Last Sunday we went through a condensed overview of how God has been seen
throughout Judeo-Christian history, with a focus on how our view of God,
within that tradition, has evolved over time. We read from and
discussed the following passages:
1) Genesis 1 and the other
chapters describe God exclusively in terms of being the Creator. Thus,
the earliest records have no real detail about God - certainly not the
kind of detail we now preach. I also told the students that, although I
almost never talk about scientific or political stuff in class, I
believe it is important to realize that there is absolutely nothing in
our scriptural accounts of the creation that would force us to believe
God literally created the earth in six days as we measure days now -
that "days" don't even get mentioned until the third day - that the
Pearl of Great Price talks instead about creative periods (that could
have lasted for millions of years or more each) - that there is
absolutely no reason why we need to fight or reject scientific
discoveries about the age of the earth and insist that it was created in
six thousand years (or, for example, that God put dinosaur bones on
earth as a test to see if we would have faith despite that type of
evidence, as I've heard some evangelical friends claim) - etc. I told
them that putting limits like that on God is silly when our theology
explicitly says God has "all eternity" to accomplish His work. They all
got it, and we moved on
2) Genesis 28 describes Jacob's journey
during which he had a vision of a ladder reaching to heaven, with
angels descending and ascending, and with God talking to him. We read
the verse that relates how surprised Jacob was that God would be in that
place and that God would promise to be with him wherever he went, and
we discussed the traditional view of that time of territorial, warring
Gods (somewhat similar in that regard to the gods of Greek mythology,
but tied to specific locations and peoples).
3) We read in Alma
18 the account of Ammon teaching King Lamoni - with a focus on how
Ammon approached teaching about God and what their view was at the time.
We talked about asking first what others believe and about using their
terminology, whenever appropriate, to highlight similarities and shared
beliefs. We talked about the time frame of the discussion (about 90BC)
and how that would be considered the Old Testament period if it was in
the Bible (although it was in the time of silence between Malachi and
Matthew). Within Mormon theology, that would mean the God they were
discussing was Jehovah (the pre-mortal Jesus), so "the Great Spirit"
would be a perfectly accurate description of their God at that time.
4)
We read the verses in Luke 24 that describe Jesus' post-resurrection
appearance to his apostles and talked about how this was the first time
in our religious heritage that God having a physical, tangible body
enters the picture. We talked about the story of Jesus' walk with the
disciples on the road to Emmaus, and I mentioned the explanation I have
heard from other Christian friends that says Jesus merely took a
physical body temporarily so his disciples could see him - and how that
view doesn't work for me, given how much care Jesus took in Luke 24 to
say he wasn't a spirit and then to prove it to them. I mentioned that
the belief that Heavenly Father has a tangible body is derived from the
account in Luke 24, since Jesus said he was and would be the express
image of his father - meaning that if Jesus' resurrected body was
tangible and capable of eating with his disciples, Heavenly Father's
body must be tangible, as well. There
really isn't any account in all of our scriptures that demonstrates
Heavenly Father having a tangible, physical body without the connection
to Jesus and the resurrection.
5) I then asked the
students when in our modern Mormon history we can point to an event that
showed us Heavenly Father and Jesus have physical bodies, "as tangible
as man's". I was proud of them for not saying the First Vision (and I mentioned specifically that there was nothing physical about that vision).
Instead, they mentioned the Priesthood ordinations by John, the
Baptist, and by Peter, James and John - since a "laying on of hands" was
recorded as part of that process. Again, the inference is that if
Jesus, John (the Baptist), Peter, James and John had physical, tangible
bodies, so must Heavenly Father.
[As an aside, the Priesthood
lesson included a quote from Joseph Fielding Smith about how the Fist
Vision teaches us that God, the Father, and Jesus have physical,
tangible bodies. I didn't challenge that openly, but I did mention it
in a whisper to the man sitting next to me(who is a wonderful scriptural
scholar), and we both kind of shrugged and smiled at that assertion.]
Tomorrow, we will be talking about Jesus and his status as part of the Godhead.
The Scream
1 week ago
4 comments:
I like this progression of teachings. Thanks for sharing.
I forgot to check the email subscribe box
If several prophets have taught that the First Vision proves that Heavenly Father has a body, perhaps they are not the ones in error....
For instance, President Hinckley in 2007: "And so in 1820, in that incomparable vision, the Father and the Son appeared to the boy Joseph. They spoke to him with words that were audible, and he spoke to Them. They could see. They could speak. They could hear. They were personal. They were of substance. They were not imaginary beings. They were beings tabernacled in flesh. And out of that experience has come our unique and true understanding of the nature of Deity."
symphonyofdissent, I understand what prophets have taught, but I also understand retrofitting current understanding onto past events. I believe, deeply and passionately, that Heavenly Father has a physical body, as tangible as man's - but there is nothing in the First Vision that proves that belief. Seriously, it's not there.
Disembodied angelic visions have happened throughout our scriptures, and there was nothing about the First Vision that was objectively different than those visions. The angels "appeared" to people; they "spoke to (them) with words that were audible (to them), and the people who received those visions often "spoke to them"; they "could see"; the "could speak"; they "could hear"; they "were personal"; they appeared to be "of substance"; they "were not imaginary beings".
Again, I believe in the physical resurrection and that Gods have tangible bodies - but there is nothing in the First Visions that "proves" it. The wording I used is important to understand what I mean.
Post a Comment