In a section
entitled “Is God the Father a Personage of ‘Spirit’?” Protestant apologist
Christina Darlington attempted to use Alma 31:15 against LDS theology. In an
attempt to defend the propriety of the verse against “Mormonism,” she wrote in
a footnote:
Mormons sometimes argue that because the
context of this Book of Mormon Scripture
at Alma 31 speaks of the false doctrines of the Zoramites who denied Christ
(verse 16) and required their people to pray rote prayers (verses 19-20), they
assume that this statement regarding God being “a spirit forever” at verse 15
was also another false doctrine of the Zoramites. Yet, if this doctrine was condemned
as a false belief, why is there no mention in the text of the true prophet Alma
and his brethren being grieved over this and trying to correct it when they grieved
over the false beliefs noted at verse 24-29? Instead we see that not only is
the belief that God is a “spirit” affirmed at Alma 31:15, but it is affirmed
elsewhere in the Book of Mormon at
Alma 18:24-28 and Alma 22:9-11. Thus, we maintain that Alma 31:15 is not taken
out of context, not misrepresentative of the overall teachings of the Book of Mormon in regard to God’s Spirit nature. (Christina
R. Darlington, Misguided by Mormonism But
Redeemed by God’s Grace: Leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints for Biblical Christianity [2d ed.; 2019], 9-10 n. 3)
Darlington
makes a number of mistakes. Firstly, she is arguing from silence: the fact that
the Book of Mormon (which is an abridgement [cf. Helaman 3:14; 3
Nephi 5:8; 26:6; Ether 15:33, for e.g.) does not explicitly discuss this part
of the Zoramites’ prayer, so from the get-go, her entire argument is based on a
common logical fallacy. Indeed, if Darlington were to be consistent (heaven forbid for an Evangelical anti-Mormon to be
such!), she would have to argue that the author of the Gospel of John did not believe in the virginal conception and
birth of Jesus. How so? Well, in John 8:41, Jesus is accused of having been
born εκ πορνειας ("from fornication/sexual immorality"; cf. John 6:42 where the Jewish opponents state that they know who Jesus' [biological, per the context] father is [i.e., Joseph]). And yet,
nowhere in the Johannine corpus, let alone the Gospel is John, is there (1) an
explicit refutation thereof and (2) any hint at the virginal conception. Using
Darlington's "logic," John did not believe in the virginal
conception.
Secondly, “spirit”
to the ancients was not immaterial, but material. We even see this in the
writings of Tertullian (e.g., Against
Praxeas 7). That this is the case in the Book of Mormon can be seen in the
very texts Darlington appeals to where Ammon refers to the “Great Spirit.” How
so? The use of the phrase “Great Spirit” in the Book of Mormon was Ammon’s way
of communicating the concept of God to someone who knew of Deity as “Great
Spirit.”
More
importantly, however, is that the people mistook Ammon for the Great Spirit,
notwithstanding the fact that he was plainly corporeal. Consider Alma 18:2-3:
And when they had all
testified to the things which they had seen, and he had learned of the
faithfulness of Ammon in preserving his flocks, and also of his great power in
contending against those who sought to slay him, he was astonished exceedingly,
and said: Surely, this is more than a man. Behold, is not this the Great Spirit
who doth send such great punishments upon this people, because of their
murders? And they answered the king, and said: Whether he be the Great Spirit
or a man, we know not; but this much we do know, that he cannot be slain by the
enemies of the king; neither can they scatter the king's flocks when he is with
us, because of his expertness and great strength; therefore, we know that he is
a friend to the king. And now, O king, we do not believe that a man has such
great power, for we know he cannot be slain.
Use of the phrase
does not preclude God being corporeal.
Thirdly, commentators believe that the divine person addressed by the
Zoramites in Alma 31:15 in prayer was the premortal Jesus, the same divine
person addressed in prayer by the Nephites (e.g., Brant Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual
Commentary on the Book of Mormon, volume 4: Alma [Salt Lake City: Greg
Kofford Books, 2007], 438). That being the case, the very fact that Alma
explicitly teaches the then-future incarnation of Jesus Christ refutes
Darlington. Take the following:
And he shall go forth,
suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that
the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the
sicknesses of his people. And he will take upon him death, that he may loose
the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their
infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh,
that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to
their infirmities. (Alma 7:11-12)
Other texts in the Book of Mormon further demonstrates that, even in his
pre-mortal state, Jesus' spirit had a three-dimensional form similar to mortal
man's. In his encounter with the brother of Jared, Christ explained:
Seest thou that ye
are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the
beginning after mine own image. Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the
body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even
as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the
flesh. (Ether 3:15-16)
Indeed, for the ancients, “image” and “likeness” referred, not to a
moral image/likeness (at least, not merely),
but a three-dimensional image/likeness, consistent with LDS theology.
Commenting on Gen 1:26-27 and God creating man in his “image” and “likeness,”
John Day, a leading Old Testament scholar, wrote:
[T]he Hebrew word for ‘image’ is also employed by P of
Seth’s likeness to Adam (Gen 5.3), following a repetition of Genesis 1’s
statement that humanity was created in the likeness of God (Gen. 5.1), which
further supports the notion that a physical likeness was included in P’s
concept. It is also noteworthy that the prophet Ezekiel, who was a priest as
well as prophet at a time not too long before P, and whose
theology has clear parallels with P’s, similarly speaks of a resemblance
between God and the appearance of man. As part of his call vision in Ezek.
1.26, he declares of God, ‘and seated above the likeness of a throne was
something that seemed like a human form’ (the word demut,
‘likeness’, is used, as in Gen. 1.26). Accordingly, there are those who see the
image as simply a physical one. However, although the physical image may be
primary, it is better to suppose that both a physical and spiritual likeness
is envisaged, since the Hebrews saw humans as a psycho-physical
totality.
The use of selem elsewhere in Genesis
and of demut in Ezekiel certainly tells against the view of
those scholars who see the divine image in humanity as purely functional in nature,
referring to humanity’s domination over the natural world that is mentioned
subsequently (Gen. 1.26, 28), an increasingly popular view in recent years.
Although the two ideas are closely associated, it is much more likely that
humanity’s rule over the world (Gen. 1.26-28) is actually a consequence of its
being made in the image of God, not what the image itself meant. (John
Day, From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1-11 [London:
Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013], 13-14).
When the
Book of Mormon states that man is in the image of God, such shows that God (the
Father) is three-dimensional, and not a “spirit” only; indeed, in LDS theology,
it should be noted, does believe that God is a spirit, but not a spirit merely. Note D&C 93:33-35:
For man is spirit, the elements are eternal,
and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy. And
when separated man cannot receive a fullness of joy. The elements are the
tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and
whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.
For more on
Gen 1:26-27, as well as the biblical evidence for LDS theology and God being
embodied, see:
As we see,
Darlington’s attempt to salvage any appeal to Alma 31:15 as a valid “proof-text”
against Latter-day Saint theology rests upon a poor grasp of logic and
exegesis.
