Latter-day Saint theology on God the Father differs from “mainstream” (read: Trinitarian) theology on a number of issues, including the belief that the Father has a body as does the son. Those who hold to the Council of Chalcedon will affirm that Christ remains embodied in His glorified, immortalised body for ever, but that the Father is “only” a spirit. However, LDS theology, since the time of Joseph Smith, doesn’t hold to this. As it is written in D&C 130:22 (from 1843):
There have been a number of texts LDS have cited in favour of this doctrine, such as Gen 1:26-27 and the meaning of the Hebrew terms צֶלֶם “image” and דְּמוּת “likeness.”
One New Testament text that has been cited by LDS apologists and scholars to support this doctrine is Heb 1:3, which reads as follows (square brackets my own):
LDS tend to read the phrase, “express image” (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως) as evidence that, if the Son has a glorified body, and he is the “express image” of the Father, it logically follows that the Father is embodied.
A careful, succinct exegesis of this text from the Greek was presented by D. Charles Pyle in his FAIR Conference paper from 1999, "I have said, 'ye are gods': Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament Text":
Not only does this text support LDS theology with respect to the Father having a glorified body, but also the ontological (not just functional) subordination of the Son to the Father, as the Son is not divine of himself, but due to participation with the Father. This is part-and-parcel of New Testament Christology, especially of Hebrews and Paul (e.g. Heb 1:4 and Phil 2:5-11 which speak of Christ being glorified with glory he had not yet possessed, either in pre-mortality or in mortality, and being given a “name” after his exaltation, themes and concepts not conducive to Trinitarian Christologies, but conducive to LDS Christology [cf. D&C 93:16-17]).
The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also . . .
There have been a number of texts LDS have cited in favour of this doctrine, such as Gen 1:26-27 and the meaning of the Hebrew terms צֶלֶם “image” and דְּמוּת “likeness.”
One New Testament text that has been cited by LDS apologists and scholars to support this doctrine is Heb 1:3, which reads as follows (square brackets my own):
Who [Christ] being in the brightness of [the Father’s] glory, and the express image of [the father’s] person, and upholding things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.
LDS tend to read the phrase, “express image” (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως) as evidence that, if the Son has a glorified body, and he is the “express image” of the Father, it logically follows that the Father is embodied.
A careful, succinct exegesis of this text from the Greek was presented by D. Charles Pyle in his FAIR Conference paper from 1999, "I have said, 'ye are gods': Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament Text":
There is also scripture that can used to potentially support the idea that God could have a physical body. One of these is Hebrews 1:3. Christ could only be the exact representation of the Father if the Father himself possessed a body of some sort. In fact, some who wish to avoid what I feel is the plain meaning of Hebrews 1:3 actually go so far as to separate the natures of Christ or declare that the passage could not possibly infer that the Father is embodied.
Those who criticize this meaning thus, however, do not take into account the fact that there is not one portion of the passage that differentiates between the divine or human nature of Jesus. Secondly, the particle ων on indicates being, i.e., thepresent state of existence of Jesus from the perspective of the author of Hebrews. It has absolutely nothing to do with only Jesus’ previous state or of only a portion of his supposed dual nature. It only speaks of his total existence as a person.
Further, many grammarians have severely misunderstood the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma (English: [active] effulgence or radiance; [middle, passive] reflection) in this passage to have the active sense. The Greek και kai (English: and) is here a coordinating conjunction which combines the first and second parts (the second part being of a passive character) of a parallel couplet. Due to this fact, as much as the Evangelicals wish doggedly to hold to their interpretation, the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma should be understood as having a passive sense.
Why? Because the second portion of the couplet indicates that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature, not that he is synonymous with that nature. Since this passage is a couplet, with the second portion being passive in nature, the first portion must be understood as having a passive sense as well. Thus, Jesus is properly to be seen as he “who is the reflection of the glory (of God) and the exact representation of the substantial nature of him (i.e., the Father).”
In short, the glory of God reflects from Jesus rather than having Jesus as its source, according to the theology of the author of Hebrews. Thusly, Jesus exactly represents God as he exists in all aspects of Jesus’ existence. The passage does not allow differentiation of Jesus’ divine and human natures in relation to God. Quite the opposite is in view here, although I doubt that Evangelicals will wish to agree with my assessment of the passage. Nevertheless, if it is true that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature in all aspects, the Father must have possession of a physical body. Otherwise, Jesus is not and could not be the exact representation of the Father, for the two would differ. This fact is further strengthened by another pertinent fact: the Father is never said to be bodiless in any place within the text of the Bible. That was for a later generation to develop.
Not only does this text support LDS theology with respect to the Father having a glorified body, but also the ontological (not just functional) subordination of the Son to the Father, as the Son is not divine of himself, but due to participation with the Father. This is part-and-parcel of New Testament Christology, especially of Hebrews and Paul (e.g. Heb 1:4 and Phil 2:5-11 which speak of Christ being glorified with glory he had not yet possessed, either in pre-mortality or in mortality, and being given a “name” after his exaltation, themes and concepts not conducive to Trinitarian Christologies, but conducive to LDS Christology [cf. D&C 93:16-17]).
