But thanks James I appreciate you being here and bearing with all the things thrown at you, you are on your own here with at times many posts going your way so I do respect and appreciate it!

Perhaps another post about the Lectures on Faith is appropriate. If you choose to do so, please interact with the evidence I’ve provided in the link.

But regarding your points.

(1) Ok, I will say that is convenient in light of my point however I will accept that.

(2) Is there any indication of how they interpreted it?

(3) I would be genuinely interested to know if God the Father having a body is taught anywhere in the Book of Mormon, in the least that would help show that it was not a later creation of Joseph Smiths.

(4) Haha good point I think the Book of Mormon is not too troublesome theologically at all, Mormonism as a whole is a world apart.

(5) I can accept that this point alone does not prove my point as a whole and yes I am coming to it with preconcieved notions, however I do see it as one piece of the puzzle, I also do respectfully accept that you will as a Mormon know more about the book of Mormon than me to say the least, however I still do with what I have quoted and others that I have not see an evolution in the development of Mormon theology from God centered and biblical to man centred and unbiblical, to be fair in recent years I would say there is also a shift back happening too.

(6) Well ok but what you are saying is I would say your take on it as James the individual, some Mormons these days claim the book of Mormon has no authenticity historically and is just a spiritual guide, others may emphasise it theologically, however my point is and has been that the Book of Mormon makes statements that when simply read appear to be in harmony with biblical statements and not with modern day mormonism.

(7) I think the lectures on faith is a very interesting thing to look at as it totally proves my every point so far it clearly says God the Father is a Spirit and it is in Mormon Scripture, and has since been removed, I could not ask for anything clearer. From the article it shows allusions to the teaching up to the point of 1843 and otherwise just says the point I am presenting is flawed, not a massive surprise it says that.

(1) You’ve just claimed that the fulness of God’s nature was not explained in the discussions of Alma 18 and 22, yet you failed to address the fact that those discussions were not reported in full. We don’t know all that Ammon and Aaron taught to those Lamanite kings. We are specifically told that in each case that much much more was taught beyond what is reported in the record.

(2) The Book of Mormon teaches that man is made in God’s image. It really doesn’t matter how *you* interpret that statement. What matters is how ancient Nephites and Lamanites interpreted that passage. And, since you don’t even believe in ancient Nephites and Lamanites, you ought to leave it to a believing Mormon to best determine how an ancient Nephite or Lamanite would have interpreted it. Remember, we are discussing Book of Mormon theology, and it is requisite that we give first priority to those who actually believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

(3) I provided the example of Ammon and Aaron teaching that man is made in God’s image. You then said, “…the fact that this is the only reference you can suggest…”. Well, this is the only reference immediately found in the discussions we are talking about. But there certainly are other places in the Book of Mormon that suggest an embodied God. I didn’t cite those because I didn’t think it was important for our discussion.

(4) You keep suggesting that the Book of Mormon teaches biblical theology as if that is somehow a bad thing for Mormonism. This is utterly wild! Mormons have always claimed that their religion is a biblically sound religion. I’m glad you finally agree!

(5) I want to re-emphasize something. King Lamoni asked Ammon if Ammon was the “Great Spirit”. Ammon was standing in front of King Lamoni and it was clear that Ammon was composed of flesh and bone. Nevertheless, King Lamoni felt no contradiction in concluding that Ammon was a “spirit”. The obvious point is that within the parameters of their discussion a “spirit” is something that has flesh and bone, or at least can have flesh and bone. You are incorrect to assume that “spirit” in this specific discussion has anything to do with how it is understood by modern creedal Trinitarians such as yourself. You have to let go of your preconceived notions about what “spirit” means and try to figure out what it means to the participants in the story. The word “spirit” in this instance clearly has nothing to do with an unembodied, unseen, intangible being. You can’t conclude that Trinitarian theology is being taught here just because they use the word “spirit”. You have got to take into account what the word “spirit” means in their discussion. You have not done that, and it is a mistake.

(6) Once again I’ll remind you that the Book of Mormon has a clear and almost unwavering message. Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God. There is no reason to complain that it doesn’t teach every distinctive doctrine of the LDS gospel. That is like complaining that a history book doesn’t teach arithmetic. A history book isn’t supposed to teach arithmetic. That isn’t its purpose. Likewise, it isn’t the purpose of the Book of Mormon to teach about God the Father’s corporeal nature. It also isn’t the purpose of the Book of Mormon to teach about the nature of heaven. It also isn’t the purpose of the Book of Mormon to teach about any other peripheral subject. The stated purpose of the Book of Mormon is to teach about Jesus Christ, and how a man can be saved. You have to keep that in mind. It isn’t fair to criticize the book for not doing what it isn’t designed to do.

(7) Regarding the Lectures on Faith, I think we are getting a little too far afield. I think you need to educate yourself a bit more about that issue. I recommend this pro-LDS resource: http://en.fairmormon.org/Lecture_5_teaches_the_Father_is_%22a_personage_of_spirit%22
That website also discusses evidence that very early in Joseph Smith’s ministry he understood that God the Father was embodied. D&C 130:22 (in 1843) was definitely not the first time that idea was taught.

As I said I agreed this was a possibility and I could see your logic however only if the terms I stated were met that being that in these conversations the fulness of Gods nature was then explained, if not then your point cannot be valid as the explaination of God was left with saying He is a Spirit in which case I would have to say I see that as what the book of Mormon teaches. From your answer I can see that the Book of Mormon does not at all teach that God has a body of flesh and bones, the reference of us being made in Gods image could certainly be taken another way as indeed it is by bible believing only Christians, the fact that this is the only reference you can suggest given my point is the book of Mormon is more biblical in its theology does not hold any weight for me in that regard.

The Lectures on Faith introduction lists Joseph Smith Jr, Oliver Cowdery, Sindney Rigdon and F.G Williams as its authors, it is unclear who wrote this section however it was allowed to be in a book of Mormon Scripture in a church led by Joseph Smith wrote by someone who felt they had the authority to write on the subject. So while I said if Joseph Smith was a prophet his theology would have developed, this whole issue to me adds a lot of weight to my view that he wasn’t and that his theology was very much biblical to start with and as far as I can tell the belief that God has a body of flesh and bones was introduced by Smith no earlier than 1838 when he then adapted his first vision account to include God the Father appearing like a man, please tell me if it was taught before that but even if it was I would say everything does appear the way I am saying.

I enjoy participating in discussions here. Bobby is a generous host and easy to get along with. I look forward to future interaction with you Phil.

Before I go on to make my comments, I want to say that I’m glad you agree with me that Ammon and Aaron could possibly be building on common ground, and not throwing their full artillery at these Lamanite kings. Remember, in each case the Lamanite king first uses the term “Great Spirit”, and the Nephite missionary (Ammon and/or Aaron) simply pick up on that terminology and use it for the sake of the discussion. They aren’t making theological statements about God’s metaphysical nature. They are just using vocabulary that is familiar to their audience.

(4) You asked if later in Ammon’s or Aaron’s respective conversations with these Lamanite kings they go into more detail about the nature of God. Well, there are a couple of important things about this:

(a) In Alma 18:34 Ammon tells the king that man is created in the image of God. This could be interpreted as basically teaching that since man looks like God, God looks like man. That is how Mormons generally interpret Genesis 1:26-27 also..

(b) In Alma 18:35-40 we are told that Ammon explains to the king all about the gospel. Remember, this is an edited version of the story by an editor living hundreds of years later (the prophet-historian Mormon). Mormon is looking at ancient court records and is directly quoting portions of it, summarizing other portions of it, and leaving out the vast majority of it. We don’t really know all that Ammon taught the Lamanite king, but we are able to assume that he taught him more about God’s nature.

(c) Alma 22 (the account of Aaron) tells almost the exact same story. In verse 12 Aaron tells the Lamanite king that man was created in God’s image. Aaron then goes on to explain the rest of the gospel to him, including how he can be saved and receive eternal life. It is possible to assume that Aaron taught him more about the nature of God.

(d) Having said all of that, it isn’t clear whether or not the Nephites even had a complete understanding of God’s nature. I believe that some of the Nephite prophets may have understood that God is a unity of three persons, just as modern LDS believe, but that belief may have not been very well taught or understand by the vast majority of Nephite Christians. Remember, theirs was a world in which every day was a struggle just to put food in your mouth. Hardly anyone could read, hardly anyone could write, and there was almost no time for leisure, much less theological reflection. It was a very hard world, very alien to our modern world. I find it possible that the Nephites by and large were unaware of God the Father’s corporeality.

(e) Also, I’ll once again point out that the Book of Mormon is just that…a book compiled and edited by a prophet-historian named Mormon. Mormon has a very specific agenda which he makes extremely clear in the Title Page of the Book of Mormon. The message he is trying to pound into our heads is that “Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God” and that there are covenants that God wants to make with us. So The Book of Mormon wasn’t designed to a theological treatise on a broad range of subjects. It has a very specific message, and it only rarely strays from that message. I think that is a perfectly good reason for why we don’t find a lot of distinctive doctrines in the Book of Mormon. That wasn’t Mormon’s point in writing the book, and I’m glad it wasn’t. Just as Joseph Smith taught, the Book of Mormon can bring a man closer to Christ than can any other book. That is exactly what Mormon intended when he wrote it.

(5) You asked the Lectures on Faith and certain statements therein about the nature of God. I’ve read the Lectures on Faith. The basic thing you should know is that they were probably authored by Sidney Rigdon, not Joseph Smith. They were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants, and so there really is no need for me to defend them. Nonetheless, since you and I have already agreed that a prophet receives revelation little by little and doesn’t get the whole picture all at once, I’m not sure there is any reason to get into too much detail on this one. If the case is that Joseph Smith in 1834 (the year the Lectures on Faith were penned) wasn’t totally clear about God’s corporeality, that shouldn’t be surprising since it was early in his prophetic career. He had a decade to live still and many things to learn from the heavens.

1) I’ve come into this debate half way through, all I was merely refering is how helpful in defining terms going to the original languages were. In this debate at this stage, perhaps it is not totally relivent, I was just implying it was helpful, nothing more, in establishing understanding of terms.

2)I’m sorry you feel it was a veiled Jab, sincerely it was not, it was a statement of fact, but done so with the understanding that it’s your church history and neither you, Thomas Monson or I can do nothing about that. I am fully aware that We Christians do not have the original manuscripts of The Bible. (Or at least we can’t confirm 100% we do as we have some fragments written during the times but nothing to say “YES ths is MARK’s Gospel that HE wrote and this is HIS signiture.) We take it on faith, just as you do with the Bible and Book of Mormon. I was just pointing out that it’s only the translation we have to go by and, In the context of establishing TERMS, we can do that with the Bible but we appear to need to look at how the early mormons interpreted the writings to mean. meant no disrespect and I am sorry if it came across as a JAB, you have probably had a lot of people throw that at you. I was trying to say that I appreieciate your position on this matter of faith.

3) I find spiritual witness to ones faith be a fasinating subject. I’d like to go deeper into this in another blog if that is OK?

I hope I’ve not dug myself a deeper hole here but what I was actually trying to do was to say is understand that there are issues with your faith, particularly on Official points (or lack of them as you imply), that I do not respect you or your beliefs and I have an appreiciation on some things having to be taken on “Faith” alone.

You are the member of the Mormon Church, not me. I am very interested to hear what is your perspective on these things and to have an honest opinion that is, as I am sure reading previous posts, backed up by solid grounds for holding to those beliefs, be they “official” or just personal. Thank you for taking the time to be apart of this debate, in what might be for some, appearing as a hostile environment.