Does God have a physical body? (poll)

[Shawn Henry]

the pinnacle of a state of being

Being tied down to a single state is never the pinnacle, unless that single state is a compilation of every other known state. For example, if you could pick an outfit out of your closet and that one outfit could instantly morph into any of your outfits, then it would be the pinnacle. Even your best outfit would not suit you when worn continually.

So in your mind, there's never perfection?

Yeah, the top of the ladder, not the middle.

I just described perfection in my example, one outfit that can instantly morph into any of your previous outfits. Perhaps not the best example, but it works.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Being tied down to a single state is never the pinnacle, unless that single state is a compilation of every other known state. For example, if you could pick an outfit out of your closet and that one outfit could instantly morph into any of your outfits, then it would be the pinnacle. Even your best outfit would not suit you when worn continually.

So in your mind, there's never perfection?

Yeah, the top of the ladder, not the middle.

I just described perfection in my example, one outfit that can instantly morph into any of your previous outfits. Perhaps not the best example, but it works.

Ok... well, we disagree. I'm glad we could put that one to bed.

[Shawn Henry]

I think you'll have to deal with all of the BoM verses that I quoted earlier about the resurrection.

We all believe in the resurrection. I'm not sure why you quote resurrection verses.

Per your understanding, what is the resurrection?

The description in Alma.

Perhaps you should cut to the chase and describe what you think I and Telavian are misunderstanding. Is it the permanency that Alma's description conveys?

[Shawn Henry]

A perfected body is not a truck. You still have to wrestle with the BoM teaching that spirit and body are united.

Of course, they are united, but why do you think it is something permanently forced upon you as if agency is no longer in play. What about the next iteration of the plan of salvation, all those souls who didn't get a small part of all the experiences they wanted. Is a loving Father going to say, sorry, you only get to go once. Try designing a school that only has one grade, nobody moves upward.

[Reluctant Watchman]

We all believe in the resurrection. I'm not sure why you quote resurrection verses.

Per your understanding, what is the resurrection?

The description in Alma.

Perhaps you should cut to the chase and describe what you think I and Telavian are misunderstanding. Is it the permanency that Alma's description conveys?

I honestly think we've said all that needs to be said. We've all had a chance to share our opinions. I disagree on a variety of levels. It is what it is.

TBH, a lot of this discussion has spiraled down a path that I am just going to have to let go of. Call me ignorant or whatever, but time in this life is finite. You and I could debate this endlessly.

[Shawn Henry]

Are the scriptures ever wrong?

When man is involved, of course. Many books of the Bible won't make the cut when the second edition comes out.

What I don't think is ever wrong is the words in scripture that are exact quotes from the Savior and we have his exact words that he is the Father who is in the Godhead.

So anytime a person claims to speak for the Lord we can place our complete trust in those words. Ok.

First, you claim sculptures are written by man... and then you say that those same writings, when supposedly spoken by Christ, are perfect and without error. See the fallacy there?

I didn't say whenever someone claims it. Scripture has its own criteria for what is scripture. God provides witnesses and we have confirmation from the spirit. You already know this. There's no doubt that the words of Christ in the BoM are his.

[Shawn Henry]

RW, this Mosiah verse alone refutes your title premise. He says here that he is not only the Father, but that he is the Father who is in the Godhead.

No, it refutes nothing. I don't know how many times I have to state my opinion that God and Father are titles. You believe differently, I'm glad we could express our differences of opinion. I believe we can move on now.

Verse 3 is just a mess all around if you want to believe our Creator is the same as Jesus.

It absolutely refutes it. He says that he is both the Father and the Son and that they are the Father and the Son who are "one God". He links both titles to the Godhead. He is claiming them both.

[Shawn Henry]

Per your understanding, what is the resurrection?

The description in Alma.

Perhaps you should cut to the chase and describe what you think I and Telavian are misunderstanding. Is it the permanency that Alma's description conveys?

I honestly think we've said all that needs to be said. We've all had a chance to share our opinions. I disagree on a variety of levels. It is what it is.

TBH, a lot of this discussion has spiraled down a path that I am just going to have to let go of. Call me ignorant or whatever, but time in this life is finite. You and I could debate this endlessly.

Of course, it could go on endlessly when I ask you to clarify if you think Telavian and I are misunderstanding a specific point and you don't answer. How could we possibly move forward if you refuse to articulate where we differ and what you are referring to. If we can't sit down and discuss what is and is not permanent about the resurrection, what is the point. Some read Alma and see that we all will look exactly like we do now for all eternity, as if ugly people have an ugly appearance forced upon them forever. These are the things that are beneficial to think about.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I have a different perspective on what constitutes the Godhead, who They are, and what a perfected resurrected body is. I've repeated my viewpoints several times. I think that's sufficient. At some point, I have to stop responding.

[Telavian]

You add limitations to perfection because you don't understand perfection. Neither do I. This is clear because you are equating a perfected Celestial Body with a truck.

You are ignoring the analogy because it doesn't align with your belief system. Then dismissing it entirely and acting like this is a logical victory. Frankly I have been on the verge now of deleting my FF account because of things like this. It seems rather pointless to even begin discussing things.

If God has a body then he has to be stuck with that body and whatever limitations of that body. If there are no limitations then what is the purpose of the body? If he can appear in one form today, then another form tomorrow then what is the purpose of calling any form as his own?

The concept that God has organs and they are essential to his functioning is absolutely absurd to me. If I cover God's physical eyes then can he no longer see? If he can see still, then what in the world is the purpose for his eyes and why would he even want them?

Please think for a second at what you are saying. To me it sees like madness exhibiting itself.

[Reluctant Watchman]

You add limitations to perfection because you don't understand perfection. Neither do I. This is clear because you are equating a perfected Celestial Body with a truck.

You are ignoring the analogy because it doesn't align with your belief system. Then dismissing it entirely and acting like this is a logical victory. Frankly I have been on the verge now of deleting my FF account because of things like this. It seems rather pointless to even begin discussing things.

If God has a body then he has to be stuck with that body and whatever limitations of that body. If there are no limitations then what is the purpose of the body? If he can appear in one form today, then another form tomorrow then what is the purpose of calling any form as his own?

The concept that God has organs and they are essential to his functioning is absolutely absurd to me. If I cover God's physical eyes then can he no longer see? If he can see still, then what in the world is the purpose for his eyes and why would he even want them?

Please think for a second at what you are saying. To me it sees like madness exhibiting itself.

You do know that you don't have to read any of my comments or any of my threads, right?

A perfected body does not have limitations. That's my point. Do I know what that looks or appears like? No.

I made clear my point that in the Nemenhah Records God makes a distinction between earthy matter (organs) and Celestial. What that is I do not know.

All I see if a bunch of us disagreeing on certain points. That's great. Don't get all in a huff about it. Take a little time out. We can disagree and move on. Am I the best person at articulating an opinion? Probably not. We each have our own paradigms that we draw from in order to inform our perspectives. That should be celebrated.

I don't see a physical celestial body limiting God in any way. What I do see is perfect order on display.

[Rubicon]

The concept that God has organs and they are essential to his functioning is absolutely absurd to me. If I cover God's physical eyes then can he no longer see? If he can see still, then what in the world is the purpose for his eyes and why would he even want them?

What if organs aren't essential to his functioning? Is it still unthinkable that God would have them? Because to you, with your limited understanding here, there appears to be no purpose?

It seems like what you and others are advocating for is God as eternal consciousness decoupled from anything physical (because anything physical would limit God in some way, right?), akin to Multivac in Isaac Asimov's short story "The Last Question."

https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html

This seems to be just a retread of the gnostics and Platonists --- physical = bad; "ineffable essence" = good.

As an Exalted Man, what's wrong with God keeping His glorified, resurrected body --- especially if that doesn't limit Him?

[Telavian]

What if organs aren't essential to his functioning? Is it still unthinkable that God would have them? Because to you, with your limited understanding here, there appears to be no purpose?

It seems like what you and others are advocating for is God as eternal consciousness decoupled from anything physical (because anything physical would limit God in some way, right?), akin to Multivac in Isaac Asimov's short story "The Last Question."

https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html

This seems to be just a retread of the gnostics and Platonists --- physical = bad; "ineffable essence" = good.

As an Exalted Man, what's wrong with God keeping His glorified, resurrected body --- especially if that doesn't limit Him?

I love that story.

The main issue is that a 3d body like ours makes absolutely no sense in a higher dimensional space. God is outside of time and space yet he still has a 3d form? If he doesn't then what is the point of saying that he does?

When he is in a 3d world then of course he "has a body" when he is not then he has a whatever of that realm.

This would be logically the same as if you were appearing to someone in flatland. You would have a 2d form that represented yourself. However, when not in flatland then you are whatever makes sense for where you are.
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/20 ... mages.html

[Rubicon]

I love that story.

The main issue is that a 3d body like ours makes absolutely no sense in a higher dimensional space. God is outside of time and space

[citation needed]

yet he still has a 3d form? If he doesn't then what is the point of saying that he does?

When he is in a 3d world then of course he "has a body" when he is not then he has a whatever of that realm.

This would be logically the same as if you were appearing to someone in flatland. You would have a 2d form that represented yourself. However, when not in flatland then you are whatever makes sense for where you are.
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/20 ... mages.html

I personally believe that resurrected beings have access to and can perceive higher dimensions. Our world appears to us to have 3 spatial dimensions (LHW) and one time dimension, but mathematically, the universe only works in 10 or 26 dimensions (according to string theory).

As you (and string theorists, who unapologetically accept the "anthropic principle" --- coming dangerously close to the necessity of God) point out, higher-dimensional beings appear to have god-like powers when interacting with lower-dimensional beings. Using your Flatland example, a 3D being can imprison a Flatlander simply by drawing a circle around him. A 3D being can escape any prison prepared by a Flatlander simply by going "up" into the 3rd dimension (interesting when considering how we wrestle with Jesus appearing to go through walls). We can't even imagine what a 4D object looks like (hypercube, hypersphere, etc.), but what about dimensions past 10?

My own personal view is that the Gods do have physical bodies, but like you point out, these don't limit them because there are far more than the three dimensions that appear to exist in the universe.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Speaking of dimensions, it would also suggest that the spirit can and does exist in a plethora of dimensions. Nephi himself was carried upon a mountain, whilst his body remained still very much alive. (ie. "spirit splitting" is a thing)

[Telavian]

[citation needed]

Citation needed for what exactly?

[Rubicon]

[citation needed]

Citation needed for what exactly?

That God is outside of space and time.

It was a joke. It's your opinion, but not an inarguable fact

[Alexander]

I believe there has to be some distinction between spirit and body. What that means exactly… I do not know what a perfected physical body is, but it is different than our spirit.

You don’t believe there’s a spirit body?

Yes, I do believe there's a spirit body, but there's a distinction somewhere between spirit and physicality. I know we could say that all spirit is matter and that physical matter is simply a different degree of spirit... but I believe there's a reason Christ was resurrected and it has to do with the difference between the two.

wdym by "physicality" though? Are you speaking of the temporal dust/element of the earth; of this temporal realm? Or are you saying the spirit body lacks proportion, tangibility, and sensibility? Does the spirit body not have form and image, dimension, and the ability to be touched and handled?

[Alexander]

So a shape shifter God like they tried to define in the Nicene Creed?

The Book of Mormon may teach something similar to some extent.

Mosiah 13
34 Have they not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth?

1 Nephi 11
16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.
21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even (the Son of)* the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?
* added in 1837

Did he have a body before he came down? (Meaning, in heaven was he physical?) He hadn’t been resurrected at the time. Neither had/have we.

Christ's pre-incarnate body was resurrected and glorified. He set aside his glory when he condescended.

[Alexander]

.

[TheDuke]

Beautiful post my friend! Your best ever!

Mosiah 15
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand
that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son,
because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

RW, this Mosiah verse alone refutes your title premise. He says here that he is not only the Father, but that he is the Father who is in the Godhead.

ok, that is exactly how Mosiah saw things. But Mosiah was during the Law of Moses. He was before the atonement and life of Jesus. He did not have the fullness. He knew nothing of pre-mortality of man. He only knew of heaven and hell. The BoM like the bible is built up line upon line as knowledge was revealed (I know occasionally lost and rerevealed but point stands).

To be stuck on pre-Jesus teachings is just saying that the heavens are closed and there is no new revelation. And while you read it pedantically it is really saying what Joseph says and it is true. But you need to study it out. Jesus was the first born........... then the son, i.e. only begotten in the flesh.......... after the atonement he becomes the father (title)and Jehovah (title). Not sure why this is complicated? Taking one verse from Mosiah and refuting what Nephi wrote in his vision and what Jesus says in his own life and in 3 Ne?

We have been around this before. I'm actually sorry to pipe in as I know you are not open to deeper understanding but I do feel that after all the crap I've given RW, when he is right, I need to chime in and support him.

[farmerchick]

Rw is right in my opinion and I'll step in and support him...lol....there seems to be alot of diverse and strange ideas on this thread.......rw is prolly sorry he brought this topic up.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Rw is right in my opinion and I'll step in and support him...lol....there seems to be alot of diverse and strange ideas on this thread.......rw is prolly sorry he brought this topic up.

LOL, thx for the feedback.

I’m not sorry at all. I’m actually really quite interested to see the various opinions. It has been really fascinating to see the various viewpoint of people who are in and out of the church. It has also been very surprising to find how many people who step away from the church espouse the idea that the Godhead is anything but what Joseph wrote in the AoF, three distinct Beings; the Father and Son being different in some way than the Holy Ghost.

I also find it fascinating how a simple question about the nature of God brings up all sorts of questions from a scripture and doctrinal standpoint. While I guess I could vacillate one whether this point of God having a body or not even matters, I believe that it does. Some people believe that physical, tangible matter, when perfected, would limit God. After listening to hundreds of NDEs, the last thing I would believe is that anything is impossible to God.

[Reluctant Watchman]

The Book of Mormon may teach something similar to some extent.

Mosiah 13
34 Have they not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth?

1 Nephi 11
16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.
21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even (the Son of)* the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?
* added in 1837

Did he have a body before he came down? (Meaning, in heaven was he physical?) He hadn’t been resurrected at the time. Neither had/have we.

Christ's pre-incarnate body was resurrected and glorified. He set aside his glory when he condescended.

I’ve never heard anywhere that Christ had a body in heaven before He entered mortality. How (or where) have you formed this belief? “Glory” doesn’t need to be a physical body. In my mind, “glory” is collective experience of Christ emerging from grace to grace.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Well… this is interesting. Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:305

God An Exalted Man
I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.