Who Is The "Great Spirit"? (IRR Challenged)

[JDave]

I debated whether or not to post this, especially given the already protracted discussion. And if Rob chooses not to respond I completely understand since he feels he has already displayed sufficient effort to demonstrate a good faith effort. Given where the discussion ended, however, I decided that I needed to at least post this. The OP in this other thread is what began the discussion, if anyone is in need of the background.

Though there are other pertinent items that I think weigh in my favor, I only wanted to bring up here some points that didn’t see much (or any) discussion in the other thread.

First, Rob posted an alternative paragraph here. Apart from disagreeing with pretty much all of it, I find it particularly disingenuous to cite more than the two verses where Ammon and Aaron say that the Great Spirit is God. Why include verses where the Lamanites refer to the Great Spirit without any connection to the Nephite God at all? Even worse, why include verses from the apostate Zoramite prayer that is treated with total disdain by the Nephites?

Second, I don’t remember seeing any real discussion of why the Lamanite title for their deity, “the Great Spirit”, should be understood to refer to a being that is spirit only.

Third, I brought up toward the end of the thread how the Lamanites had no qualms with thinking that Ammon, who was quite obviously a being of flesh and blood, was their Great Spirit. Obviously this calls into doubt whether my second point can even be adequately answered. Rob brought up Ether 3:6-16 in response, saying that confusing spirits with physical beings has a precedent. Unfortunately, this account rather works against him. The brother of Jared states that he “knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood” ( v. 8 ). In other words, he thought that the Lord was a spirit and he was surprised to even see the Lord’s finger. He was surprised, precisely, in that what he had thought was a spirit actually had the shape of a body, which he assumed to be flesh and blood. He confused a spirit to be a physical body.

The situation with the Lamanites involves confusing an obviously physical body to be that of a spirit-only being. But apart from not being analogous, it has the greater problem of the brother of Jared’s reaction. If the brother of Jared was shocked at seeing his supposed spirit-only deity appearing in physical form, why do the Lamanites have no difficulty at all with accepting an obviously physical man as their Great Spirit? The easiest answer is that they didn’t have any presupposition about their deity being a spirit-only being.

[Vance]

It is rather obvious that Bowman wrote his piece without the objective of being thorough or "scholarly". He obviously was only looking for something that he could twist into an inconsistency.

Thanks for showing how sloppy his work really is.

[KevinG]

A subtle variation on "The Mormon Christ isn't the real Christ" wresting our scriptures out of context to prove his point.

[BCSpace]

Man is a spirit in the same way God is a Spirit. So we should always answer the question "Is God a spirit?" with a yes and let them sort it out.

[wenglund]

In many respects correctly interpreting the Book of Mormon can be quite a challenge to the fundamentalist thinker, particular those who come to the book with the pre-concieved notion that the book isn't what it claims to be. Rob isn't the only critic with those disadvantages. Come to think of it, I don't know if there is a Book of Mormon critic who isn't disadvantaged in those ways.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tarski]

In many respects correctly interpreting the Book of Mormon can be quite a challenge to the fundamentalist thinker, particular those who come to the book with the pre-concieved notion that the book isn't what it claims to be.

Or to those who come to the book with the pre-conceived notion that it must be consistant with a later developed Mormon theology based as much on the King Follet discouses as on anything else. (Cuz, ya know, the church is true and all that)

[Calm]

Or to those who come to the book with the pre-conceived notion that it must be consistant with a later developed Mormon theology based as much on the King Follet discouses as on anything else. (Cuz, ya know, the church is true and all that)

If by consistent you mean the original authors meant exactly the same thing that is taught today, I would agree with you.

OTOH, if by this usage of consistent you are implying it is inappropriate for LDS to interpret the community's scripture in such a way so that the meaning of our scriptures for members today is consistent, I would say you are wrong. When LDS talk about how we discover new inspirations every time we study and ponder our scriptures or look at them in different ways, I doubt that we are saying that the new inspirations are the same ones that caused those scriptures to be written in the first place. The very concept that one can learn new ideas and inspirations each time one encounters scripture reeks of the concept of open revelation and scripture being a springboard to such, not something that must be treated as cast in stone as much in our hearts and minds and understanding as it might be in text.

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

You wrote:

First, Rob posted an alternative paragraph here. Apart from disagreeing with pretty much all of it, I find it particularly disingenuous to cite more than the two verses where Ammon and Aaron say that the Great Spirit is God. Why include verses where the Lamanites refer to the Great Spirit without any connection to the Nephite God at all? Even worse, why include verses from the apostate Zoramite prayer that is treated with total disdain by the Nephites?

I see your point; brevity perhaps became the enemy of precision in the statement to which you are objecting. But Dave, if you want me to keep responding to you, drop the attack words like "disingenuous."

How is this:

On two separate occasions in the Book of Alma, the God of the Nephites is identified as or equated with the "Great Spirit" of the Lamanites (Alma 18:24-28; 22:9-11).

You wrote:

Second, I don’t remember seeing any real discussion of why the Lamanite title for their deity, “the Great Spirit”, should be understood to refer to a being that is spirit only.

The burden of proof would seem to be on the one who claims that a deity called "the Great Spirit" was not simply a great spirit.

You wrote:

Third, I brought up toward the end of the thread how the Lamanites had no qualms with thinking that Ammon, who was quite obviously a being of flesh and blood, was their Great Spirit. Obviously this calls into doubt whether my second point can even be adequately answered. Rob brought up Ether 3:6-16 in response, saying that confusing spirits with physical beings has a precedent. Unfortunately, this account rather works against him. The brother of Jared states that he “knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood” ( v. 8 ). In other words, he thought that the Lord was a spirit and he was surprised to even see the Lord’s finger. He was surprised, precisely, in that what he had thought was a spirit actually had the shape of a body, which he assumed to be flesh and blood. He confused a spirit to be a physical body.

The situation with the Lamanites involves confusing an obviously physical body to be that of a spirit-only being. But apart from not being analogous, it has the greater problem of the brother of Jared’s reaction. If the brother of Jared was shocked at seeing his supposed spirit-only deity appearing in physical form, why do the Lamanites have no difficulty at all with accepting an obviously physical man as their Great Spirit? The easiest answer is that they didn’t have any presupposition about their deity being a spirit-only being.

I don't think the difference you note between the two accounts undermines my point at all. In the story of the brother of Jared, he sees a being who at the time is a being of spirit only but who later will become flesh. In the story in Alma 18, the Lamanites see a being of flesh and because of certain circumstances infer that he is the Great Spirit appearing in flesh. The brother of Jared is presumably surprised because he had encountered the Lord before but always in a "cloud" that prevented him from seeing the Lord in any form (Ether 2:4, 14). The two accounts are about two different peoples in two different periods of time, according to the Book of Mormon narrative, so they aren't supposed to think in identical ways.

[Ares]

...if you want me to keep responding to you, drop the attack words like "disingenuous."

Stop board nannying. You have little room to chastise others for their approach.

[Nevo]

Yes, Rob should know by now that it is too much to ask that he be treated civilly. Under no circumstances should he object to people impugning his integrity. Good faith dialogue has no place on this board.

[JDave]

I see your point; brevity perhaps became the enemy of precision in the statement to which you are objecting. But Dave, if you want me to keep responding to you, drop the attack words like "disingenuous."

You cited multiple verses that didn't support your claim at all, included some from an apostate Zoramite prayer that negatively impacts your claim. You had already been shown that the verses shouldn't be used, so it appeared to me that you were presenting information that you knew to be false in order to stack things in your favor. When I crossed out the incorrect verses in my correction of your paragraph you said the whole thing was amusing. Disingenuous, while a negative term, seemed apt. I will do my best to refrain from attack words. My frustration with what you describe as your best effort to understand our concerns is definitely getting the better of me. Whether your disposition towards my church clouds your judgement, or you are purposefully rationalizing things to make your point of view look better, or whether you are completely sincere and honest and we simply have different exegetical approaches, it is quite frustrating to see multiple people try to get the same point across to you without any success. I apologize for letting it get the better of me.

How is this:

On two separate occasions in the Book of Alma, the God of the Nephites is identified as or equated with the "Great Spirit" of the Lamanites (Alma 18:24-28; 22:9-11).

It is pretty good. The context of the verses doesn't lend itself to describing an ontological equivalence between God and the Great Spirit as you seem to imply here and as your overall assertion requires. Given the context of a missionary discussion with people quite ignorant of the gospel, it is just as possible that the only thing being equated is the fact that both believe in a deity.

The burden of proof would seem to be on the one who claims that a deity called "the Great Spirit" was not simply a great spirit.

I don't think I stated my point very well. I should have simply stated that there is no evidence that "Great Spirit" is ever used as anything other than a title. Quite apart from there being no necessity that the Great Spirit is even conceived by the Lamanites as spirit only, as shown by my third point, this point was supposed to be that there is no use of "Great Spirit" to teach about the ontological nature of God. Your assertion the the Book of Mormon teaches that God the Father is a spirit-only being requires some evidence that the Nephites use "Great Spirit" to teach that, whereas the text shows that they simply treat the term as a traditional Lamanite title for deity. You do have the burden to prove that such teaching happened, and saying that they never denied such teaching isn't sufficient. Great Spirit is only used as a title, and in Alma 18:5 the author pointedly denies that "Great Spirit" is a Nephite title for God.

I don't think the difference you note between the two accounts undermines my point at all. In the story of the brother of Jared, he sees a being who at the time is a being of spirit only but who later will become flesh. In the story in Alma 18, the Lamanites see a being of flesh and because of certain circumstances infer that he is the Great Spirit appearing in flesh.

What are these "certain circumstances" that point you to this conclusion?

The brother of Jared is presumably surprised because he had encountered the Lord before but always in a "cloud" that prevented him from seeing the Lord in any form (Ether 2:4, 14).

The account states, starting in Ether 3:6 (emphasis added):

... And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear.

And the Lord saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth; and the Lord said unto him: Arise, why hast thou fallen?

And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood.

He isn't shocked that he saw any manifestation of the Lord other than in a cloud, it is specifically because he saw what appeared to be a physical finger.

The two accounts are about two different peoples in two different periods of time, according to the Book of Mormon narrative, so they aren't supposed to think in identical ways.

Wait a minute. You were the one who brought up the Ether account to establish an equivalence to how people in the Book of Mormon react to spirit beings appearing in physical forms. Why would your exegetical approach cause you to see an equivalence in their reaction when it works in your favor, and yet cause you to deny any equivalence when it doesn't work in your favor? Edited February 8, 2012 by JDave

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

Apology accepted; thank you.

You asked:

What are these "certain circumstances" that point you to this conclusion?

See Alma 18:2-4.

You wrote:

He isn't shocked that he saw any manifestation of the Lord other than in a cloud, it is specifically because he saw what appeared to be a physical finger.

No reason why it cannot be both, within the context of the narrative.

You wrote:

Wait a minute. You were the one who brought up the Ether account to establish an equivalence to how people in the Book of Mormon react to spirit beings appearing in physical forms. Why would your exegetical approach cause you to see an equivalence in their reaction when it works in your favor, and yet cause you to deny any equivalence when it doesn't work in your favor?

I drew a parallel, not an exact equivalence.

Dave, this issue is a very small part of my argument that prior to 1842/1843 Joseph Smith did not view God the Father as a person of flesh and bones. The larger point with regard to the Book of Mormon is simply that it does not challenge the traditional theistic understanding of the nature of God except in some relatively minor ways (seemingly identifying Jesus as the Father and the Son, and indicating that the premortal God, who was Christ, had a body of spirit). In other respects, no one reading the Book of Mormon apart from Joseph's later theological ideas would come away with a non-traditional concept of God. Confirming this conclusion is the fact that although the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith were harshly criticized in the 1830s for all sorts of reasons, teaching a radically different concept of God was not one of them. As a Mormon, you are free to read later LDS theology into the Book of Mormon, but if it is read in its historical context that later theology simply is not there.

[Vance]

The burden of proof would seem to be on the one who claims that a deity called "the Great Spirit" was not simply a great spirit.

LOL!!

Well, excepting the fact that in context, a man of flesh and blood was asked point blank if he was "the Great Spirit" of course, why is the burden where you claim it is?

Why AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME that the phrase "the Great Spirit" is referring to a being of ONLY spirit? The text doesn't have any indication of such.

Even the context and text of John 4 doesn't support the automatic assumption.

20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

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

25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

The topic is clearly worship and not some ontological description of God. To demand that the phrase "God is a Spirit" to mean that He is ONLY a Spirit, also requires that when we worship Him "in spirit" that we can do so also as ONLY a spirit. Thus no real true worship can occur until our spirits shed our bodies of flesh and blood. To be consistent, anyway.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Vance

[Xander]

I do not understand why the apologists are giving Bowman such a hard time for refusing to read the Book of Mormon through their preferred lens. There is nothing in the text that demands the apologetic interpretation expressed in these pages and Bowman is reading it in context as I explained earlier.

Why include verses where the Lamanites refer to the Great Spirit without any connection to the Nephite God at all? Even worse, why include verses from the apostate Zoramite prayer that is treated with total disdain by the Nephites?

This is an argument that begs the question. You want to insist that there is some implied distinction between a corporeal Nephite God and an incorporeal Lamanite God, but the simple fact of the matter is that there is nothing in the Book of Mormon to support your understanding of what the Nephite God should be, and I think that is part of Bowman's point: Joseph Smith's theology evolved after the Book of Mormon was published. The fact that the current Mormon understanding of God is nowhere to be found in the BoM, is further evidence of this fact. In later scriptures Joseph Smith didn't hesitate to incorporate newly discovered doctrines. If he had always believed God was a corporeal anthropomorphic being, then there is no reason why the Book of Mormon should avoid teaching this doctrine, especially seeing how the purpose was to "restore" the lost but true doctrines about God.

Now you can interpret the Book of Mormon however you want, looking at it through a lens designed for reading modern Mormon doctrines. You can assume that when the Nephites refer to God, they are referring to a glorified man in heaven and that when they are referring to God when speaking to Lamanites, they are referring to some perverted understanding of God. But the fact is that is just your assumption and there is no reasonable basis for demanding others must operate from this premise. In fact, on the latter point, we find that there is substantial evidence to suggest these Nephite missionaries had no problem at all referring to God as a "great spirit."

In Alma 22:9-10 we get the following exchange:

"And the [Lamanite] king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem? And [Nephite missionary] Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit."

Contrary to what Bernard Gui asserted, it is Aaron speaking to the Lamanite King (not vice-versa) and he clearly agrees with identifying God as "that Great Spirit." There is no reason why he would do this if he believed the King's concept of God was faulty. There is no indication anywhere in the text that Ammon believed this was a "heretical" doctrine to begin with. So the apologists have tried to carve Mt. Everest from what amounts to a mole hill that pretty much proves Bowman's primary point anyway.

The simple fact is there is nothing in the Book of Mormon, despite the plethora of "missionary teachings," that tells us about the "true" (current) Mormon doctrine that God the Father is composed of flesh and bones. And this makes perfect sense, because it wasn't part of Joseph Smith's theology until after the Book of Mormon was published.

What people here do not appreciate is the fact that what Bowman argues has been argued for decades, even by LDS scholars like BYU's Thomas Alexander. Bowman reads the Book of Mormon as an objective scholar should. According to Alexander, the Mormon "doctrine of God preached and believed before 1835 was essentially trinitarian, with God the Father seen as an absolute personage of Spirit, Jesus Christ as a personage of tabernacle, and the Holy Ghost as an impersonal spiritual member of the Godhead." I recommend reading his article linked above. He goes on to show that early Mormon doctrine was in many ways indistinguishable from Protestant doctrine.

So much for the wild theory that this was some crazy anti-Mormon notion.

Besides, haven't any of you been paying attention to the history of apologetic responses to this concern? For the most part I think Mormon apologists have agreed with their Evangelical critics by saying that God is a spirit like the Bible says. But they argue that he isn't only spirit. Given this standard apologetic defense, why in the world are you guys trying to now claim that "God is spirit" is a some perverted Lamanite doctrine?

[Xander]

The topic is clearly worship and not some ontological description of God

Actually it is both. As the context states, God can be worshiped anywhere because he is spirit. Jews traditionally worshiped God from the mountain tops or in the Temple because they thought geographic proximity to God was important. Jesus' point was that because God is spirit, he can be worshiped from any place. So Jesus's point was that God isn't confined to any location, and this would naturally include all forms of confinement, including a physical body of flesh and bones.

[Vance]

So Jesus's point was that God isn't confined to any location,

Really? So, God, the Father, having a body of flesh and bones, some how prevents Him from traveling the universe? Is that the hill you want to defend?

Did Jesus' having a body of flesh and bones prevent Him from ascending into heaven?

and this would naturally include all forms of confinement, including a physical body of flesh and bones.

LOL!!!

"naturally"???

So, our spirit being confined to our bodies (until death) prevents us from traveling? And you get that from the text?

Edited February 8, 2012 by Vance

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Really? So, God, the Father, having a body of flesh and bones, some how prevents Him from traveling the universe? Is that the hill you want to defend?

Did Jesus' having a body of flesh and bones prevent Him from ascending into heaven?

LOL!!!

"naturally"???

So, our spirit being confined to our bodies (until death) prevents us from traveling? And you get that from the text?

You have effectively destroyed Graham's arguments. You have mopped the floor with him. Good job.

-please let the comments speak for themselves - don't pile on. - Ares

[Xander]

Really? So, God, the Father, having a body of flesh and bones, some how prevents Him from traveling the universe? Is that the hill you want to defend?

Uh, yes. This was clearly her understanding as well, which is why Jesus responded as he did. We're talking about the context of a scripture in which Jesus is speaking to a first century Palestinian woman. He was speaking in terms that she would understand. The fact is a God confined to a body cannot be omniscient. Would he be able to "travel" to this woman's location? Theoretically, yes. But the fact is there is no evidence anywhere in the NT that says God physically "travels" to your location during a prayer. You're just making this up as you go along. But even if he did physically travel to yoru location, then according to your doctrine, these people should have seen what Joseph Smith claimed to have seen (later on anyway) when God showed up to listen to and/or answer a prayer . But Jesus was clear that this thinking is erroneous because God is spirit. He didn't tell the woman that God had a spirit as well as a physical body, which is along the lines of Mormon thinking.

So, our spirit being confined to our bodies (until death) prevents us from traveling? And you get that from the text?

All the fake laughter in the world won't hide the fact that you have completely misunderstood the purpose of this scripture. If what you say is true, then there is really no reason why Jesus mentioned locations at all (i.e. mountains/Jerusalem). But he did mention them because they were crucial to his point. His point being that since God is spirit, it doesn't matter where you worship.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Xander

[JDave]

Rob, there were two more points you left unanswered: the missionary context of the whole text, and that "Great Spirit" is only used as a title, a title that is pointedly denied by the author.

See Alma 18:2-4.

They thought Ammon was more than a man, that is for sure. If they conceived of their deity as some spirit being without form, wouldn't they just assume that Ammon was sent by the Great Spirit? The Lamanite people certainly thought that could happen (Alma 19:25). The circumstances you cite don't explain anything about why thy would be more willing to accept a spirit being in physical form.

No reason why it cannot be both, within the context of the narrative.

True. But there is great reason why it can't be just surprise at anything other than a cloud. The shock at seeing a spirit being in physical form is clear and it begs the question why the Lamanites are untroubled at the thought.

I drew a parallel, not an exact equivalence.

So replace the word equivalence with parallel in my paragraph. The result is the same. You drew a parallel when it was in your favor, but now you are saying there is no such parallel due to different time periods. This is a huge problem.

Dave, this issue is a very small part of my argument that prior to 1842/1843 Joseph Smith did not view God the Father as a person of flesh and bones.

Moving from huge problems to very small problems. I have heard you repeat this idea that what we are discussing is just a small part. The scope of the discussion should not impact the degree to which you are rigorous. And if it is really such a small point, with so much against it, it only makes you look bad to keep it in there.

The larger point with regard to the Book of Mormon is simply that it does not challenge the traditional theistic understanding of the nature of God except in some relatively minor ways (seemingly identifying Jesus as the Father and the Son, and indicating that the premortal God, who was Christ, had a body of spirit). In other respects, no one reading the Book of Mormon apart from Joseph's later theological ideas would come away with a non-traditional concept of God. Confirming this conclusion is the fact that although the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith were harshly criticized in the 1830s for all sorts of reasons, teaching a radically different concept of God was not one of them.

So simply STICK to that larger point. Don't point it out like it in some way justifies holding onto to your very small, and quite challenged, point.

As a Mormon, you are free to read later LDS theology into the Book of Mormon, but if it is read in its historical context that later theology simply is not there.

Its historical context is what the book itself purports it to be -- 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. If you only read it with a historical context of 1830, then I can understand why we talk past each other and why you think external sources of that time period are fair game for evidence. Such a treatment of the book is not a good faith effort.

I see no need to read later LDS theology into the Book of Mormon. There are instances where I very much don't, such as the heaven/hell dichotomy in the Book of Mormon versus the kindgoms of glory ideas shown in D&C 76. There is no theological necessity for a complete harmonization with later LDS theology. That is just a canard to say that Mormons can't critically consider their texts.

[Thinking]

To my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong), D&C 130:22 is the first place where Joseph Smith makes it clear that the Father has a body of flesh and bones. These items of instruction were recorded on April 2, 1843. Prior to this date are there any clear descriptions (besides what is in the Lectures on Faith) of the nature of the Father?

[Vance]

Uh, yes. We're talking about the context of a scripture in which Jesus is speaking to a first century Palestinian woman.

I don't even know why I am wasting my time with this. You whole argument was fabricated out of thin air.

LOL!!!

The woman was Samaritan not Palestinian.

He was speaking in terms that she would understand.

Ok.

The fact is a God confined to a body cannot be omniscient.

You presuming that God must be "omniscient" and, that it was a common understanding of the time. Jesus, the preeminent authority on God, never taught that God was omniscient but rather that He was in Heaven. I could list numerous verses if you are unaware of this fact.

Would he be able to "travel" to this woman's location? Theoretically, yes.

Theoretically? LOL!

And why the presumption that God MUST BE PRESENT for him to be worshipped?

Does the statement "ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship" mean that they believed that God's presences was limited to Jerusalem?

Does the statement "the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father" mean that God's presence was going to be limited FROM those locations?

But the fact is there is no evidence anywhere in the NT that says God physically "travels" to your location during a prayer.

True, but irrelevant.

It also teaches that God doesn't need to be present when you pray.

Matt 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

You're just making this up as you go along.

Just like you. Isn't it fun.

But even if he did physically travel to yoru location, then according to your doctrine, these people should have seen what Joseph Smith claimed to have seen (later on anyway) when God showed up to listen to and/or answer a prayer .

Irrelevant drivel.

But Jesus was clear that this thinking is erroneous because God is spirit.

Faulty logic on your part.

He didn't tell the woman that God had a spirit as well as a physical body,

Nor did he tell her otherwise.

All the fake laughter in the world won't hide the fact that you have completely misunderstood the purpose of this scripture.

This you haven't shown, merely asserted.

If what you say is true, then there is really no reason why Jesus mentioned locations at all (i.e. mountains/Jerusalem). But he did mention them because they were crucial to his point. His point being that since God is spirit, it doesn't matter where you worship.

Actually it is the other way around, BEAUSE we are to worship "in spirit" is why the statement "God is a Spirit" was given.

Notice,

23 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.

Is the foundation, and

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

is simply support structure.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Vance

[Xander]

The woman was Samaritan not Palestinian.

Oh my. Samaria is located in today's Palestine. That region of the world has been called Palestine for more than 2000 years. Good grief you're desperate to score points, aren't you?

You presuming that God must be "omniscient" and, that it was a common understanding of the time.

Obviously that isn't my claim or else I never would have brought up the fact that Jesus was correcting a primitive understanding that God must be spoken to from certain places.

Jesus, the preeminent authority on God, never taught that God was omniscient but rather that He was in Heaven. I could list numerous verses if you are unaware of this fact.

This scripture implies omniscience. How else do you think Jesus was trying to convey the message that God could be prayed to from any location? He didn't explain that God could hear us because he has super hearing capabilities from long distances. No, instead he tells us what God is.

God is everywhere because he is spirit. I know this causes serious problems for the Mormon view, but thems the breaks. You can't laugh your way out of it.

Theoretically? LOL!

Of course theoretically! All you have alluded to is theory. Your theorize that a man with flesh and bones could even exist in outer space, and then you assert that he could easily travel around the universe without any problems whatsoever and then laugh at me for assuming otherwise.

It also teaches that God doesn't need to be present when you pray.

But he is present because God is everywhere.

Matt 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

And he is in heaven, which was understood to mean everywhere above us.

Irrelevant drivel.

No it cuts to the heart of the matter, which is the fact that the Mormon concept of God is not only illogical and incoherent, but also unbiblical. You wanted to defend teh flesh and bones God, so let's see you do it. Explain to us how exactly he "travels through the universe" without his "flesh and bones" cracking or melting from the extreme temperatures. Does he have to operate from within a divine force field of sorts? Remember, don't present "theory," because that is just too laughable.

Nor did he tell her otherwise.

Yes he did. But you do not understand the context nor do you grasp the significance of his teaching.

Actually it is the other way around, BEAUSE we are to worship "in spirit" is why the statement "God is a Spirit"

Right, and how do we worship in spirit? We pray. And because God is spirit he can hear and answer our prayers.

[JDave]

This is an argument that begs the question. You want to insist that there is some implied distinction between a corporeal Nephite God and an incorporeal Lamanite God, but the simple fact of the matter is that there is nothing in the Book of Mormon to support your understanding of what the Nephite God should be

No, it was a simple request to cite only verses that are actually in support.

Now you can interpret the Book of Mormon however you want, looking at it through a lens designed for reading modern Mormon doctrines. You can assume that when the Nephites refer to God, they are referring to a glorified man in heaven

When did I ever say that? I merely am arguing that they DON'T teach a God who is spirit only.

we find that there is substantial evidence to suggest these Nephite missionaries had no problem at all referring to God as a "great spirit."

Read my posts in the other thread. Your "substantial" evidence consists of a single reference each by two missionaries, and that after pointing out to the reader that it is a Lamanite title, showing a preference for the title God, and then effectively eliminating "Great Spirit" from the Lamanite converts' gospel vocabulary.

What people here do not appreciate is the fact that what Bowman argues has been argued for decades, even by LDS scholars like BYU's Thomas Alexander. Bowman reads the Book of Mormon as an objective scholar should. According to Alexander,

The article you cited doesn't even mention the account of Ammon and Aaron. The only argument it makes about God being a spirit is to say that the Book of Mormon presents one God who was a spirit and then came in flesh, Jesus Christ. It pretty much takes that point for granted since it fits so well with the overall conclusion of the article. That is what Rob, and you apparently, are doing. You see an overall picture of a developmental process to Joseph Smith's understanding of the Godhead. Then when you read a passage in the Book of Mormon and on the surface it supports that view, you run with it rather than taking it in context.

Besides, haven't any of you been paying attention to the history of apologetic responses to this concern? For the most part I think Mormon apologists have agreed with their Evangelical critics by saying that God is a spirit like the Bible says. But they argue that he isn't only spirit. Given this standard apologetic defense, why in the world are you guys trying to now claim that "God is spirit" is a some perverted Lamanite doctrine?

No I haven't. Is it even germane to the discussion at hand? Sure I could say that it doesn't matter if the Nephites taught that God is a spirit, and I actually agree that it can be adequately answered in that manner or by pointing to an incremental understanding of the nature of God. But that isn't the issue at all. Rob and you are claiming that the Book of Mormon teaches something it doesn't. Your point here is similar to Rob's -- "Besides, it isn't a big deal, so don't worry about it." Lack of rigor in small details, especially when questioned, does not inspire confidence in one's overall work.

[Mark Beesley]

The fact is a God confined to a body cannot be omniscient.

Why? Are you confusing omniscient with omnipresent? And if so, what scriptural support is there for the suggestion that the Father is omnipresent?

[Vance]

God is everywhere because he is spirit.

More presumption. Based on NOTHING.

Of course theoretically! All you have alluded to is theory. Your theorize that a man with flesh and bones could even exist in outer space, and then you assert that he could easily travel around the universe without any problems whatsoever and then laugh at me for assuming otherwise.

Right, because a being of flesh can't walk on water nor ascend into heaven. Got it.

But he is present because God is everywhere.

The same PRESUMPTION. Based on NOTHING.

And he is in heaven, which was understood to mean everywhere above us.

Right, so when you are in the ocean, you are EVERYWHERE in the ocean. Got it.

And when he is in heaven we are to understand that he isn't limited to just being in heaven, because you PRESUMED him to be EVERYWHERE. Got it.

So, saying He is IN heaven doesn't limit Him to only heaven but saying He is Spirit does limit Him to only Spirit. Got it.

No it cuts to the heart of the matter, which is the fact that the Mormon concept of God is not only illogical and incoherent, but also unbiblical.

Right, because of YOUR PRESUMPTIONS and stuff. Got it.

You wanted to defend teh flesh and bones God, so let's see you do it. Explain to us how exactly he "travels through the universe" without his "flesh and bones" cracking or melting from the extreme temperatures. Does he have to operate from within a divine force field of sorts? Remember, don't present "theory," because that is just too laughable.

Right, because you theorize/PRESUME that resurrected body MUST have the same limits as the mortal body.

And you would know this how?

Yes he did.

No, he didn't. I would CFR that statement but I know it is a waste of time.

But you do not understand the context nor do you grasp the significance of his teaching.

Right, because YOU say so. Got it.

Right, and how do we worship in spirit? We pray. And because God is spirit he can hear and answer our prayers.

How does He hear without ears?