god is a man

[Sentinus]

Pre-Exilic Jews believe in a corporal God.

CFR.

[Mormon2Christian]

And of course the Bible is Basic Scripture to LDS. Just making sure that is clear.

God isn't a man like us. There is no scripture that says He is. He ONCE was a man like us but He is a perfect being which we certainly aren't.

Where in scripture does it say He was once a man? There are numerous verses He speaks of Him being eternal, but not one stating He was ever a man like us.

[mfbukowski]

uhmm ! i am asking where in the basic scripture ( again, the bom, d&c and pogp ) where it is stated that god IS a man and lives on his own little planet. why do i keep

asking for a reference to these basic scriptiures ?. i do this because when i read lds forums and anti-forums i keep seeing points made about things said or written at one time or another that are held up as some personal idea of a leader or prophet or a speculation when discussing something, etc. and that such disputed or "odd" or older ideas are not canon of the church. i would like to see where current general authority or the basic scriptures are teaching that god ( heavenly father ) is a guy who needs to wear trousers ( if hf was so inclined to do so ...just a wee bit of humour here ).

The idea that God has his own planet or was once a man like us is nowhere to be found in the standard works. It is in a speech given by Jospeh Smith called the King Follett Discourse. It has never been official doctrine of the church. No one in the church to my knowledge has ever believed that "God has his own planet". That is a major distortion. We believe that God is God of all we can possibly know. He is infinite and almighty. Anything else is non doctrinal speculation. Period. Though people DO speculate. It's a free country.

It is doctrine that God has a body like ours however, and that is primarily found in the first vision and other biblical implications though it is not clearly stated in the bible.

[Notquitewetyet]

Where in scripture does it say He was once a man? There are numerous verses He speaks of Him being eternal, but not one stating He was ever a man like us.

There are also numerous verses that speak of the Mosaic law as eternal. Do you want to go down this road?

[The Dude]

There is a difference between a statement and asking a question. Here he is asking a question.

Rhetorical questions are essentially statements.

Example:

"What is a rhetorical question, if not a statement?" means: a rhetorical question is a statement.

Example:

"Surely we, His children, are not, in the language of science, a different species than He is?" means: we, His children, are not a different species than He is.

So Packer used a rhetorical question to make a statement.

[Sentinus]

There are also numerous verses that speak of the Mosaic law as eternal. Do you want to go down this road?

Why not?

regards,

Sentinus

[Notquitewetyet]

Why not?

regards,

Sentinus

Too late now, I'm signing off. But if God is described as eternal, and the Mosaic law is described as eternal, yet later scripture says the Mosaic law isn't eternal, what's one logical outcome.

[mfbukowski]

Rhetorical questions are essentially statements.

Example:

"What is a rhetorical question, if not a statement?" means: a rhetorical question is a statement.

Example:

"Surely we, His children, are not, in the language of science, a different species than He is?" means: we, His children, are not a different species than He is.

So Packer used a rhetorical question to make a statement.

Not really. It is much softer if a statement at all. Can you see how it would be different if he said "I as a prophet seer and revleator tell you this evening, that God the eternal father is a human being of the same species as we are"?

In the first, he is asking if we can think of a counter-example to the possibility that we are NOT the same species.

Both could be called "statements" in your sense, but both do not have the same force, or meaning.

[urroner]

A quick one : http://books.google.com/books?id=MC-KZ14b9...1&ct=result

Margaret Barker also talks about it in her book The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy.

Sorry I couldn't be any better right now. It's late and I'm tired.

[lostindc]

To the original question...

Mormons are not the only ones that think that man can become God, if you look in the catechism it is noting that man can become God, I will look it up and post it in a little bit.

Here it is (maybe the Catholics have some additionally reasoning on this doctrine):

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sec...t2art3.shtml#p1

The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

[BCSpace]

The fringy stuff is a reality about Mormonism--Kolob and all.

What about Kolob? What do you think the doctrine is?

[mfbukowski]

To the original question...

Mormons are not the only ones that think that man can become God, if you look in the catechism it is noting that man can become God, I will look it up and post it in a little bit.

Here it is (maybe the Catholics have some additionally reasoning on this doctrine):

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sec...t2art3.shtml#p1

The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

And scripturally this can be found in John 17 if we want to stick to the bible.

[The Nehor]

What about Kolob? What do you think the doctrine is?

I never understood why Kolob should be considered some kind of humiliation. It's a simple metaphor for the nature of God using some astronomical bodies as a reference. I don't get why it should be considered a bad thing.

[Bernard Gui]

I never understood why Kolob should be considered some kind of humiliation. It's a simple metaphor for the nature of God using some astronomical bodies as a reference. I don't get why it should be considered a bad thing.

Ditto. If God and Jesus have exalted physical bodies, they must be somewhere.

Or the closet in which they keep them when they appear to humans must

be somewhere. When I look at photos like this, I just think LDS doctrine

(even this fringe stuff) is soooo cool.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090107.html

Crivens, I would love to be a part of knowing how to push that stuff around!

Bernard

[BCSpace]

Holy cow, I would love to be a part of knowing how to push that stuff

around!

Might involve blowing up stars.

[Bernard Gui]

Might involve blowing up stars.

Oh yeah! I love fireworks.

Bernard

[Tarski]

I never understood why Kolob should be considered some kind of humiliation. It's a simple metaphor for the nature of God using some astronomical bodies as a reference. I don't get why it should be considered a bad thing.

Metaphor?

Find me the first time a prophet, seer or revelator explained that is was a metaphor. Did Joseph say that? Did BY? Did Spencer Kimball say that?

Or, was it an intellectualizing apologist who unconsciously thought it embarrassing too and thereby tried to sophisticate the situation all on his own with some metaphor analysis?

[Bernard Gui]

Metaphor?

I'm hoping for the non-metaphorical version. What a kick when

we hie to Kolob!

Bernard

[wenglund]

In response to the question of the OP, there are not a few biblical passages in which Heavenly Father refers to Himself by such personal pronouns as I, Me, My or Myself, and Mine--thus bringing to mind the image of an individual, a personage, or a single being.

Other inspired writers (including Christ Jesus) have referred to Heavenly Father by such masculine pronouns as His, Him or Himself, and He--thus evoking an image of a divine Man.

And, He has been spoken of by such masculine titles or names as God (not Goddess), Lord and King(not Queen), Father (not Mother), and Husbandman; thus confirming, through consistency, a biblical portrait of God as a divine Man.

In fact, He is spoken of on several occasions as a Man:

1) "And Jacob wrestled a Man....And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face." Ge 32:24,30

2) "Behold, the Man hath appeared unto me....We shall surely die, because we have seen God." Jdg 13:10,22

3) "A voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is My beloved Son: hear him. And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more." Mk 9:7-8 (Mt 17:5-9)

4) "It is also written in your law, that the testomony of two men is true. I am one [first man] that beareth witness of myself, and the father [second Man] that sent me beareth witness of me. Joh 8:17-18

There are also other passages in the Bible which explicitly state, or imply, that God literally has body parts much the same as those possessed by mortal man. For example, God is depicted as having a face. His face contains such distinguishable characteristics as a mouth, lips, ears, eyes, eyelids, and a nose with nostrils. He has a bosom in which resides His heart. He has back parts, loins, and shoulders. He has legs, feet, arms and hands (right and left) with palms and fingers, and a soul.

God is also depicted as performing various human-like bodily functions. The Bilbe declares that God speaks, hears, sees, smells, breaths, touches, holds, writes, wrestles, walks, stands, and sits. He uses His mind to think, reason, and judge. He uses His conscience to discern good from evil. And, He uses His heart and soul to feel emotions.

So common must the human-like or corporal view of Heavenly Father have been in olden times, that Moses was prompted to reason with certain disobedient Israelites, "there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat", thus implying that a true God, not made with men's hands, has the ability to see, hear, and eat.(De 4:28 (Rev 9:20)

The Apostle Paul verifies this by saying: "for in Him(Heavenly Father) we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of our poets have said, For we are also His offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, ye ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." (Ac 17:29-29)

Granted, as intimated by others earlier in this thread, these passages can be validly interpreted both literally and figuratively. We LDS tend to interpet them literally--at least as we understand the meaning of the word "Man" in God's case.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[MatthewG]

Where in scripture does it say He was once a man? There are numerous verses He speaks of Him being eternal, but not one stating He was ever a man like us.

Great....a CARM Transplant...

[The Nehor]

Metaphor?

Find me the first time a prophet, seer or revelator explained that is was a metaphor. Did Joseph say that? Did BY? Did Spencer Kimball say that?

Or, was it an intellectualizing apologist who unconsciously thought it embarrassing too and thereby tried to sophisticate the situation all on his own with some metaphor analysis?

I consider it self-evident from the text itself. First he talks about stars and how some are greater then others. Then he talks of spirits and says some are more intelligent then others. Then he says Kolob is the greatest of all the stars Abraham was shown and that the Lord is more intelligent then all the other spirits. Kolob's brightness is compared to the intelligence of God. I suspect that if I saw the star myself the metaphor would be much more impressive then it is now.

I believe that the star does in fact exist but I have no real hope of finding it unless God reveals it to me somehow so why teach it except to highlight the teaching about Christ that follows? I know that now when I look up the heavens they remind me of the comparisons amongst spirits. I used to jokingly refer to Sirius as the 'messiah star'. Now I'm more inclined to make him the moon or at dawn, the Sun while musing looking at stars.

[BCSpace]

Great....a CARM Transplant...

It IS great to get them out that protected environment into a somewhat less protected one. For example, they can now click on the Aroma of Christ part of my siggy which is a banable offense on the CARM board.

[johnny]

BCSpace

It is clearly taught in the Bible where we see that to see the glory of God, you see a man (Ezekiel 1:26-28) or whenever Jesus Christ is referred to as the "Son of man".

Clearly the Bible reveals that Ezekiel had a vision. In a vision that objects seen are not the actual objects, for example in John's vision he saw Jesus as a lamb.

We also see it in the fact that we are created in God's image as well as in the fact that Jesus is the only begotten son of the Father.

Men are created in "our image". The incarnated Son of God has the form of a man. The only begotten Son was "the Word" prior to the incarnation.

Actually, we believe we will become Gods in every way that God is now. For example, Philippians 3:5-6 and Revelation 3:21. However, God the Father will always be our God, just as the Father is also Jesus Christ's God (John 20:17) so in that sense only, yes, we are small 'g' gods.

Our Heavenly Father did not become God as the Mormon Church teaches. God is God from everlasting to everlasting (Psalm 90:2). Only in limited ways will men will become like God, men only have part of the divine nature. Jesus is the Son of God, he has a Father who he calls my God, he is the mediator between God and man.

Well yes. The early christian Fathers abandoned the Biblical notion of an anthropomorphic God not because of any scripture or revelation, but because they admired the philosophers.

The early Christian leaders did not teach an anthropomorphic God, see below.

• Irenaeus "Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligent, all reason . . . all light, all fountain of every good, and this is the manner in which the religious and the pious are accustomed to speak of God" (Against Heresies 2:13:3 [A.D. 189])
  

It is not a matter of being satisifed. It is a matter of reality. If you don't understand the nature of God, then you cannot have eternal life (John 17:3).

Mormon's do not understand the nature of God.

[urroner]

Mormon's do not understand the nature of God.

Catholics even less.

[Joseph Antley]

If God has a body of flesh and bones, and he's not a man, what is he?