No Prophet Is Perfect

[Thinking]

In many of the threads on the board a critic will write something like, "Joseph Smith can't be a prophet because he did X!" An apologist then responds with something like, "No prophet is perfect. After all he is just a man."

Yet Christ warned us to beware of false prophets. Certainly He is encouraging us to pay attention to what a professed prophet says and does. In light of Christ's warnings and the fact that no prophet is perfect, I ask the following question: What level of "not perfect" should be expected of a prophet?

[Baurak Ale]

Thinking that is a really really Good Question thankyou for asking it. For myself I personally have wondered the same thing. As you can actually find many instances and flecks of history where you can see Prophets have stuffed up. The instances and occasions where you can factually show that someone who claims supernatural power isn't what they claim those opportunities to gauge and test that are rare and seldom come along. Being a Prophet Seer and Revelator is a extremely serious claim to supernatural power in my opinion actually I can't concieve in all my imagination of a more serious claim to supernatural power as this claim surpasses clairvoyants, adepts, pschyics the lot.

I think its only normal and natural to wonder what was going on for instance in 1980 when the young Mark Hoffman decieved President Kimball, Elders Packer, Tanner, Romney, and Hinkley, with some documents he forged in his garage basement. http://www.i4m.com/think/jpeg/hoffman-forgery.jpg I guess in a sense I am glad Hoffman decieved all those men because I was previously too scared to meet or shake hands with the Bretheren because of stories I had heard about them being able to see right through a person. I do not want to side track this thread on the hoffman thing, however the thread raises valid concerns. So far in my understanding which is constantly unfolding I think we do not understand enough about what a Prophet is exactly either anciently or modern.

What level of "not perfect" should be expected of a prophet?

I think we all have to find that answer for ourselves I don't think we will find the answer in lds literature. The bretheren have vacillated like a pendulum over the years on this issue, not intentionally I don't think. The problem is when the prophet makes a mistake their humanity is emphasized, when that is done enough to sort of convince lds they are only human then they go the other tack and start to emphasize their devine Prophetship and that works well then when there is a small error the talks go back to their humanity side of things, and the pendulum is constantly swinging around oscillating back and forth between Humanity and Divinity. Its fascinating. But that is what makes Prophets unique they are a mix of both. Its a true principal of prophets to fumble and bumble its in the ancient scriptures with Moses for example, and Prophets today are no different.

[Dale]

Paul said even an Apostle could teach another gospel.(Galatians 1:8,9)

I am not certain any of the mistakes Joseph Smith made is enough to classify him as not a prophet. His idea of his revelations was that even he could be decieved. I recall Orson Hyde saying Joseph Smith taught revelations should be tested before going to the people. I am Community of Christ/RLDS and we have a number of persons that feel the polygamy revelation was a false revelation. But rather than holding him a total false prophet they take the view that he was a fallen prophet. His pre-Nauvoo Illinois prophetic writings in our D.&C. are believed by us.

I don't think one should use the humaness of prophet's defense if the mistake might discredit prophets status as prophets.

[urroner]

What were the weaknesses and follies of the prophets and apostles of the New and Old Testament? Can anybody list any of them in great detail like can be done with Joseph Smith?

Yep, we'll force Joseph Smith to live by a certain standard, one that we know he will fail, but we won't hold the early prophets and apostles to these same standards and with what failings we know they have, we'll just wink at them and forgive them for being human.

[roman]

What were the weaknesses and follies of the prophets and apostles of the New and Old Testament? Can anybody list any of them in great detail like can be done with Joseph Smith?

Yep, we'll force Joseph Smith to live by a certain standard, one that we know he will fail, but we won't hold the early prophets and apostles to these same standards and with what failings we know they have, we'll just wink at them and forgive them for being human.

The words spoken by the apostles and prophets of the Bible are in unity and speak of the same thing. JS speaks quite differently that all others

[Dale]

Roman-Do you have any examples of where Joseph Smith speaks differently?

[Baurak Ale]

Moses Got angry and threw his staff, at the rock. He was human and made a mistake and was also a prophet one of the greatest men that ever lived. That is the contrast. They were all mortal and human. Only one prophet was perfect and because it was in his blood half his DNA belonged to Elohim, he was half God half Man.

[roman]

Roman-Do you have any examples of where Joseph Smith speaks differently?

One right off the top of my head--------------The Father having a body of flesh and bone

[Severian]

It there really such a thing as levels of perfection? If so, I think the Church is perfecting itself. It ended polygamy and the racial purity ban. It is becoming more Christ centered. Its leaders are older, wiser and less prone to physical yearnings. We should be content with that for now. More things are in store in the future and all good will eventually have its day.

[jadams_4242]

In many of the threads on the board a critic will write something like, "Joseph Smith can't be a prophet because he did X!" An apologist then responds with something like, "No prophet is perfect. After all he is just a man."

Yet Christ warned us to beware of false prophets. Certainly He is encouraging us to pay attention to what a professed prophet says and does. In light of Christ's warnings and the fact that no prophet is perfect, I ask the following question: What level of "not perfect" should be expected of a prophet?

Did God or Jesus ever say that any of us would ve perfect? Was Paul a perfect prhophet.

after he blastmphesied the lord for years?

[Zakuska]

Did God or Jesus ever say that any of us would be perfect?

Was Paul a perfect prophet.

Only on ressurection morning...

Philip 3

9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the afellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the adead.

12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:

19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Rom. 8: 23

23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Apparently... "Perfect" beings have redeemed Bodies of Flesh and Bones. Just Like Christ's. I wonder where His Father's body disappeared to?

[Tchild2]

I ask the following question: What level of "not perfect" should be expected of a prophet?

When incorrect "policies", doctrines, or practices are introduced into what should be God's "one true church". If the fallabilities of man become intertwined with the supposed doctrinal truths of the church, then doubts could arise from any teaching that church offers.

[urroner]

The words spoken by the apostles and prophets of the Bible are in unity and speak of the same thing. JS speaks quite differently that all others

How about the words that we don't have. Were they all in unity also?

Besides, how do we know that the words that are said to be theirs really theirs or somebody else's? And how do we know that these words, if they are really theirs, have come to us uncorrupted and pure?

But then again, you failed to answer my question roman. What follies and weaknesses did that ancient apostles and prophets have and how did they compare to those of Joseph Smith?

[jadams_4242]

One right off the top of my head--------------The Father having a body of flesh and bone

How about Moses speaking face to face w/God?

[urroner]

How about Moses speaking face to face w/God?

There is plenty of solid evidence that the early Hebrews/Jews (First Temple era) worshiped an anthropomorphic being whom they called God.

[karl61]

In 1981, I was excommunicated at age 19 . I was not playing with a full deck (as I still am not), had weaknesses, was truthful with events that started to occur in my life since I came home from my mission early. I would love for the church to be as honest about their youth as I was. I was thinking today about my life and the challenges that I have had and still have but then I laughed because I also knew it's a real challenge for me to lie too

[roman]

How about Moses speaking face to face w/God?

Thats is a hebreaism for the type of communication they had. Moses did not set and talk with a god called the father made of flesh and bone

There is plenty of solid evidence that the early Hebrews/Jews (First Temple era) worshiped an anthropomorphic being whom they called God.

I fully agree! But it was not the father and he was not a being of flesh and blood

[roman]

How about the words that we don't have. Were they all in unity also?

Besides, how do we know that the words that are said to be theirs really theirs or somebody else's? And how do we know that these words, if they are really theirs, have come to us uncorrupted and pure?

But then again, you failed to answer my question roman. What follies and weaknesses did that ancient apostles and prophets have and how did they compare to those of Joseph Smith?

I never meant to answer your question I simply made a point for discussion.

As to answer your questions here about the reality of the Bible. More studies have been done on that and proved it to be authentic and the words God wanted. You will have to decide as you look to the evidence on what you want to believe. No one can make that choice for you-----------I believe it is real and has been preserved down thru time--------I choose to trust God on the matter.

[thesometimesaint]

Roman:

From our own Kerry Shirts:

Biblical Passages the Anti-Mormons Use to Prove God the Father Is a Nonmaterial Being:

From Ed Watson's new outstanding book "Mormonism: The Faith of the Twenty First Century" (with permission)

1) John 4:24.

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

Here's the context:

John 4:19-24 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

This is the most common passage used against our belief that God has a physical body. Opponents claim God being "spirit" means:

1) God is incorporeal (he doesn't have a physical body). 2) God is nonmaterial (his essence isn't comprised of matter). 3) God is formless (he doesn't have threedimensional form).

The real issue is: Does "spirit" = incorproeal + nonmaterial + formless?

The context of John 4:24 shows this passage is about our communication with God, which is on a spiritual level and isn't confined to a particular place (like the temple in Jerusalem or on Mount Gerizim). "He is not a local deity."" It wasn't about Heavenly Father's ontological nature (of whether he had a physical body or not)' which doesn't make sense in context. The phrase "God is a spirit" is incorrect. It actually says: "God is spirit" ("pneuma ho theos"). Notice Jesus didn't say, "God is only a spirit." We worship God in "spirit" because God is "spirit." Communication with him is a"Spirit to spirit"communi cation. This passage doesn't mean men and God don't have physical bodies in addition to being spirits.

Jesus is "God" but "God is spirit." Does this mean Jesus isn't actually "God" since he had a physical body in addition to being "spirit"?

"God is spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." Transpose Jesus into this statement. "[Jesus] is spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." Jesus had a body and really is "spirit" (I Cor 15:45) making this substitution valid!

The nature of John 4:24's "God is spirit" causes it to be ineffective against the idea that God possesses a body because it doesn't affirm a concept against an opposing one. It can't be made to mean he doesn't have a body in addition to being spirit. It merely says "God is spirit" not "God is an incorporeal, nonmaterial, formless spirit." It does not deny God having a physical body.

Nearly all Christians believe humans possess souls or spirits. Are we bodies with spirits, or are we spirits that are enclosed within mortal bodies? Do we leave our bodies when we die or do our spirits leave us? If I am a spirit,within a body, I will leave my body at death and go "somewhere" while my body remains on earth. But if I am a body that happens to have a spirit, I will cease to exist at death while my spirit (whatever it is) leaves.

We are spirits (Job 32:8; 1 Cor 2:11; D&C 93:33) who happen to have physical bodies while alive. The question, "Is God a spirit or does he have a body?" doesn't make any sense because both views are correct. Transpose us in this argument: "Are we, as humans, spirits, or do we have bodies?" Both are correct. We and God are spirits that are contained within physical bodies. Our bodies are mortal. God's body is immortal.

By carefully thinking through John 4:24, one realizes that it can't be used to deny the concept of God having an immortal body in addition to being a spirit. John 4:24 doesn't teach God is incorporeal and nonmaterial. Neither does it teach God is formless instead of being in human form. "God is spirit"! He is a spirit entity that happens to possess a glorious, immortal, physical body just like we are spirits that possess dull, mortal, physical bodies. It's obvious this passage doesn't prove God is incorporeal, nonmaterial or formless.

Interestingly, the idea of "God is spirit / God is a spirit' is contradicted by Ps 143:10 which says "God has a spirit" similar to the conflict of "Nancy is a dog" with "Nancy has a dog."

An examination of the second half of John 4:24 shows those who worship God must worship him in spirit! What does this phrase mean? We do not leave our bodies at home when we go to church. Are we spirits? (yes). Do we have bodies? (yes). Same thing with God. He is a spirit being that resides within a physical body.

Many view John 4:24's "God is Spirit" to have reference to God's attributes" and goes together with the other passages which describes God's characteristics such as "God is a consuming fire" (Heb 12:29), "God is love" (I Jn 4: and "God is light" (I Jn 1:5) and refers to the holiness and purity of God instead of his essence (ousia).

Another proof that the word "spirit" in John 4:24 doesn't necessarily imply a nonmaterial being is I Cor 15:45 which mentions Jesus, who is the second Adam was made a life-giving spirit. Jesus possessed a body in addition to being a spirit. We can see that the word "spirit" doesn't necessarily imply a nonmaterial, incorporeal being because Jesus definitely had a body during his mortal stay and when he was resurrected (Luke 24:39) which could be physically felt (Matt 28:9).

Jesus also became "troubled in spirit" (John 13:2 1). Does this mean only his spirit experienced trouble and not his mind and body? Don't we experience physiological changes when we experience deep sorrow such as a betrayal? Aren't "true Christians" those "in the spirit" and not "in the flesh" (Rom 8:9)? Does this mean the only true Christians are those who are dead? No one in mortality is a Christian? Do our spirits pray separately from our bodies (I Cor 14:14-15)? Paul was with the Colossian members "in the spirit" despite having a physical body (Col 2:5). How can our opponents prove John 4:24 refutes Mormonism?

Of course "God is spirit" but this doesn't mean he is incorporeal, nonmaterial or formless. The real issue is, "What is spirit?" The Bible doesn't describe it to mean a nonmaterial formless substance.

Where in the Bible does it say a spirit is a formless nonmaterial being and in the case of God, an omnipresent, incorporeal, formless nonmaterial being?

Another argument the anti-Mormons use to support the idea that God the Father is a nonmaterial spirit is Luke 24:39 and is always combined with John 4:24. Here's the pertinent passage in context:

Luke 24:36-43 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and aftighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, 'Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts &rise in your hearts? Behold my hands and feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not a body of flesh and bones as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them.

When Jesus appeared to his followers after his resurrection, they were terrified because they thought they saw a spirit. Supernatural appearances sometimes cause the beholders to fear (Gen 28:17; Matt 28:4; Luke 1:12; 1:26-30; 24:5). Why did the disciples and apostles in Luke 24:37 react that way? Would they react that way if they thought they saw an angel or a previous departed prophet like Moses and Elijah? Of course not. They would initially be frightened by the suddenness of his appearance," but this would go away since they would realize they were righteous and worthy to receive such a visitation. They would only react that way (be terrified) if they thought an evil spirit or ghost appeared to them (Matt 14:26; Mark 6:49- Jesus then calmed their fears and pointed to the fact that he had physical hands and feet and then invited them to feel him because "a spirit hath not a body of flesh and bones as Ye see me have." Christ's invitation shows a ghost wouldn't have a tangible body."

If they were thinking of evil spirits, what kind of spirits would Jesus be referring to? He would definitely refer to an evil spirit and not God the Father. Do evil spirits have bodies according to Mormon thought? Absolutely not (Eph 6:12)." This passage can't be used to prove God the Father is a personage of nonmaterial spirit because Jesus was talking about evil spirits and not what Heavenly Father's comprised of.

Which concept more accurately describes this incident: 'Don't be frightened, I'm not the Father" or, "Don't be frightened, I'm not a demon"? It's obvious the latter concept is the correct one. '

Ignatius of Antioch around 107 A.D. on his way to martyrdom, understood this same passage to mean, "Lay hold, handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal demon,"" which gives convincing support to the Mormon position. This proves that the early members in the first century understood Christ's statement to refer to evil spirits or ghosts," and not to God the Father.

John 4:24 mentions God is "spirit." In Luke 24:39, Jesus refers to "a spirit." These are two separate and distinct things. God being "spirit" is a state of being (what God is) whereas "a spirit" is a kind of being. This kind of being doesn't have physical bodies [i.e. ghosts, demons] but other kinds do [us humans, Jesus, Heavenly Father].

It is impossible for Jesus to be referring to Heavenly Father since he was in the express image of the Father (Heb 1:3; 2 Cor 4:4; PH 2:5-6; Col 1: 15). Whatever Jesus was; the Father was (John 1: 1). To see him is to see the Father (John 14:9-11; 12:45) and he emulated the Father in all things (John 5:19). Just as the Father is perfect (Matt 5:48) Jesus is perfect (Heb 2: 10; 5:9; 7:28) and is completely equal with the Father (Phil 2:5-6). To see one is to see the other. Jesus is a perfect facsimile of Heavenly Father. Since Jesus has a physical body in which he (as a spirit being) dwells; so does Heavenly Father. The combination of John 4:24 and Luke 24:39 is incapable of supporting the idea Heavenly Father doesn't possess a physical body in addition to being spirit.

Our critics who believe Jesus Christ is God should be very careful because their interpretation of John 4:24 and Luke 24:39 is followed to its logical conclusion by those who fight against Jesus being God, (see Section 2) since the stressing of the distinction between Heavenly Father in John 4:24 and Jesus Christ in Luke 24:39 necessitates the abandonment of Jesus as also being God and of his equality with the Father (i.e., if God doesn't have a body and since Jesus had a body, Jesus can't be God).

3) Col 1:15 / I Tim 1:17.

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. 1 Tim 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Our critics use passages which mention God the Father is invisible and oddly argue invisibility means not comprised of matter,

What does "invisible" mean? Invisible does not mean incorporeal or nonmaterial. It simply means can't be seen or is hidden. There are many things comprising matter that are invisible such as certain plastics, glass, liquids and gases. Despite the fact that we can't see the air we breathe, it's still comprised of matter but is in a form that's invisible to us. If it's possible for air to be comprised of matter but is invisible to our eyes, why not Heavenly Father? I'm not saying God is like the air or certain types of plastics or glass because I do not know what his body's comprised of. The Bible doesn't teach the composition of Heavenly Father's body and neither does the D&C, which only mentions him having a body of flesh and bones (D&C 130:22). However, the fact that there are materials that are comprised of matter that are "invisible," invalidates the argument of our critics.

In addition, the term "invisible" means can't be seen. This term usually isn't about the ontological status of an object but is about the reaction an object has upon the recipient.

There are many objects comprising visible matter that are invisible to man. The far side of the moon was invisible to man until the Soviet Luna 3 spacecraft went around the moon and took photographs of it in October of 1959. Due to modem space travel, the far side of the moon is no longer invisible. There are billions of galaxies, stars and especially planets that are invisible to man but the future will cause them to no longer be invisible provided man builds more powerful telescopes and interferometers. Moses saw God despite he was invisible (Heb 11:27) and was able to do so because he was holy (Heb 12:14). The "invisible" things of God can be seen (Rom 1:20). Jesus is invisible to us despite having a glorified immortal body (D&C 38:7). Furthermore, "being invisible is the opposite of being recognized.""

Because of these facts, the term invisible doesn't mean incorporeal or nonmaterial.

4) Phil 2:5-7.

Phil 2:5-7 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.

Our opponents will interpret this passage to mean man's physical form is unlike God's because Christ gave up being in the form of God and was made in the likeness of men. They then conclude, we aren't made in God's physical image.

This is interpretation in isolation and also misinterprets the passage. The word "form" [morphe] in this verse actually means "nature," meaning Jesus has the same "God" nature as Heavenly Father (John 1: 1; 2 Cor 8:9; Heb 13; 2:14-18). In comparison with other passages that describe the Incarnation, (John 1: 14; Matt 1:21-25; 1 Tim 3:16; Heb 2:14-18) we find that these passages actually mean that Jesus Christ took upon himself flesh (mortality) from an immortal state [being God] to a mortal state [becoming man]; and has nothing to do with the materiality of our forms.

5) Ps 91:4. He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shag be thy shield and buckler.

Our critics use this verse because it mentions God having feathers and wings, when arguing against the concept of God having a body. The antiMormons will say that the passages Mormons use to support God having a body or a right hand must only be understood symbolically and if a literal interpretation is performed upon those passages, then all passages about God must be understood literally as well. Is it even possible for our critics to interpret Ps 91:4 literally or is a metaphorical or symbolical interpretation the only possibility? To do justice to this verse we should examine it in context:

Ps 91:1-10 He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God, in him I will trust. Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust. his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. Thou shall not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shah not come nigh thee. Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked. Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation; There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.

As can be seen in context, this psalm is about the safety and protection the Lord gives us when we rely upon him (Ps 31:20; 32:7). This is about the safety one receives from being in the shadows. Being in the shadows protects us from the heat of the sun (Jon 4:5-6) and the word shadow (Heb. sel; Gr. skia) became a metaphor for protection (Ps 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 63:7; Isa 25:4; 49:2; 51:16; Lam 4:20; Ezek 31:6; Hos 14:7)." The point of Ps 91:4 is on the safety and protection one receives from being beneath God's hand or wings.

It is not even possible to use Ps 91:4 as an argument against a literal interpretation of other passages for the anthropomorphic nature of God because such an argument will go against the context of this psalm.

It is important to compare this psalm with what the Lord said in the NT:

Matt 23:37-38 0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold your house is left unto you desolate.

Luke 13:34-35 0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee: how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a her? doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! Behold your house is left unto you desolate- and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

The Lord compares his relationship with Israel to that of a hen with her chicks (also see 3 Ne 10:4-6; D&C 10:65; 29:2; 43:24-25).'0' The chicks are to hide under her wings and feathers for protection. If they do not, they will be destroyed. Jesus is supposed to have healing "in his wings" (2 Ne 25:13) doesn't mean the BM teaches Jesus has wings.

Ps 91:4 has the LORD comparing himself to that of a hen whose wings and feathers offer protection for his people by dwelling in the shadows they give.

We can't escape the fact that an honest examination of this psalm with other passages in the Bible shows this psalm can only be understood symbolically and can't be used to disprove the anthropomorphic nature of God.

6) Hos 11:9 (Num 23:19; Ps 50:21 & I Sam 15:29).

Hos 11:9 1 will not execute the fierceness of my anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim- for I am God and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

Our critics will use this passage together with Num 23:19; Ps 50:21 & I Sam 15:29. They claim God is completely unlike man therefore he can't possibly be a man or have a physical body.

Their problem is they recognize Jesus as God and man. He also has a physical body. The incarnation of Christ disproves this rationale of God being so unlike man. How could God be so unlike man when Jesus himself combined the two natures into one?

7) Isa 31:3.

Isa 31:3 Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. Then the LORD shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fat and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they A shall fall together.

This verse doesn't mean God is a nonmaterial spirit since the context (starting in Isa 30: 1) shows he was reproving Israel to turning to Egypt for help instead of turning to God. He was comparing his strength to the strength of the Egyptians and the strength of their horses (3 1: 1). 'The contrast between "flesh" and "spirit" is one between weakness and strength and not God's ontological status. The Egyptians are weak whereas God is strong, therefore he will cause both the Egyptians and those who place their trust in them to fall (31:3). God himself will defend Jerusalem and compares himself to birds protecting their chicks (31:5) who will cause the Assyrians to flee in terror (31:8-9).

Gen 15: 1; Deut 4:24; Ps 3:3; 28:7; 48:12-14; 84:9,11; 144:2; Prov 30:5; 1 Jn 4:8; Heb 12:29; 1 Jn 1:5.

Sometimes our critics will use passages which mention "God is a shield" (Gen 15: 1; Ps 33; 28:7; 84:9,11; Prov 30:5); "God is love"(1 Jn 4:, "God is a consuming fire"(Deut 4:24; Heb 12:29), God is a sun (Ps 84:11), the buildings in Zion are God (Ps 48:12-14), God is a high tower (Ps 144:2) or "God is light"(1 Jn 1:5) in their attempt to argue against the literal interpretation of passages that mention God being in human form. Such passages are two-edged swords because they can be equally effective against the ontological interpretations of John 4:24 that mentions "God is [a] spirit" and of Jer 23:24 which mentions God filling the heaven and earth.

9) 2 Cor 3:17: Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

"Now, 'the Lord' means 'the [Holy] Spirit.' Freedom is where the Spirit of the Lord is present."

The Lord is [the] spirit. This verse doesn't identify which member of the Godhead it's referring to but it probably has reference to the Holy Ghost whom we believe is a spirit personage without a physical body.

The context of 2 Cor 3:17 uses "spirit" in different ways v.3- Spirit of the living God; v.6-we are ministers of God's spirit, the spirit gives life; v. 8- spirit = Holy Ghost [?] ministration of the spirit; v. 17- not defined, where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty; v. 18- we are changed by the Spirit of the Lord) but based on the different spheres of the personages of the Godhead, it's probable this "Spirit" is the Holy Ghost. Regardless, even if it was in reference to Heavenly Father, it still can't disprove him having a physical body in addition to being a spirit since the Bible never defined "spirit" to mean a nonmaterial, formless incorporeal being.

10) Col 2:9.

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

In Jesus dwells the fulness of the Godhead bodily [somatikos] (4985/5395). Our opponents understand this verse to mean Jesus is the only member of the Godhead to possess a physical body. The context reads: Col 2:8-10 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power.

All the fulness of the Godhead [theotes] (2320/2540) was possessed by Christ while in the body. All that makes up God (that causes him to be God) is within Jesus.

What does "bodily" mean? It means Jesus had all that made God "God" while possessing a physical body. This passage can't exclude God the Father from having a physical body since Col 2:9 is only pertinent to Jesus Christ, who is supposed to be a perfect facsimile of the Father.

The true followers of Christ are to share in the fulness of the Godhead by being complete in Christ. Jesus Christ's "bodily" possession of the fulness of the Godhead allows us to become complete in him.

At any rate, Col 2:9 can't be used to support the idea God is a nonmaterial omnipresent being.

11) Rom 1:23.

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Our opponents claim God's image isn't like the physical appearance of man which they claim proves he's a nonmaterial omnipresent being. In all actuality, Paul was condemning the pagans and those who are evil who exchanged God and his glory for things that aren't real like idols (Ps 106:20; Jer 2:11). "' Their futile speculations were showing the pre-eminence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the culmination of God's glory. He wasn't teaching God's alleged omnipresence or nomnateriality which wouldn't even make sense in the context of Rom 1:23.

This chapter has demonstrated that the Bible never describes God to be a nonmaterial, incorporeal entity and it never describes a "spirit" to be a nonmaterial substance.

Not a single biblical passage describes God to be nonmaterial, incorporeal or formless! Not a single biblical passage refutes the LDS position of a material God. Not a single biblical passage describes "spirit" to be nonmaterial.

The very concept of nonmateriality (asomatos) is foreign to the ancient Hebrews but actually comes from the Greek philosophers. They believed matter is corrupt and if God is perfect, he then had to be made of a substance that is the exact opposite of the corrupt matter. Hence, arose the idea of the nonmaterial God. This view of God was adopted by the later Jewish and Christian philosophers and has dominated their teachings about God ever since.

1) Does the Bible teach a spirit is formless? No.

2) Does the Bible teach a spirit is nonmaterial? No.

3) Does the Bible teach a spirit is ontologically invisible or nondiscernable? No.

An honest examination of the Bible answers these three questions in the negative. Just because a "spirit" has different properties than the normal states of matter we're familiar with doesn't make a "spirit" nonmaterial. As was seen above, it isn't possible to prove "spirit" means "nonmateriality." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is very fortunate to avoid the trap of nonmateriality since it maintained the true biblical view of God, No matter how often our concept of a material God is ridiculed still won't change the fact that it adheres to what the Bible actually says. If the Bible is really the Word of God, we need to accept its view of a material God. So far, it is only the LDS church who believes in such a God. This position gives strong support for its authenticity as the true church of Jesus Christ.

also from Kerry Shirts:

There is no Immaterial God in the Bible Nor Mormonism

Research by Kerry A. Shirts

The one distinguishing doctrine of Mormonism is God with an anthropomorphic constitution. Through research various Christian scholars have concurred with the anthropomorphism of Mormonism and have noted that the Bible is exactly teaching the same thing. Several Mormon scholars have found internal integrity both within Mormonism and the scriptures. This paper will deal with the Mormon side of the issue and how we see God and why we believe our view is consistent with the scriptures.

Bruce R. McConkie made it plain: Who or what is God? Is he the incomprehensible, uncreated, immaterial spirit nothingness described in the creeds of Christendom, or a personal Being in whose image man is created? Is he the laws and forces of nature, or an exalted and perfected Man?

And how can finite man come to a knowledge of the Infinite? Can he find God in the laboratory? Or in the creeds written by contending religionists who haggled and quarreled over every word?

The fact is -- God stands revealed or he remains forever unknown. It is not reason or research which makes known the mystery of godliness. In one brief glimpse of heaven and its chief inhabitants, Stephen learned more about God and his glory than could be acquired through eons of research by uninspired philosophers. While the Holy Ghost rested upon him, Stephen saw the Father and the Son -- beholding them as glorified, exalted Men, which fact he then announced as he was moved upon by the Spirit.1

James E. Talmage noted an idea involving prayer and the nature of God I think is worth pondering: "We, as a people, profess to be a prayerful people. I ask you severally, and you may answer to your own conscience individually, do you pray or do you content yourself with saying your prayers? There is a vital difference between the two processes. Many of us are taught to say prayers and have not learned how to pray. What inconsistency is there, what glaring inconsistency, in the man who kneels and says: "'Our Father, which art in heaven," and then proclaims that he is the offspring of the brute and not the child of God; that God is no personage but an influence, an essence, an immaterial nothing--there can't be an immaterial something--and then address that conception of his as "Father." Oh, what sacrilege in the man who is profane of heart and who drags the name of God in the mire of his foul, blasphemous oath, and then says, "Hallowed be Thy name!2

B.H. Roberts in his nifty little study "Joseph Smith, The Prophet-Teacher" noted the kind of God men believed in in the 19th century.

"In regard to deity, Christian men, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, believed that God was an incorporeal, immaterial being, without body—that is, not material, not matter; without parts; without passions. And yet, with gravest inconsistency, they held that God was of love the essence; that He loved righteousness, that He hated iniquity; that He so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life! Notwithstanding this "love" and this "hate" God was without passions! He was, too, according to men's creeds, without form. Notwithstanding Moses, one of the God-inspired teachers of men, said that "God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him ;" and Jesus, by a prophet of the New Testament, was declared to be the express image of God's person (Hebrews 1: 2, 3). Notwithstanding this, I say, men, in the early decades of the nineteenth century, were possessed of a "morbid terror" of anthropomorphism—the ascription of human form, feeling or qualities to God—as if they could escape it and still hold belief in the Bible revelation of God! Or, for matter of that, hold to any doctrine of God taught either by religion or philosophy. At the very least, if the God-idea survive at all, God must be held to possess consciousness, both consciousness of self, and of other than self—self-consciousness, and other-consciousness; also He must be thought of as possessed of volition; and what are these but human qualities, which present God to our thought as anthropomorphic? Strip God of these attributes and He is reduced to the atheists' "force ;" to blind, purposeless force, that can sustain no possible personal relationship whatsoever to men or other things in the universe. As one writer in a great magazine recently said: " If we are to know the Supreme Reality at all, it can only be through the attribution to Him of qualities analogous to, though infinitely transcending, the qualities which we recognize as highest in man, and consequently [highest] in the world as we know it."3

He further notes:

"Against the dogma that God was an incorporeal, immaterial, passionless being, the Prophet announced the splendid doctrine of anthropomorphism—God in the human form, and possessed of human qualities, but sanctified and perfected. In the first great revelation which opened this last dispensation our Prophet beheld Father and Son as separate persons, distinct from each other; persons in the form of men, but more glorious and more splendid, of course, than words could describe them to be. All through the revelations received, and all through his discourses, the Prophet reaffirms the old doctrine of the Scriptures, the doctrine of all the prophets, asserting that man indeed was created in the image of God, and that God possessed human qualities, consciousness, will, love, mercy, justice; together with power and glory—in a word, a Man "exalted and perfected."4

And the time and area as well as the circumstances for the problems with understanding God were targeted by Roberts as well:

"Immateriality of God:--The evil which grew out of these contentions in respect to Deity is found in the conclusion arrived at that God is an incorporeal, that is to say, an immaterial being; without body, without parts, without passions. The following is the Roman Catholic belief in respect of God: "There is but one God, the creator of heaven and earth, the supreme, incorporeal uncreated being, who exists of himself, and is infinite in all his attributes, etc." The Church of England teaches in her articles of faith--"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts or passions; of infinite power, wisdom and goodness," etc. This plainly teaches the great error of the immateriality of God; and, indeed, that is the orthodox notion in respect of Deity, notwithstanding it finds so many express contradictions in the scriptures.

In the work of creation, God proposed to make man in his own image and likeness, and the proposition was executed. Moreover, Jesus is said to be the brightness of God's glory, "and the express image of his person." Again it is said, that Jesus "being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." All this teaches that God has a form similar to that of man's; that he has organs, dimensions, proportions; that he occupies space and has relation to other objects in space; that as a person, he moves from place to place; and that so far as his actual person is concerned he cannot be in two places at one and the same instant. The question here arises as to those passages of scripture which declare the omnipresence of God, a thing which is impossible--speaking of his person--if what is here contended for be true. But God may be and is omnipresent by his influence, by his power, if not in his person. While his person is confined to one place at a time, as other substances are, his influence extends throughout the universe, as does also his power, and through this means he is omnipotent and omnipresent.

To assert the immateriality of God as substance, is not only to deny his personality, but his very existence; for an immaterial substance cannot exist. It can have no relation to time or space, no form, no extension, no parts. An immaterial substance is simply no substance at all; it is a contradiction of terms to say a substance is immaterial--it is the description of an infinite vacuum; and the difference between the atheist and the orthodox Christian is one of terms, not of fact; the former says, "There is no God;" the latter in his creed says, "God is nothing."

Such were the absurdities into which the vain philosophies of the pagans led the Christians even in the early centuries of the Christian era; so that through these errors they even denied the Lord who bought them."5

Charles Penrose noted that the Christians today cannot understand Deity simply because they do not enquire of him. Disbelief has indeed led to apostasy in Christendom.

"But here, in the 19th century, among people called Christians, we hear a great deal about God, the God of the Bible, the God that made man, the God that rules the universe, and when we inquire of the wisest men we have in Christendom in regard to this Being, they tell us that he is incomprehensible; they tell us that he is an immaterial being whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere: that he has no body and no parts and no passions; that there is nothing which can represent him; there is nothing like him in the heavens above or in the earth beneath, and that man's mind cannot grasp anything about him. They say he is one, and yet he is three; that he is not three but is one. That there are the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost--three separate substances, and yet not three but only one. They say that one of these three beings without a body had a body; that one of the three parts of this partless being had both a body and parts, and that he, the Son, was in all things like the Father, and was also like us excepting that he was without sin, but had passions as we have. This is the result of the attempt on the part of the wise men of Christendom to find out God for themselves. It is impossible, and is so laid down in Holy Writ; "man by searching cannot find out God." The only way that can be relied upon whereby man can find out God is by obtaining information from the Almighty Himself. "Well," say the people, "but he does not communicate anything to any of the inhabitants of the earth." Why not? Has he not power to manifest Himself to mortals? Is He so great and mighty and so far above the human family that He cannot reveal Himself to humanity? "No. He used to do so hundreds of years ago." And why does he not do it now? "Because the day of revelation has gone by," they say. Who told them so? The fact is that for a long period the people have not been expecting to receive revelations from God. They have not sought for them and, therefore, have not obtained them. But we find in the Old Scriptures a promise something like this: "Return unto me and I will return unto you, saith the Lord: Even from the days of your fathers you have gone away from mine ordinances and have not kept them," you have "transgressed the laws, changed the ordinances and broken the everlasting covenant;" now "return unto me and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts."

We also find in the scriptures the declaration, that God changeth not, that he is "the same yesterday, to-day and forever." And we may reasonably infer that if God was a God of revelation hundreds of years ago, he is the same God of revelation to-day, only the people do not inquire of him, they do not seek unto him in the right way that they may obtain communications from him. The Apostle James declares, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."6

Hugh B. Brown noted the importance of understanding God as anthropomorphic, and utilized the Bible to illustrate this Mormon view:

"If Jesus of Nazareth was and is God, as John the Beloved and others declared him to be (See John 1:1-3), then God must be personal and material. It was not an incomprehensible, immaterial essence that came forth from the tomb, but the glorified, resurrected body of Jesus the Christ; it was a body of flesh and bone, as he himself declared, and as Thomas was called upon to verify by touch as well as sight. It was this body which ascended into heaven in the presence of the amazed disciples. It was this body which the attending angels declared should come again when they said,

Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Acts 1:11.)

When Jesus came and revealed God to men, he held up to them a personal, living ideal and exhorted them to become perfect, even as his Father is perfect. The value of having an ideal is that it inspires emulation. We seek to become like that which we adore. Surely no one aspires to become diffused, immaterial essence, devoid of body, parts, or feeling and without center or circumference. Faith that a living, personal God is the Father of the human spirit encourages men to push back their horizons, to look up instead of down for their source. It enlarges their vista and life takes on new interest and new meaning. It encourages men to live more abundantly, and he said this was one purpose of his coming.

Because the Father called us sons and the Savior called us brothers, we posit for man an exalted Godlike status with almost limitless possibilities. This God-image quality in man, which is the root of his dignity, gives deeper meaning and a higher purpose to life, establishes faith and fortitude, and supplies the necessary valor to realize the vision without which people perish. It renews man's determination to pursue the eternal quest for answers to the whence and why and whither of life.

Again, if God is not comprehensible, then man's salvation is impossible, for Jesus said,

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. (John 17:3.)

If, therefore, we cannot know him, then we cannot have life eternal, and if this be so, then the whole plan of salvation fails, the doctrine of the atonement is false and meaningless, and men are left in Dante's deepest hell, "desiring without hope." We agree with Milton that "the end of all learning is to know God and out of that knowledge to love and emulate Him."7

Heber C. Iverson noted an interesting confession of Thomas Jefferson:

What a fearful indictment of Christian teaching. This knowledge like their conviction of the immortality of the soul, and their instinctive turning to God in the hour of danger, is an organic instinct, and in spite of teachings to the contrary concerning the true character of God. They have deeply rooted in their soul instinct a belief in the true God. In the Church of England prayer book we have these words, "We believe in one living and true God, of infinite goodness, wisdom, and power, without body, parts or passions." In other words, an incomprehensible, immaterial being! Thomas Jefferson expressed himself in a letter to his distinguished friend, John Adams, in this wise, "When we speak of an immaterial existence, we speak of nothing; when we say that God, angels, and the human soul are immaterial, we say there is no God, no angels, no human soul." I cannot reason otherwise. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism or veiled atheism crept in, I do not know, but heresy it truly is. Christ taught none of it. True, he said, "God is a spirit!" but he had not yet defined what spirit is, nor hath he said that it is immaterial. And the Fathers of the first four centuries believed it to be material--fine, and ethereal, in very deed, but nevertheless material. The Prophet Joseph Smith declared that spirit is matter, that it is pure and elastic, fine and ethereal, but it is matter. Hence they found Christianity teaching an incomprehensible, immaterial, impossible God. Their belief in him is not founded upon the teaching of the past half century.

Concerning the equally vital question of belief in the Redeemer of the world, Jesus Christ, this is said:

When it comes to thoughts about Jesus Christ, answers are quite full and explicit. There is universal respect for him, though the heroic side of his character seems largely unknown. There is little knowledge of him as the Son of God, the atoning sacrifice, or as the source of living power. The men seem seldom to think of him until questioned. He is remote from their daily life. Very many letters said his doctrines were womanly and his character as presented in church sentimental. The "living Christ" is merely a name, and means little to the man. Christ is a historical figure, not a present Redeemer. The practical religion of the great mass of men seems to be a vague theism entirely disassociated from Christ.8

And so these questions, these concerns are exactly why Mormonism teaches the principle of God in plainness.

"It is a philosophical impossibility to believe that the Man Jesus is the Son of God in the literal and full sense of the word if we suppose that his Father is a spirit essence or power that fills the immensity of space and is everywhere and nowhere in particular present, and if we believe that God is an immaterial, uncreated Being without body, parts, or passions, as the creeds of Christendom recite. To know and understand Christ and his mission and ministry, we must know certain basic things about that Progenitor whence he sprang.

God himself is the First Man and the Father of all men. In the pure language, spoken by Adam, the name of the Father is Man of Holiness, which means he is a holy Man: and when the scriptures speak of Deity creating man in his own image, they are to be understood as literal renditions of that which in reality occurred. "God himself. . . is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens," the Prophet Joseph Smith said. "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" (D&C 130:22) is the scriptural assertion. When Paul says the Son is the brightness of his Father's glory, "and the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3), he is certifying that the Risen Lord—who ate and drank with the apostles after he rose from the dead, and into whose riven side they had thrust their hands—had a resurrected body of the same sort and kind possessed by the exalted Father."9

"At the, beginning of the nineteenth century, it was generally believed that God was incorporeal and immaterial, without body, without parts or passions, disregarding the facts that God loves righteousness and he hates iniquity, and that love and hate, of course, are passions.

It has been claimed that God was without form, even though the holy Scriptures teach that God created man in his own image. In fact, we are told by Paul the apostle that Jesus Christ was in the express image of his Father. Are we then created in the image of a formless entity?

For us, God is not an abstraction. He is not an idea, a metaphysical principle, an impersonal force or power. He is a concrete, living person. And though in our human frailty we cannot know the total mystery of his being, we know that he is akin to us, for he is revealed to us in the divine personality of his Son, Jesus Christ, and he is, in fact, our Father.

The Church teaches that when God created man in his own image, he did not divest himself of that image. He is still in human form and is possessed of sanctified and perfected human qualities, which we all admire. All through the holy scriptures, the Father and the Son are seen to be separate and distinct personages. We reaffirm the doctrine of the ancient scripture and of all the prophets that asserts that man was created in the image of God and that God possessed such human qualities as consciousness, will, love, mercy, justice. In other words, he is an exalted, perfected, and glorified Being.

Man's eternal nature

The late President Brigham H. Roberts, in one of his later writings, discussed some of the principles of the gospel that I desire to give wider circulation. I shall quote and paraphrase him.

Under the uninspired teachings of men and creeds as they apply to man -- premortal, mortal, and postmortal man -- it was taught that while man's body was created by God, his origin was purely an earthly one. We believe that before the creation of the body, all men existed as intelligence, These intelligences were not created or made, neither indeed can they be; the intelligent entity in man which we call spirit or soul is a self-existing entity, uncreated and eternal. Thus man is crowned with the dignity which belongs to his divine and eternal nature."10

Jesus did not teach about the philosophers' God either, according to Keith Norman:

"But if some Jewish writers were beginning to show the influence of Greek ideas and culture, Jesus and his followers taught the God of the fathers, not a new or higher immaterial God. Jesus' summons for men to live as God would have them was entirely in the prophetic tradition of what Tillich calls "biblical personalism." In radical contrast to "philosophical ontology," he insists, "no ontological search can be found in the biblical literature." The authors of scripture were simply not concerned with defining the nature of being. As McGiffert explains it in a somewhat regretful tone,"Jesus' idea of God indeed is quite naive and anthropomorphic, and there is no sign that he was troubled by any speculative problems or difficulties."

During his mortal ministry, Jesus spoke simply of "the creation which God created" (Mark 13:19), without elaborating on the details, and this was in harmony with the Rabbinic view which regarded speculations on the nature of preexistent matter as "useless and dangerous," since "it is enough to say that God created the world and all that therein is."11

In his dialogue type article, William O. Nelson shows that Augustine was using and developing Plato's doctrine, rather than the doctrine of God found in the Bible, hence what we Mormons say is a part of the apostasy, teaching for doctrines of God, the doctrines of men instead.

"Augustine: Yes, Plato, were it not for your influence in my education, Christianity never would have been palatable to me. (Augustine, bk. 1 of "Confessions" in vol. 18 of "Great Books of the Western World", (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 9:14, 12:19, 16:25). The early Christian idea that God was bounded by the figure of a human body was so revolting to me, that I wrote, "I thought not of thee, O God, under the figure of an human body; since I began to hear aught of wisdom, I always avoided this." ("Confessions", bk. 5, 10:19-20, bk. 7, 1:1) But being partially convinced that Christianity was true by that noble scholar Ambrose, I sought a reconciliation. Couldn't Ambrose tell me? Couldn't the church? I finally found my answer among the Platonists. For fifteen years I had labored at the thesis on the Trinity without "ever reaching a satisfactory conclusion." I finally found that if I could accept the platonic notion of the reality of an immaterial being as God, then I could accept him and the doctrine of the Trinity. (Augustine, "Confessions," Bk. 4, 16:29-31; bk. 5, 10:18- 10:21, bk. 6, 3:4-4:5, bk. 8 of "City of God", in vol. 18, ed., Robert Maynard Hutchins (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 267-69.)"12

Concerning the idea of God as a personal being and some difficulties with accepting this doctrine Don B. Colton in his Conference Report of April 1927, said:

"...how does "Mormon" philosophy solve the problem and reconcile the omnipresence of God and yet proclaim him a personal being?

"Mormon" philosophy. I say, has given an answer to that question. It has said, and does say, that God is a personal being, but that emaciating from him is a light which fills the immensity of space. The light of the sun, the light of the moon, the light of the stars--the light of all the heavenly bodies. Radio proves the presence of at least something that permeates every known object, no matter how opaque the substance. There is found in all the universe a substance, which for lack of a better term we call ether. In the 131st section of the D&C it is revealed to us that there is no snch thing as immaterial matter. But all the forces and everything that is in existence (and we know that the ether is in existence) is but a finer matter. I am not saying what it is. I do not know. It only proves, however, that there is a force, a something everywhere, and whether that be the instrument by which the Spirit of God. the light that emanates from him, operates and fills the immensity of space, perhaps is yet to be discovered. Suffice it to say that there is snch an instrumentality. This is in accordance with David's description of God, for he said, "If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me and thy right hand shall hold me."

So "Mormon" philosophy answers the question that has puzzled the thinkers of the day, in revealing how God can he a personal God and yet be omnipotent. Emanating from him is the light which proceedeth forth from the presence of the Father to fill the immensity of space. Ancient scriptures abundantly attest the fact that God is a personal being, and this is supplemented by the revelations of this day which at once answer the question that God may be and is a personal being, and at the same time his power and presence and influence are felt throughout all the length and breadth of the universe. So that "Mormonism" has answered one of the great perplexing questions of the day, and that alone would justify its existence.

Another question, and I must be brief: Next to the great and important question of finding God is to find out who is man, and to that question "Mormon" philosophy has given a definite and reasonable answer. No man who thinks can believe anything else than that man is a dual being. As we stand by the bier of a loved one, we know that something has departed. Evolution, if it were accepted as truth, explains only the body. That which we love, that which reasons, that which thinks, that which has ambition, that which distinguishes man and makes him a little lower than the angels, but much higher than the animals of the earth; that which is really man must be explained. So far as I have found, after extensive reading and earnest research, "Mormon" philosophy alone gives a reason and answer to the question, Who and what is man? He is composed of spirit and body which make up the soul, or the completed man, and that spirit did not have its origin by accident. It was and is the creation of our Father in heaven, and the material of which it is made is only finer matter, as explained in the 131st section of the D&C. If it exists it is something and is, therefore, matter."13

"It is by reference to this true doctrine of omnipresence that the sectarian world attempts to justify its false creeds which describe Deity as a vague, ethereal, immaterial essence which fills the immensity of space and is everywhere and nowhere in particular present. God himself, of course, is a personal Being in whose image man is created. (Gen. 1:26; 5:1; Moses 2:26; 6:9), but he is also an immanent Being, meaning that the light of Christ shines forth from him to fill all space. This "light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space -- The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things." (D. & C. 88:12-13.)

God is the Creator; the power, light, influence, and spirit that goes forth from his person to fill all immensity is a creature of his creating. Thus it was that Paul, speaking of apostate peoples, said they had "changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever." (Rom. 1:25.)14

With that, we know that God cannot be found by searching, even though He be everywhere!

"Still others searched for Jesus in councils of debate. Such was the historic Council of Nicea in 325 AD. There, with the help of the Roman Emperor, the delegates did away in Christendom with the concept of a personal God and a personal Son -- the two separate and distinct Glorified Beings of the scriptures. The Creed of Nicea, the "incomprehensible mystery" of which its originators seemed so proud precisely because it could not be understood, substituted for the personal God of love and for Jesus of the New Testament an immaterial abstraction. The result was a maze of confusion and a compoundment of error. Jesus will not be found in councils of debate. Men of the world have modified his miracles, doubted his divinity and rejected his resurrection.

He is found by humble prayer and pure heart

The formula for finding Jesus has always been and ever will be the same -- the earnest and sincere prayer of a humble and pure heart. The Prophet Jeremiah counseled, ". . . ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." (Jer. 29:13.)15

So we are within the material universe with a material God as well as material ourselves, as John A. Widtsoe said:

"The Gospel holds strictly to the conception of a material universe. Much inconsistency of thought has come from the notion that things may be derived from an immaterial state, that is, from nothingness. This unthinkable view has been made the basis of doctrines concerning God and man, which have led to utter confusion of thought. The Gospel accepts the view, supported by all human experience, that matter occurs in many forms, some visible to the eye, others invisible, and yet others that may not be recognized by any of the senses of man. Spiritual matter is but a refined form of gross matter. In short, there is no such thing as immaterial matter, but some forms of matter are more refined than others. Light, heat, and other similar forces are held by science to be manifestations of subtle states of matter, beyond the immediate senses of man. The material universe may appear in a variety of forms, all of the same ultimate nature; but man recognizes directly only that form which is the ordinary matter of our daily lives."16

The Early Christians also held this view:

"One of the first things Peter says to Clement is this: "We affirm there is absolutely nothing evil in matter." Because this was the doctrine, you see. God had to be immaterial and had no contact with material at all. This was Neoplatonism, not Platonism. Plato was different. But Neoplatonism was that matter is bad and evil, and spirit is everything that isn't matter. So the only definition that they ever gave of God was the asomaton, "that which has no body." The bodyless one was God. That was all you could say about him, as Origen says. And you could see they had a legitimate reason for regarding material and the flesh as loathsome because that's the way everybody was behaving in those days. It was a period of decline, and they took it for granted that if people had bodies they would misbehave and do anything that felt good. That's what they were doing, and we have a rich literature on that, of course. The idea was that anything material was absolutely defiling; it was vicious. So you get to the Neoplatonists with the doctrine that even any contact with matter would defile God himself. Well, how could God have made the universe then? He made a physical world, after all. Oh no, that was made by the thirty Eons. So there are thirty steps between God and the final creator. And that was a mistake, you see. That was Sophia. The final Eon was Sophia, and she misbehaved. Being female, she wanted to rule things. She went wild in space, and the Lord gave her no more support. She had a terrible abortion and brought forth a lot of filthy matter, and from that the world was made. So God is not responsible for this world, not at all. He is pure unmatter, according to Neoplatonists. They are rabid on that particular subject. That is why it is so revolutionary when Peter says, "We affirm absolutely that there is nothing evil in matter," thus countering the favorite claim of the Neoplatonists and Gnostics.

Eusebius says it is unholy to say that matter is unbegotten or was only organized at the creation. Notice what they were preaching—that matter was not created and was only organized at the creation. It wasn't created out of nothing; it was organized, which is what we teach. He says that's what the early church taught, but it's unholy to say it. "The real human is an intellectual, bodyless, immaterial, rational being, and as such only is he in the image of God," he wrote. And then he reveals himself in the seventh book of the history. He says that it's the simple, old-fashioned Christians who believe in the old literalism. We're much too intellectual for them; we leave that all behind. We don't need that anymore.

What marks the fourth century, as Alfoldi puts it, is "the victory of abstract ways of thinking—the universal triumph of theory, which knows no half measures. The Gnostic idea of the body as a prison is entirely at home with the doctors of the church. They love it because matter is vile."

Now there was a very righteous old guy. He and his followers got quite close to the early church, and they suffered a lot of persecution for it. They were noted for their old-fashioned ways. He left the main church because of the immorality of the clergy and stuck to a literal interpretation of the scriptures. Even to believe, says Epiphanius, that we actually are in God's image. That actually refers to Adam's body. Three exclamation points Epiphanius puts in there. He listed over eighty of these heresies that carried over from the third century. He is writing in the fourth century. Everyone had his own doctrine and was preaching in his own way. But the thing to do was to leave out anything literal, physical, or material—anything that smacks of Mormonism.

St. Augustine goes all the way. "Christ is with us if we believe. His dwelling in you is more real than if he were outside you before your eyes."

It's more real to have Jesus in there than out there. "When everything dissolved into abstractions, it left an uncomfortable feeling behind. The generation that rids itself once and for all of the old literalizers of which Jerome speaks…" Jerome lived in a monastery in Bethlehem for fifteen years and knew the Christians at Jerusalem. There were old groups that still hung on. He called them the old-fashioned Christians, the literalizers. They would take you up to the top of the Mount of Olives and show you a plot that the church owned where they said the temple was going to be built when Christ came again. This was the sort of thing they taught, and Jerome was shocked. "Whom Jerome speak of crave no other, the presence of physical objects to tie them to the reality of the scriptures." (That's in the fourth century.) In his day everybody started making a pilgim

[Ron Beron]

The criteria for being a prophet is not as metaphysical as many seem to one to point out. Instead, it was rather pragmattic. For example:

First a prophet was one who saw or watches (Isa 29:10;43:10-12;Eze.33:7).

Secondly, he would be a witness or martyr to that which he saw. He would

promote the saving ordinances of the gospel, the decrees and rites. (Isa

I1:11-12(but)1:13 and DC 132:2-4). He would keep the scripture alive in the

hearts of the new generation.(Isa 50:4;DC 68:4)

He would teach that Israel had been elected by God and had a special covenant

with him. He would teach them a sense of belonging that Israel was a place

set apart. That Israel alone taught about the real God. (Isa.

40:11;DC49:9,36)

He would also render Gods judgement (Isa 30:12-14;Jer. 5:3,12,14;DC 19:3,

God's compassion or mercy which implied a covenant. (Isa 54;7-8 ;DC 64:2;

101:9), redemption (Isa 51:11;DC29:42), and final consummation (Isa

53:4-5/2:2-4)

Finally he would seal his life with his death.

[LifeOnaPlate]

One right off the top of my head--------------The Father having a body of flesh and bone

Don't you believe Christ is the Father? If so, where is his body now?

In 1981, I was excommunicated at age 19 . I was not playing with a full deck (as I still am not), had weaknesses, was truthful with events that started to occur in my life since I came home from my mission early. I would love for the church to be as honest about their youth as I was. I was thinking today about my life and the challenges that I have had and still have but then I laughed because I also knew it's a real challenge for me to lie too

I wonder if we should detail your transgressions, print them up and circulate them in the Sunday School curriculum.

Thats is a hebreaism for the type of communication they had. Moses did not set and talk with a god called the father made of flesh and bone

I fully agree! But it was not the father and he was not a being of flesh and blood

Who ever taught God is flesh and blood? Certainly, the LDS Church has never believed so.

[Thinking]

Moses Got angry and threw his staff, at the rock. He was human and made a mistake and was also a prophet one of the greatest men that ever lived.

What were the weaknesses and follies of the prophets and apostles of the New and Old Testament? Can anybody list any of them in great detail like can be done with Joseph Smith?

Yep, we'll force Joseph Smith to live by a certain standard, one that we know he will fail, but we won't hold the early prophets and apostles to these same standards and with what failings we know they have, we'll just wink at them and forgive them for being human.

Don't you think that getting upset and throwing something is different that introducing false doctrine? I haven't read a critic's post which points out some "heat of the moment" mistake by Joseph Smith. The perceived mistakes are usually things like polygamy, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, etc.

[Zakuska]

Apparently you have never read ONUG. According to Richard Abanes, JS, BY and many others needed a little anger management intervention.

[Cold Steel]

What level of "not perfect" should be expected of a prophet?

If the prophet has the Keys of the Kingdom, the same given to the prophet Peter,

then I'll trust that prophet to be of the Lord. The concept works like this: We honor

God's prophets and it becomes His duty to keep them honest and on the right path.

I've studied the lives of all the presidents of the church and all of them were fine

men. I don't feel it's necessary to apologize for any of them. Yes, they have their

own views, just like Paul did, but we've been instructed to stay with the President

of the Church and with the majority of the Twelve. If you do that, you can't be

led astray.

[jadams_4242]

Don't you think that getting upset and throwing something is different that introducing false doctrine? I haven't read a critic's post which points out some "heat of the moment" mistake by Joseph Smith. The perceived mistakes are usually things like polygamy, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, etc.

We are talking about being "perfect" werent we? Doesnt matter what kind of imperfection is at stake,

imperfection is still imperfection. in other words---Not Perfect.

Moses was not perfect. Paul was not perfect, As a matter of fact paul used to spend all his time

blastpheming the lord as almost a fulltime job! Is that less a sin than some things Joseph Smith

"Allegedly" did? the only single perfect person in the flesh and blood was Jesus Christ.

Nobody else. not budda, not, the pope, not any of the ancient or modern phrophets.

And according to whom was polygamy a misstake? in the bible God ordered several times for

certain men to have sevearl concubines, Why is it acceptable in the bible, then all of a sudden

a great big crime in modern revealation?