Do God the Father and God the Son have physical bodies?

[ἀλήθεια]

It starts with God progressing first, as Scott and other LDS sites have mentioned and than it proceeds to the LDS member progressing, so they go hand in hand... if that's what you believe .

In 1984, that is what their church taught:

"He is our Father—the Father of our Spirits—and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are..."
"...There never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through....
It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has been a finite being" (Deseret News, 16 Nov. 1859, p. 290).

Search These Commandments, Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, Copyright 1984, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, p. 153

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Yes, we are His children, created in His image, after His likeness.

Are we all His children? Can you explain how we lost His image? How will we get His image back?

 

[Katzpur]

I'm curious as to why non-Mormons are so turned off by the doctrine of Eternal Progression. Could any of you shed some light on this? I would also appreciate your comments on why you don't believe God would want us to become like Him.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

I'm curious as to why non-Mormons are so turned off by the doctrine of Eternal Progression. Could any of you shed some light on this? I would also appreciate your comments on why you don't believe God would want us to become like Him.

Becoming like God is not becoming a God.

The Doctrine and Covenants says:

20Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. (D&C 132:20)


What evidence do we have that God does not jealously guard his position and power, but rather seeks to see that his children rise up to his position of glory, knowledge, and power that he has obtained (see Moses 1:39)?
(Search These Commandments, Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, Copyright 1984, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, p. 155)



The Bible says:
Isaiah 43
10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

If that was Christ speaking in Isaiah 43 as LDS teach, His Father was not a God. And men will not be formed into Gods.

 

[Katzpur]

Becoming like God is not becoming a God.

I don't understand. If something is like God, it seems to me that it's not a whole lot different from being called a god. I think a lot of people are under the assumption that we believe there will come a time when we no longer worship God. That's never going to happen. He will always be our God and we will always revere Him as such. I believe another misconception is that we believe we have within ourselves the power to attain godhood. That certainly isn't the case. We believe we can only become what God wants us to become. I can't imagine any Christian saying that God is incapable of turning us into anything He wants us to be. I still don't understand why anyone sees it as offensive for us to strive to be like our Father in Heaven is. Why would He want us to settle for less than achieving our full potential? What loving parent wouldn't want his children to succeed?

The Bible says:
Isaiah 43
10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

If that was Christ speaking in Isaiah 43 as LDS teach, His Father was not a God. And men will not be formed into Gods.

Okay, it kind of sounds like we're changing gears here. I'm not exactly sure what your point is, but I can assure you that we believe the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all a part of the Godhead which existed "in the beginning."

 

[Katzpur]

I wonder how many people who take such offense at the doctrine of Eternal Progression would be as hard on the noted Christian theologian, C.S. Lewis, as they are on the Mormons. Here is what he said on the subject. He put it exactly the same way any Latter-day Saint would:

“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."

I wonder, too, what they would say about The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology's explanation of deification (which is not all that far removed from our doctrine, though certainly not identical): “Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is made in the image and likeness of God…. It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace.”

We didn't invent this idea, and when it is properly understood, there is nothing about it that should get people so riled.

 

[lunamoth]

I wonder how many people who take such offense at the doctrine of Eternal Progression would be as hard on the noted Christian theologian, C.S. Lewis, as they are on the Mormons. Here is what he said on the subject. He put it exactly the same way any Latter-day Saint would:

“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."

Of course, CS Lewis was an Anglican, which makes anything he said somewhat...dodgy.

 

[Katzpur]

Of course, CS Lewis was an Anglican, which makes anything he said somewhat...dodgy.

Oh, you know those Anglicans. Always out on the fringe somewhere.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

I don't understand. If something is like God, it seems to me that it's not a whole lot different from being called a god.

We will be like him because we will be holy. But, God, Himself, said there will be no Gods formed after Him.

I think a lot of people are under the assumption that we believe there will come a time when we no longer worship God.

I'm not one of those people, but I still believe Isaiah 43:10.

I believe another misconception is that we believe we have within ourselves the power to attain godhood. That certainly isn't the case. We believe we can only become what God wants us to become.

"Here, then, is eternal life -- to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you,... To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God.... " (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 346, 347)



What God wants man to become doesn't contradict scripture, so we know that He doesn't want us to become Gods. Becoming one isn't an option.

I can't imagine any Christian saying that God is incapable of turning us into anything He wants us to be.

To my knowledge, no Christian has limited God's abilities.

I still don't understand why anyone sees it as offensive for us to strive to be like our Father in Heaven is.

Who says we are not to be perfect as our Father in heaven is? I've never heard a Christian say that! I've never heard a Christian say that we should not be holy as He is holy.

Why would He want us to settle for less than achieving our full potential?

No one has said that either. What we have said is:

"...before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." (Isa. 43:10)

"...Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." (Isa. 44:8)

What loving parent wouldn't want his children to succeed?

God is always successful in what He does. His children can't fail because He intends to finish what He starts.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (John 1:12)

Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: (Philipppians 1:6)

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (Rom. 8:28)

"The Bible says:
Isaiah 43
10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

If that was Christ speaking in Isaiah 43 as LDS teach, His Father was not a God. And men will not be formed into Gods."

Okay, it kind of sounds like we're changing gears here. I'm not exactly sure what your point is, but I can assure you that we believe the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all a part of the Godhead which existed "in the beginning."

"In the beginning" refers what in Mormonism? Before and after the beginning of this earth's creation, at some point or at many, all Gods were/are working their way to Godhood according to Joseph Smith. Isaiah 43 was written after Adam was created, was it not? Where was God the Father? LDS teach that Christ is speaking in Isaiah 43.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

I wonder how many people who take such offense at the doctrine of Eternal Progression would be as hard on the noted Christian theologian, C.S. Lewis, as they are on the Mormons. Here is what he said on the subject. He put it exactly the same way any Latter-day Saint would:

“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."

I'll let someone else deal with the C. S. Lewis quote, because I have never considered him to be a person whose teachings I ought to follow. I know that LDS like to quote him instead of dealing with the inspired verses in Isaiah.

I wonder, too, what they would say about The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology's explanation of deification (which is not all that far removed from our doctrine, though certainly not identical): “Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is made in the image and likeness of God…. It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace.”

Being quite familiar with some Orthodox people, I can tell you that their doctrine of theosis is NOT about Christians becoming Gods.

II Peter 1:4 says that we have become " . . . partakers of divine nature." Athanasius amplifies the meaning of this verse when he says theosis is "becoming by grace what God is by nature" (De Incarnatione, I). What would otherwise seem absurd, that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holy, has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God or even another god.
Theosis - OrthodoxWiki

We didn't invent this idea, and when it is properly understood, there is nothing about it that should get people so riled.

Who is getting riled? I'm not because I trust that God is in control even if the whole world lieth in wickedness.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Of course, CS Lewis was an Anglican, which makes anything he said somewhat...dodgy.

I would not criticize C. S. Lewis on the basis of his being Anglican.

 

[Scott C.]

I'd like to know if any Christians here believe that in Heaven we will learn new things. If so, will we continue to learn new things forever? Will there be limits on how much we can learn? If we continue to learn forever, how much will we know after an eternity of learning?

Also, I'd ask how wonderful do you believe heaven to be? Will God make heaven as wonderful as he is capable of making it, or will there be a limit to it's wonderfullness? If there's a limit, that would mean that God could make it more wonderful, but chooses not to. That would mean that God doesn't want us to have all of the wonders that He could give in heaven.

I believe God is capable of anything good, being omnipotent. I also believe God wants His children in heaven to be full recepients, complete heirs of everything that he is capable to offer.

What, then, is God capable to offer? What will his children inherit? I say they will inherit all that the Father has, without limit. There is no end to what God will bestow on his heirs in heaven. No end at all. Therefore the possibilities of what God will give us, teach us, and make us are limitless.

As Katz asked in another thread, why would a Christian object? Why would not a Christian fall to his knees with deeper humility and awe towards God than ever before, to know that such a mighty and omnipotent Being is willing to take sinfull fallen creatures, such as us, and through His mercy and grace, make us full heirs with Him in heaven and share all that He has?

I beieve that the more we learn and inherit from God, the deeper our humility and gratitude will become and the more we will worship the Father and the Son forever.

 

[Scott C.]

Please help me to understand, as I have asked before, why Jospeh uses the word "son" in Matt 5:45 when the word is actually"sun".in scripture.
This must support some other doctrine of LDS, although it's only a word, it's meaning is entirely different

This question is way off the topic, but I'll try to respond. I don't know what change from "sun" to "Son" you refer to. I just looked at my Joseph Smith translation and I don't see this change. Please clarify.

I do know that in the Book of Mormon 3 Nephi 25:2 quotes Malachi as saying "Son of Righteousness", but the King James Bible (Malachi 4:2) uses the term "Sun of Righteousness". I'm not certain why there is a difference. "Son of Righteousness" refers to the Son of God, Jesus Christ. "Sun of Righteousness" in the King James version also refers to the Son of God. "For unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings..."

 

[tomspug]

After Jesus died and was resurrected, he said (Luke 24):

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Jesus made it very clear that his resurrected body is one of “flesh and bones”. Jesus taught before the crucifixion that he would overcome death and rise again. When Jesus was resurrected, this was very different from coming back to life as a mortal. His mortal life was over. He came back from death with an immortal body.

Jesus ascended to heaven with the same resurrected body of “flesh and bone”. The angels said he would someday return to earth in the same manner (Acts 1:11).

When Jesus returns to earth, we will see him as the resurrected Lord with a physical body, the same body that was raised from the tomb in the New Testament.

Jesus never shed his resurrected body. There is no Biblical evidence to suggest that Jesus is no longer the “resurrected Christ”. Jesus’ state of resurrection with a physical body is permanent.

The Lord Jesus Christ (God, the Son) sits today on the right hand of his Father (God, the Father) as a glorified, resurrected, and physical Being.

We read this in Acts 7 concerning the vision of Stephen:

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus estanding on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

Who did Stephen see? Stephen saw two Divine Personages, God the Father and God the Son. Where was the Son? He was on the right hand of the Father. Jesus was exactly the same as when he appeared to his disciples and when he ascended to heaven. He was God the Son, resurrected from the dead with a physical body. He is the same today and will be forever.

So far, I’ve established that God the Father and God the Son have bodily form. I’ve also established that the Son’s body is a resurrected body of flesh and bone.

Hebrews 1 says, referring to the Son:

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

This teaches that God the Son is in the express image of God the Father. There are no differences in any godly attributes, forms, or appearances. God the Son looks like and acts like God the Father in all respects. They are more unified than mortals can fully comprehend. This is true, while maintaining their separate physical and spiritual persons. God the Son is on the “right hand of the Majesty on high” which is God the Father.

God the Son was resurrected to have a permanent and eternal physical body because his Father and our Father also has a permanent physical body. We will one day be resurrected from the dead also. In that day, like Jesus, we will receive a resurrected body of flesh and bones that will know no sickness, pain, or death. We will be immortal and physical like the Father and the Son and we will continue to be in their image.

Probably the most common Biblical scripture used by some to dispute the corporeal nature of the Father and the Son is found in John 4:

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

God has a spirit. His spirit is clothed with his immortal body. We also have spirits and our spirits are clothed with our mortal bodies. God has a spirit component to his nature. We should worship God in spirit and in truth.

God is also light. God is also truth. But, God is not simply light or simply truth. He is truth, light, spirit, and more. He is also a physical being.

1 John 3 says:

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

When the Son of God appears again, we will “see him as he is” and we will be “like him”. We will see that he has form and that our form is in his image. We will also see that the Father has form and we and the Son are in the image of the Father.

If God the Father has a physical form, what significance would there be in him assuming flesh FOR his people that he loves? It wouldn't be significant at all, since he already has one. The whole concept of a physical form is that it is limited. A limitless God with a physical form is a contradiction.

 

[Scott C.]

If God the Father has a physical form, what significance would there be in him assuming flesh FOR his people that he loves? It wouldn't be significant at all, since he already has one. The whole concept of a physical form is that it is limited. A limitless God with a physical form is a contradiction.

I believe that God the Son, not God the Father, assumed flesh for his people that he loves. God the Father sacrificed His Son for the people that He loves. God the Son was not physical before he was born to earth. God the Son is now physical like His Father.

For the Son of God to willingly come to earth and take upon him mortal flesh and blood was a huge act of condescension. He came to live in our world among sinners and to subject himself to all of the abuses of mankind. Seeing that He is Divine and has all power, that condescension was a great act of love and mercy. Now, the Son is no longer mortal flesh and blood, he is no longer condescended to earth. He now sits enthroned by the Father as a resurrected and immortal Being of flesh and bone, just like His Father.

I believe that the concept that physical form limits God is based on human philosophy and is not scriptural. When Jesus was flesh, he walked on water. Our concept of physics says you can't do that. After the resurrection, Jesus appeared to the disciples behind closed doors, without opening the door. He cleary told them to touch him and feel him and He was physical. His physical nature did not restrict him from passing through other physical matter to enter the room. God's physical nature does not put limitations on Him. It's only when we get caught up in thinking of our limited view of time, space, and physics that we conclude that a physical body would limit God. God is the Author and Master of the universe and physical science. His physical nature imposes no limitations. After all, He is God.

 

[Freelancer7]

Nicely written Scott, the question would be why would not the Holy Spirit have physical body as well as being connected to all things mainly due to the Father, with the Son being very closely connected perhaps to the two???? I do beleive you are close to explaining the Trinity.

 

[roli]

Why would you think me unfamiliar with the word "progression," roli?

Well, Katz, I was wondering what that progression looks like to you, "did God progress from man to God, did he progress from something less then what he presently is?
What was his capabilities prior to this progression.
These are very important to establish, at least I think?

We believe in the doctrine of eternal progression, yes.

I presume this is similar to what we call "sanctification",and yes we believe man will put of the mortal and put on immoratality, corruption and put on incorruption

It sounds to me, roli, like you are trying to pit one prophet against another. Is that what you're trying to do?

How can two prophets be from God and speak different messages or at what point does one take from one prophet and disgard something from a previous prophet.
A prophet is a prophet,at least I would think all the time,either speaking on behalf of God or on his own initiative or I guess speaking contrary to what God says.
LDS prophets have a long history of speaking on behalf of God yet so much discrepancies have followed, not seeing fulfilment of these prophecies, new prophets coming on the scene and changing or claiming the words of the last prophet to not be doctrine.
Doctrine means teaching, yet you have claimed you don't take some of these former prophets teachings to be doctrine,whether this is on your own initiative or your leaders, I'm not sure, but as it stands,in their teachings were essential and teachings to be followed.
It seems that the new prophet, president or apostles seem to have this power of authority to overturn previous teachings of past doctrines and I find that inconsistent and slightly questionable ,not to mention suspicious.
It therefore makes it considerably easy to alter doctrines and be justified in doing so.

Saul was much like that, taking his own initiative, speaking when and where he should'nt have and he ended up becoming a wild animal, God placed a evil spirit upon.
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Eze 33:33And when this cometh to pass, (lo, it will come,) then shall they know that a prophet hath been among them.

Very good!

Perfection here or at least in scripture does not mean perfect and without flaws as the word is seemingly used among LDS.

Try not to be offended at my questions, Katz, you seem to be a little defensive and it's understandable ,your faith has been on the chopping block for many years, why should it be a surprise that your getting it from all angles here.
Your doing a great job but taking it a bit personal, it's your religion that is in question ,not you and your right to practice what you will.
Just look at this as a opportunity to defend your faith, we are to rightly divide the word of truth,and study to show ourselves approved as a workamn who need not be ashamed.

You don;t have to continue this thread if all your going to do is be offended.

 

[Scott C.]

Nicely written Scott, the question would be why would not the Holy Spirit have physical body as well as being connected to all things mainly due to the Father, with the Son being very closely connected perhaps to the two???? I do beleive you are close to explaining the Trinity.

The verse from the Doctrine and Covenants that I quoted in the OP, which says that the Father and the Son are physical, also says that "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."

The Holy Ghost is the Testifier. The Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit for the purpose to dwell in us.

 

[roli]

If God the Father has a physical form, what significance would there be in him assuming flesh FOR his people that he loves? It wouldn't be significant at all, since he already has one. The whole concept of a physical form is that it is limited. A limitless God with a physical form is a contradiction.

I mentioned what Jesus spoke concerning the distinction between flesh and blood and the father.
Matt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven

John not only describes one being born of God, and becoming a child but again there is a distinction being made here that indicates God is not of flesh and blood, not of will of the flesh or man.


Jhn 1:13But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
God is spirit 2Cr 3:17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty.


The bible nor the prophets assure us we are children, it is by the spirit.
Rom 8:16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

 

[roli]

The verse from the Doctrine and Covenants that I quoted in the OP, which says that the Father and the Son are physical, also says that "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."

The Holy Ghost is the Testifier. The Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit for the purpose to dwell in us.

Scott do you agree that Jesus in MATT 16:17 is making a distinction to Peter that flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven.
Do you overlook this fact of what Jesus was doing here , what are your thoughts on why Jesus had to make this point to Pater

Here's a couple of verse to chew on
2Cr 3:17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty.
1Cr 15:45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening(life giving) spirit.
Who do you think the last Adam was...Jesus, so what is this saying, Jesus is a life giving spirit.