Does God Have A Resurrected Body Of Flesh And Bones?

[dberrie2000]

I am Catholic and the answer is perhaps slightly different than for LDS.

 

For LDS: Yes*, Yes, and No.

For Catholics: No, Yes, and No.

 

*Do you hold the corporal body of the Father has been resurrected? Is it official LDS teaching that Heavenly Father at one time died? If Heavenly Father has never died, then your answer is the same as for Catholics.

 

 I'm not following you. It's a yes or no answer, for me. What do your three answers represent an answer to?

[Storm Rider]

I'm not saying that they did look different. But if spirit is matter like Smith said, then spirit

children had a physical body because matter is physical.

 

Jim

 

Jim, i always understood this with a different twist to it.  We define matter as having a physical substance that is distinct from mind or spirit.  Joseph did not see this distinction between spirit and matter; rather he saw the spirit as being more refined yet capable of being seen  or just as capable of being unseen.  Thus the spirit could be seen as having physical form, but may not have the ability to be felt by mortal senses.  I think of the old challenge to a spirit to shake hands for this thought.  

 

To state that spirit children had a physical body seems to lump spirit bodies and mortal bodies into one group when they are evidently different.  

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

The Bible confirms the Divine Council of the gods--and other gods:

 

Psalm 82:1---King James Version (KJV)

82 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

 

 

 

 

This presents the most serious problem for the "monotheistic" crowd. There is no way to argue that this is talking about false gods and walk away looking good..

[Vance]

But if spirit is matter like Smith said, then spirit children had a physical body because matter is physical.

 

Jim

You are equating "spirit matter" with "physical". Why? The only verse in scripture, that I can find, that uses the word "physical" is D&C 134:10.

You seem to want to equate "body of flesh and bone" with "spirit matter" through the use of an intermediary "physical".

Is that your intent?

Just so you know, the 1828 dictionary has this definition of "physical", which would more accurately reflect JS's usage of the word.

PHYS'ICAL, adjective Pertaining to nature or natural productions, or to material things, as opposed to things moral or imaginary. We speak of physical force or power, with reference to material things; as, muscular strength is physical force; armies and navies are the physical force of a nation; whereas wisdom, knowledge, skill, etc. constitute moral force. A physical point is a real point, in distinction from a mathematical or imaginary point. A physical body or substance is a material body or substance, in distinction from spirit or metaphysical substance.

1. External; perceptible to the senses; as the physical characters of a mineral; opposed to chimical.

2. Relating to the art of healing; as a physical treatise.

3. Having the property of evacuating the bowels; as physical herbs.

4. Medicinal; promoting the cure of diseases.

5. Resembling physic; as a physical taste.

[in the three latter senses, nearly obsolete among professional men.]

Physical education, the education which is directed to the object of giving strength, health and vigor to the bodily organs and powers.

[dberrie2000]

This presents the most serious problem for the "monotheistic" crowd. There is no way to argue that this is talking about false gods and walk away looking good..

 

True--and Paul didn't help things for the Trinitarians:

2 Corinthians 4:4----King James Version (KJV)

⁴ In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

[mfbukowski]

You are equating "spirit matter" with "physical". Why? The only verse in scripture, that I can find, that uses the word "physical" is D&C 134:10.

You seem to want to equate "body of flesh and bone" with "spirit matter" through the use of an intermediary "physical".

 

He's missing this:

1 Corinthians 15:35-49King James Version (KJV)

 

³⁵ But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

³⁶ Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

³⁷ And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

³⁸ But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

³⁹ All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

⁴⁰ There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

⁴¹ There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

⁴² So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

⁴³ It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

⁴⁴ It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

⁴⁵ And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

⁴⁶ Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

⁴⁷ The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

⁴⁸ As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

⁴⁹ And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

 

 

[Boanerges]

The most important doctrine we have is that God has a body.

 

Huh. And here I thought the most important doctrine was that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book, the keystone of our religion, and all that stuff. Or it could be that Jesus is the Christ. Dang, I just don't know anymore - there are too many most important doctrines. Maybe I could just be a Methodist - there's a church down the street and I even know the pastor.

[theplains]

You are equating "spirit matter" with "physical". Why? The only verse in scripture, that I can find, that uses the word "physical" is D&C 134:10.

You seem to want to equate "body of flesh and bone" with "spirit matter" through the use of an intermediary "physical".

Is that your intent?

Just so you know, the 1828 dictionary has this definition of "physical", which would more accurately reflect JS's usage of the word.

 

 

Thanks. Yes. I believe that matter is a physical substance.

 

Jim 

[3DOP]

 I'm not following you. It's a yes or no answer, for me. What do your three answers represent an answer to?

dberrie.

 

Sorry, I supposed I was being clever as opposed to enigmatic.

 

To clarify, unless Mormons believe that God the Father (Heavenly Father) was once dead then the Mormon would say as a Catholic would, that the Father does not have a resurrected body, that the Son has a resurrected body, and the Holy Ghost does not have a resurrected body.

 

So the answer would be yes to the question as phrased. But such an answer could be misleading. Since we agree that the Holy Ghost does not have a resurrected body we could ask the following question:

 

Does God necessarily have a resurrected body? The answer for us both in this instance is clearly in the negative.

 

It seems important to me to point out the mutual agreement on this question that all Christians whether LDS, Catholic, or Protestant share. Even as we all agree that God, in the person of the Son, has a resurrected body, we are further agreed that the resurrected body is superfluous (not necessary) to God. God the Holy Ghost is still incorporeal, and God the Son waited to take a body until a mere two thousand years ago.

 

(My "Yes*, Yes, No" answers for LDS and my "No, Yes, No" answers for the Catholic refer to the Members of the Godhead as the Mormon would say, or the Persons of the Blessed Trinity as a Catholic would say: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.)

 

-----------------------

 

For anyone, I know that Heavenly Father has a body. But are LDS obliged by their faith to believe that Heavenly Father's body is resurrected from a previous death?

Edited October 25, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

This presents the most serious problem for the "monotheistic" crowd. There is no way to argue that this is talking about false gods and walk away looking good..

 

Mola, hey.

 

I do not believe it is talking about false gods at all...but I'll withhold saying what I do believe in the hopes of walking away...period. Heh.

Edited October 25, 2014 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

Huh. And here I thought the most important doctrine was that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book, the keystone of our religion, and all that stuff. Or it could be that Jesus is the Christ. Dang, I just don't know anymore - there are too many most important doctrines. Maybe I could just be a Methodist - there's a church down the street and I even know the pastor.

And of course the BOM teaches that as well.

 

11 And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof—for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another.

1Nephi11:11

 

Funny how that works, huh?

[3DOP]

 

True--and Paul didn't help things for the Trinitarians:

2 Corinthians 4:4----King James Version (KJV)

⁴ In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

 

Hi again dberrie.

 

I don't see the problem unless one assumes that the "god of this world" is God. (I hate to call myself "Trinitarian" as though you are not. Some very thoughtful LDS hold to a view that comes very close to what I believe. It is called Social Trinitarianism. There are distinctions which distinguish your view. The LDS Social Trinitarian is still insufficiently NIcene from a Catholic point of view, but it is in my opinion, sufficiently Trinitarian, for me to be uncomfortable with calling LDS "non-Trinitarians".)

 

Anyway, a Catholic would hold that the "god of this world" is the devil. Satan is a "god" terrifyingly powerful to us, but nevertheless so puny before God that he will end up in the Lake of Fire prepared for him and his "gods".

 

Hi again Mola...okay, I am motivated. I'll try to lay out how I view "the gods" and why it works for a Catholic.

 

1) There are gods that are as you say false, idols. Clearly you would recognize the distinction between such gods and God. Presumably you accept the necessary distinction between the two kinds of G(g)od which in English is signified by capitalizing the God who created, or at least has authority over, the gods.

 

2) There are gods who are so-called because of the office that has been given unto them to perform God's will:

 

Exodus 22:8

If the thief be not known, the master of the house shall be brought to the gods, and shall swear that he did not lay his hand upon his neighbour' s goods,

 

Exodus 22:9

To do any fraud, either in ox, or in ***, or sheep, or raiment, or any thing that may bring damage: the cause of both parties shall come to the gods: and if they give judgment, he shall restore double to his neighbour.

   

Moses is obviously instructing the children of Israel to go to civil magistrates who have received authority from God to give judgment upon matters of dispute in Israel. It is an awesome responsibility to be given authority from God in this way and so because of this elevated authority above their fellows, it is appropriate that they be referred to as "gods". Nevertheless, if "the gods" are judges among men, they must be counselled themselves that the one, Almighty God "judges among the judges" (gods) in Ps. 81:1.

 

I agree that God judges among a "council of gods" that He providentially appoints, who are obliged whether they recognize it or not to carry out God's will because only through His authority do temporal rulers have any power on earth. It seems to me like this is the view most compatible with the 81st Psalm (you guys number it as 82 by the way). Let's look at the last verses of the Psalm and it shows that the psalmist is not referencing some otherworldly congregation of divinized beings, but people. Verses 2 through 4 talk about these "gods", judges of Israel who are not doing their duty:

 

"How long will you judge unjustly: and accept the persons of the wicked? Judge for the needy and fatherless: do justice to the humble and the poor. Rescue the poor; and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner."

 

The rest of the Psalm give us the solemn assurance that these "gods" only authority comes from God, and if they forget it, He will judge them severely. Although they be His sons, they are men and will die like men. Maybe you hold that in the LDS understanding of the council of gods, that they die like men? The wording allows such a belief. Given the way we are taught from Moses that "the gods" ARE men, and we have to deal with them, I prefer the interpretation that understands them to be arrogantly behaving as though they will not be judged by God for their ill use of His authority. This Psalm is His solemn warning that they had best recall that they will inevitably die. They may be called gods; they may be sons of the Most High. But they are not such "gods" as to escape from death or judgment.  

 

"I have said: You are gods and all of you the sons of the most High. But you like men shall die: and shall fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge thou the earth: for thou shalt inherit among all the nations."

 

Those of you who know me will understand that I am not proposing that the LDS interpretation is incompatible with Scripture. Indeed, if I were approached by someone who said that it was, I would defend your belief from Scripture alone. Scripture alone is never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversies. I am merely saying that like your interpretation, the Catholic understanding is compatible with the words of Scripture. To determine which of many plausible interpretations of Scripture are correct we always have to turn to our respective faith traditions. Obviously, I reject your tradition and you reject mine, but it seems like we could at least agree that when we read Scripture, we can acknowledge that both sides have adequately dealt with any particular passage in a way that is compatible with their own faith traditions.

 

I almost never have any confidence in thinking that there exists in Scripture some "silver bullet" that is fatal to any particular false interpretation. All I would ask, is for you to consider what I have presented, knowing that I do not claim that it proves my point of view. I would never say that. This is not an attempt to refute your beliefs. I don't believe it is possible on the basis of Scripture alone to truly prove anything upon which Christians differ. My sole hope is I think modest enough. I still expect you to believe that the Catholic view is false. But could you maybe be persuaded that our false belief isn't as easily proven false by Scripture alone as you seem to have previously thought? That's it. That's the most I can reasonably hope for at this time. Thanks for your consideration

 

And now I shall leave judgment on how I did to the LDS "gods"! However it goes, may the good God bless and guide all those of good will towards Him and His children. May He give them the earnest desire to be able to walk together in fulness of truth, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, and of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Rory

Edited October 25, 2014 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

For anyone, I know that Heavenly Father has a body. But are LDS obliged by their faith to believe that Heavenly Father's body is resurrected from a previous death?

We don't know where he got his body as far as I know, but indeed we have strong evidence in the temple that indeed he had a mortal life.

 

There is a scene in the story of the Garden of Eden which implies that the Father also partook of mortality, and had knowledge of good and evil.

 

Indeed, mortality is an essential part of progression to Godhood, and I don't know why the revealed pattern for all of God's children would have been different for him.

 

We really think of him as our Father, not an amophous spirit.   My father lived and died, and indeed the whole concept of "father" that I have hinges on my personal father understanding mortality because he has experienced it.

 

I really have never understood the distinction other groups make between the Godhood of Christ and of the Father.  There are always reservations about Christ being fully as much God as the Father is, I guess, because having a body, having lived and died, makes him "less" in Neoplatonic philosophy.

 

It makes no sense.  If Christ and the Father are one in nature, then that makes the Father have a human nature as well.  But no, instead we have the idea that there are TWO natures,  Human and Divine, and they are separated, somehow for vague and unexplained reasons.

 

I don't mean to give you a hard time, but even asking the question implies that you still do not understand that to us it makes no difference if the Father had a mortal life and died.

 

In fact, for me, it makes it easier for me to relate to him.  We have no need for mortal saints to help us relate to God, because we think that God himself was once mortal.

 

He, like Christ, understands all our pain and knows EXACTLY what it is like to be human with all our problems and foibles.  I find that description of God far easier to understand than the Neoplatonic explanations, and without the Greek prejudices about the body and prejudices against the imperfections of matter, a very good model indeed.

[mfbukowski]

Hi again dberrie.

 

I don't see the problem unless one assumes that the "god of this world" is God. (I hate to call myself "Trinitarian" as though you are not. Some very thoughtful LDS hold to a view that comes very close to what I believe. It is called Social Trinitarianism. There are distinctions which distinguish your view. The LDS Social Trinitarian is still insufficiently NIcene from a Catholic point of view, but it is in my opinion, sufficiently Trinitarian, for me to be uncomfortable with calling LDS "non-Trinitarians".)

 

Anyway, a Catholic would hold that the "god of this world" is the devil. Satan is a "god" terrifyingly powerful to us, but nevertheless so puny before God that he will end up in the Lake of Fire prepared for him and his "gods".

 

Hi again Mola...okay, I am motivated. I'll try to lay out how I view "the gods" and why it works for a Catholic.

 

1) There are gods that are as you say false, idols. Clearly you would recognize the distinction between such gods and God. Presumably you accept the necessary distinction between the two kinds of G(g)od which in English is signified by capitalizing the God who created, or at least has authority over, the gods.

 

2) There are gods who are so-called because of the office that has been given unto them to perform God's will:

 

Exodus 22:8

If the thief be not known, the master of the house shall be brought to the gods, and shall swear that he did not lay his hand upon his neighbour' s goods,

 

Exodus 22:9

To do any fraud, either in ox, or in ***, or sheep, or raiment, or any thing that may bring damage: the cause of both parties shall come to the gods: and if they give judgment, he shall restore double to his neighbour.

   

Moses is obviously instructing the children of Israel to go to civil magistrates who have received authority from God to give judgment upon matters of dispute in Israel. It is an awesome responsibility to be given authority from God in this way and so because of this elevated authority above their fellows, it is appropriate that they be referred to as "gods". Nevertheless, if "the gods" are judges among men, they must be counselled themselves that the one, Almighty God "judges among the judges" (gods) in Ps. 81:1.

 

I agree that God judges among a "council of gods" that He providentially appoints, who are obliged whether they recognize it or not to carry out God's will because only through His authority do temporal rulers have any power on earth. It seems to me like this is the view most compatible with the 81st Psalm (you guys number it as 82 by the way). Let's look at the last verses of the Psalm and it shows that the psalmist is not referencing some otherworldly congregation of divinized beings, but people. Verses 2 through 4 talk about these "gods", judges of Israel who are not doing their duty:

 

"How long will you judge unjustly: and accept the persons of the wicked? Judge for the needy and fatherless: do justice to the humble and the poor. Rescue the poor; and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner."

 

The rest of the Psalm give us the solemn assurance that these "gods" only authority comes from God, and if they forget it, He will judge them severely. Although they be His sons, they are men and will die like men. Maybe you hold that in the LDS understanding of the council of gods, that they die like men? The wording allows such a belief. Given the way we are taught from Moses that "the gods" ARE men, and we have to deal with them, I prefer the interpretation that understands them to be arrogantly behaving as though they will not be judged by God for their ill use of His authority. This Psalm is His solemn warning that they had best recall that they will inevitably die. They may be called gods; they may be sons of the Most High. But they are not such "gods" as to escape from death or judgment.  

 

"I have said: You are gods and all of you the sons of the most High. But you like men shall die: and shall fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge thou the earth: for thou shalt inherit among all the nations."

 

Those of you who know me will understand that I am not proposing that the LDS interpretation is incompatible with Scripture. Indeed, if I were approached by someone who said that it was, I would defend your belief from Scripture alone. Scripture alone is never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversies. I am merely saying that like your interpretation, the Catholic understanding is compatible with the words of Scripture. To determine which of many plausible interpretations of Scripture are correct we always have to turn to our respective faith traditions. Obviously, I reject your tradition and you reject mine, but it seems like we could at least agree that when we read Scripture, we can acknowledge that both sides have adequately dealt with any particular passage in a way that is compatible with their own faith traditions.

 

I almost never have any confidence in thinking that there exists in Scripture some "silver bullet" that is fatal to any particular false interpretation. All I would ask, is for you to consider what I have presented, knowing that I do not claim that it proves my point of view. I would never say that. This is not an attempt to refute your beliefs. I don't believe it is possible on the basis of Scripture alone to truly prove anything upon which Christians differ. My sole hope is I think modest enough. I still expect you to believe that the Catholic view is false. But could you maybe be persuaded that our false belief isn't as easily proven false by Scripture alone as you seem to have previously thought? That's it. That's the most I can reasonably hope for at this time. Thanks for your consideration

 

And now I shall leave judgment on how I did to the LDS "gods"! However it goes, may the good God bless and guide all those of good will towards Him and His children. May He give them the earnest desire to be able to walk together in fulness of truth, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, and of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Rory

Holy cow.

 

We are very close- more than I ever realized.  We ARE in fact social trinitarians though it appears no one LDS knows that.

Edited October 25, 2014 by mfbukowski

[dberrie2000]

Hi again dberrie.

 

I don't see the problem unless one assumes that the "god of this world" is God.

  Hi 3DOP.

 

I believe that might be minimizing it a bit, IMO. The strict Monotheist define it as no other gods existing. Are you saying that one can believe that other gods exist, in reality--and if it does not effect the fact that they believe in the "one God" of the Biblical NT--it fits the Trinitarian mold?

 

And then there are the gods of the Divine Council:

 

Psalm 82:1---King James Version (KJV)

82 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

 

According to the Ugarit material---that council consisted of El, His wife Asherah--and their 70 Sons of God. The scholars are now correlating with parallels within the Hebrew Bible.

 

Thanks for your reply. Interesting stuff you post.

[dberrie2000]

Holy cow.

 

We are very close- more than I ever realized.  We ARE in fact social trinitarians though it appears no one LDS knows that.

 

 Catholics are pretty cool people. My best friend growing up was Catholic. Very interesting people.If I were not LDS--I'd be a Catholic.

[3DOP]

We don't know where he got his body as far as I know, but indeed we have strong evidence in the temple that indeed he had a mortal life.

 

There is a scene in the story of the Garden of Eden which implies that the Father also partook of mortality, and had knowledge of good and evil.

 

Indeed, mortality is an essential part of progression to Godhood, and I don't know why the revealed pattern for all of God's children would have been different for him.

 

We really think of him as our Father, not an amophous spirit.   My father lived and died, and indeed the whole concept of "father" that I have hinges on my personal father understanding mortality because he has experienced it.

 

I really have never understood the distinction other groups make between the Godhood of Christ and of the Father.  There are always reservations about Christ being fully as much God as the Father is, I guess, because having a body, having lived and died, makes him "less" in Neoplatonic philosophy.

 

It makes no sense.  If Christ and the Father are one in nature, then that makes the Father have a human nature as well.  But no, instead we have the idea that there are TWO natures,  Human and Divine, and they are separated, somehow for vague and unexplained reasons.

 

I don't mean to give you a hard time, but even asking the question implies that you still do not understand that to us it makes no difference if the Father had a mortal life and died.

 

In fact, for me, it makes it easier for me to relate to him.  We have no need for mortal saints to help us relate to God, because we think that God himself was once mortal.

 

He, like Christ, understands all our pain and knows EXACTLY what it is like to be human with all our problems and foibles.  I find that description of God far easier to understand than the Neoplatonic explanations, and without the Greek prejudices about the body and prejudices against the imperfections of matter, a very good model indeed.

 

Mark, I wasn't asking with any preconceived ideas about how one view or the other would be somehow easier for me to exploit regarding Heavenly Father's mortality. From an LDS point of view, I don't see any problem with knowing Heavenly Father was immortal, not knowing, or knowing that Heavenly Father died. I asked the questions so as to clarify my answer to the original post in which I said,  "Yes*, Yes, No." for how the LDS would answer. The asterisk represented how I wasn't sure if Mormons necessarily believed that Heavenly Father had died.

 

The original poster, dberrie, had found my answer to his original question to be difficult, and I was asking for no other reason than to clarify my asterisk. With regards to the argument I make, it makes no difference either because God the Son only recently gained a body while being bodiless for at least a significant time, if not in some sense, eternally. Additionally, God the Holy Ghost, still doesn't have a body.

 

In my opinion, that one member of the LDS Godhead is incorporeal is significant to the question as to how I would reply if I were Mormon if the question were put to me: Is it of necessity for God to have a resurrected body? I think you guys are used to being attacked and I understand a kind of habitual defensiveness. But I am not trying to find some weakness in your armor by my learning more about Mormonism. As I have said many times before in different ways, the only problem I have with LDS claims are when they tread heavily upon my Catholic faith, which only occurs when discussing apostasy questions. I have learned to believe that your beliefs have admirable internal consistency as do those to which I adhere.

 

By understanding Mormonism from the inside, and without expecting find something out of order according to your own presuppositions, I could hope to influence Mormons to make a similar effort with my faith. My goal here is always to emphasize those things upon which we agree, to promote Catholicism within Mormonism, if you will, so as to permit, if the good God should so will, that anyone I might ever influence would never leave the LDS Church, without that instant becoming Catholic.

Edited October 25, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

  Hi 3DOP.

 

I believe that might be minimizing it a bit, IMO. The strict Monotheist define it as no other gods existing. Are you saying that one can believe that other gods exist, in reality--and if it does not effect the fact that they believe in the "one God" of the Biblical NT--it fits the Trinitarian mold?

 

And then there are the gods of the Divine Council:

 

Psalm 82:1---King James Version (KJV)

82 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

 

According to the Ugarit material---that council consisted of El, His wife Asherah--and their 70 Sons of God. The scholars are now correlating with parallels within the Hebrew Bible.

 

Thanks for your reply. Interesting stuff you post.

 

I have taken pains to deny that as a Catholic, I am a strict monotheist. A Moslem is a rigorous, strict monotheist. Setting aside "the gods" for a moment, he correctly accuses me of being less monotheistic than he is because I believe that God is Three and God is One. He believes that God is only One. What many don't seem to understand is that truth is not necessarily discovered by winning a contest to see who can be the strictest monotheist.

Edited October 25, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

  Hi 3DOP.

 

I believe that might be minimizing it a bit, IMO. The strict Monotheist define it as no other gods existing. Are you saying that one can believe that other gods exist, in reality--and if it does not effect the fact that they believe in the "one God" of the Biblical NT--it fits the Trinitarian mold?

 

And then there are the gods of the Divine Council:

 

Psalm 82:1---King James Version (KJV)

82 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

 

According to the Ugarit material---that council consisted of El, His wife Asherah--and their 70 Sons of God. The scholars are now correlating with parallels within the Hebrew Bible.

 

Thanks for your reply. Interesting stuff you post.

 

Hey dberrie. Thanks for your reply and for your interest and the compliment (must have been a different post). Anyway, you guys do okay yourselves. Shoot. I have been hanging around y'all for going on 15 years. I guess I must find you guys cool and interesting too!

 

Other "gods" have to exist in reality according to the passages I cited from Moses where the children of Israel are instructed to go to "the gods" for judgment. I have given my theory for why they are so-called. It is obvious that I believe they are "real". Does it mean they have supernatural powers? Well, yes, in a significant way that won't impress many people who have a notion that "gods" have to be capable of doing something sensational. I think Moses and Psalm 81 (82), and John 10, and all of the many other references to god or gods in Holy Scripture are what prompts the same author to write the following:

 

 

7

1 Corinthians 8:5

For although there be that are called gods, either in heaven or on earth (for there be gods many, and lords many).

8

Galatians 4:8

But then indeed, not knowing God, you served them, who, by nature, are not gods.

 

 

 

 

 

Using the nomenclature of Scripture, "the gods" may as impotent as a wood block, as powerful as a magistrate endowed with God's authority to pass correct judgment in God's kingdom, or as having the most intense rivalry with the good God, as the "god of this world". So yes, I would insist that these different "gods" are certainly real, while also insisting that there is need to recognize that according to the usage, there is the need to discern what kind of "god" is being mentioned. Assuredly we will disagree about this, coming from different traditions as we do, but in my opinion, each side can at least recognize that the other has taken into consideration all of the biblical data that is revealed. Additionally, Mormons and Catholics have to recall that each of our two sides have additional revelation (Latter-day revelation for you, and what you call the Apocrypha for us) that can play a part in making us take a different view with regards to this and many other differences.

 

I would say that any LDS confidence regarding how the Catholic Trinity is threatened because of the obvious mention of "gods" in Scripture is misplaced in that it fails to take into consideration that we probably have different understandings of how the word "gods" is used. Again, that doesn't mean we are correct. But I would propose that it means that you cannot proclaim we are incorrect on that basis. That's all. Of course you need to still say and believe we are wrong. But that biblical argument should not be one of your reasons.

 

Regards,

 

3DOP    

Edited October 25, 2014 by 3DOP

[Guest]

Luke 24:39----King James Version (KJV)

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

 

My question is--does God have a resurrected body of flesh and bones?

 

I posted this question because of some of the criticisms I have heard from non-LDS.

 

Comments?

Yes he does, unless he is 2/3 Spirit and 1/3 "Flesh and bone" as Christ is...otherwise why the redundancy in Spirit?

[mfbukowski]

Mark, I wasn't asking with any preconceived ideas about how one view or the other would be somehow easier for me to exploit regarding Heavenly Father's mortality. From an LDS point of view, I don't see any problem with knowing Heavenly Father was immortal, not knowing, or knowing that Heavenly Father died. I asked the questions so as to clarify my answer to the original post in which I said,  "Yes*, Yes, No." for how the LDS would answer. The asterisk represented how I wasn't sure if Mormons necessarily believed that Heavenly Father had died.

 

The original poster, dberrie, had found my answer to his original question to be difficult, and I was asking for no other reason than to clarify my asterisk. With regards to the argument I make, it makes no difference either because God the Son only recently gained a body while being bodiless for at least a significant time, if not in some sense, eternally. Additionally, God the Holy Ghost, still doesn't have a body.

 

In my opinion, that one member of the LDS Godhead is incorporeal is significant to the question as to how I would reply if I were Mormon if the question were put to me: Is it of necessity for God to have a resurrected body? I think you guys are used to being attacked and I understand a kind of habitual defensiveness. But I am not trying to find some weakness in your armor by my learning more about Mormonism. As I have said many times before in different ways, the only problem I have with LDS claims are when they tread heavily upon my Catholic faith, which only occurs when discussing apostasy questions. I have learned to believe that your beliefs have admirable internal consistency as do those to which I adhere.

 

By understanding Mormonism from the inside, and without expecting find something out of order according to your own presuppositions, I could hope to influence Mormons to make a similar effort with my faith. My goal here is always to emphasize those things upon which we agree, to promote Catholicism within Mormonism, if you will, so as to permit, if the good God should so will, that anyone I might ever influence would never leave the LDS Church, without that instant becoming Catholic.

Brother Rory, you got it dude. 

 

(Sorry hanging around with my daughter's friends a little to much...   )

 

Seriously- thanks for the clarification and I apologize for the misunderstanding.  We are making exciting progress in understanding each other here I think

[mfbukowski]

 Catholics are pretty cool people. My best friend growing up was Catholic. Very interesting people.If I were not LDS--I'd be a Catholic.

 

I was raised Catholic- my problem  is that I tend to be a little too aggressive in defending my new views with our Catholic friends

[mfbukowski]

Yes he does, unless he is 2/3 Spirit and 1/3 "Flesh and bone" as Christ is...otherwise why the redundancy in Spirit?

??

[Vance]

Those of you who know me will understand that I am not proposing that the LDS interpretation is incompatible with Scripture. Indeed, if I were approached by someone who said that it was, I would defend your belief from Scripture alone. Scripture alone is never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversies. I am merely saying that like your interpretation, the Catholic understanding is compatible with the words of Scripture. To determine which of many plausible interpretations of Scripture are correct we always have to turn to our respective faith traditions. Obviously, I reject your tradition and you reject mine, but it seems like we could at least agree that when we read Scripture, we can acknowledge that both sides have adequately dealt with any particular passage in a way that is compatible with their own faith traditions.

 

Rory

WOW!!!

You nailed it with that one.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi again dberrie.

 

I don't see the problem unless one assumes that the "god of this world" is God. (I hate to call myself "Trinitarian" as though you are not. Some very thoughtful LDS hold to a view that comes very close to what I believe. It is called Social Trinitarianism. There are distinctions which distinguish your view. The LDS Social Trinitarian is still insufficiently NIcene from a Catholic point of view, but it is in my opinion, sufficiently Trinitarian, for me to be uncomfortable with calling LDS "non-Trinitarians".)

 

Anyway, a Catholic would hold that the "god of this world" is the devil. Satan is a "god" terrifyingly powerful to us, but nevertheless so puny before God that he will end up in the Lake of Fire prepared for him and his "gods".

 

Hi again Mola...okay, I am motivated. I'll try to lay out how I view "the gods" and why it works for a Catholic.

 

1) There are gods that are as you say false, idols. Clearly you would recognize the distinction between such gods and God. Presumably you accept the necessary distinction between the two kinds of G(g)od which in English is signified by capitalizing the God who created, or at least has authority over, the gods.

 

2) There are gods who are so-called because of the office that has been given unto them to perform God's will:

 

Exodus 22:8

If the thief be not known, the master of the house shall be brought to the gods, and shall swear that he did not lay his hand upon his neighbour' s goods,

 

Exodus 22:9

To do any fraud, either in ox, or in ***, or sheep, or raiment, or any thing that may bring damage: the cause of both parties shall come to the gods: and if they give judgment, he shall restore double to his neighbour.

   

Moses is obviously instructing the children of Israel to go to civil magistrates who have received authority from God to give judgment upon matters of dispute in Israel. It is an awesome responsibility to be given authority from God in this way and so because of this elevated authority above their fellows, it is appropriate that they be referred to as "gods". Nevertheless, if "the gods" are judges among men, they must be counselled themselves that the one, Almighty God "judges among the judges" (gods) in Ps. 81:1.

 

I agree that God judges among a "council of gods" that He providentially appoints, who are obliged whether they recognize it or not to carry out God's will because only through His authority do temporal rulers have any power on earth. It seems to me like this is the view most compatible with the 81st Psalm (you guys number it as 82 by the way). Let's look at the last verses of the Psalm and it shows that the psalmist is not referencing some otherworldly congregation of divinized beings, but people. Verses 2 through 4 talk about these "gods", judges of Israel who are not doing their duty:

 

"How long will you judge unjustly: and accept the persons of the wicked? Judge for the needy and fatherless: do justice to the humble and the poor. Rescue the poor; and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner."

 

The rest of the Psalm give us the solemn assurance that these "gods" only authority comes from God, and if they forget it, He will judge them severely. Although they be His sons, they are men and will die like men. Maybe you hold that in the LDS understanding of the council of gods, that they die like men? The wording allows such a belief. Given the way we are taught from Moses that "the gods" ARE men, and we have to deal with them, I prefer the interpretation that understands them to be arrogantly behaving as though they will not be judged by God for their ill use of His authority. This Psalm is His solemn warning that they had best recall that they will inevitably die. They may be called gods; they may be sons of the Most High. But they are not such "gods" as to escape from death or judgment.  

 

"I have said: You are gods and all of you the sons of the most High. But you like men shall die: and shall fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge thou the earth: for thou shalt inherit among all the nations."

 

Those of you who know me will understand that I am not proposing that the LDS interpretation is incompatible with Scripture. Indeed, if I were approached by someone who said that it was, I would defend your belief from Scripture alone. Scripture alone is never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversies. I am merely saying that like your interpretation, the Catholic understanding is compatible with the words of Scripture. To determine which of many plausible interpretations of Scripture are correct we always have to turn to our respective faith traditions. Obviously, I reject your tradition and you reject mine, but it seems like we could at least agree that when we read Scripture, we can acknowledge that both sides have adequately dealt with any particular passage in a way that is compatible with their own faith traditions.

 

I almost never have any confidence in thinking that there exists in Scripture some "silver bullet" that is fatal to any particular false interpretation. All I would ask, is for you to consider what I have presented, knowing that I do not claim that it proves my point of view. I would never say that. This is not an attempt to refute your beliefs. I don't believe it is possible on the basis of Scripture alone to truly prove anything upon which Christians differ. My sole hope is I think modest enough. I still expect you to believe that the Catholic view is false. But could you maybe be persuaded that our false belief isn't as easily proven false by Scripture alone as you seem to have previously thought? That's it. That's the most I can reasonably hope for at this time. Thanks for your consideration

 

And now I shall leave judgment on how I did to the LDS "gods"! However it goes, may the good God bless and guide all those of good will towards Him and His children. May He give them the earnest desire to be able to walk together in fulness of truth, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, and of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Rory

I sure appreciate the time you took to explain your beliefs and they are reasonable. As I recall though, that you do run into issues when you start making the "gods" judges. As I recall the words that were translated were words that used to connote divinity or the divine on to these gods. 

 

So not only are they real they are divine too. Daniel M, who goes by Maklelan has posted many thoughts on this subject. You might have read some of them before. This is sorta were I was coming from.

 

As always Rory, you are a kind person. Again thanks for your thoughts.