartedly. The LDS Church has never claimed to follow traditional, historic, orthodox Christianity. We reject post-New Testament Christian history because we believe in a general widespread apostasy from the true doctrine of Christ following the martyrdom of the apostles, which we claim was prophesied would happen (2 Thes. 2:3; Amos 8:11; Matt. 24:5, 24; Acts 20:29; 1 Cor. 11:18; Gal. 1:6; 1 Tim. 1:6; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:16; Isa. 60:2). Mormons are not traditional Christians. Mormons believe in restored Christianity, which we also believe was foretold (Matt. 24:14; Acts 3:21; Rom. 11:25; Eph. 1:10; Rev. 14:6; Dan. 2:44; Isa. 29:14). We believe that the original New Testament church formed by Jesus Christ has been restored today.

    Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier of Trinity College (a non-Mormon scholar) summarizes this phenomenon as follows:

    “In short, to use the forbidden word, the biblical God is clearly anthropomorphic (i.e. “in the form of man”)—not apologetically so, but proudly, even militantly.”

    Christopher Stead (another non-Mormon scholar) of the Cambridge Divinity School agrees that

    “The Hebrews…pictured the God whom they worshipped as having a body and mind like our own, though transcending humanity in the splendour of his appearance, in his power, his wisdom, and the constancy of his care for his creatures.”

    For more on the corporeality of God, see: http://en.fairmormon.org/Corporeality_of_God

  28. yhc – A Greek scholar I am not. You are right in that pnuema also means breath, but it is also translated Spirit. The majority of the time it is translated Spirit (or spirit – depending on whether refering to the Holy Spirit).

    A word study can be found at: http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151.

    Also, my point regarding the article in John 4:24 is that “the” is never present in any of the translations, and it isn’t in the Greek – I think we can at least agree on that.

    I don’t know about the the word invisible, again I don’t want to make myself into something I’m not. But that still doesn’t address the issue of God’s omnipresense which can not take place if restricted to a human body.

    Bryce – thanks for your comment.

    To address your quote from Cherbonnier – anthropomorphisms are attempts to express truth about God through human analogies. There are also times in which God appeared in physical form in the Old Testament. Those should be seen as temporary manifestations of God – theophanies. Jesus himself clearly indicated that a spirit does not have flesh and bones, (Luke 24:39).

    To quote Millard Erickson in his book Christian Theology:

    “In biblical times, the doctrine of God’s spirituality was a counter to the practice of idolatry and of nature worship. God, being spirit, could not be represented by any physical object or likeness. That he is not restricted by geographical location also countered the idea that God could be contained and controlled.”

    I know you had more to your comment and I would love to respond to everything, but don’t have the time for now.

  29. yhc – A Greek scholar I am not. You are right in that pnuema also means breath, but it is also translated Spirit. The majority of the time it is translated Spirit (or spirit – depending on whether refering to the Holy Spirit).

    A word study can be found at: http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151.

    Also, my point regarding the article in John 4:24 is that “the” is never present in any of the translations, and it isn’t in the Greek – I think we can at least agree on that.

    I don’t know about the the word invisible, again I don’t want to make myself into something I’m not. But that still doesn’t address the issue of God’s omnipresense which can not take place if restricted to a human body.

    Bryce – thanks for your comment.

    To address your quote from Cherbonnier – anthropomorphisms are attempts to express truth about God through human analogies. There are also times in which God appeared in physical form in the Old Testament. Those should be seen as temporary manifestations of God – theophanies. Jesus himself clearly indicated that a spirit does not have flesh and bones, (Luke 24:39).

    To quote Millard Erickson in his book Christian Theology:

    “In biblical times, the doctrine of God’s spirituality was a counter to the practice of idolatry and of nature worship. God, being spirit, could not be represented by any physical object or likeness. That he is not restricted by geographical location also countered the idea that God could be contained and controlled.”

    I know you had more to your comment and I would love to respond to everything, but don’t have the time for now.

  30. yhc – A Greek scholar I am not. You are right in that pnuema also means breath, but it is also translated Spirit. The majority of the time it is translated Spirit (or spirit – depending on whether refering to the Holy Spirit).

    A word study can be found at: http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151.

    Also, my point regarding the article in John 4:24 is that “the” is never present in any of the translations, and it isn’t in the Greek – I think we can at least agree on that.

    I don’t know about the the word invisible, again I don’t want to make myself into something I’m not. But that still doesn’t address the issue of God’s omnipresense which can not take place if restricted to a human body.

    Bryce – thanks for your comment.

    To address your quote from Cherbonnier – anthropomorphisms are attempts to express truth about God through human analogies. There are also times in which God appeared in physical form in the Old Testament. Those should be seen as temporary manifestations of God – theophanies. Jesus himself clearly indicated that a spirit does not have flesh and bones, (Luke 24:39).

    To quote Millard Erickson in his book Christian Theology:

    “In biblical times, the doctrine of God’s spirituality was a counter to the practice of idolatry and of nature worship. God, being spirit, could not be represented by any physical object or likeness. That he is not restricted by geographical location also countered the idea that God could be contained and controlled.”

    I know you had more to your comment and I would love to respond to everything, but don’t have the time for now.

  31. Does God have a body – let me think …who can it prove it one way or the other – none of us (having never seen God in person). Yet this is to entangle us?

  32. Does God have a body – let me think …who can it prove it one way or the other – none of us (having never seen God in person). Yet this is to entangle us?

  33. Does God have a body – let me think …who can it prove it one way or the other – none of us (having never seen God in person). Yet this is to entangle us?

  34. Could not the anthropomorphisms used in the scriptures also be attempts to describe what God actually is? An exalted man? Occam’s razor is instructive in this case.

    I cannot believe that God is anything but a physical, exalted and perfected person, for to do otherwise would create a God who is impersonal, unknowable, invisible, and intangible, and therefore incompatible with all of revealed holy writ, and one that cannot exist in the physical universe as we know it. It creates a being who we cannot know and love as humans. It creates a conception of a sort of life-force that fills all space. I don’t believe in such a being, for I cannot come to know and love such a being (John 17:3). Neither can such a being come to know and love me. The Father is as physical and tangible as the Son, for Christ told us that He looks like Him (John 14), and does what He has seen the Father do (John 5:19). He can hear our prayers because He has ears, talk to us because He has a mouth, see us because He has eyes, and love us because He has a heart, albeit His senses are perfected and used in ways that only a perfected, glorified, resurrected being, our God, could use them (Isa. 55:8). We are promised we can see Him if we are pure because he actually exists in physicality, and our eyes will behold His form (Matt. 5:8). If we make it to enter His kingdom we will actually be able to embrace Him, and He will actually encircle us in His loving arms, for He is literally our Father in heaven, the Father of all spirits (Heb. 12:9). We will actually be granted to literally sit down with Him in His literal throne, as heaven is a literal place with literal mansions (Rev. 3:21; John 14:2). We know He is a physical, corporeal man, for Joseph Smith actually saw Him, with Jesus Christ on His right hand side, they spoke to him with their lips, and they were, in fact, two glorified and perfected men. This sublime truth has been revealed anew from heaven in these last days (D&C 130:22).

    Genesis tells us God said, “Let us make man in our image [Hebrew tselem], after our likeness [Hebrew demuth]) (Gen. 1:26). Just a few chapters later the author repeats that “God created man, in the likeness [Hebrew demuth] of God made he him” and then adds of Adam’s son Seth, “And Adam lived an hundred thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness [Hebrew demuth], after his image [Hebrew tselem]; and called his name Seth” (Gen. 5:1-3). The same words were used in both scenarios. Seth looked like his father Adam in the same way that Adam looked like his father and creator, God the Father.

    The Jews believed God was a man, as Origen reports, “The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions.”

    As Origen hints at, the invisible, intangible, unseeable God that Christendom has come to know is a development of the influences of Greek philosophy upon the church shortly after the deaths of the apostles. Greek converts to Christianity wanted to make the faith more appealing to their own people, and thereby attempted to “modernize” it, which the Apostle Paul warned against: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8). Greek philosophy was the philosophy of Paul’s day, and eventually came to rule Christian theology. J.N. Sanders has commented:

    “That God is spirit is not meant as a definition of God’s being—though this is how the Stoics [a branch of Greek philosophy] would have understood it. It is a metaphor of his mode of operation, as life-giving power, and it is no more to be taken literally than 1 John 1:5, “God is light,” or Deut. 4:24, “Your God is a devouring fire.” It is only those who have received this power through Christ who can offer God a real worship” (J. N. Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, , edited and completed by B. A. Mastin, (New York, Harper & Row, 1968), 147–148.).

  35. Could not the anthropomorphisms used in the scriptures also be attempts to describe what God actually is? An exalted man? Occam’s razor is instructive in this case.

    I cannot believe that God is anything but a physical, exalted and perfected person, for to do otherwise would create a God who is impersonal, unknowable, invisible, and intangible, and therefore incompatible with all of revealed holy writ, and one that cannot exist in the physical universe as we know it. It creates a being who we cannot know and love as humans. It creates a conception of a sort of life-force that fills all space. I don’t believe in such a being, for I cannot come to know and love such a being (John 17:3). Neither can such a being come to know and love me. The Father is as physical and tangible as the Son, for Christ told us that He looks like Him (John 14), and does what He has seen the Father do (John 5:19). He can hear our prayers because He has ears, talk to us because He has a mouth, see us because He has eyes, and love us because He has a heart, albeit His senses are perfected and used in ways that only a perfected, glorified, resurrected being, our God, could use them (Isa. 55:8). We are promised we can see Him if we are pure because he actually exists in physicality, and our eyes will behold His form (Matt. 5:8). If we make it to enter His kingdom we will actually be able to embrace Him, and He will actually encircle us in His loving arms, for He is literally our Father in heaven, the Father of all spirits (Heb. 12:9). We will actually be granted to literally sit down with Him in His literal throne, as heaven is a literal place with literal mansions (Rev. 3:21; John 14:2). We know He is a physical, corporeal man, for Joseph Smith actually saw Him, with Jesus Christ on His right hand side, they spoke to him with their lips, and they were, in fact, two glorified and perfected men. This sublime truth has been revealed anew from heaven in these last days (D&C 130:22).

    Genesis tells us God said, “Let us make man in our image [Hebrew tselem], after our likeness [Hebrew demuth]) (Gen. 1:26). Just a few chapters later the author repeats that “God created man, in the likeness [Hebrew demuth] of God made he him” and then adds of Adam’s son Seth, “And Adam lived an hundred thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness [Hebrew demuth], after his image [Hebrew tselem]; and called his name Seth” (Gen. 5:1-3). The same words were used in both scenarios. Seth looked like his father Adam in the same way that Adam looked like his father and creator, God the Father.

    The Jews believed God was a man, as Origen reports, “The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions.”

    As Origen hints at, the invisible, intangible, unseeable God that Christendom has come to know is a development of the influences of Greek philosophy upon the church shortly after the deaths of the apostles. Greek converts to Christianity wanted to make the faith more appealing to their own people, and thereby attempted to “modernize” it, which the Apostle Paul warned against: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8). Greek philosophy was the philosophy of Paul’s day, and eventually came to rule Christian theology. J.N. Sanders has commented:

    “That God is spirit is not meant as a definition of God’s being—though this is how the Stoics [a branch of Greek philosophy] would have understood it. It is a metaphor of his mode of operation, as life-giving power, and it is no more to be taken literally than 1 John 1:5, “God is light,” or Deut. 4:24, “Your God is a devouring fire.” It is only those who have received this power through Christ who can offer God a real worship” (J. N. Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, , edited and completed by B. A. Mastin, (New York, Harper & Row, 1968), 147–148.).

  36. Could not the anthropomorphisms used in the scriptures also be attempts to describe what God actually is? An exalted man? Occam’s razor is instructive in this case.

    I cannot believe that God is anything but a physical, exalted and perfected person, for to do otherwise would create a God who is impersonal, unknowable, invisible, and intangible, and therefore incompatible with all of revealed holy writ, and one that cannot exist in the physical universe as we know it. It creates a being who we cannot know and love as humans. It creates a conception of a sort of life-force that fills all space. I don’t believe in such a being, for I cannot come to know and love such a being (John 17:3). Neither can such a being come to know and love me. The Father is as physical and tangible as the Son, for Christ told us that He looks like Him (John 14), and does what He has seen the Father do (John 5:19). He can hear our prayers because He has ears, talk to us because He has a mouth, see us because He has eyes, and love us because He has a heart, albeit His senses are perfected and used in ways that only a perfected, glorified, resurrected being, our God, could use them (Isa. 55:8). We are promised we can see Him if we are pure because he actually exists in physicality, and our eyes will behold His form (Matt. 5:8). If we make it to enter His kingdom we will actually be able to embrace Him, and He will actually encircle us in His loving arms, for He is literally our Father in heaven, the Father of all spirits (Heb. 12:9). We will actually be granted to literally sit down with Him in His literal throne, as heaven is a literal place with literal mansions (Rev. 3:21; John 14:2). We know He is a physical, corporeal man, for Joseph Smith actually saw Him, with Jesus Christ on His right hand side, they spoke to him with their lips, and they were, in fact, two glorified and perfected men. This sublime truth has been revealed anew from heaven in these last days (D&C 130:22).

    Genesis tells us God said, “Let us make man in our image [Hebrew tselem], after our likeness [Hebrew demuth]) (Gen. 1:26). Just a few chapters later the author repeats that “God created man, in the likeness [Hebrew demuth] of God made he him” and then adds of Adam’s son Seth, “And Adam lived an hundred thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness [Hebrew demuth], after his image [Hebrew tselem]; and called his name Seth” (Gen. 5:1-3). The same words were used in both scenarios. Seth looked like his father Adam in the same way that Adam looked like his father and creator, God the Father.

    The Jews believed God was a man, as Origen reports, “The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions.”

    As Origen hints at, the invisible, intangible, unseeable God that Christendom has come to know is a development of the influences of Greek philosophy upon the church shortly after the deaths of the apostles. Greek converts to Christianity wanted to make the faith more appealing to their own people, and thereby attempted to “modernize” it, which the Apostle Paul warned against: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8). Greek philosophy was the philosophy of Paul’s day, and eventually came to rule Christian theology. J.N. Sanders has commented:

    “That God is spirit is not meant as a definition of God’s being—though this is how the Stoics [a branch of Greek philosophy] would have understood it. It is a metaphor of his mode of operation, as life-giving power, and it is no more to be taken literally than 1 John 1:5, “God is light,” or Deut. 4:24, “Your God is a devouring fire.” It is only those who have received this power through Christ who can offer God a real worship” (J. N. Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, , edited and completed by B. A. Mastin, (New York, Harper & Row, 1968), 147–148.).

  37. Stephen testified of the truth when he “looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55-56).

    Likewise, Joseph Smith testified, “And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father – that by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:22-24).

    These were not figurative manifestations or spiritual visions; they were very literal. They saw them with their eyes. And for these testimonies Stephen and Joseph were martyred, and sealed their testimonies with their blood (Heb. 9:16).

  38. Stephen testified of the truth when he “looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55-56).

    Likewise, Joseph Smith testified, “And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father – that by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:22-24).

    These were not figurative manifestations or spiritual visions; they were very literal. They saw them with their eyes. And for these testimonies Stephen and Joseph were martyred, and sealed their testimonies with their blood (Heb. 9:16).

  39. Stephen testified of the truth when he “looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55-56).

    Likewise, Joseph Smith testified, “And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father – that by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:22-24).

    These were not figurative manifestations or spiritual visions; they were very literal. They saw them with their eyes. And for these testimonies Stephen and Joseph were martyred, and sealed their testimonies with their blood (Heb. 9:16).

  40. Hey Shane, have a great holiday season and a happy new year! It’s been great coming over to your blog and just discussing passages of scripture – we may not always agree – but it makes for good convo – truly appreciate it – here’s to another year of it!

  41. Hey Shane, have a great holiday season and a happy new year! It’s been great coming over to your blog and just discussing passages of scripture – we may not always agree – but it makes for good convo – truly appreciate it – here’s to another year of it!

  42. Hey Shane, have a great holiday season and a happy new year! It’s been great coming over to your blog and just discussing passages of scripture – we may not always agree – but it makes for good convo – truly appreciate it – here’s to another year of it!

  43. Shane, I think you are sidestepping the point entirely. I am certainly no Greek scholar, I am hardly an amateur, but the translation in not what is important. As Bryce so consistently points out, there is nothing in your reading of the scripture that rules out LDS doctrine.

    Every layer of interpretation given to the scripture subjects it to another layer of human fallibility, be it through translation or logical reasoning. My digression into the original Greek of the Bible was only to illustrate how

    It may be “historically Christian” but since when does that make it correct? An issue of doctrine is no more the word of God when it comes from one mortal man as another. When you argue a theological point that is “inferred from” or “implicit in” scripture, you place your human faculties of deduction above or at least on par with the word of God. Be it Dr. Evans or Brigham Young, it is still a gloss being being put upon the actual word.

    The word of God, however, is not to be had in the gloss, but rather, it is to be found in the unvarnished original.

    For instance, I do not recall any place in the Bible where God sets out rules as to what portions out to be taken literally and what should be metaphorical or “anthropomorphic.” When John talks about the being taken into the “bosom of the Father,” it takes a leap of human deduction to determine that this is a metaphorical bosom rather than a physical one.

    In fact, it seems to me that it is blasphemous to deny any quality to an infinite God, who by definition would both within and without a physical being, within and without every physical being.

    However, this is only my own deduction and it is absurd to hold another person to it. These minor points of humanly contrived dogma get in the way of the most important thing you can possible deduce from the Bible, namely, the example that Christ provides us in how we must live our lives.

    I admit I was a bit caught up in the fun of going to the Greek, but that is not very relevant. What is relevant is inserting human ideas where they don’t belong, and I wonder what you response is to this.

  44. Shane, I think you are sidestepping the point entirely. I am certainly no Greek scholar, I am hardly an amateur, but the translation in not what is important. As Bryce so consistently points out, there is nothing in your reading of the scripture that rules out LDS doctrine.

    Every layer of interpretation given to the scripture subjects it to another layer of human fallibility, be it through translation or logical reasoning. My digression into the original Greek of the Bible was only to illustrate how

    It may be “historically Christian” but since when does that make it correct? An issue of doctrine is no more the word of God when it comes from one mortal man as another. When you argue a theological point that is “inferred from” or “implicit in” scripture, you place your human faculties of deduction above or at least on par with the word of God. Be it Dr. Evans or Brigham Young, it is still a gloss being being put upon the actual word.

    The word of God, however, is not to be had in the gloss, but rather, it is to be found in the unvarnished original.

    For instance, I do not recall any place in the Bible where God sets out rules as to what portions out to be taken literally and what should be metaphorical or “anthropomorphic.” When John talks about the being taken into the “bosom of the Father,” it takes a leap of human deduction to determine that this is a metaphorical bosom rather than a physical one.

    In fact, it seems to me that it is blasphemous to deny any quality to an infinite God, who by definition would both within and without a physical being, within and without every physical being.

    However, this is only my own deduction and it is absurd to hold another person to it. These minor points of humanly contrived dogma get in the way of the most important thing you can possible deduce from the Bible, namely, the example that Christ provides us in how we must live our lives.

    I admit I was a bit caught up in the fun of going to the Greek, but that is not very relevant. What is relevant is inserting human ideas where they don’t belong, and I wonder what you response is to this.

  45. Shane, I think you are sidestepping the point entirely. I am certainly no Greek scholar, I am hardly an amateur, but the translation in not what is important. As Bryce so consistently points out, there is nothing in your reading of the scripture that rules out LDS doctrine.

    Every layer of interpretation given to the scripture subjects it to another layer of human fallibility, be it through translation or logical reasoning. My digression into the original Greek of the Bible was only to illustrate how

    It may be “historically Christian” but since when does that make it correct? An issue of doctrine is no more the word of God when it comes from one mortal man as another. When you argue a theological point that is “inferred from” or “implicit in” scripture, you place your human faculties of deduction above or at least on par with the word of God. Be it Dr. Evans or Brigham Young, it is still a gloss being being put upon the actual word.

    The word of God, however, is not to be had in the gloss, but rather, it is to be found in the unvarnished original.

    For instance, I do not recall any place in the Bible where God sets out rules as to what portions out to be taken literally and what should be metaphorical or “anthropomorphic.” When John talks about the being taken into the “bosom of the Father,” it takes a leap of human deduction to determine that this is a metaphorical bosom rather than a physical one.

    In fact, it seems to me that it is blasphemous to deny any quality to an infinite God, who by definition would both within and without a physical being, within and without every physical being.

    However, this is only my own deduction and it is absurd to hold another person to it. These minor points of humanly contrived dogma get in the way of the most important thing you can possible deduce from the Bible, namely, the example that Christ provides us in how we must live our lives.

    I admit I was a bit caught up in the fun of going to the Greek, but that is not very relevant. What is relevant is inserting human ideas where they don’t belong, and I wonder what you response is to this.

  46. “In fact, it seems to me that it is blasphemous to deny any quality to an infinite God, who by definition would both within and without a physical being, within and without every physical being.” (YHC)

    What is quite ridiculous about this statement is the obvious – ‘to deny any quality to an infinite God’ – the better question would be if God is infinite how can he/she be solely housed by a physical body? Isn’t that the cornerstone of this debate? We would all have to admit quite plainly that a human body does limit us – and are we willing to say it would not limit God? If we do, what evidence can we truly provide to say that?

    I am not too concerned with God having a physical body – but if I do say this then I have to admit God is limited – that is the obvious part of the debate. God would no longer be omni-present for one thing – so He is not everywhere at the least. He may still be omniscient but even that is limited to where he sets his vision for that moment (being that he would have eyes) – and I would also raise question about how much He could possible know.

    The other part of that comment that is ridiculous is the blasphemous part – which is in regards to applying any attribute to God. Is God hate-filled? Does God behave like satan? Is God in favor of human destruction? Is God in favor of pedophilia or orgies? Now these things we would not apply to God – because it is not blasphemous to not apply certian traits to God – which we all do based on scriptural writings about who God is (ex: God is loving – God and satan are not alike).

    Going to the greek or hebrew is not going to change some obvious things about this debate – namely the limiting of God or the need to limit who God is and who He isn’t. No one has this quite cracked mind you – but if we do give him a human body – we admit a lot in that idea.

  47. “In fact, it seems to me that it is blasphemous to deny any quality to an infinite God, who by definition would both within and without a physical being, within and without every physical being.” (YHC)

    What is quite ridiculous about this statement is the obvious – ‘to deny any quality to an infinite God’ – the better question would be if God is infinite how can he/she be solely housed by a physical body? Isn’t that the cornerstone of this debate? We would all have to admit quite plainly that a human body does limit us – and are we willing to say it would not limit God? If we do, what evidence can we truly provide to say that?

    I am not too concerned with God having a physical body – but if I do say this then I have to admit God is limited – that is the obvious part of the debate. God would no longer be omni-present for one thing – so He is not everywhere at the least. He may still be omniscient but even that is limited to where he sets his vision for that moment (being that he would have eyes) – and I would also raise question about how much He could possible know.

    The other part of that comment that is ridiculous is the blasphemous part – which is in regards to applying any attribute to God. Is God hate-filled? Does God behave like satan? Is God in favor of human destruction? Is God in favor of pedophilia or orgies? Now these things we would not apply to God – because it is not blasphemous to not apply certian traits to God – which we all do based on scriptural writings about who God is (ex: God is loving – God and satan are not alike).

    Going to the greek or hebrew is not going to change some obvious things about this debate – namely the limiting of God or the need to limit who God is and who He isn’t. No one has this quite cracked mind you – but if we do give him a human body – we admit a lot in that idea.

  48. “In fact, it seems to me that it is blasphemous to deny any quality to an infinite God, who by definition would both within and without a physical being, within and without every physical being.” (YHC)

    What is quite ridiculous about this statement is the obvious – ‘to deny any quality to an infinite God’ – the better question would be if God is infinite how can he/she be solely housed by a physical body? Isn’t that the cornerstone of this debate? We would all have to admit quite plainly that a human body does limit us – and are we willing to say it would not limit God? If we do, what evidence can we truly provide to say that?

    I am not too concerned with God having a physical body – but if I do say this then I have to admit God is limited – that is the obvious part of the debate. God would no longer be omni-present for one thing – so He is not everywhere at the least. He may still be omniscient but even that is limited to where he sets his vision for that moment (being that he would have eyes) – and I would also raise question about how much He could possible know.

    The other part of that comment that is ridiculous is the blasphemous part – which is in regards to applying any attribute to God. Is God hate-filled? Does God behave like satan? Is God in favor of human destruction? Is God in favor of pedophilia or orgies? Now these things we would not apply to God – because it is not blasphemous to not apply certian traits to God – which we all do based on scriptural writings about who God is (ex: God is loving – God and satan are not alike).

    Going to the greek or hebrew is not going to change some obvious things about this debate – namely the limiting of God or the need to limit who God is and who He isn’t. No one has this quite cracked mind you – but if we do give him a human body – we admit a lot in that idea.

  49. Why does God having a physical body have to limit Him? How soon we forget that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, the only Begotten of the Father, resurrected His physical body from the tomb on the third day. The tomb was empty. Christ is even now a perfected, glorified, immortal, resurrected being with a perfected, glorified, immortal, resurrected physical body. Christ did not subsequently lose His physical body when he ascended. How pointless the resurrection would be if that were the case. No. Christ, even today, sits in heaven with a tangible, physical body. The resurrection was a permanent sealing of His spirit with His body. Even the apostles of Christ couldn’t believe it (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:24-29).

    So is Christ limited? Is Christ not omniscient or omnipresent? Hardly so. Jesus Christ is our Lord and God, a member of the Godhead, who has all power given unto Him in heaven and in earth (Matt. 28:18). Clearly Christ, with a physical body, has characteristics of omniscience and omnipresence that we do not fully understand with our finite minds. And such has the Father also.

  50. Why does God having a physical body have to limit Him? How soon we forget that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, the only Begotten of the Father, resurrected His physical body from the tomb on the third day. The tomb was empty. Christ is even now a perfected, glorified, immortal, resurrected being with a perfected, glorified, immortal, resurrected physical body. Christ did not subsequently lose His physical body when he ascended. How pointless the resurrection would be if that were the case. No. Christ, even today, sits in heaven with a tangible, physical body. The resurrection was a permanent sealing of His spirit with His body. Even the apostles of Christ couldn’t believe it (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:24-29).

    So is Christ limited? Is Christ not omniscient or omnipresent? Hardly so. Jesus Christ is our Lord and God, a member of the Godhead, who has all power given unto Him in heaven and in earth (Matt. 28:18). Clearly Christ, with a physical body, has characteristics of omniscience and omnipresence that we do not fully understand with our finite minds. And such has the Father also.

  51. Why does God having a physical body have to limit Him? How soon we forget that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, the only Begotten of the Father, resurrected His physical body from the tomb on the third day. The tomb was empty. Christ is even now a perfected, glorified, immortal, resurrected being with a perfected, glorified, immortal, resurrected physical body. Christ did not subsequently lose His physical body when he ascended. How pointless the resurrection would be if that were the case. No. Christ, even today, sits in heaven with a tangible, physical body. The resurrection was a permanent sealing of His spirit with His body. Even the apostles of Christ couldn’t believe it (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:24-29).

    So is Christ limited? Is Christ not omniscient or omnipresent? Hardly so. Jesus Christ is our Lord and God, a member of the Godhead, who has all power given unto Him in heaven and in earth (Matt. 28:18). Clearly Christ, with a physical body, has characteristics of omniscience and omnipresence that we do not fully understand with our finite minds. And such has the Father also.

  52. Society – Happy New Years to you as well. Thank you for contributing to the discussions that happen here. I would disagree that this discussion is irrelevant in that it is a foundational belief for the LDS.

    YHC – I wasn’t trying to sidestep the issue, just wanted to say I was at the end of my argument using the Greek. I wasn’t implying that you were a scholar. I do agree with you that human interpretation does not trump scripture or is it on the same level. You and I disagree with what the text says. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

    Byrce – Regarding the Genesis account. Being made in His image accounts that we are eternal beings, no other creature can claim such. We are also created to be in relationship with Him, which again is unique to humans. So being made in his image is not physical characteristics, but spiritual ones.

    Your bringing up Origen is interesting. That teaching may have wrongly been ascribed to him. Not many of his original writings still exist, and even so anthromorphism and those subscribing to Origenism were considered heretics, but much of what has been attributed to him in the past is suspect. In Origen’s lifetime Gnosticism was a problem and what he taught could have been directed at that… and perhaps misunderstood later during the First Origenist Crisis during the 4th Century.

    Antromorphism was commonly seen during that time in polytheism and the classic paganism of Greece and Rome. It was not a Jewish teaching.

    Human charateristics are only attributed to God in a vauge, indefinite way in the Old Testament. He is never positively declared to have a body or a nature that is the same as man’s and human defects and vices are never ascribed to him.

    It also seems to me that you want to ascribe to God the Father characteristics unique to God the Son in His incarnate form… being Jesus Christ. John 1 makes it very clear that there are two distinct persons God is God. Jesus is the Word, one God, two persons (I do agree with you that there is much about God that we can not wrap our minds around).

    In John 1:18 when it talks about Jesus making Him known – that isn’t referring to physical characteristics, but His nature, His character, His love, etc. Jesus took on flesh for one purpose, and one purpose alone and that was for the atonement of our sin.

    We see in Colossians 1:15 that “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” But again, why did Jesus, the Son of God take on flesh? We see later on Colossians 1 goes on to say, “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. And you who once were alienated and hostile in mind doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him,” (Colossians 1:19-22, ESV).

    You have completely twisted Hebrews 9:16. That is talking about Jesus Christ. We have redemption through the blood of Christ. In Acts 7:55 when it talks about Jesus standing at (not on like you said) the right hand of God. Again you are focusing on the anthromorphism when this is figurative language referring to Christ’s authority.

    Also discussing the nature of Christ post-resurrection. Looking at Revelation 1:12-16, his physical nature is different, and was probably very hard to describe since John said “like” six different times.

    Merrill C. Tenney on John 4:24, ” ‘God is spirit’ carries one of the four noun descriptions of God found in the NT (the other three are ‘God is light’, (1 John 1:15); ‘God is love’, (1 John 4:8, 16); and ‘God is a consuming fire’, (Hebrews 12:29)). Jesus was endeavoring to convey to the woman that God cannot be confined to one place nor conceived of as a material being. Only ‘the Word become flesh,’ (John 1:14) could represent him adequately.” (pg. 308; John; Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary: Volume 2: New Testament; Zondervan; Grand Rapids, MI; 1994).

    I would humbly disagree with J.N. Sanders (or Mastin’s editing which ever it actually was). When you look at the context of John 4 and what the woman at the well was asking Jesus you will see that he was correcting her idea that God was to be worshipped in anyone place.

    Anyway, that’s all I’ve got for now. I’ve got to get to bed.

  53. Society – Happy New Years to you as well. Thank you for contributing to the discussions that happen here. I would disagree that this discussion is irrelevant in that it is a foundational belief for the LDS.

    YHC – I wasn’t trying to sidestep the issue, just wanted to say I was at the end of my argument using the Greek. I wasn’t implying that you were a scholar. I do agree with you that human interpretation does not trump scripture or is it on the same level. You and I disagree with what the text says. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

    Byrce – Regarding the Genesis account. Being made in His image accounts that we are eternal beings, no other creature can claim such. We are also created to be in relationship with Him, which again is unique to humans. So being made in his image is not physical characteristics, but spiritual ones.

    Your bringing up Origen is interesting. That teaching may have wrongly been ascribed to him. Not many of his original writings still exist, and even so anthromorphism and those subscribing to Origenism were considered heretics, but much of what has been attributed to him in the past is suspect. In Origen’s lifetime Gnosticism was a problem and what he taught could have been directed at that… and perhaps misunderstood later during the First Origenist Crisis during the 4th Century.

    Antromorphism was commonly seen during that time in polytheism and the classic paganism of Greece and Rome. It was not a Jewish teaching.

    Human charateristics are only attributed to God in a vauge, indefinite way in the Old Testament. He is never positively declared to have a body or a nature that is the same as man’s and human defects and vices are never ascribed to him.

    It also seems to me that you want to ascribe to God the Father characteristics unique to God the Son in His incarnate form… being Jesus Christ. John 1 makes it very clear that there are two distinct persons God is God. Jesus is the Word, one God, two persons (I do agree with you that there is much about God that we can not wrap our minds around).

    In John 1:18 when it talks about Jesus making Him known – that isn’t referring to physical characteristics, but His nature, His character, His love, etc. Jesus took on flesh for one purpose, and one purpose alone and that was for the atonement of our sin.

    We see in Colossians 1:15 that “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” But again, why did Jesus, the Son of God take on flesh? We see later on Colossians 1 goes on to say, “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. And you who once were alienated and hostile in mind doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him,” (Colossians 1:19-22, ESV).

    You have completely twisted Hebrews 9:16. That is talking about Jesus Christ. We have redemption through the blood of Christ. In Acts 7:55 when it talks about Jesus standing at (not on like you said) the right hand of God. Again you are focusing on the anthromorphism when this is figurative language referring to Christ’s authority.

    Also discussing the nature of Christ post-resurrection. Looking at Revelation 1:12-16, his physical nature is different, and was probably very hard to describe since John said “like” six different times.

    Merrill C. Tenney on John 4:24, ” ‘God is spirit’ carries one of the four noun descriptions of God found in the NT (the other three are ‘God is light’, (1 John 1:15); ‘God is love’, (1 John 4:8, 16); and ‘God is a consuming fire’, (Hebrews 12:29)). Jesus was endeavoring to convey to the woman that God cannot be confined to one place nor conceived of as a material being. Only ‘the Word become flesh,’ (John 1:14) could represent him adequately.” (pg. 308; John; Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary: Volume 2: New Testament; Zondervan; Grand Rapids, MI; 1994).

    I would humbly disagree with J.N. Sanders (or Mastin’s editing which ever it actually was). When you look at the context of John 4 and what the woman at the well was asking Jesus you will see that he was correcting her idea that God was to be worshipped in anyone place.

    Anyway, that’s all I’ve got for now. I’ve got to get to bed.

  54. Society – Happy New Years to you as well. Thank you for contributing to the discussions that happen here. I would disagree that this discussion is irrelevant in that it is a foundational belief for the LDS.

    YHC – I wasn’t trying to sidestep the issue, just wanted to say I was at the end of my argument using the Greek. I wasn’t implying that you were a scholar. I do agree with you that human interpretation does not trump scripture or is it on the same level. You and I disagree with what the text says. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

    Byrce – Regarding the Genesis account. Being made in His image accounts that we are eternal beings, no other creature can claim such. We are also created to be in relationship with Him, which again is unique to humans. So being made in his image is not physical characteristics, but spiritual ones.

    Your bringing up Origen is interesting. That teaching may have wrongly been ascribed to him. Not many of his original writings still exist, and even so anthromorphism and those subscribing to Origenism were considered heretics, but much of what has been attributed to him in the past is suspect. In Origen’s lifetime Gnosticism was a problem and what he taught could have been directed at that… and perhaps misunderstood later during the First Origenist Crisis during the 4th Century.

    Antromorphism was commonly seen during that time in polytheism and the classic paganism of Greece and Rome. It was not a Jewish teaching.

    Human charateristics are only attributed to God in a vauge, indefinite way in the Old Testament. He is never positively declared to have a body or a nature that is the same as man’s and human defects and vices are never ascribed to him.

    It also seems to me that you want to ascribe to God the Father characteristics unique to God the Son in His incarnate form… being Jesus Christ. John 1 makes it very clear that there are two distinct persons God is God. Jesus is the Word, one God, two persons (I do agree with you that there is much about God that we can not wrap our minds around).

    In John 1:18 when it talks about Jesus making Him known – that isn’t referring to physical characteristics, but His nature, His character, His love, etc. Jesus took on flesh for one purpose, and one purpose alone and that was for the atonement of our sin.

    We see in Colossians 1:15 that “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” But again, why did Jesus, the Son of God take on flesh? We see later on Colossians 1 goes on to say, “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. And you who once were alienated and hostile in mind doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him,” (Colossians 1:19-22, ESV).

    You have completely twisted Hebrews 9:16. That is talking about Jesus Christ. We have redemption through the blood of Christ. In Acts 7:55 when it talks about Jesus standing at (not on like you said) the right hand of God. Again you are focusing on the anthromorphism when this is figurative language referring to Christ’s authority.

    Also discussing the nature of Christ post-resurrection. Looking at Revelation 1:12-16, his physical nature is different, and was probably very hard to describe since John said “like” six different times.

    Merrill C. Tenney on John 4:24, ” ‘God is spirit’ carries one of the four noun descriptions of God found in the NT (the other three are ‘God is light’, (1 John 1:15); ‘God is love’, (1 John 4:8, 16); and ‘God is a consuming fire’, (Hebrews 12:29)). Jesus was endeavoring to convey to the woman that God cannot be confined to one place nor conceived of as a material being. Only ‘the Word become flesh,’ (John 1:14) could represent him adequately.” (pg. 308; John; Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary: Volume 2: New Testament; Zondervan; Grand Rapids, MI; 1994).

    I would humbly disagree with J.N. Sanders (or Mastin’s editing which ever it actually was). When you look at the context of John 4 and what the woman at the well was asking Jesus you will see that he was correcting her idea that God was to be worshipped in anyone place.

    Anyway, that’s all I’ve got for now. I’ve got to get to bed.

  55. Shane-
    Thank you, I could not have hoped to come to a better conclusion than this. I will happily agree to disagree, now if only we can start applying this wisdom to LDS!

    societyvs
    You fall into the very trap to which I was referring. For this I find the teaching of Ali helpful, that all things are bound by God but He is not bound by anything. To limit the Creator at all is to blaspheme Him. Can God make a stone so heavy He can’t lift it? The human mind cannot process He who is beyond the very universe that all things inhabit.

    Logic will not serve us in defining God. I prefer to let Him remain a mystery.

  56. Shane-
    Thank you, I could not have hoped to come to a better conclusion than this. I will happily agree to disagree, now if only we can start applying this wisdom to LDS!

    societyvs
    You fall into the very trap to which I was referring. For this I find the teaching of Ali helpful, that all things are bound by God but He is not bound by anything. To limit the Creator at all is to blaspheme Him. Can God make a stone so heavy He can’t lift it? The human mind cannot process He who is beyond the very universe that all things inhabit.

    Logic will not serve us in defining God. I prefer to let Him remain a mystery.

  57. Shane-
    Thank you, I could not have hoped to come to a better conclusion than this. I will happily agree to disagree, now if only we can start applying this wisdom to LDS!

    societyvs
    You fall into the very trap to which I was referring. For this I find the teaching of Ali helpful, that all things are bound by God but He is not bound by anything. To limit the Creator at all is to blaspheme Him. Can God make a stone so heavy He can’t lift it? The human mind cannot process He who is beyond the very universe that all things inhabit.

    Logic will not serve us in defining God. I prefer to let Him remain a mystery.

  58. You say, “Human charateristics are only attributed to God in a vauge, indefinite way in the Old Testament. He is never positively declared to have a body or a nature that is the same as man’s and human defects and vices are never ascribed to him.”

    There are many references to the corporeality of God in the Bible, you have chosen to interpret them as figurative anthropomorphisms. The LDS, along with the ancient Jews and Hebrews, choose to interpret them literally as descriptions of the literal nature of God.

    Of course God’s nature is not the same as man’s. He is immortal, perfected, glorified, and resurrected. Man is mortal, imperfect, carnal, and will die someday. Our natures are very different, but that does not preclude God from having the form of a man, a person, or a physical body. He does not have any defects or vices, but neither did Christ as a resurrected post-mortal flesh and bones physical man either. When Christ returns at His second coming to rule and reign on the earth, it will be as a resurrected flesh and bones perfected man.

    How do you explain the prophet Ezekiel’s vision of God where he says he saw “high above all, upon the throne, a form in human likeness” (Ez. 1:26, New English Bible.)?

  59. You say, “Human charateristics are only attributed to God in a vauge, indefinite way in the Old Testament. He is never positively declared to have a body or a nature that is the same as man’s and human defects and vices are never ascribed to him.”

    There are many references to the corporeality of God in the Bible, you have chosen to interpret them as figurative anthropomorphisms. The LDS, along with the ancient Jews and Hebrews, choose to interpret them literally as descriptions of the literal nature of God.

    Of course God’s nature is not the same as man’s. He is immortal, perfected, glorified, and resurrected. Man is mortal, imperfect, carnal, and will die someday. Our natures are very different, but that does not preclude God from having the form of a man, a person, or a physical body. He does not have any defects or vices, but neither did Christ as a resurrected post-mortal flesh and bones physical man either. When Christ returns at His second coming to rule and reign on the earth, it will be as a resurrected flesh and bones perfected man.

    How do you explain the prophet Ezekiel’s vision of God where he says he saw “high above all, upon the throne, a form in human likeness” (Ez. 1:26, New English Bible.)?

  60. You say, “Human charateristics are only attributed to God in a vauge, indefinite way in the Old Testament. He is never positively declared to have a body or a nature that is the same as man’s and human defects and vices are never ascribed to him.”

    There are many references to the corporeality of God in the Bible, you have chosen to interpret them as figurative anthropomorphisms. The LDS, along with the ancient Jews and Hebrews, choose to interpret them literally as descriptions of the literal nature of God.

    Of course God’s nature is not the same as man’s. He is immortal, perfected, glorified, and resurrected. Man is mortal, imperfect, carnal, and will die someday. Our natures are very different, but that does not preclude God from having the form of a man, a person, or a physical body. He does not have any defects or vices, but neither did Christ as a resurrected post-mortal flesh and bones physical man either. When Christ returns at His second coming to rule and reign on the earth, it will be as a resurrected flesh and bones perfected man.

    How do you explain the prophet Ezekiel’s vision of God where he says he saw “high above all, upon the throne, a form in human likeness” (Ez. 1:26, New English Bible.)?

  61. Ezekiel had a similar problem as the Apostle John did when receiving his revelation… putting into words.

    The context of the passage is found in the entire chapter, but I’ll narrow it down to a few verses.

    Over the heads of the living creatures there was the likeness of an expanse, shining like awe-inspiring crystal, spread out above their heads.  And under the expanse their wings were stretched out straight, one toward another. And each creature had two wings covering its body.  And when they went, I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of many waters, like the sound of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of an army. When they stood still, they let down their wings.  And there came a voice from above the expanse over their heads. When they stood still, they let down their wings.
    And above the expanse over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness with a human appearance.  And upward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were gleaming metal, like the appearance of fire enclosed all around. And downward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness around him.  Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness all around.
    Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard the voice of one speaking, (Ezekiel 1:22-28, ESV).

    You should notice that, “like” is used a lot, and specifically with the verse you are referring to – “was a likeness with a human appearance.”  Ezekiel was trying to explain what he was seeing in a way that his readers would understand.  If you check out v.27 you’ll see that He had the appearance of gleaming metal, and the appearance of fire, and then in verse 28, was “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord?”
    So this passage doesn’t really provide a slam dunk for you.

  62. Ezekiel had a similar problem as the Apostle John did when receiving his revelation… putting into words.

    The context of the passage is found in the entire chapter, but I’ll narrow it down to a few verses.

    Over the heads of the living creatures there was the likeness of an expanse, shining like awe-inspiring crystal, spread out above their heads.  And under the expanse their wings were stretched out straight, one toward another. And each creature had two wings covering its body.  And when they went, I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of many waters, like the sound of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of an army. When they stood still, they let down their wings.  And there came a voice from above the expanse over their heads. When they stood still, they let down their wings.
    And above the expanse over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness with a human appearance.  And upward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were gleaming metal, like the appearance of fire enclosed all around. And downward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness around him.  Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness all around.
    Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard the voice of one speaking, (Ezekiel 1:22-28, ESV).

    You should notice that, “like” is used a lot, and specifically with the verse you are referring to – “was a likeness with a human appearance.”  Ezekiel was trying to explain what he was seeing in a way that his readers would understand.  If you check out v.27 you’ll see that He had the appearance of gleaming metal, and the appearance of fire, and then in verse 28, was “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord?”
    So this passage doesn’t really provide a slam dunk for you.

  63. Ezekiel had a similar problem as the Apostle John did when receiving his revelation… putting into words.

    The context of the passage is found in the entire chapter, but I’ll narrow it down to a few verses.

    Over the heads of the living creatures there was the likeness of an expanse, shining like awe-inspiring crystal, spread out above their heads.  And under the expanse their wings were stretched out straight, one toward another. And each creature had two wings covering its body.  And when they went, I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of many waters, like the sound of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of an army. When they stood still, they let down their wings.  And there came a voice from above the expanse over their heads. When they stood still, they let down their wings.
    And above the expanse over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness with a human appearance.  And upward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were gleaming metal, like the appearance of fire enclosed all around. And downward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness around him.  Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness all around.
    Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard the voice of one speaking, (Ezekiel 1:22-28, ESV).

    You should notice that, “like” is used a lot, and specifically with the verse you are referring to – “was a likeness with a human appearance.”  Ezekiel was trying to explain what he was seeing in a way that his readers would understand.  If you check out v.27 you’ll see that He had the appearance of gleaming metal, and the appearance of fire, and then in verse 28, was “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord?”
    So this passage doesn’t really provide a slam dunk for you.

  64. It’s amazing to me that even though the Bible speaks of God thousands of times, people will still interpret the words to their own liking. Which is exactly why we need living prophets and apostles to reveal to us the correct interpretation of God’s will.

  65. It’s amazing to me that even though the Bible speaks of God thousands of times, people will still interpret the words to their own liking. Which is exactly why we need living prophets and apostles to reveal to us the correct interpretation of God’s will.

  66. It’s amazing to me that even though the Bible speaks of God thousands of times, people will still interpret the words to their own liking. Which is exactly why we need living prophets and apostles to reveal to us the correct interpretation of God’s will.

  67. Byrce – which is exactly what you are doing. You took Ezekiel 1, and Hebrews 9 out of context and were called on it.

    I won’t comment on the “living prophets and apostles” comment – that will be a later blog post.

  68. Byrce – which is exactly what you are doing. You took Ezekiel 1, and Hebrews 9 out of context and were called on it.

    I won’t comment on the “living prophets and apostles” comment – that will be a later blog post.

  69. Byrce – which is exactly what you are doing. You took Ezekiel 1, and Hebrews 9 out of context and were called on it.

    I won’t comment on the “living prophets and apostles” comment – that will be a later blog post.

  70. “Clearly Christ, with a physical body, has characteristics of omniscience and omnipresence that we do not fully understand with our finite minds. And such has the Father also.” (Bryce)

    And we are going to pretend we can define the fact God has a physical body with our ‘finite minds’ that cannot even understand the one example we have been given – that being Jesus and the stories about him? You got to be kidding me – by self-admission we all know we cannot truly explain the whole Jesus resurrected body thing – why – because none of us have that experience to speak into the situation with any true integrity.

    As for the physical body thing – we do understand how that works having that experience and from there we speak – in legit fact. We do know what Jesus can and can’t do even with a resurrected body – we can make some guesstimates about the whole thing – but nothing very concrete can be said. But you say Jesus is omniscient and omnipresent even with a body – well that’s impossible. When Jesus comes down in Acts 1 and at the end of the gospels in various places – he was in one place not many at the same time – or was he in many places at once? Show me an example of that to prove it. So yeah – I would say the body thing limits him.

    Now give God of all creation a body and the same thing will inevitably happen – logic is against you on this one (even if faith thinks it can supercede it). I would say maybe God appears to us in forms we can understand – most notably – human. If we could see God and His body (as is the claim) – wouldn’t we drop dead as was said to Moses by God – the same glory that silenced Isaiah and made him deaf? I think it is a joke to give God a body – that’s like saying the creation makes the creator like him – not the other way around (since this idea is basically new on the scene theologically). It will put limits on God – and if it that suits some – so be it…but to think it will not – well that’s just ignoring the reality of it.

  71. “Clearly Christ, with a physical body, has characteristics of omniscience and omnipresence that we do not fully understand with our finite minds. And such has the Father also.” (Bryce)

    And we are going to pretend we can define the fact God has a physical body with our ‘finite minds’ that cannot even understand the one example we have been given – that being Jesus and the stories about him? You got to be kidding me – by self-admission we all know we cannot truly explain the whole Jesus resurrected body thing – why – because none of us have that experience to speak into the situation with any true integrity.

    As for the physical body thing – we do understand how that works having that experience and from there we speak – in legit fact. We do know what Jesus can and can’t do even with a resurrected body – we can make some guesstimates about the whole thing – but nothing very concrete can be said. But you say Jesus is omniscient and omnipresent even with a body – well that’s impossible. When Jesus comes down in Acts 1 and at the end of the gospels in various places – he was in one place not many at the same time – or was he in many places at once? Show me an example of that to prove it. So yeah – I would say the body thing limits him.

    Now give God of all creation a body and the same thing will inevitably happen – logic is against you on this one (even if faith thinks it can supercede it). I would say maybe God appears to us in forms we can understand – most notably – human. If we could see God and His body (as is the claim) – wouldn’t we drop dead as was said to Moses by God – the same glory that silenced Isaiah and made him deaf? I think it is a joke to give God a body – that’s like saying the creation makes the creator like him – not the other way around (since this idea is basically new on the scene theologically). It will put limits on God – and if it that suits some – so be it…but to think it will not – well that’s just ignoring the reality of it.

  72. “Clearly Christ, with a physical body, has characteristics of omniscience and omnipresence that we do not fully understand with our finite minds. And such has the Father also.” (Bryce)

    And we are going to pretend we can define the fact God has a physical body with our ‘finite minds’ that cannot even understand the one example we have been given – that being Jesus and the stories about him? You got to be kidding me – by self-admission we all know we cannot truly explain the whole Jesus resurrected body thing – why – because none of us have that experience to speak into the situation with any true integrity.

    As for the physical body thing – we do understand how that works having that experience and from there we speak – in legit fact. We do know what Jesus can and can’t do even with a resurrected body – we can make some guesstimates about the whole thing – but nothing very concrete can be said. But you say Jesus is omniscient and omnipresent even with a body – well that’s impossible. When Jesus comes down in Acts 1 and at the end of the gospels in various places – he was in one place not many at the same time – or was he in many places at once? Show me an example of that to prove it. So yeah – I would say the body thing limits him.

    Now give God of all creation a body and the same thing will inevitably happen – logic is against you on this one (even if faith thinks it can supercede it). I would say maybe God appears to us in forms we can understand – most notably – human. If we could see God and His body (as is the claim) – wouldn’t we drop dead as was said to Moses by God – the same glory that silenced Isaiah and made him deaf? I think it is a joke to give God a body – that’s like saying the creation makes the creator like him – not the other way around (since this idea is basically new on the scene theologically). It will put limits on God – and if it that suits some – so be it…but to think it will not – well that’s just ignoring the reality of it.

  73. “Logic will not serve us in defining God. I prefer to let Him remain a mystery” (LHC)

    True – but then doesn’t giving God a body make Him definable to us on some level? We can brush logic aside if we want (I choose not to) – but if someone tells me that God has a body – well I can relate on some level (so do I). So we enter a dialogue in which mystery is not so mysterious anymore. If God is a spirit being or whatever – then I cannot truly relate – I am a human being with a physical body – so I am not sure how the spirit thing works (like can I shake God’s hand? Does he have a hand?).

    I think as humans we try to explain God as best we can – oddly enough that usually involves physical characteristics – because that’s what we know. The bigger question would be – are we creating God in our image and not the other way around? If you ask me – humans have been doing this since the earliest writings on religion – making God look like us somehow. It’s odd but the very 1st commandment to Moses is ‘have no graven image’ – which raises a question – does God even have an image we can look at?

  74. “Logic will not serve us in defining God. I prefer to let Him remain a mystery” (LHC)

    True – but then doesn’t giving God a body make Him definable to us on some level? We can brush logic aside if we want (I choose not to) – but if someone tells me that God has a body – well I can relate on some level (so do I). So we enter a dialogue in which mystery is not so mysterious anymore. If God is a spirit being or whatever – then I cannot truly relate – I am a human being with a physical body – so I am not sure how the spirit thing works (like can I shake God’s hand? Does he have a hand?).

    I think as humans we try to explain God as best we can – oddly enough that usually involves physical characteristics – because that’s what we know. The bigger question would be – are we creating God in our image and not the other way around? If you ask me – humans have been doing this since the earliest writings on religion – making God look like us somehow. It’s odd but the very 1st commandment to Moses is ‘have no graven image’ – which raises a question – does God even have an image we can look at?

  75. “Logic will not serve us in defining God. I prefer to let Him remain a mystery” (LHC)

    True – but then doesn’t giving God a body make Him definable to us on some level? We can brush logic aside if we want (I choose not to) – but if someone tells me that God has a body – well I can relate on some level (so do I). So we enter a dialogue in which mystery is not so mysterious anymore. If God is a spirit being or whatever – then I cannot truly relate – I am a human being with a physical body – so I am not sure how the spirit thing works (like can I shake God’s hand? Does he have a hand?).

    I think as humans we try to explain God as best we can – oddly enough that usually involves physical characteristics – because that’s what we know. The bigger question would be – are we creating God in our image and not the other way around? If you ask me – humans have been doing this since the earliest writings on religion – making God look like us somehow. It’s odd but the very 1st commandment to Moses is ‘have no graven image’ – which raises a question – does God even have an image we can look at?

  76. “The LDS, along with the ancient Jews and Hebrews, choose to interpret them literally as descriptions of the literal nature of God.” (Bryce)

    I actually blog with a lady that is Jewish and is very studious about the Tanakh passages – maybe I should run this by her and see what she says – being Jewish and all. I am going to a wild guess but it is very possible she might come back that God does not have an image like us? But I will check into the validity of your claim.

    “How do you explain the prophet Ezekiel’s vision of God where he says he saw “high above all, upon the throne, a form in human likeness” (Bryce)

    Maybe for the prophets God does appear to them in human likeness – something they can relate to and understand…that makes sense to me. But if God appears as all He truly is – I think no human would both know and recognize God – nor would they know how to relate to God (since God is not a human being – I think we are all clear on that idea). Wouldn’t God know well enough the only way to reach a human – is to look like one?

    That passage and many others like it prove very little in all honesty – did not Moses once quip that if he actually saw God – he should drop dead from it? What on earth makes me think Moses was not being legit in that idea? “But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” (Ex 33:20). Now we can see ‘oh face is there so God must be human’ – but I am not sure what the face of God would even look like or mean (or His back) – and was Moses and the writers only writing the best way they can to explain this image and idea of God? I mean – they were human themself and needed to write to make sure the people who read might ‘get it’.

  77. “The LDS, along with the ancient Jews and Hebrews, choose to interpret them literally as descriptions of the literal nature of God.” (Bryce)

    I actually blog with a lady that is Jewish and is very studious about the Tanakh passages – maybe I should run this by her and see what she says – being Jewish and all. I am going to a wild guess but it is very possible she might come back that God does not have an image like us? But I will check into the validity of your claim.

    “How do you explain the prophet Ezekiel’s vision of God where he says he saw “high above all, upon the throne, a form in human likeness” (Bryce)

    Maybe for the prophets God does appear to them in human likeness – something they can relate to and understand…that makes sense to me. But if God appears as all He truly is – I think no human would both know and recognize God – nor would they know how to relate to God (since God is not a human being – I think we are all clear on that idea). Wouldn’t God know well enough the only way to reach a human – is to look like one?

    That passage and many others like it prove very little in all honesty – did not Moses once quip that if he actually saw God – he should drop dead from it? What on earth makes me think Moses was not being legit in that idea? “But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” (Ex 33:20). Now we can see ‘oh face is there so God must be human’ – but I am not sure what the face of God would even look like or mean (or His back) – and was Moses and the writers only writing the best way they can to explain this image and idea of God? I mean – they were human themself and needed to write to make sure the people who read might ‘get it’.

  78. “The LDS, along with the ancient Jews and Hebrews, choose to interpret them literally as descriptions of the literal nature of God.” (Bryce)

    I actually blog with a lady that is Jewish and is very studious about the Tanakh passages – maybe I should run this by her and see what she says – being Jewish and all. I am going to a wild guess but it is very possible she might come back that God does not have an image like us? But I will check into the validity of your claim.

    “How do you explain the prophet Ezekiel’s vision of God where he says he saw “high above all, upon the throne, a form in human likeness” (Bryce)

    Maybe for the prophets God does appear to them in human likeness – something they can relate to and understand…that makes sense to me. But if God appears as all He truly is – I think no human would both know and recognize God – nor would they know how to relate to God (since God is not a human being – I think we are all clear on that idea). Wouldn’t God know well enough the only way to reach a human – is to look like one?

    That passage and many others like it prove very little in all honesty – did not Moses once quip that if he actually saw God – he should drop dead from it? What on earth makes me think Moses was not being legit in that idea? “But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” (Ex 33:20). Now we can see ‘oh face is there so God must be human’ – but I am not sure what the face of God would even look like or mean (or His back) – and was Moses and the writers only writing the best way they can to explain this image and idea of God? I mean – they were human themself and needed to write to make sure the people who read might ‘get it’.

  79. Society

    Your statement:
    “Now give God of all creation a body and the same thing will inevitably happen – logic is against you on this one (even if faith thinks it can supercede it). I would say maybe God appears to us in forms we can understand – most notably – human. If we could see God and His body (as is the claim) – wouldn’t we drop dead as was said to Moses by God – the same glory that silenced Isaiah and made him deaf? I think it is a joke to give God a body – that’s like saying the creation makes the creator like him – not the other way around (since this idea is basically new on the scene theologically). It will put limits on God – and if it that suits some – so be it…but to think it will not – well that’s just ignoring the reality of it.”

    Well said!

    You are right about the first commandment, I was going to mention it, but didn’t. So I’m glad you brought it up.

    Anthromorphisms are used to help describe God in a way we can understand. Great comments.

    See, we agree on something! LOL!

  80. Society

    Your statement:
    “Now give God of all creation a body and the same thing will inevitably happen – logic is against you on this one (even if faith thinks it can supercede it). I would say maybe God appears to us in forms we can understand – most notably – human. If we could see God and His body (as is the claim) – wouldn’t we drop dead as was said to Moses by God – the same glory that silenced Isaiah and made him deaf? I think it is a joke to give God a body – that’s like saying the creation makes the creator like him – not the other way around (since this idea is basically new on the scene theologically). It will put limits on God – and if it that suits some – so be it…but to think it will not – well that’s just ignoring the reality of it.”

    Well said!

    You are right about the first commandment, I was going to mention it, but didn’t. So I’m glad you brought it up.

    Anthromorphisms are used to help describe God in a way we can understand. Great comments.

    See, we agree on something! LOL!

  81. Society

    Your statement:
    “Now give God of all creation a body and the same thing will inevitably happen – logic is against you on this one (even if faith thinks it can supercede it). I would say maybe God appears to us in forms we can understand – most notably – human. If we could see God and His body (as is the claim) – wouldn’t we drop dead as was said to Moses by God – the same glory that silenced Isaiah and made him deaf? I think it is a joke to give God a body – that’s like saying the creation makes the creator like him – not the other way around (since this idea is basically new on the scene theologically). It will put limits on God – and if it that suits some – so be it…but to think it will not – well that’s just ignoring the reality of it.”

    Well said!

    You are right about the first commandment, I was going to mention it, but didn’t. So I’m glad you brought it up.

    Anthromorphisms are used to help describe God in a way we can understand. Great comments.

    See, we agree on something! LOL!

  82. Shane, we could quote scripture back and forth all day and each one of us would come up with a different interpretation of it. So which is correct? You or me? How do we know?

    “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

    Scripture was given by God to prophets and apostles, and the only way to understand its correct interpretation is through prophets and apostles. Man will never come to know its meaning by their own selves.

    Yes, we can know if God has a physical body. If a prophet of God reveals it, and the spirit testifies that it is true.

    Jesus Christ was clearly omnipotent, even as a resurrected physical being, for He said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). If He is omnipotent, then why not omnipresent, and omniscient? He is omnipresent through His glory and spirit which emanate from Him and fill all of His creations. And omniscience does not equate with physicalities. Omniscience is having all knowledge, and knowledge is not a physical characteristic.

  83. Shane, we could quote scripture back and forth all day and each one of us would come up with a different interpretation of it. So which is correct? You or me? How do we know?

    “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

    Scripture was given by God to prophets and apostles, and the only way to understand its correct interpretation is through prophets and apostles. Man will never come to know its meaning by their own selves.

    Yes, we can know if God has a physical body. If a prophet of God reveals it, and the spirit testifies that it is true.

    Jesus Christ was clearly omnipotent, even as a resurrected physical being, for He said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). If He is omnipotent, then why not omnipresent, and omniscient? He is omnipresent through His glory and spirit which emanate from Him and fill all of His creations. And omniscience does not equate with physicalities. Omniscience is having all knowledge, and knowledge is not a physical characteristic.

  84. Shane, we could quote scripture back and forth all day and each one of us would come up with a different interpretation of it. So which is correct? You or me? How do we know?

    “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

    Scripture was given by God to prophets and apostles, and the only way to understand its correct interpretation is through prophets and apostles. Man will never come to know its meaning by their own selves.

    Yes, we can know if God has a physical body. If a prophet of God reveals it, and the spirit testifies that it is true.

    Jesus Christ was clearly omnipotent, even as a resurrected physical being, for He said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). If He is omnipotent, then why not omnipresent, and omniscient? He is omnipresent through His glory and spirit which emanate from Him and fill all of His creations. And omniscience does not equate with physicalities. Omniscience is having all knowledge, and knowledge is not a physical characteristic.

  85. As far as the Jews and Hebrews, Origen said, “The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions” (Origen, “Homilies on Genesis,” (3:1) Ante-Nicene Fathers).

    “And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend…” (Ex. 33:11). That seems pretty clear to me without allegorizing interpretations. Why must we try to describe God as anything else than what the scriptures say He is?

  86. As far as the Jews and Hebrews, Origen said, “The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions” (Origen, “Homilies on Genesis,” (3:1) Ante-Nicene Fathers).

    “And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend…” (Ex. 33:11). That seems pretty clear to me without allegorizing interpretations. Why must we try to describe God as anything else than what the scriptures say He is?

  87. As far as the Jews and Hebrews, Origen said, “The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions” (Origen, “Homilies on Genesis,” (3:1) Ante-Nicene Fathers).

    “And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend…” (Ex. 33:11). That seems pretty clear to me without allegorizing interpretations. Why must we try to describe God as anything else than what the scriptures say He is?

  88. Like said in an earlier comment that the early church had some issues with Origen, in particular his view on anthromorphisms. I’ll look forward to hearing what Society learns from his Jewish friend.

    Exodus 33:11 – “as a” again trying to relate to us in terms we can understand.

    No one is saying that Jesus Christ did not display divine attributes while on earth. He certainly did demonstrate omnipotence and omniprescene, for he was fully human and fully divine. Phillippians 2 uses a Greek word – kenosis – emptied – he “emptied himself” taking on the form of a servant. Think somebody who set the world record in the 100 m dash, having to do a three legged race with say… me. He isn’t anyless slow, but it does effect his performance in the race. That isn’t a perfect illsutration, but when you have fully divine and fully human doing a three legged race. Some attritbutes are affected. His glory for one, and omnipresence for another.

    I’ll have to do a blog post on just that subject :).

    One question for you. Who decided that Joseph Smith was a prophet and apostle?

  89. Like said in an earlier comment that the early church had some issues with Origen, in particular his view on anthromorphisms. I’ll look forward to hearing what Society learns from his Jewish friend.

    Exodus 33:11 – “as a” again trying to relate to us in terms we can understand.

    No one is saying that Jesus Christ did not display divine attributes while on earth. He certainly did demonstrate omnipotence and omniprescene, for he was fully human and fully divine. Phillippians 2 uses a Greek word – kenosis – emptied – he “emptied himself” taking on the form of a servant. Think somebody who set the world record in the 100 m dash, having to do a three legged race with say… me. He isn’t anyless slow, but it does effect his performance in the race. That isn’t a perfect illsutration, but when you have fully divine and fully human doing a three legged race. Some attritbutes are affected. His glory for one, and omnipresence for another.

    I’ll have to do a blog post on just that subject :).

    One question for you. Who decided that Joseph Smith was a prophet and apostle?

  90. Like said in an earlier comment that the early church had some issues with Origen, in particular his view on anthromorphisms. I’ll look forward to hearing what Society learns from his Jewish friend.

    Exodus 33:11 – “as a” again trying to relate to us in terms we can understand.

    No one is saying that Jesus Christ did not display divine attributes while on earth. He certainly did demonstrate omnipotence and omniprescene, for he was fully human and fully divine. Phillippians 2 uses a Greek word – kenosis – emptied – he “emptied himself” taking on the form of a servant. Think somebody who set the world record in the 100 m dash, having to do a three legged race with say… me. He isn’t anyless slow, but it does effect his performance in the race. That isn’t a perfect illsutration, but when you have fully divine and fully human doing a three legged race. Some attritbutes are affected. His glory for one, and omnipresence for another.

    I’ll have to do a blog post on just that subject :).

    One question for you. Who decided that Joseph Smith was a prophet and apostle?

  91. “Who decided that Joseph Smith was a prophet and apostle?”

    Well, the only One who could – God. “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron” (Hebrews 5:4).

  92. “Who decided that Joseph Smith was a prophet and apostle?”

    Well, the only One who could – God. “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron” (Hebrews 5:4).

  93. “Who decided that Joseph Smith was a prophet and apostle?”

    Well, the only One who could – God. “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron” (Hebrews 5:4).

  94. “As far as the Jews and Hebrews” (Bryce)

    I asked my Jewish friend about this – she says 100% ‘no’ – the Jewish nation does not think of God with a body (physical). Those are there scriptures – the Tanakh – and I am pretty sure they have a very good grasp of them. Origen is not representative of the Jewish people (1st off) being a Christian and all – and secondly, he is a secondary source not actually being Jewish himself nor from that tradition. I defer to the Jewish community on this one.

    “Man will never come to know its meaning by their own selves.” (Bryce)

    Interesting – then none of us really have any grounds to say anything on this subject to be perfectly clear (not being apostles or what have you’s). I mean, that’s a good way to close the door on an astute look at theology – just say ‘we have to defer to someone greater then us’ – for we could not truly understand. It’s like a Catholic handing off to the pope, a Christian handing off to his bishop, or a mormon handing off to the prophet of the day – no one has to be studious about their own beliefs – someone else already did that for us. In the end, we are babies if we stick to that path – not adults.

    “Yes, we can know if God has a physical body. If a prophet of God reveals it, and the spirit testifies that it is true.” (Bryce)

    A prophet has revealed as you have said – but how do we know the ‘spirit’ (which is strange you think there is one since God is not ‘a spirit’) testifies to this same idea? It’s similar when some missionaries from your faith asked me to pray and see if the Book of Mormon was accurate and ‘real’ – guess what – the spirit did not testify for your side as was hoped in that instance (and I think for all the wishful thinking those missionaries had – I hoped it would to). How could you be sure the spirit will testify to God having a body – our spirit or the spirit of God – which one are we defering to here?

    “That seems pretty clear to me without allegorizing interpretations. Why must we try to describe God as anything else than what the scriptures say He is?” (Bryce)

    Because as clear as that is to you – I have already mentioned this is a Jewish scripture (from the Torah) and they seem to think – irregardless of what you might want to believe – God does not have a physical body – it’s absurd. Now they read that passage and study it in real depth from the Hebrew and their tradition on the subject – I am prone to think they know what they mean when they differ with your opinion or some ‘johnny come lately’ apostle/prophet who thinks he can change God to fit some weak interpretation in the first place.

    “Well, the only One who could – God” (Bryce)

    I agree – but again his claim is to be scrutinized so as to make sure this was a prophet of God. He truly loses me when he claims God is for polygamy and then later on the prophet after Brigham renounces the idea – via prophecy also. Either God is wishy-washy or something isn’t adding up. You tell me – does God need to change His mind to suit our times?

  95. “As far as the Jews and Hebrews” (Bryce)

    I asked my Jewish friend about this – she says 100% ‘no’ – the Jewish nation does not think of God with a body (physical). Those are there scriptures – the Tanakh – and I am pretty sure they have a very good grasp of them. Origen is not representative of the Jewish people (1st off) being a Christian and all – and secondly, he is a secondary source not actually being Jewish himself nor from that tradition. I defer to the Jewish community on this one.

    “Man will never come to know its meaning by their own selves.” (Bryce)

    Interesting – then none of us really have any grounds to say anything on this subject to be perfectly clear (not being apostles or what have you’s). I mean, that’s a good way to close the door on an astute look at theology – just say ‘we have to defer to someone greater then us’ – for we could not truly understand. It’s like a Catholic handing off to the pope, a Christian handing off to his bishop, or a mormon handing off to the prophet of the day – no one has to be studious about their own beliefs – someone else already did that for us. In the end, we are babies if we stick to that path – not adults.

    “Yes, we can know if God has a physical body. If a prophet of God reveals it, and the spirit testifies that it is true.” (Bryce)

    A prophet has revealed as you have said – but how do we know the ‘spirit’ (which is strange you think there is one since God is not ‘a spirit’) testifies to this same idea? It’s similar when some missionaries from your faith asked me to pray and see if the Book of Mormon was accurate and ‘real’ – guess what – the spirit did not testify for your side as was hoped in that instance (and I think for all the wishful thinking those missionaries had – I hoped it would to). How could you be sure the spirit will testify to God having a body – our spirit or the spirit of God – which one are we defering to here?

    “That seems pretty clear to me without allegorizing interpretations. Why must we try to describe God as anything else than what the scriptures say He is?” (Bryce)

    Because as clear as that is to you – I have already mentioned this is a Jewish scripture (from the Torah) and they seem to think – irregardless of what you might want to believe – God does not have a physical body – it’s absurd. Now they read that passage and study it in real depth from the Hebrew and their tradition on the subject – I am prone to think they know what they mean when they differ with your opinion or some ‘johnny come lately’ apostle/prophet who thinks he can change God to fit some weak interpretation in the first place.

    “Well, the only One who could – God” (Bryce)

    I agree – but again his claim is to be scrutinized so as to make sure this was a prophet of God. He truly loses me when he claims God is for polygamy and then later on the prophet after Brigham renounces the idea – via prophecy also. Either God is wishy-washy or something isn’t adding up. You tell me – does God need to change His mind to suit our times?

  96. “As far as the Jews and Hebrews” (Bryce)

    I asked my Jewish friend about this – she says 100% ‘no’ – the Jewish nation does not think of God with a body (physical). Those are there scriptures – the Tanakh – and I am pretty sure they have a very good grasp of them. Origen is not representative of the Jewish people (1st off) being a Christian and all – and secondly, he is a secondary source not actually being Jewish himself nor from that tradition. I defer to the Jewish community on this one.

    “Man will never come to know its meaning by their own selves.” (Bryce)

    Interesting – then none of us really have any grounds to say anything on this subject to be perfectly clear (not being apostles or what have you’s). I mean, that’s a good way to close the door on an astute look at theology – just say ‘we have to defer to someone greater then us’ – for we could not truly understand. It’s like a Catholic handing off to the pope, a Christian handing off to his bishop, or a mormon handing off to the prophet of the day – no one has to be studious about their own beliefs – someone else already did that for us. In the end, we are babies if we stick to that path – not adults.

    “Yes, we can know if God has a physical body. If a prophet of God reveals it, and the spirit testifies that it is true.” (Bryce)

    A prophet has revealed as you have said – but how do we know the ‘spirit’ (which is strange you think there is one since God is not ‘a spirit’) testifies to this same idea? It’s similar when some missionaries from your faith asked me to pray and see if the Book of Mormon was accurate and ‘real’ – guess what – the spirit did not testify for your side as was hoped in that instance (and I think for all the wishful thinking those missionaries had – I hoped it would to). How could you be sure the spirit will testify to God having a body – our spirit or the spirit of God – which one are we defering to here?

    “That seems pretty clear to me without allegorizing interpretations. Why must we try to describe God as anything else than what the scriptures say He is?” (Bryce)

    Because as clear as that is to you – I have already mentioned this is a Jewish scripture (from the Torah) and they seem to think – irregardless of what you might want to believe – God does not have a physical body – it’s absurd. Now they read that passage and study it in real depth from the Hebrew and their tradition on the subject – I am prone to think they know what they mean when they differ with your opinion or some ‘johnny come lately’ apostle/prophet who thinks he can change God to fit some weak interpretation in the first place.

    “Well, the only One who could – God” (Bryce)

    I agree – but again his claim is to be scrutinized so as to make sure this was a prophet of God. He truly loses me when he claims God is for polygamy and then later on the prophet after Brigham renounces the idea – via prophecy also. Either God is wishy-washy or something isn’t adding up. You tell me – does God need to change His mind to suit our times?

  97. Great comment Society. Thanks for checking with your Jewish friend. That confirms what I had thought.

    You also bring up some good points about prophecy at the end of your comment. This is a topic worthy of a blog post.

  98. Great comment Society. Thanks for checking with your Jewish friend. That confirms what I had thought.

    You also bring up some good points about prophecy at the end of your comment. This is a topic worthy of a blog post.

  99. Great comment Society. Thanks for checking with your Jewish friend. That confirms what I had thought.

    You also bring up some good points about prophecy at the end of your comment. This is a topic worthy of a blog post.

  100. And did your Jewish friend live back in the day when the Bible was being written, when prophets were called by God to write it, when the Lord led the Hebrews with a cloud by day and fire by night?

    It must always be remembered that the Bible was written by Hebrews, and the New Testament writers were all Jews. The Hebrews consistently pictured God in human form. If God didn’t have a human form, then they wouldn’t have expended the effort to picture Him that way as it would have confused many people as to God’s true nature. Do the Jews still “picture” God in human form, as they did in the Bible, or have they dropped that too?

    Yes, none of us really have any grounds to say anything on the subject, you are right. All we can do is speculate, discuss, and converse. We are not prophets. We are not apostles. We do not have a first-hand witness of God, and speak to Him face to face. God calls specific chosen servants to deliver His message. We must seek out those servants and learn from them in order to know the absolute truth. It is those kinds of servants that were called to give us the Bible in the first place.

    Feeling the Spirit is a witness of the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Godhead, who testifies of the Father and the Son and of all truth. “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26).

    God does have a physical body, as does the Son. As absurd as that might sound to you, it is the truth.

    As far as the Joseph claiming “God is for polygamy” case, have you read your Bible lately? See Genesis 16, 25, 29, 30, Exodus 21, Deut. 21, 2 Samuel 2, 5, etc., etc.. God will command when He wants to command.

  101. And did your Jewish friend live back in the day when the Bible was being written, when prophets were called by God to write it, when the Lord led the Hebrews with a cloud by day and fire by night?

    It must always be remembered that the Bible was written by Hebrews, and the New Testament writers were all Jews. The Hebrews consistently pictured God in human form. If God didn’t have a human form, then they wouldn’t have expended the effort to picture Him that way as it would have confused many people as to God’s true nature. Do the Jews still “picture” God in human form, as they did in the Bible, or have they dropped that too?

    Yes, none of us really have any grounds to say anything on the subject, you are right. All we can do is speculate, discuss, and converse. We are not prophets. We are not apostles. We do not have a first-hand witness of God, and speak to Him face to face. God calls specific chosen servants to deliver His message. We must seek out those servants and learn from them in order to know the absolute truth. It is those kinds of servants that were called to give us the Bible in the first place.

    Feeling the Spirit is a witness of the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Godhead, who testifies of the Father and the Son and of all truth. “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26).

    God does have a physical body, as does the Son. As absurd as that might sound to you, it is the truth.

    As far as the Joseph claiming “God is for polygamy” case, have you read your Bible lately? See Genesis 16, 25, 29, 30, Exodus 21, Deut. 21, 2 Samuel 2, 5, etc., etc.. God will command when He wants to command.

  102. And did your Jewish friend live back in the day when the Bible was being written, when prophets were called by God to write it, when the Lord led the Hebrews with a cloud by day and fire by night?

    It must always be remembered that the Bible was written by Hebrews, and the New Testament writers were all Jews. The Hebrews consistently pictured God in human form. If God didn’t have a human form, then they wouldn’t have expended the effort to picture Him that way as it would have confused many people as to God’s true nature. Do the Jews still “picture” God in human form, as they did in the Bible, or have they dropped that too?

    Yes, none of us really have any grounds to say anything on the subject, you are right. All we can do is speculate, discuss, and converse. We are not prophets. We are not apostles. We do not have a first-hand witness of God, and speak to Him face to face. God calls specific chosen servants to deliver His message. We must seek out those servants and learn from them in order to know the absolute truth. It is those kinds of servants that were called to give us the Bible in the first place.

    Feeling the Spirit is a witness of the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Godhead, who testifies of the Father and the Son and of all truth. “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26).

    God does have a physical body, as does the Son. As absurd as that might sound to you, it is the truth.

    As far as the Joseph claiming “God is for polygamy” case, have you read your Bible lately? See Genesis 16, 25, 29, 30, Exodus 21, Deut. 21, 2 Samuel 2, 5, etc., etc.. God will command when He wants to command.

  103. Byrce – there are a lot of things mentioned in the Bible. You can’t always consider it an endorsement. See Ephesians 5 on marriage or 1 Timothy and Titus on the qualifications of an elder (husband of one wife).

    I think Society’s point was missed however, it wasn’t so much a stab at polygamy, but the fact that these prophets contradicted one another, which makes God out to be wishy washy… which He is not.

    As far as the whole does God have a body question. You think you are right and are sincere about it. You feel what you believe is true. I sincerely believe you are wrong and that I am right and that is true. We are at an empasse. You have said nothing that would change my view, and I obviously have said nothing to change yours. We both can’t be right.

    I think this is an important topic to discuss as it is connected to other LDS doctrine which I will discuss in the future. So I don’t believe this is a meaningless debate.

  104. Byrce – there are a lot of things mentioned in the Bible. You can’t always consider it an endorsement. See Ephesians 5 on marriage or 1 Timothy and Titus on the qualifications of an elder (husband of one wife).

    I think Society’s point was missed however, it wasn’t so much a stab at polygamy, but the fact that these prophets contradicted one another, which makes God out to be wishy washy… which He is not.

    As far as the whole does God have a body question. You think you are right and are sincere about it. You feel what you believe is true. I sincerely believe you are wrong and that I am right and that is true. We are at an empasse. You have said nothing that would change my view, and I obviously have said nothing to change yours. We both can’t be right.

    I think this is an important topic to discuss as it is connected to other LDS doctrine which I will discuss in the future. So I don’t believe this is a meaningless debate.

  105. Byrce – there are a lot of things mentioned in the Bible. You can’t always consider it an endorsement. See Ephesians 5 on marriage or 1 Timothy and Titus on the qualifications of an elder (husband of one wife).

    I think Society’s point was missed however, it wasn’t so much a stab at polygamy, but the fact that these prophets contradicted one another, which makes God out to be wishy washy… which He is not.

    As far as the whole does God have a body question. You think you are right and are sincere about it. You feel what you believe is true. I sincerely believe you are wrong and that I am right and that is true. We are at an empasse. You have said nothing that would change my view, and I obviously have said nothing to change yours. We both can’t be right.

    I think this is an important topic to discuss as it is connected to other LDS doctrine which I will discuss in the future. So I don’t believe this is a meaningless debate.

  106. Well, at least we can agree to disagree. I definitely don’t think it is a meaningless debate, or I would not have taken part in it. I will defend the work of the Lord until the day He comes.

  107. Well, at least we can agree to disagree. I definitely don’t think it is a meaningless debate, or I would not have taken part in it. I will defend the work of the Lord until the day He comes.

  108. Well, at least we can agree to disagree. I definitely don’t think it is a meaningless debate, or I would not have taken part in it. I will defend the work of the Lord until the day He comes.

  109. “And did your Jewish friend live back in the day when the Bible was being written, when prophets were called by God to write it, when the Lord led the Hebrews with a cloud by day and fire by night?” (Bryce)

    No – but neither do any of us so that’s fairly irrelevent. But were not the prophets Jewish also though – from which your prophets are basing their claims on? Why wouldn’t we defer to the actual people with the history to which we are pulling things from? Makes sense to me.

    “Do the Jews still “picture” God in human form, as they did in the Bible, or have they dropped that too?” (Bryce)

    They actually haven’t dropped anything – it’s more like someone else picked something up based on what they think they saw in the Tanakh. Are you familiar with the rabbinical system that goes back quite a ways – which is what the Jewish people look into and also use? I defer to their knowledge on the subject – and one of them (who attends a synagogue and is very studious on Torah) say ‘no’ about the physical body – I have to go to them since we are pulling this idea from their teachings (of the which Exodus is in the Torah).

    “As absurd as that might sound to you, it is the truth.” (Bryce)

    We all admit we can’t say this for a fact – yet you call it ‘truth’ as of now again (a passage prior you admit to saying how can ‘we’ know). The fact is you base a fact on someone else’s words and not your own experience or first-hand witness – correct? Maybe God will end up having a physical body – I’d be amazed – but you never know. As for now I will hold to the best assumption I can make – God is a spirit being of some sort. And when you have actual proof about physical evidence – I will change that assumption.

    “God will command when He wants to command.” (Bryce)

    Really…will God make a command that breaks the Torah? Now polygamy does not mind you – it’s just not the best route. Now God will not command something that is against his order – isn’t this what all faiths believe? Or can God command something that breaks away from Mormonism? You can say that sentence and actually believe it – fact is – Mormonism will not edict something that is anti-Mormon – that would be absurd – and thus we see another thing God will not do (although He can command whatever He wills apparently). Hmmm..limits abounding.

    “I definitely don’t think it is a meaningless debate, or I would not have taken part in it. I will defend the work of the Lord until the day He comes.” (Bryce)

    I agree – I think the debate is fun if anything – does nothing to change the way I percieve the teachings about God – it;s fun side road concerning theology to meander down. I am not sure we have to agree anyways concerning something we cannot really prove or has nothing to do with how we live. It is fun though.

    As for ‘defend’ and the use of that term – it best be dropped from human vocabulary concerning God. What we really are defending is our church or religion – an institution and system to which we adhere to – not neccesarily God so much (who needs no defending). My opinion on that word anyways.

  110. “And did your Jewish friend live back in the day when the Bible was being written, when prophets were called by God to write it, when the Lord led the Hebrews with a cloud by day and fire by night?” (Bryce)

    No – but neither do any of us so that’s fairly irrelevent. But were not the prophets Jewish also though – from which your prophets are basing their claims on? Why wouldn’t we defer to the actual people with the history to which we are pulling things from? Makes sense to me.

    “Do the Jews still “picture” God in human form, as they did in the Bible, or have they dropped that too?” (Bryce)

    They actually haven’t dropped anything – it’s more like someone else picked something up based on what they think they saw in the Tanakh. Are you familiar with the rabbinical system that goes back quite a ways – which is what the Jewish people look into and also use? I defer to their knowledge on the subject – and one of them (who attends a synagogue and is very studious on Torah) say ‘no’ about the physical body – I have to go to them since we are pulling this idea from their teachings (of the which Exodus is in the Torah).

    “As absurd as that might sound to you, it is the truth.” (Bryce)

    We all admit we can’t say this for a fact – yet you call it ‘truth’ as of now again (a passage prior you admit to saying how can ‘we’ know). The fact is you base a fact on someone else’s words and not your own experience or first-hand witness – correct? Maybe God will end up having a physical body – I’d be amazed – but you never know. As for now I will hold to the best assumption I can make – God is a spirit being of some sort. And when you have actual proof about physical evidence – I will change that assumption.

    “God will command when He wants to command.” (Bryce)

    Really…will God make a command that breaks the Torah? Now polygamy does not mind you – it’s just not the best route. Now God will not command something that is against his order – isn’t this what all faiths believe? Or can God command something that breaks away from Mormonism? You can say that sentence and actually believe it – fact is – Mormonism will not edict something that is anti-Mormon – that would be absurd – and thus we see another thing God will not do (although He can command whatever He wills apparently). Hmmm..limits abounding.

    “I definitely don’t think it is a meaningless debate, or I would not have taken part in it. I will defend the work of the Lord until the day He comes.” (Bryce)

    I agree – I think the debate is fun if anything – does nothing to change the way I percieve the teachings about God – it;s fun side road concerning theology to meander down. I am not sure we have to agree anyways concerning something we cannot really prove or has nothing to do with how we live. It is fun though.

    As for ‘defend’ and the use of that term – it best be dropped from human vocabulary concerning God. What we really are defending is our church or religion – an institution and system to which we adhere to – not neccesarily God so much (who needs no defending). My opinion on that word anyways.

  111. “And did your Jewish friend live back in the day when the Bible was being written, when prophets were called by God to write it, when the Lord led the Hebrews with a cloud by day and fire by night?” (Bryce)

    No – but neither do any of us so that’s fairly irrelevent. But were not the prophets Jewish also though – from which your prophets are basing their claims on? Why wouldn’t we defer to the actual people with the history to which we are pulling things from? Makes sense to me.

    “Do the Jews still “picture” God in human form, as they did in the Bible, or have they dropped that too?” (Bryce)

    They actually haven’t dropped anything – it’s more like someone else picked something up based on what they think they saw in the Tanakh. Are you familiar with the rabbinical system that goes back quite a ways – which is what the Jewish people look into and also use? I defer to their knowledge on the subject – and one of them (who attends a synagogue and is very studious on Torah) say ‘no’ about the physical body – I have to go to them since we are pulling this idea from their teachings (of the which Exodus is in the Torah).

    “As absurd as that might sound to you, it is the truth.” (Bryce)

    We all admit we can’t say this for a fact – yet you call it ‘truth’ as of now again (a passage prior you admit to saying how can ‘we’ know). The fact is you base a fact on someone else’s words and not your own experience or first-hand witness – correct? Maybe God will end up having a physical body – I’d be amazed – but you never know. As for now I will hold to the best assumption I can make – God is a spirit being of some sort. And when you have actual proof about physical evidence – I will change that assumption.

    “God will command when He wants to command.” (Bryce)

    Really…will God make a command that breaks the Torah? Now polygamy does not mind you – it’s just not the best route. Now God will not command something that is against his order – isn’t this what all faiths believe? Or can God command something that breaks away from Mormonism? You can say that sentence and actually believe it – fact is – Mormonism will not edict something that is anti-Mormon – that would be absurd – and thus we see another thing God will not do (although He can command whatever He wills apparently). Hmmm..limits abounding.

    “I definitely don’t think it is a meaningless debate, or I would not have taken part in it. I will defend the work of the Lord until the day He comes.” (Bryce)

    I agree – I think the debate is fun if anything – does nothing to change the way I percieve the teachings about God – it;s fun side road concerning theology to meander down. I am not sure we have to agree anyways concerning something we cannot really prove or has nothing to do with how we live. It is fun though.

    As for ‘defend’ and the use of that term – it best be dropped from human vocabulary concerning God. What we really are defending is our church or religion – an institution and system to which we adhere to – not neccesarily God so much (who needs no defending). My opinion on that word anyways.

  112. Our prophets don’t base their claims on any ancient ones, as you say. Prophets speak with the Lord directly, and it is He that reveals His will to His children on earth. A prophet doesn’t need to search through the scriptures in order to reveal the will of God. It can help him obtain inspiration and insight, but ultimately the word of God comes from God. It is revelation. That is how God has revealed Himself since Adam.

    There are many more scriptures from throughout the Bible that speak of the human form of God than just the ones in Exodus (or Torah as you say).

    Yes, we can know, with all certainty, if certain things are true or untrue. If God calls prophets, and they speak His word by the inspiration of the spirit, we can know that it is true. It is a fact. I do not “base a fact on someone else’s words”, but on my knowledge and witness that God has called prophets who speak His word today. They are not their own words; they are the words of the Lord. Of course I do not have a first-hand witness of God, but I do have a first-hand witness of His prophet who He has called to reveal His will and His gospel. I am grateful to living prophets who teach truth, and have revealed the true nature of God – that He is an exalted man. I know exactly whom I worship, and to whom I pray daily and seek to emulate, not just a “spirit being of some sort”. You cannot be saved in ignorance.

    There will never be actual proof or physical evidence that proves any portion of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Can you prove God exists? God requires us to have faith in Him. Only the wicked seek after signs (Matt. 12:39; 16:4). The signs and evidence will follow them that believe first (Mark 16:17).

    Yes, God will command when He wants to command. God will not command something that is against His order. It is always according to His will. Those at Christ’s time thought it astounding that the Law of Moses would be fulfilled in Christ, and that they would be put under a new covenant from that time forth. Did God change His mind? No, He had better things planned.

    And yes, we use the term “defend”. The apostles spent the majority of their time defending the church that Christ established from the false prophets, seducing spirits, fables, divisions, grievous wolves, and antichrists that made war with the saints.

  113. Our prophets don’t base their claims on any ancient ones, as you say. Prophets speak with the Lord directly, and it is He that reveals His will to His children on earth. A prophet doesn’t need to search through the scriptures in order to reveal the will of God. It can help him obtain inspiration and insight, but ultimately the word of God comes from God. It is revelation. That is how God has revealed Himself since Adam.

    There are many more scriptures from throughout the Bible that speak of the human form of God than just the ones in Exodus (or Torah as you say).

    Yes, we can know, with all certainty, if certain things are true or untrue. If God calls prophets, and they speak His word by the inspiration of the spirit, we can know that it is true. It is a fact. I do not “base a fact on someone else’s words”, but on my knowledge and witness that God has called prophets who speak His word today. They are not their own words; they are the words of the Lord. Of course I do not have a first-hand witness of God, but I do have a first-hand witness of His prophet who He has called to reveal His will and His gospel. I am grateful to living prophets who teach truth, and have revealed the true nature of God – that He is an exalted man. I know exactly whom I worship, and to whom I pray daily and seek to emulate, not just a “spirit being of some sort”. You cannot be saved in ignorance.

    There will never be actual proof or physical evidence that proves any portion of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Can you prove God exists? God requires us to have faith in Him. Only the wicked seek after signs (Matt. 12:39; 16:4). The signs and evidence will follow them that believe first (Mark 16:17).

    Yes, God will command when He wants to command. God will not command something that is against His order. It is always according to His will. Those at Christ’s time thought it astounding that the Law of Moses would be fulfilled in Christ, and that they would be put under a new covenant from that time forth. Did God change His mind? No, He had better things planned.

    And yes, we use the term “defend”. The apostles spent the majority of their time defending the church that Christ established from the false prophets, seducing spirits, fables, divisions, grievous wolves, and antichrists that made war with the saints.

  114. Our prophets don’t base their claims on any ancient ones, as you say. Prophets speak with the Lord directly, and it is He that reveals His will to His children on earth. A prophet doesn’t need to search through the scriptures in order to reveal the will of God. It can help him obtain inspiration and insight, but ultimately the word of God comes from God. It is revelation. That is how God has revealed Himself since Adam.

    There are many more scriptures from throughout the Bible that speak of the human form of God than just the ones in Exodus (or Torah as you say).

    Yes, we can know, with all certainty, if certain things are true or untrue. If God calls prophets, and they speak His word by the inspiration of the spirit, we can know that it is true. It is a fact. I do not “base a fact on someone else’s words”, but on my knowledge and witness that God has called prophets who speak His word today. They are not their own words; they are the words of the Lord. Of course I do not have a first-hand witness of God, but I do have a first-hand witness of His prophet who He has called to reveal His will and His gospel. I am grateful to living prophets who teach truth, and have revealed the true nature of God – that He is an exalted man. I know exactly whom I worship, and to whom I pray daily and seek to emulate, not just a “spirit being of some sort”. You cannot be saved in ignorance.

    There will never be actual proof or physical evidence that proves any portion of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Can you prove God exists? God requires us to have faith in Him. Only the wicked seek after signs (Matt. 12:39; 16:4). The signs and evidence will follow them that believe first (Mark 16:17).

    Yes, God will command when He wants to command. God will not command something that is against His order. It is always according to His will. Those at Christ’s time thought it astounding that the Law of Moses would be fulfilled in Christ, and that they would be put under a new covenant from that time forth. Did God change His mind? No, He had better things planned.

    And yes, we use the term “defend”. The apostles spent the majority of their time defending the church that Christ established from the false prophets, seducing spirits, fables, divisions, grievous wolves, and antichrists that made war with the saints.

  115. “Can you prove God exists?” (Bryce)

    No I cannot – so therefore even by faith I cannot acknowledge something He has not made known – like having a physical body – for some reason this is of no concern to God.

    “Only the wicked seek after signs (Matt. 12:39; 16:4)” (Bryce)

    Signs for what exactly – so they can believe in God? I already believe in God so this is no brainer for me.

    “The signs and evidence will follow them that believe first (Mark 16:17).” (Bryce)

    Just so we both know – this last passage area in Mark 16 is added in – and has been proven by looking at the oldest manuscripts – ie: it was not of the original document. Does this passage occur in the Book of Mormon at all? Inquiring minds want to know.

    “God will not command something that is against His order. It is always according to His will” (Bryce)

    Fine – explain His Will. Irregardless, God does set limits upon Himself then?

    “The apostles spent the majority of their time defending the church that Christ established from the false prophets, seducing spirits, fables, divisions, grievous wolves, and antichrists that made war with the saints.” (Bryce)

    Actually, Paul spent the majority of his time cleaning up the problems within the churches (not usually outside the church) – thus his letters – and offering instruction. John, Peter, and James also approach the subject in letters but not to the same veracity as Paul. Isn’t it your church that teaches that problems existed inside the church meant it needed to break-away from the mainline denominations? This actually was not mentioned in a single letter as acceptable practice – from where does it come?

    Still, God having a body is something your faith has decided is important for some reason – and then beyond that – they build upon this idea in some strange ways – I think you mention God being an exalted being (kinda like your prophet fella there you mention). What I see are some people in the late 1800’s who could not figure out God so they made it more feasible for everyone to figure him out – yet the very nature of God is so huge this is an impossible task (surely prophets know this).

    I actually do admire some of the Mormon faith and it’s workings – they do nice for people and that in and of itself is admirable. But the strong suit of your faith is not the new ideas that can be added to theology – that kind of stuff needs to be thought out in more depth. In a few more years some other prophet will come along and say God does not have a body – noting the very possible error of such a statement (I mean this is possible since one prophet can over-write another previous prophet). Which oddly enough we have not much need for if Christ is the ultimate fulfillment we ever needed – what more can be added?

  116. “Can you prove God exists?” (Bryce)

    No I cannot – so therefore even by faith I cannot acknowledge something He has not made known – like having a physical body – for some reason this is of no concern to God.

    “Only the wicked seek after signs (Matt. 12:39; 16:4)” (Bryce)

    Signs for what exactly – so they can believe in God? I already believe in God so this is no brainer for me.

    “The signs and evidence will follow them that believe first (Mark 16:17).” (Bryce)

    Just so we both know – this last passage area in Mark 16 is added in – and has been proven by looking at the oldest manuscripts – ie: it was not of the original document. Does this passage occur in the Book of Mormon at all? Inquiring minds want to know.

    “God will not command something that is against His order. It is always according to His will” (Bryce)

    Fine – explain His Will. Irregardless, God does set limits upon Himself then?

    “The apostles spent the majority of their time defending the church that Christ established from the false prophets, seducing spirits, fables, divisions, grievous wolves, and antichrists that made war with the saints.” (Bryce)

    Actually, Paul spent the majority of his time cleaning up the problems within the churches (not usually outside the church) – thus his letters – and offering instruction. John, Peter, and James also approach the subject in letters but not to the same veracity as Paul. Isn’t it your church that teaches that problems existed inside the church meant it needed to break-away from the mainline denominations? This actually was not mentioned in a single letter as acceptable practice – from where does it come?

    Still, God having a body is something your faith has decided is important for some reason – and then beyond that – they build upon this idea in some strange ways – I think you mention God being an exalted being (kinda like your prophet fella there you mention). What I see are some people in the late 1800’s who could not figure out God so they made it more feasible for everyone to figure him out – yet the very nature of God is so huge this is an impossible task (surely prophets know this).

    I actually do admire some of the Mormon faith and it’s workings – they do nice for people and that in and of itself is admirable. But the strong suit of your faith is not the new ideas that can be added to theology – that kind of stuff needs to be thought out in more depth. In a few more years some other prophet will come along and say God does not have a body – noting the very possible error of such a statement (I mean this is possible since one prophet can over-write another previous prophet). Which oddly enough we have not much need for if Christ is the ultimate fulfillment we ever needed – what more can be added?

  117. “Can you prove God exists?” (Bryce)

    No I cannot – so therefore even by faith I cannot acknowledge something He has not made known – like having a physical body – for some reason this is of no concern to God.

    “Only the wicked seek after signs (Matt. 12:39; 16:4)” (Bryce)

    Signs for what exactly – so they can believe in God? I already believe in God so this is no brainer for me.

    “The signs and evidence will follow them that believe first (Mark 16:17).” (Bryce)

    Just so we both know – this last passage area in Mark 16 is added in – and has been proven by looking at the oldest manuscripts – ie: it was not of the original document. Does this passage occur in the Book of Mormon at all? Inquiring minds want to know.

    “God will not command something that is against His order. It is always according to His will” (Bryce)

    Fine – explain His Will. Irregardless, God does set limits upon Himself then?

    “The apostles spent the majority of their time defending the church that Christ established from the false prophets, seducing spirits, fables, divisions, grievous wolves, and antichrists that made war with the saints.” (Bryce)

    Actually, Paul spent the majority of his time cleaning up the problems within the churches (not usually outside the church) – thus his letters – and offering instruction. John, Peter, and James also approach the subject in letters but not to the same veracity as Paul. Isn’t it your church that teaches that problems existed inside the church meant it needed to break-away from the mainline denominations? This actually was not mentioned in a single letter as acceptable practice – from where does it come?

    Still, God having a body is something your faith has decided is important for some reason – and then beyond that – they build upon this idea in some strange ways – I think you mention God being an exalted being (kinda like your prophet fella there you mention). What I see are some people in the late 1800’s who could not figure out God so they made it more feasible for everyone to figure him out – yet the very nature of God is so huge this is an impossible task (surely prophets know this).

    I actually do admire some of the Mormon faith and it’s workings – they do nice for people and that in and of itself is admirable. But the strong suit of your faith is not the new ideas that can be added to theology – that kind of stuff needs to be thought out in more depth. In a few more years some other prophet will come along and say God does not have a body – noting the very possible error of such a statement (I mean this is possible since one prophet can over-write another previous prophet). Which oddly enough we have not much need for if Christ is the ultimate fulfillment we ever needed – what more can be added?

  118. “No I cannot – so therefore even by faith I cannot acknowledge something He has not made known – like having a physical body – for some reason this is of no concern to God.” (Societyvs)

    I disagree. God has called prophets today, just like He has throughout the history of the earth, and they have revealed this truth today. God wants us to know Him, for only by knowing Him do we obtain eternal life (John 17:3). God has revealed Himself today through living prophets – “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us” (D&C 130:22).

    “Signs for what exactly – so they can believe in God?” (Societyvs)

    You are the one that asked for proof. You said, “And when you have actual proof about physical evidence – I will change that assumption.” If that is your requirement for belief, why would you believe in God to begin with?

    Yes, the Book of Mormon confirms and testifies of the truth of what is said in Mark – “And these signs shall follow them that believe—in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover” (Mormon 9:24).

    “Fine – explain His Will.” (Societyvs)

    God reveals His will through His servants, the prophets (2 Kgs. 17:23, 21:10, 24:2; Jer. 25:4; Dan. 9:10; Amos 3:7; Rev. 10:7).

    “Isn’t it your church that teaches that problems existed inside the church meant it needed to break-away from the mainline denominations?” (Soceityvs)

    No, we believe that there was an Apostasy from the truth in Christ’s early church, to such an extent that revelation and the priesthood authority were taken from the earth. The Bible prophesies this “falling away” from the truth before the Second Coming (2 Thes. 2:3). We believe that the original church of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth today through the prophet Joseph Smith.

    “what more can be added?” (Societyvs)

    “For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have” (2 Nephi 28:30).

  119. “No I cannot – so therefore even by faith I cannot acknowledge something He has not made known – like having a physical body – for some reason this is of no concern to God.” (Societyvs)

    I disagree. God has called prophets today, just like He has throughout the history of the earth, and they have revealed this truth today. God wants us to know Him, for only by knowing Him do we obtain eternal life (John 17:3). God has revealed Himself today through living prophets – “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us” (D&C 130:22).

    “Signs for what exactly – so they can believe in God?” (Societyvs)

    You are the one that asked for proof. You said, “And when you have actual proof about physical evidence – I will change that assumption.” If that is your requirement for belief, why would you believe in God to begin with?

    Yes, the Book of Mormon confirms and testifies of the truth of what is said in Mark – “And these signs shall follow them that believe—in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover” (Mormon 9:24).

    “Fine – explain His Will.” (Societyvs)

    God reveals His will through His servants, the prophets (2 Kgs. 17:23, 21:10, 24:2; Jer. 25:4; Dan. 9:10; Amos 3:7; Rev. 10:7).

    “Isn’t it your church that teaches that problems existed inside the church meant it needed to break-away from the mainline denominations?” (Soceityvs)

    No, we believe that there was an Apostasy from the truth in Christ’s early church, to such an extent that revelation and the priesthood authority were taken from the earth. The Bible prophesies this “falling away” from the truth before the Second Coming (2 Thes. 2:3). We believe that the original church of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth today through the prophet Joseph Smith.

    “what more can be added?” (Societyvs)

    “For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have” (2 Nephi 28:30).

  120. “No I cannot – so therefore even by faith I cannot acknowledge something He has not made known – like having a physical body – for some reason this is of no concern to God.” (Societyvs)

    I disagree. God has called prophets today, just like He has throughout the history of the earth, and they have revealed this truth today. God wants us to know Him, for only by knowing Him do we obtain eternal life (John 17:3). God has revealed Himself today through living prophets – “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us” (D&C 130:22).

    “Signs for what exactly – so they can believe in God?” (Societyvs)

    You are the one that asked for proof. You said, “And when you have actual proof about physical evidence – I will change that assumption.” If that is your requirement for belief, why would you believe in God to begin with?

    Yes, the Book of Mormon confirms and testifies of the truth of what is said in Mark – “And these signs shall follow them that believe—in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover” (Mormon 9:24).

    “Fine – explain His Will.” (Societyvs)

    God reveals His will through His servants, the prophets (2 Kgs. 17:23, 21:10, 24:2; Jer. 25:4; Dan. 9:10; Amos 3:7; Rev. 10:7).

    “Isn’t it your church that teaches that problems existed inside the church meant it needed to break-away from the mainline denominations?” (Soceityvs)

    No, we believe that there was an Apostasy from the truth in Christ’s early church, to such an extent that revelation and the priesthood authority were taken from the earth. The Bible prophesies this “falling away” from the truth before the Second Coming (2 Thes. 2:3). We believe that the original church of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth today through the prophet Joseph Smith.

    “what more can be added?” (Societyvs)

    “For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have” (2 Nephi 28:30).

  121. “God wants us to know Him, for only by knowing Him do we obtain eternal life (John 17:3).” (Bryce)

    So in order to gain ‘eternal life’ I need to know God haqs a body of flesh n bones? First off, that limits God more than just having any type of physical body – he is like us so he is extremely limited (that cannot even be doubted by mere logic). Secondly, just because some Mormon prophet who believes he speaks for God says something – that does not make it so. I would say the same for the Pope or prophets within my streams of faith. You just can’t believe everything you’re told because unbelievingly – they could be wrong – and based on what you say about the flsh n bones – I would say I am more than 95% sure they are ‘way off the beaten path’.

    “If that is your requirement for belief, why would you believe in God to begin with?” (Bryce)

    My requirement to believe in God is faith – my requirement to believe God has flesh n bones is proof (dna or some fragment of his being – since that would be very traceable and trackable). I am not sure you have truly thought out what God having flesh n bones means in all actuality – both philosophically and theologically – there are a lot of things that woudl change about the God you read in the OT or NT.

    “Yes, the Book of Mormon confirms and testifies of the truth of what is said in Mark” (Bryce)

    Odd thing is that it is actually not truth – not even truly the word of God – it was an addition into the ‘word of God’ and nothing more. Fact you find that passage in the book of Mormon (which is prior to the period the passage was added in) can only mean one thing – it was copied from somewhere ‘word for word’ – maybe a KJV version of a bible.

    “God reveals His will through His servants, the prophets” (Bryce)

    What is God’s will then? What you have stated is pretty much nothing to answer the actual question – just lets me know even you are not sure of ‘that will’. But if you are sure it can be known – what is God’s will for humanity?

    “We believe that the original church of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth today through the prophet Joseph Smith” (Bryce)

    I am aware of this belief – but this is quite amazing on one level – the Mormon’s even have splinter groups off of them (3 in total I do believe) – how can the true church have splinter groups (who all claim to be true Mormons) – the very thing it was supposed to protect God from in the first place?

    “2 Nephi 28:30” (Bryce)

    That whole passage is basic regurgitation of pieces of passages from the gospels – namely Matthew or Luke. Anyone can do that – you are aware of this – all they need is a good working memory of the gospels or better yet the words in front of them. Heck I can do that with very little effort. and likely write better quips than ‘here a little and there a little’ – I might go with ‘he some pizazz and there a little pizazz’.

  122. “God wants us to know Him, for only by knowing Him do we obtain eternal life (John 17:3).” (Bryce)

    So in order to gain ‘eternal life’ I need to know God haqs a body of flesh n bones? First off, that limits God more than just having any type of physical body – he is like us so he is extremely limited (that cannot even be doubted by mere logic). Secondly, just because some Mormon prophet who believes he speaks for God says something – that does not make it so. I would say the same for the Pope or prophets within my streams of faith. You just can’t believe everything you’re told because unbelievingly – they could be wrong – and based on what you say about the flsh n bones – I would say I am more than 95% sure they are ‘way off the beaten path’.

    “If that is your requirement for belief, why would you believe in God to begin with?” (Bryce)

    My requirement to believe in God is faith – my requirement to believe God has flesh n bones is proof (dna or some fragment of his being – since that would be very traceable and trackable). I am not sure you have truly thought out what God having flesh n bones means in all actuality – both philosophically and theologically – there are a lot of things that woudl change about the God you read in the OT or NT.

    “Yes, the Book of Mormon confirms and testifies of the truth of what is said in Mark” (Bryce)

    Odd thing is that it is actually not truth – not even truly the word of God – it was an addition into the ‘word of God’ and nothing more. Fact you find that passage in the book of Mormon (which is prior to the period the passage was added in) can only mean one thing – it was copied from somewhere ‘word for word’ – maybe a KJV version of a bible.

    “God reveals His will through His servants, the prophets” (Bryce)

    What is God’s will then? What you have stated is pretty much nothing to answer the actual question – just lets me know even you are not sure of ‘that will’. But if you are sure it can be known – what is God’s will for humanity?

    “We believe that the original church of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth today through the prophet Joseph Smith” (Bryce)

    I am aware of this belief – but this is quite amazing on one level – the Mormon’s even have splinter groups off of them (3 in total I do believe) – how can the true church have splinter groups (who all claim to be true Mormons) – the very thing it was supposed to protect God from in the first place?

    “2 Nephi 28:30” (Bryce)

    That whole passage is basic regurgitation of pieces of passages from the gospels – namely Matthew or Luke. Anyone can do that – you are aware of this – all they need is a good working memory of the gospels or better yet the words in front of them. Heck I can do that with very little effort. and likely write better quips than ‘here a little and there a little’ – I might go with ‘he some pizazz and there a little pizazz’.

  123. “God wants us to know Him, for only by knowing Him do we obtain eternal life (John 17:3).” (Bryce)

    So in order to gain ‘eternal life’ I need to know God haqs a body of flesh n bones? First off, that limits God more than just having any type of physical body – he is like us so he is extremely limited (that cannot even be doubted by mere logic). Secondly, just because some Mormon prophet who believes he speaks for God says something – that does not make it so. I would say the same for the Pope or prophets within my streams of faith. You just can’t believe everything you’re told because unbelievingly – they could be wrong – and based on what you say about the flsh n bones – I would say I am more than 95% sure they are ‘way off the beaten path’.

    “If that is your requirement for belief, why would you believe in God to begin with?” (Bryce)

    My requirement to believe in God is faith – my requirement to believe God has flesh n bones is proof (dna or some fragment of his being – since that would be very traceable and trackable). I am not sure you have truly thought out what God having flesh n bones means in all actuality – both philosophically and theologically – there are a lot of things that woudl change about the God you read in the OT or NT.

    “Yes, the Book of Mormon confirms and testifies of the truth of what is said in Mark” (Bryce)

    Odd thing is that it is actually not truth – not even truly the word of God – it was an addition into the ‘word of God’ and nothing more. Fact you find that passage in the book of Mormon (which is prior to the period the passage was added in) can only mean one thing – it was copied from somewhere ‘word for word’ – maybe a KJV version of a bible.

    “God reveals His will through His servants, the prophets” (Bryce)

    What is God’s will then? What you have stated is pretty much nothing to answer the actual question – just lets me know even you are not sure of ‘that will’. But if you are sure it can be known – what is God’s will for humanity?

    “We believe that the original church of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth today through the prophet Joseph Smith” (Bryce)

    I am aware of this belief – but this is quite amazing on one level – the Mormon’s even have splinter groups off of them (3 in total I do believe) – how can the true church have splinter groups (who all claim to be true Mormons) – the very thing it was supposed to protect God from in the first place?

    “2 Nephi 28:30” (Bryce)

    That whole passage is basic regurgitation of pieces of passages from the gospels – namely Matthew or Luke. Anyone can do that – you are aware of this – all they need is a good working memory of the gospels or better yet the words in front of them. Heck I can do that with very little effort. and likely write better quips than ‘here a little and there a little’ – I might go with ‘he some pizazz and there a little pizazz’.

  124. In order to gain eternal life you need to know who God is, His nature, in order to become perfect like Him (Matt. 5:48), and if He has a body of flesh and bones that is an integral part of who He is. Again, it does not limit God. Christ has a body of flesh and bones and He is not limited. As a resurrected being He said He had been given all power in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18).

    Just because a prophet says something doesn’t make it so, you are right. That is why we must be guided by the Holy Spirit who testifies of the truth. We must ask God if it is true, and He will manifest the truth of it by the power of the Holy Ghost.

    The only way that God could prove to you that He has flesh and bones is if He personally appeared to you. He will probably not do that in this life, so it is an issue of faith.

    The reason that the Book of Mormon has passages that are similar to the Bible is because it is the word of God. He doesn’t change His word. It is the same whether in Israel or the Americas. He will reveal His word the same the world over.

    If you want to know God’s will, you must seek out the prophets and apostles that God has chosen and called by the laying on of hands by His priesthood authority, and then listen to what they have to say by the Spirit. That is the method God has used to reveal His will since day one. The Holy Ghost will testify of the truth. God’s ultimate will and purpose for humanity is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

    “How can the true church have splinter groups?” The same way the original Christian church has produced thousands upon thousands of splinter groups since Christ established it in the meridian of time. Through apostasy.

  125. In order to gain eternal life you need to know who God is, His nature, in order to become perfect like Him (Matt. 5:48), and if He has a body of flesh and bones that is an integral part of who He is. Again, it does not limit God. Christ has a body of flesh and bones and He is not limited. As a resurrected being He said He had been given all power in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18).

    Just because a prophet says something doesn’t make it so, you are right. That is why we must be guided by the Holy Spirit who testifies of the truth. We must ask God if it is true, and He will manifest the truth of it by the power of the Holy Ghost.

    The only way that God could prove to you that He has flesh and bones is if He personally appeared to you. He will probably not do that in this life, so it is an issue of faith.

    The reason that the Book of Mormon has passages that are similar to the Bible is because it is the word of God. He doesn’t change His word. It is the same whether in Israel or the Americas. He will reveal His word the same the world over.

    If you want to know God’s will, you must seek out the prophets and apostles that God has chosen and called by the laying on of hands by His priesthood authority, and then listen to what they have to say by the Spirit. That is the method God has used to reveal His will since day one. The Holy Ghost will testify of the truth. God’s ultimate will and purpose for humanity is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

    “How can the true church have splinter groups?” The same way the original Christian church has produced thousands upon thousands of splinter groups since Christ established it in the meridian of time. Through apostasy.

  126. In order to gain eternal life you need to know who God is, His nature, in order to become perfect like Him (Matt. 5:48), and if He has a body of flesh and bones that is an integral part of who He is. Again, it does not limit God. Christ has a body of flesh and bones and He is not limited. As a resurrected being He said He had been given all power in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18).

    Just because a prophet says something doesn’t make it so, you are right. That is why we must be guided by the Holy Spirit who testifies of the truth. We must ask God if it is true, and He will manifest the truth of it by the power of the Holy Ghost.

    The only way that God could prove to you that He has flesh and bones is if He personally appeared to you. He will probably not do that in this life, so it is an issue of faith.

    The reason that the Book of Mormon has passages that are similar to the Bible is because it is the word of God. He doesn’t change His word. It is the same whether in Israel or the Americas. He will reveal His word the same the world over.

    If you want to know God’s will, you must seek out the prophets and apostles that God has chosen and called by the laying on of hands by His priesthood authority, and then listen to what they have to say by the Spirit. That is the method God has used to reveal His will since day one. The Holy Ghost will testify of the truth. God’s ultimate will and purpose for humanity is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

    “How can the true church have splinter groups?” The same way the original Christian church has produced thousands upon thousands of splinter groups since Christ established it in the meridian of time. Through apostasy.

  127. Bryce – dude that was a very fast response – wow!

    “and if He has a body of flesh and bones that is an integral part of who He is.” (Bryce)

    Then this isn’t something I need to know – it just ‘is’ – and plus I am a human of flesh and blood anyways – we must have some similar experiences.

    “Christ has a body of flesh and bones and He is not limited.” (Bryce)

    On the contrary he was quite limited – Jesus never flew? Also Jesus when tempted by the devil did not jump of the temple – and he admits he could not save himself in that scenario (needed angels). Jesus was not seen in more than one place at a time in the gospels – so he must have been limited in spatial time (could only be one place at a time). Apparently this is true – thus the need to give the Holy Spirit (which seems to be eminate from the Being of God). Human flesh has limitations and it plainly clear in the texts. Being given all power does not mean given all abiliies – which even if true – means Jesus and I do not have the same physical flesh n bone body.

    “He doesn’t change His word” (Bryce)

    But he will add to it – as was your admission a few comments ago about the Nephi passage. Changing His word and adding to it are basically the same thing – so God does change His word according to Mormon reality.

    “It is the same whether in Israel or the Americas. He will reveal His word the same the world over.” (Bryce)

    The word we have now ftom the Book of Mormon is quite different from the gospels – I hace to admit that. Also if God knew at some point Joseph Smith would arise in the America’s anyways – why didn’t Smith just present the bible he had with him (same word of God from all times) – why present a whole new book with stories – the Book of Mormon? It may be telling a story about the America’s – but nonetheless – it was usesless – since Smith came about in the 1800’s and the bible was readily accesible everywhere in America.

    “If you want to know God’s will, you must seek out the prophets and apostles that God has chosen and called by the laying on of hands by His priesthood authority, and then listen to what they have to say by the Spirit.” (Bryce)

    Really – I didn’t know there was some pre-requirement to saying the Our Father Prayer in Matthew 7? Jesus seems to think it is as simple as asking God that ‘His will be done on earth’…which is likely referring to the teachings being enacted in society so as to show and live God’s will (ie: teachings) – which we have always had even prior to some new book on the scene.

    “That is the method God has used to reveal His will since day one.” (Bryce)

    Was Jesus a prophet?

    “Through apostasy” (Bryce)

    Admission of apostasy in Mormonism?

  128. Bryce – dude that was a very fast response – wow!

    “and if He has a body of flesh and bones that is an integral part of who He is.” (Bryce)

    Then this isn’t something I need to know – it just ‘is’ – and plus I am a human of flesh and blood anyways – we must have some similar experiences.

    “Christ has a body of flesh and bones and He is not limited.” (Bryce)

    On the contrary he was quite limited – Jesus never flew? Also Jesus when tempted by the devil did not jump of the temple – and he admits he could not save himself in that scenario (needed angels). Jesus was not seen in more than one place at a time in the gospels – so he must have been limited in spatial time (could only be one place at a time). Apparently this is true – thus the need to give the Holy Spirit (which seems to be eminate from the Being of God). Human flesh has limitations and it plainly clear in the texts. Being given all power does not mean given all abiliies – which even if true – means Jesus and I do not have the same physical flesh n bone body.

    “He doesn’t change His word” (Bryce)

    But he will add to it – as was your admission a few comments ago about the Nephi passage. Changing His word and adding to it are basically the same thing – so God does change His word according to Mormon reality.

    “It is the same whether in Israel or the Americas. He will reveal His word the same the world over.” (Bryce)

    The word we have now ftom the Book of Mormon is quite different from the gospels – I hace to admit that. Also if God knew at some point Joseph Smith would arise in the America’s anyways – why didn’t Smith just present the bible he had with him (same word of God from all times) – why present a whole new book with stories – the Book of Mormon? It may be telling a story about the America’s – but nonetheless – it was usesless – since Smith came about in the 1800’s and the bible was readily accesible everywhere in America.

    “If you want to know God’s will, you must seek out the prophets and apostles that God has chosen and called by the laying on of hands by His priesthood authority, and then listen to what they have to say by the Spirit.” (Bryce)

    Really – I didn’t know there was some pre-requirement to saying the Our Father Prayer in Matthew 7? Jesus seems to think it is as simple as asking God that ‘His will be done on earth’…which is likely referring to the teachings being enacted in society so as to show and live God’s will (ie: teachings) – which we have always had even prior to some new book on the scene.

    “That is the method God has used to reveal His will since day one.” (Bryce)

    Was Jesus a prophet?

    “Through apostasy” (Bryce)

    Admission of apostasy in Mormonism?

  129. Bryce – dude that was a very fast response – wow!

    “and if He has a body of flesh and bones that is an integral part of who He is.” (Bryce)

    Then this isn’t something I need to know – it just ‘is’ – and plus I am a human of flesh and blood anyways – we must have some similar experiences.

    “Christ has a body of flesh and bones and He is not limited.” (Bryce)

    On the contrary he was quite limited – Jesus never flew? Also Jesus when tempted by the devil did not jump of the temple – and he admits he could not save himself in that scenario (needed angels). Jesus was not seen in more than one place at a time in the gospels – so he must have been limited in spatial time (could only be one place at a time). Apparently this is true – thus the need to give the Holy Spirit (which seems to be eminate from the Being of God). Human flesh has limitations and it plainly clear in the texts. Being given all power does not mean given all abiliies – which even if true – means Jesus and I do not have the same physical flesh n bone body.

    “He doesn’t change His word” (Bryce)

    But he will add to it – as was your admission a few comments ago about the Nephi passage. Changing His word and adding to it are basically the same thing – so God does change His word according to Mormon reality.

    “It is the same whether in Israel or the Americas. He will reveal His word the same the world over.” (Bryce)

    The word we have now ftom the Book of Mormon is quite different from the gospels – I hace to admit that. Also if God knew at some point Joseph Smith would arise in the America’s anyways – why didn’t Smith just present the bible he had with him (same word of God from all times) – why present a whole new book with stories – the Book of Mormon? It may be telling a story about the America’s – but nonetheless – it was usesless – since Smith came about in the 1800’s and the bible was readily accesible everywhere in America.

    “If you want to know God’s will, you must seek out the prophets and apostles that God has chosen and called by the laying on of hands by His priesthood authority, and then listen to what they have to say by the Spirit.” (Bryce)

    Really – I didn’t know there was some pre-requirement to saying the Our Father Prayer in Matthew 7? Jesus seems to think it is as simple as asking God that ‘His will be done on earth’…which is likely referring to the teachings being enacted in society so as to show and live God’s will (ie: teachings) – which we have always had even prior to some new book on the scene.

    “That is the method God has used to reveal His will since day one.” (Bryce)

    Was Jesus a prophet?

    “Through apostasy” (Bryce)

    Admission of apostasy in Mormonism?

  130. I’m a fast typer. 🙂

    If something is integral to who God is, you don’t feel like you need to know what it is? How can you have faith in God if you do not know who He is?

    Christ was not limited AFTER His resurrection. He received ALL power in heaven and in earth AFTER His resurrection. And He did fly then; He ascended straight up into heaven. Human flesh does not have the same limitations when it is immortal, perfected, and glorified as when it is mortal, imperfect, and carnal.

    God does not change His word; He reveals His will. There is a difference.

    Why do you think that the word in the Book of Mormon is “quite different” from the Bible? The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to testify of Jesus Christ, His atonement, sacrifice, resurrection, and His gospel. The Bible’s purpose is the same. God has given us more of His word in the Book of Mormon to help clarify the doctrines and restore the truths that have been lost from ancient sources through destruction, misplacement, mistranslation, mistranscribing, etc. The Bible was written over thousands of years. God has not stopped giving His word to His prophets today. God has not become quiet.

    There isn’t a pre-requirement to saying the Lord’s prayer. The will of God is done on the earth through the ministration of His chosen servants, the prophets and apostles. That is why God has called prophets since Adam.

    Yes, Jesus was a prophet, the greatest prophet the world has ever seen, come to reveal the will of the Father. Jesus even referred to Himself as a prophet (Matt. 13:57; Mark 6:4; John 4:44), and others referred to Him as a prophet also (Matt. 21:9-11). He is also our Lord and Savior, the Redeemer of mankind. He is Prophet, Priest, and King.

    Of course there has been apostasy from the LDS Church since its founding. That is where all the splinter groups have come from.

  131. I’m a fast typer. 🙂

    If something is integral to who God is, you don’t feel like you need to know what it is? How can you have faith in God if you do not know who He is?

    Christ was not limited AFTER His resurrection. He received ALL power in heaven and in earth AFTER His resurrection. And He did fly then; He ascended straight up into heaven. Human flesh does not have the same limitations when it is immortal, perfected, and glorified as when it is mortal, imperfect, and carnal.

    God does not change His word; He reveals His will. There is a difference.

    Why do you think that the word in the Book of Mormon is “quite different” from the Bible? The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to testify of Jesus Christ, His atonement, sacrifice, resurrection, and His gospel. The Bible’s purpose is the same. God has given us more of His word in the Book of Mormon to help clarify the doctrines and restore the truths that have been lost from ancient sources through destruction, misplacement, mistranslation, mistranscribing, etc. The Bible was written over thousands of years. God has not stopped giving His word to His prophets today. God has not become quiet.

    There isn’t a pre-requirement to saying the Lord’s prayer. The will of God is done on the earth through the ministration of His chosen servants, the prophets and apostles. That is why God has called prophets since Adam.

    Yes, Jesus was a prophet, the greatest prophet the world has ever seen, come to reveal the will of the Father. Jesus even referred to Himself as a prophet (Matt. 13:57; Mark 6:4; John 4:44), and others referred to Him as a prophet also (Matt. 21:9-11). He is also our Lord and Savior, the Redeemer of mankind. He is Prophet, Priest, and King.

    Of course there has been apostasy from the LDS Church since its founding. That is where all the splinter groups have come from.

  132. I’m a fast typer. 🙂

    If something is integral to who God is, you don’t feel like you need to know what it is? How can you have faith in God if you do not know who He is?

    Christ was not limited AFTER His resurrection. He received ALL power in heaven and in earth AFTER His resurrection. And He did fly then; He ascended straight up into heaven. Human flesh does not have the same limitations when it is immortal, perfected, and glorified as when it is mortal, imperfect, and carnal.

    God does not change His word; He reveals His will. There is a difference.

    Why do you think that the word in the Book of Mormon is “quite different” from the Bible? The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to testify of Jesus Christ, His atonement, sacrifice, resurrection, and His gospel. The Bible’s purpose is the same. God has given us more of His word in the Book of Mormon to help clarify the doctrines and restore the truths that have been lost from ancient sources through destruction, misplacement, mistranslation, mistranscribing, etc. The Bible was written over thousands of years. God has not stopped giving His word to His prophets today. God has not become quiet.

    There isn’t a pre-requirement to saying the Lord’s prayer. The will of God is done on the earth through the ministration of His chosen servants, the prophets and apostles. That is why God has called prophets since Adam.

    Yes, Jesus was a prophet, the greatest prophet the world has ever seen, come to reveal the will of the Father. Jesus even referred to Himself as a prophet (Matt. 13:57; Mark 6:4; John 4:44), and others referred to Him as a prophet also (Matt. 21:9-11). He is also our Lord and Savior, the Redeemer of mankind. He is Prophet, Priest, and King.

    Of course there has been apostasy from the LDS Church since its founding. That is where all the splinter groups have come from.

  133. “If something is integral to who God is, you don’t feel like you need to know what it is? How can you have faith in God if you do not know who He is?” (Bryce)

    Not really. Like if God has 4 faces and I don’t know about it – then what’s the big deal with that – it is something that ‘just is’ and really has little to no effect on how I live my life. The idea God is Spirit or a physical body does not actually have anything to do with me – so it does not effect me – it’s a ‘just is’ thing with little to no meaning or something I cannot change.

    “Human flesh does not have the same limitations when it is immortal, perfected, and glorified as when it is mortal, imperfect, and carnal” (Bryce)

    Then it’s not really ‘human’ flesh anymore then is it? It’s a new physical being that can fly and walk through walls and do other wonderful things that us normal human beings in the flesh most certainly cannot (unless you can do these things?). I think what you explain about Jesus after the resurrection is not actual human flesh n bones – but some other type of physical body likened to ours (or while Jesus was a human he could not die). But irregardless, none of this proves God has a body – just that Jesus does – and what kind od body he has we are quite unsure.

    “God does not change His word; He reveals His will. There is a difference” (Bryce)

    Revealing His will via another book is firstly adding to the bible (I have seen the bible mormons use) and secondly is revealing there is more to His will then just Jesus – via new prophets who can add to the bible on some level (or at least their D&C’s are to be kept). Now for you to tell me God’s will is not self-evident but has to come through new men/prophets is pretty much telling me unless I am a mormon under the tutoliage of these new prophets I am missing that ‘wlll’ – yet I don’t think I am whatsoever.

    “restore the truths that have been lost from ancient sources through destruction, misplacement, mistranslation, mistranscribing, etc” (Bryce)

    Interesting – and you believe this to be true – that some of these teachings have been lost?

    “God has not stopped giving His word to His prophets today. God has not become quiet.” (Bryce)

    But you follow an institutionalized prophet – just so we are both clear on this – a prophet who exists to make sure the whole thing does not collapse or lose momentum. Is that a true prophet? Look at the all OT prophets and even Jesus and John the Baptist – they were never found in the king’s courts or even in the temple – they existed from outside the organization and spoke to it. None of your prophets ever did this with the church they claim was ‘apostate’ nor do we see people on the fringes of Mormonism speaking to the institution and people of God to change – it’s all from inside the structure eminating out – that’s not prophecy – that’s rhetoric.

    “That is why God has called prophets since Adam” (Bryce)

    Name the first one after Adam and list up to the time of Moses.

    “Of course there has been apostasy from the LDS Church since its founding. That is where all the splinter groups have come from.” (Bryce)

    One can also say that’s where the actual LDS came from also – being a splinter from mainstream Christian denominational ideas. Also the other splinter groups claim to be the true church and that your church is lying – since they are true either to the D&C (like polygamy from Smith/Young) or follow the right lineage afterwards. Maybe your group is wrong and they are right? Just a thought.

    Bryce, I think a lot of what you believe is unique and interesting – but those ideas have little foundation to them and some of them (God having a body) have little to no bearing on us whatsoever. I am not sure how you can hold to some of these ideas knowing full well that God does change his mind often (I am sure he can change body shapes at will also) and that maybe your version of faith will be added to in the future – maybe even contradicting something you currently think is 100% a fact (ie: polygamy is not God’s will and the way to the Celestial kingdom; or maybe we find there is only 1 kingdom and not 3). I ask you to watch what changes or look back to what has changed and you will see your ‘prophets’ are no more products of their times than they are seers.

  134. “If something is integral to who God is, you don’t feel like you need to know what it is? How can you have faith in God if you do not know who He is?” (Bryce)

    Not really. Like if God has 4 faces and I don’t know about it – then what’s the big deal with that – it is something that ‘just is’ and really has little to no effect on how I live my life. The idea God is Spirit or a physical body does not actually have anything to do with me – so it does not effect me – it’s a ‘just is’ thing with little to no meaning or something I cannot change.

    “Human flesh does not have the same limitations when it is immortal, perfected, and glorified as when it is mortal, imperfect, and carnal” (Bryce)

    Then it’s not really ‘human’ flesh anymore then is it? It’s a new physical being that can fly and walk through walls and do other wonderful things that us normal human beings in the flesh most certainly cannot (unless you can do these things?). I think what you explain about Jesus after the resurrection is not actual human flesh n bones – but some other type of physical body likened to ours (or while Jesus was a human he could not die). But irregardless, none of this proves God has a body – just that Jesus does – and what kind od body he has we are quite unsure.

    “God does not change His word; He reveals His will. There is a difference” (Bryce)

    Revealing His will via another book is firstly adding to the bible (I have seen the bible mormons use) and secondly is revealing there is more to His will then just Jesus – via new prophets who can add to the bible on some level (or at least their D&C’s are to be kept). Now for you to tell me God’s will is not self-evident but has to come through new men/prophets is pretty much telling me unless I am a mormon under the tutoliage of these new prophets I am missing that ‘wlll’ – yet I don’t think I am whatsoever.

    “restore the truths that have been lost from ancient sources through destruction, misplacement, mistranslation, mistranscribing, etc” (Bryce)

    Interesting – and you believe this to be true – that some of these teachings have been lost?

    “God has not stopped giving His word to His prophets today. God has not become quiet.” (Bryce)

    But you follow an institutionalized prophet – just so we are both clear on this – a prophet who exists to make sure the whole thing does not collapse or lose momentum. Is that a true prophet? Look at the all OT prophets and even Jesus and John the Baptist – they were never found in the king’s courts or even in the temple – they existed from outside the organization and spoke to it. None of your prophets ever did this with the church they claim was ‘apostate’ nor do we see people on the fringes of Mormonism speaking to the institution and people of God to change – it’s all from inside the structure eminating out – that’s not prophecy – that’s rhetoric.

    “That is why God has called prophets since Adam” (Bryce)

    Name the first one after Adam and list up to the time of Moses.

    “Of course there has been apostasy from the LDS Church since its founding. That is where all the splinter groups have come from.” (Bryce)

    One can also say that’s where the actual LDS came from also – being a splinter from mainstream Christian denominational ideas. Also the other splinter groups claim to be the true church and that your church is lying – since they are true either to the D&C (like polygamy from Smith/Young) or follow the right lineage afterwards. Maybe your group is wrong and they are right? Just a thought.

    Bryce, I think a lot of what you believe is unique and interesting – but those ideas have little foundation to them and some of them (God having a body) have little to no bearing on us whatsoever. I am not sure how you can hold to some of these ideas knowing full well that God does change his mind often (I am sure he can change body shapes at will also) and that maybe your version of faith will be added to in the future – maybe even contradicting something you currently think is 100% a fact (ie: polygamy is not God’s will and the way to the Celestial kingdom; or maybe we find there is only 1 kingdom and not 3). I ask you to watch what changes or look back to what has changed and you will see your ‘prophets’ are no more products of their times than they are seers.

  135. “If something is integral to who God is, you don’t feel like you need to know what it is? How can you have faith in God if you do not know who He is?” (Bryce)

    Not really. Like if God has 4 faces and I don’t know about it – then what’s the big deal with that – it is something that ‘just is’ and really has little to no effect on how I live my life. The idea God is Spirit or a physical body does not actually have anything to do with me – so it does not effect me – it’s a ‘just is’ thing with little to no meaning or something I cannot change.

    “Human flesh does not have the same limitations when it is immortal, perfected, and glorified as when it is mortal, imperfect, and carnal” (Bryce)

    Then it’s not really ‘human’ flesh anymore then is it? It’s a new physical being that can fly and walk through walls and do other wonderful things that us normal human beings in the flesh most certainly cannot (unless you can do these things?). I think what you explain about Jesus after the resurrection is not actual human flesh n bones – but some other type of physical body likened to ours (or while Jesus was a human he could not die). But irregardless, none of this proves God has a body – just that Jesus does – and what kind od body he has we are quite unsure.

    “God does not change His word; He reveals His will. There is a difference” (Bryce)

    Revealing His will via another book is firstly adding to the bible (I have seen the bible mormons use) and secondly is revealing there is more to His will then just Jesus – via new prophets who can add to the bible on some level (or at least their D&C’s are to be kept). Now for you to tell me God’s will is not self-evident but has to come through new men/prophets is pretty much telling me unless I am a mormon under the tutoliage of these new prophets I am missing that ‘wlll’ – yet I don’t think I am whatsoever.

    “restore the truths that have been lost from ancient sources through destruction, misplacement, mistranslation, mistranscribing, etc” (Bryce)

    Interesting – and you believe this to be true – that some of these teachings have been lost?

    “God has not stopped giving His word to His prophets today. God has not become quiet.” (Bryce)

    But you follow an institutionalized prophet – just so we are both clear on this – a prophet who exists to make sure the whole thing does not collapse or lose momentum. Is that a true prophet? Look at the all OT prophets and even Jesus and John the Baptist – they were never found in the king’s courts or even in the temple – they existed from outside the organization and spoke to it. None of your prophets ever did this with the church they claim was ‘apostate’ nor do we see people on the fringes of Mormonism speaking to the institution and people of God to change – it’s all from inside the structure eminating out – that’s not prophecy – that’s rhetoric.

    “That is why God has called prophets since Adam” (Bryce)

    Name the first one after Adam and list up to the time of Moses.

    “Of course there has been apostasy from the LDS Church since its founding. That is where all the splinter groups have come from.” (Bryce)

    One can also say that’s where the actual LDS came from also – being a splinter from mainstream Christian denominational ideas. Also the other splinter groups claim to be the true church and that your church is lying – since they are true either to the D&C (like polygamy from Smith/Young) or follow the right lineage afterwards. Maybe your group is wrong and they are right? Just a thought.

    Bryce, I think a lot of what you believe is unique and interesting – but those ideas have little foundation to them and some of them (God having a body) have little to no bearing on us whatsoever. I am not sure how you can hold to some of these ideas knowing full well that God does change his mind often (I am sure he can change body shapes at will also) and that maybe your version of faith will be added to in the future – maybe even contradicting something you currently think is 100% a fact (ie: polygamy is not God’s will and the way to the Celestial kingdom; or maybe we find there is only 1 kingdom and not 3). I ask you to watch what changes or look back to what has changed and you will see your ‘prophets’ are no more products of their times than they are seers.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Making of a Candidate – Barack Obama

This article in the Chicago Tribune gives some background into Barack Obama’s…

My baby turns eight today

Lillian, my youngest child turns eight.  Which makes me feel very old. …

Page 123 Meme

Andy Coticchio tagged me in this meme.  It has been awhile since…

Heavenly or Hellish Creatures

The small choices matter.  One will reflect, plan, worry and generally count…