Commenting
on the First Vision and the Latter-day Saint belief that the Father, not just
the Son, is embodied (cf. D&C 130:22), James R. White wrote the following:
What does this vision, recorded in LDS
Scripture, teach concerning God? First and foremost, it presents to us the concept of a plurality
of gods. This arises from the fact that God the Father is a separate and
distinct physical entity from Jesus Christ, His Son. God the Father is
possessed of a physical body, as is the Son. This is why McConkie can claim
the creeds of Christendom were “smashed to smithereens,” for this vision has always been interpreted by the LDS
leadership to teach that God the Father is a separate and distinct person and being from the Son. The unity of
Being that is central to Christian theology is completely denied by Joseph
Smith in the First Vision. Hence, you have one God, the Father, directing Smith
to another God, the Son. (James R. White, Is
the Mormon My Brother? Discerning the Differences between Mormonism and
Christianity [2d ed.; Birmingham, Ala.: Solid Ground Christian Books,
2008], 53, emphasis in bold added)
Such shows
why the Latter-day Saint belief that the Father is embodied is truly a dividing
line between Latter-day Saints and Trinitarians. The problem with White’s
comments above is that it also proves problematic for his theology, too. After
all, in his view, Jesus will remain the God-Man eternally. Indeed, at this moment in time, Jesus is interceding
before the Father (cf. Heb 7:24-25; 1 Tim 2:5; 1 John 2:1-2; Rev 5:6, etc),
re-presenting his once-for-all sacrifice to the Father to allow for the application
of the saving benefits thereof. Furthermore, as the Son, since the incarnation,
is both fully God and fully man (the Hypostatic Union), and, as White is not a
Nestorian, is a single person, that means that the person of the Son is a physically
distinct person from the Father, even in White’s theology! If the Latter-day
Saint doctrine separates and distinguishes both the “person” and “being” of the Father from the Son,
so too does the Trinitarian teaching.
To
understand the lame (and eisegesis-driven) attempts to interact with LDS
apologetics in the book, consider how White treats Acts 7:55-56:
The Right
Hand of God
But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently
into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of
God; and he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man
standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55-56)
This passage is often used by LDS to prove
that God and Jesus are two separate beings and that God has a “right hand.” Of
course, Christians believe that God the Father is a different person than the Son, as the doctrine of
the Trinity has always taught. But what of the idea that here you have two
separate beings, two separate gods?
First, the passage comes from the martyrdom
of Stephen the deacon. Upon uttering these words, the Jews rush upon Stephen
and stone him (In light of the fact that Stephen was “filled with the Holy
Spirit,” we might well consider the fact that when we speak in a way that is
pleasing to God, we may well offend many of those around us. God’s truth is
often offensive to those who embrace falsehood). There is something in what he
says that causes them to become enraged, and certainly we can understand what
it was. These men were responsible, by and large, for the crucifixion of
Christ. When Stephen says he sees the Son of Man standing on the right hand of
God, they realize that Stephen is proclaiming the exaltation of the Messiah—the
very Messiah that they had rejected.
Second, we note that Stephen does not say
that he saw two gods. He say the glory of
God and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Stephen did not see God the Father, he saw the Son.
Finally,
what does “the right hand of God” mean? Any impartial review of the biblical
usage of the phrase answers the questions beyond doubt. The right hand of God
is a position of honor and glory. It is not a location in space but a position
of power.
Dozens of references in the Old Testament bear this out (Exodus 15:6, 12;
Deuteronomy 33:2; Job 40:14; Psalm 16:8, 11; 17:7; 18:35; 20:6; 21:8; 44:3;
45:4, 9; 48:10; 60:5; 63:8; 73:23; 77:10; 78:54; 80:15, 17; 89:13; 98:1; 108:6;
109:6, 31; 110:1; 118:15-16; 138:7; Proverbs 3:16; Ecclesiastes 10:2; Isaiah
41;10; 48:13; Habakkuk 2:16; 3:4; and in the New Testament, Matthew 26:64,
where the phrase is “the right hand of power”). Stephen saw the exalted Christ
standing in glory, awaiting the arrival of His faithful servant. Nothing in the
passage suggests a plurality of gods,
but does suggest the Trinitarian plurality of persons. (Ibid., 158-59, emphasis in bold added)
To
understand why White is, as usual, dead-wrong, see the following article that
contains an exegesis, not just of Acts 7:55-56 and its background in Psa 110:1 and
Dan 7:13 (contra White, these texts are not metaphorical in their usage of “right
hand” and similar language), and other issues, but all the other major texts used in favour (Gen
1:26-27; Heb 1:3) and against (John 4:24) Latter-day Saint teaching on this
issue: