Tower To Truth Question:

13. If God is an exalted man with a body of flesh and bones, why does Alma 18:26-28 and John 4:24 say that God is a spirit?

————————-

FAIR Answer:

In Alma, the reference is to Jesus Christ, who before His birth did not have a physical body.

John 4:24 does not say God is “a” spirit, but says “God is spirit.” There is no “a” in the Greek. The Bible also says “God is truth” or “God is light.” Those things are true, but we don’t presume God is JUST truth, or JUST light—or JUST spirit.

As one non-LDS commentary puts it:

That God is spirit is not meant as a definition of God’s being—though this is how the Stoics [a branch of Greek philosophy] would have understood it. It is a metaphor of his mode of operation, as life-giving power, and it is no more to be taken literally than 1John 1:5, “God is light,” or Deut. 4:24, “Your God is a devouring fire.” It is only those who have received this power through Christ who can offer God a real worship.

– J. N. Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, edited and completed by B. A. Mastin, (New York, Harper & Row, 1968), 147–148.

To learn more: God is a Spirit

——————–

My Response:

FAIR needs to do some better work on their biblical scholarship. They have shown, in this response, that they have not studied the Greek of John 4:24. Let us look at the Greek of this verse:

πνευμα ό θεος

pneuma ho Theos

This sentence, πνευμα ό θεος (pneuma ho Theos), “God is spirit,” is constructed in a way similar to the last part of John 1:1, when John writes θεος ην ό λογος (Theos hn ho logos), “the Word was God.”

πνευμα ό θεος–“God is spirit”
θεος ην ό λογος–“the Word was God”

The word πνευμα (pneuma) is in the nominative case. However, this is actually the predicate of the sentence. And since there is no definite article it should be read “spirit.” Now, let’s look at ό θεος (ho Theos). The definite article ό is attached to θεος. This literally means “the God.” So what we get is “The God is spirit.” Or, in English, “God is spirit.”

So what is Jesus trying to tell us in this statement? Is He simply declaring the form and essence of the Father? Basically what He was saying was that all those who worshipped some kind of visible idol, or looked to some thing or some place or some person as their object of worship had missed it by an eternity. God (the Father) is everywhere. As the Psalmist said, Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, Even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me (Psalm 139:7-10). If God is not a spirit, why does the Psalmist say, “Where can I go from Your Spirit…If I ascend into heaven, You are there? Now, before anyone says, “Well, what about ‘Your hand shall lead me?‘” Many times the Hebrew of the Old Testament used different parts of the body to symbolize different things. The arm symbolized power, the head symbolized rule, the feet symbolized actions. Here, “Your hand” symbolizes power. And as far as “Your right hand“–if God had a body, could His “right hand” (if we think of “right hand” in strictly human terms) hold all those who call for Him at the same time? Are we to believe that at any given time only one person is ever needing God to uphold and strengthen them? Absolutely not! God is everywhere, at all times, since He is not limited by a body of flesh and bone.

Now, what about FAIR’s assertion that “The Bible also says “God is truth” or “God is light.” Those things are true, but we don’t presume God is JUST truth, or JUST light—or JUST spirit“? Frankly, I really don’t see what they’re getting at. God is all those things. He is also a strong tower, a refuge, a shield, a buckler, a rock, a defender…

Well, we can see in other places that God the Father does not have a physical body. Colossians 1:15—And He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God. If God has a tangible, touchable body of flesh and bone, how can Paul declare Him to be “invisible?” We also must consider Hebrews 1:3–[Jesus] being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power… The word “person” is not the best way to render ύποστάσεως (hupostaseos). “Essence” is closer to the actual meaning, a fact which dampens the LDS argument that Jesus being the “image of His person” refers to the Father having a corporeal body.

Of course, saying that God has a body presents other problems as well. In the Old Testament, it is written many times that God “dwells between the cherubim” (1st Samuel 4:4; 2nd Samuel 6:2; 2nd Kings 19:15; 1st Chronicles 13:6; Psalm 80:1; Isaiah 37:16). So, if the Father has a body, and dwells on his home planet near Kolob (No, He does not live ON Kolob. Kolob is the nearest start to where God the Father dwells. Or so they say), and He is confined to a body, how can He “dwell between the cherubim”–a reference to His dwelling between the angels atop the Ark of the Covenant?

If you click on FAIR’s link that says, “God is spirit,” you will find this gem:

Deut. 4:28 says that our God can see, eat and smell.

WRONG!! Deuteronomy 4:28 says And there you will serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell. [Emphasis mine] All this says is that the “gods” which men make cannot hear or eat or smell. And a link at that link tries to use the fact that God told Moses He would hide him in the rock and cover it with His hand. So, did He have to leave wherever He was to do it? And if God’s body is like our body, it must be pretty big for Him to cover a cleft with His hand.

There is much overwhelming evidence that God the Father does NOT have a body, that He is spirit, and that Christ is the only member of the Trinity to have ever taken on human flesh.

Tower To Truth Question:

10. If the words “familiar spirit” in Is. 29:4 refer to the Book of Mormon, why does “familiar spirit” always refer to occult practices such as channeling and necromancy everywhere else in the Old Testament?

—————————-

FAIR Answer:

The term “familiar spirit,” quoted in the often-poetic Isaiah (and used by Nephi to prophesy about the modern publication of the Book of Mormon) is a metaphor, not a description of any text or its origin.

To learn more: Book of Mormon as a “familiar spirit”

—————————–

My Response:

I believe the question from Tower To Truth, while understandable, is not quite accurate. And I say this with all due respect to the ministry of Tower To Truth, to the work they do, and in all humility. I do not say this to defend the existence of FAIR. But I do want to be honest with every answer I give, since an incorrect answer can lead to an indefensible position. I think the question stems from a slight misreading of the BOM text. I would have to agree with FAIR on this one, that the Isaiah passage (reiterated in 2nd Nephi) does say “as one with a familiar spirit” and is not saying the BOM “is a familiar spirit.” In fact, in Genesis, God tells Cain that his brother’s blood “cries out to Me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10).

That said, however, FAIR stands to be corrected. For one thing, at the link that says “Book of Mormon as a ‘familiar spirit'” they have this to say:

The Book of Mormon verse also emphasizes that the power to translate the Book of Mormon comes from God, not from channeling or necromancy: “the Lord God will give unto him [the translator] power.” But, the critics do not mention this inconvenient fact.

Actually, the “power to translate” the BOM was no gift at all–it was simply Joseph Smith sticking a rock in a hat and telling his scribe what to write. And if this “gift of translation” came from God, then somebody got their wires crossed, because in less than 7 years, editors had to clean up almost 4000 errors Joseph made in “translating” the BOM (poor grammar, misspellings, and make changes according to doctrine).

Second, FAIR states:

Critics also ignore that the Book of Mormon also speaks negatively about appealing to actual “familiar spirits”

Now, this is where FAIR kinda runs into a pickle. They say that, in essence, the BOM condemns speaking with the dead.

Hmmmmmmm.

That’s interesting.

I mean, what with all that “baptizing for the dead” stuff. Then there’s the matter of how Joesph obtained the “Keys to the Priesthood.” Wilford Woodruff said:

John the Baptist conferred upon him the Aaronic Priesthood; Peter, James and John, the Apostleship and Melchisedek Priesthood; and all the Prophets who held any keys and powers belonging to the Gospel, these also visited Joseph Smith and conferred upon him those keys and powers and authority to administer them on the earth.

Ok, either these men were, like, really, really old, or they were really, really dead. Well, we know they were dead. So, this means that Joseph was communicating with the dead. Some people call that praying to the saints or veneration. God calls it necromancy.

Tower To Truth Question:

9. Can you show me archeological and historical proof from non-Mormon sources that prove that the peoples and places named in the Book of Mormon are true?

—————————–

FAIR Answer:

This question is based on the mistaken assumption that the Bible message that Jesus is Christ and Lord is somehow “proved” by archeology, which is not true. It also ignores differences between Old and New World archeology. For example, since we don’t know how to pronounce the names of ANY Nephite-era city in the American archeological record, how would we know if we had found a Nephite city or not?

To learn more: Archeology and the Bible

For physical Book of Mormon evidence specifically, see:

Old World geography

Warfare

————————-

My Response:

Another smokescreen. Of course the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord is not proven by archeology. But by the same token, we are not to rely solely on a “burning in the bosom” (D&C 9:8), or “I just feel Him in my heart.” The Holy Spirit led Peter to admonish us to Always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is in you (1st Peter 3:15). In other words, if someone asks you why you believe what you believe, be ready to tell them why, don’t just rely on your feelings. Peter says to “give a defense.” And doesn’t the Psalmist say that The heavens declare the glory of God? (Psalm 19:1) What all this means is that God has given us a universe of evidence that we can point to and say, “This is why I believe,” then tell them why.

That said, let’s look at the evidence–or lack thereof–for the events chronicled in the Book of Mormon. This is a tricky matter, because determining the location of the great and final battle supposedly written about in Mormon 6 has been a sore spot for the LDS church over the years. For many years following the publication of the BOM, the LDS church assumed that the Hill Cumorah where Joseph Smith “found the golden plates” was the same Cumorah where the final battle in Mormon 6 took place. However, they later found that they could not match the geography of Mormon 6 to the Finger Lakes region of upstate New York. No evidence anywhere. Plus, there was no physical evidence that said any major battle–let alone a battle involving over 200,000 soldiers–took place in upstate New York. So, out the window went that theory.

Later, they decided that, well, maybe it happened in Central America. New problem (actually, another example of a problem with the first theory). There has never been even one shred of evidence that the people of Central America used horses, ox, cattle, chariots, brass, gold, iron, or any kind of metal in their weapons at the time these events supposedly took place. (Google tapirs + Mormon and see what you come up with.)

Which is why they have had to take their current stance: We cannot determine where the “New World” events in the Book of Mormon took place, so we’ll just say it doesn’t matter, that it’s not important. Well, it IS important. If the Bible says that Abraham traveled east from Jerusalem and wound up in Scotland, what would that say about the credibility of the Bible? It would go out the window. So accuracy in science, geography, etc is important in establishing the credibility of a book claiming to come from God. After all, if God didn’t know where Zarahemla was, He wouldn’t be all-knowing, would He?

See, one of the sticking points for skeptics of the Bible over the years was the supposed lack of archeological evidence. Many years ago it was that Belshazzar was never a king in Babylon. However, more recent discoveries have been unearthed which tell of a co-regent in Babylon named Belshazzar. See, archeology bolsters the credibility of the Bible. It would do the same for the BOM.

Now, consider this: The LDS church says that we are to simply believe that BOM is true, that everything that happened in it is true. Yet if the geography and archeology do not match up with facts, then one could rightly question other things the book claims (see the “Earth resting on an elephant” example above). Now, I will give them this: Some of the “Old World” places mentioned in the BOM are close to actual names. But anyone could have found these places by looking at a map and giving even a cursory reading to an atlas of the Arabian Peninsula, even in Joseph Smith’s day.

So why didn’t he do the same thing when writing about the “New World?” Well, it’s one thing to claim that a family travelled from this city to that city, etc. But to claim that a huge battle involving 200,000+ men outfitted with brass shields and metal weapons and thousand of horses took place in a location that could be easily excavated and found to have no evidence backing up the claim? Not such a good idea. So he had to come up with some imaginary names so nobody would be able to examine the claims.

Tower To Truth Question:

8. Can you show me in the Bible the LDS teaching that we must all stand before Joseph Smith on the Day of Judgment?

—————————

FAIR Answer:

This is a misunderstanding and caricature of LDS doctrine. There is, however, the Biblical doctrine that the apostles will help judge Israel:

Ye [the apostles] are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:28-30; see also Matt. 19:28)

Since the saints believe in modern apostles, they believe that those modern apostles (including Joseph) will have a role in judgment appointed to them by Jesus. Those who condemn Joseph on these grounds must also condemn Peter and the rest of the Twelve.

Learn more here: Joseph Smith’s status in LDS belief

———————

My Response:

If you click the link that says, “Joseph Smith’s status in LDS belief” it will take you to a page where they make a valiant effort at damage and spin control by saying,

Clearly, Joseph’s role is to function under the “direction…of the Son of God,” and the primary goal is the salvation of all who will accept any degree of Christ and Joseph’s witness of Him.

Interestingly, they then quote Brigham Young saying that if we do not believe Joseph Smith, that we are not of God:

I have taught for thirty years, and still teach, that he that believeth in his heart and confesseth with his mouth that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith is his Prophet to this generation, is of God; and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fulness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is antichrist.

Did you catch that? You must believe both prongs of this forked-tongue system. You must believe Jesus is the Christ and that He has come in the flesh, ***AND*** that Joseph Smith is His prophet with the fullness of the Gospel. If you don’t believe both of these prongs, you are not of God and you are Antichrist. This is not coming from some “bigoted, anti-Mormon” site. This is from a pro-LDS apologetics source.

The Scripture they try and use to back up this claim of Joseph Smith sitting on a throne and judging is Luke 22:28-30—“But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials. And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” and Matthew 19:28—So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” However, we need to do some proper exegesis of these passages, because they could have also used 1st Corinthians 6:1-4, but we won’t get into that passage right now. Let’s look at what our Lord was saying.

In Matthew 19:28, we need to be careful not to assume that when Jesus speaks of the “regeneration” that He is talking about the final resurrection–whether the Bema of Christ, or the Great White Throne–because this is not what He is referring to. The word Jesus uses here is παλιγγενεσια (paliggenesia), not αναστασις (anastasis). The word παλιγγενεσια literally means “second nativity.” You might say that παλιγγενεσια means “Second Advent.” I believe this means Christ’s 1000 year reign on earth. Revelation 20:4—And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. I believe these twelve thrones will be filled by the 11 faithful apostles and Matthias. Notice Jesus says there will be TWELVE thrones. If Joseph was to be included in this circle of judgment, wouldn’t Jesus have said there would be THIRTEEN thrones? But I guess that’s one of those places where “careless transcribers” removed one of those truths that was “plain and most precious.”

Also, we need to remember this: To whom did the Father entrust ALL judgment? To the Son? Or to the Son and an occultist a money-digger a glass-looker Joseph Smith? John 5:22-23—22 “For the Father judges no one, but has committed ALL judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” Help me out here. Is there any mention of honoring prophets? Is there any mention of Joseph Smith? Is there any mention of accepting the “witness” and “testimony” of Joseph Smith? Does Jesus say all judgment has been given to Him and Joseph Smith? No. ALL judgment has been given to Our Lord–Jesus Christ.

Besides, if you’ve read the last two “answers” about Joseph and his “First Vision” and how that was a fraud, then the fact that he is a fraud excludes him from sitting on any throne and judging anybody.