Does God have a Physical Body? A Mindful Latter-day Saint Apologetic Response to Seth of Theology with Seth

 

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (Jn 17:3, KJV)

Hello, friends! Welcome to the Mindful Latter-day Saint Christian Living and Apologetics Channel, I am your host - Timothy R. Berman, where we explore faith with curiosity and an open heart. Today, we’re tackling a profound question: Does God the Father have a physical body? This is a response to a thought-provoking video by Seth from Theology of Seth titled “Is God an Exalted Man? (A Christian Response to Mormonism).” Seth argues that God is purely spirit, without a physical body, contrasting this with the Latter-day Saint belief that God has a glorified body of flesh and bone.  I respect Seth’s dedication to scripture and his desire to share his faith. His arguments are worth engaging with, so let’s dive in with a biblically grounded LDS perspective. We’ll address his points using scripture, scholarly insights, and resources like Faith Answers, Informed Responses to show how our belief aligns with biblical truth. Our aim is to clarify, correct misunderstandings, and invite respectful conversation. If you’re new here, please subscribe and join us on this faith journey. Let’s begin!

I admire Seth’s passion for scripture and his desire to share his faith. His video raises important points that deserve a respectful, biblically grounded reply from a Latter-day Saint perspective. So, let’s unpack his arguments, examine the scriptures, and weave in insights from scholarly blog posts like “Does the Bible Teach that God is a Spirit According to John 4:24?” and “Was God Ever a Man?” Our goal? To clarify what we believe, address possible misunderstandings, and invite dialogue—all with an open heart.  

If you’re new here, hit that subscribe button and join us on this journey of faith. Let’s get started!

Nature of God - What Does it Matter?

Does the Bible teach that God is Anthropomorphic - Exalted - and Divine?

Seth’s video centers on a few core arguments:

• God is spirit, not physical - based on John 4:24 and Luke 24:39

• A Physical God can’t be omnipresent - If God has a body, He’s limited, not everywhere at once

• The Holy Ghost inconsistency - Latter-day Saints say a body is needed for godhood, so why doesn’t the Holy Spirit have one?

• Biblical Warnings - verses like Hosea 11:9 and Deuteronomy 4:15-16 imply God isn’t physical

• Anthropomorphisms are figurative - God’s “hands” or “Eyes” in scripture are not literal

• The Incarnation applies only to Jesus - not God the Father, per Trinitarian theology

Seth concludes that Mormonism’s view of God as an exalted man is unbiblical. But are these arguments as airtight as they seem? Let’s explore them one by one, starting with the nature of God.

Is “God a Spirit” a Slam Dunk?

Seth leans heavily on John 4:24, where Jesus says, “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” He interprets this as proof that God is purely spirit, no body allowed. But let’s dig into the context—because context is king in biblical interpretation.  

In John 4, Jesus is chatting with a Samaritan woman about worship locations—mountain or Jerusalem. He shifts the focus: it’s not where you worship, but how—in spirit and truth. The blog “Does the Bible Teach that God is a Spirit According to John 4:24?” nails this: Jesus is talking about the spiritual nature of worship, not defining God’s entire being ontologically. To jump from “God is spirit” to “God has no body” might be a hasty generalization fallacy—assuming a single attribute excludes all others.  

He does provide the context of John 4 - yet missteps with the typical Evangelical Eisegesis Interpretation

• Spirit in John 4:24 is used twice:
•  πνεῦμα - pneuma: Spirit, wind, breath
• 1909 Pure Cambridge ed KJV - 2 Cor. 3.17 is cited
• “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” v. 18 “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the Glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the spirit of the Lord.”
• Paul opens up 2 Corinthians 3 with how the Gentile Christians at Corinth were “epistles written on our hearts” (v. 2) and an “epistle of Christ” (v.3) and that they were “written not with ink, but with the spirit of the Living God; not on tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart” (v.3). 
• The context of 2 Cor. 3 describes the glory of the new covenant and the transformation that takes place in the lives of believers through the Holy Spirit
• The Greek nuance here is reflective of worship - and to whom worship is owed - God. 
• God is invisible (Col. 1:15 describes the Son in the “mirror image and likeness” of the invisible God - who is the Father. 
• Worshiping God is not about external rituals or places - it is about a true and genuine spiritual connection
• Worshiping in Spirit and truth is done sincerely, from the inner being, and according to God’s revealed truth

Correspondence between 2 Corinthians 3;17-18 and John 4:24

• God’s invisible - spiritual nature: (John 4:24) is the same divine reality Paul refers to by affirming “the Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17). Both underscore that God’s nature transcends mortal physicality.
• Worship “in spirit and truth”: John 4:24b) requires individuals to be led by the Holy Spirit, who dwells within believers (2 Corinthians 3), enabling worship that is genuine, heartfelt, and aligned with God’s truth from Scripture. 
• Spiritual Freedom: in 2 Corinthians 3 - the Apostle Paul aligns the liberation Jesus promises to true worshipers who engage God beyond any legalistic or ritualistic confines, reflecting the nature of “spirit and truth” of worship in John 4:24. 
• Authentic connection and worshiping of God come through the Spirit’s indwelling presence: Together, 2 Corinthians 3 and John 4 teaches a relational dynamic between believers and God. 
• Worship becomes a matter of the heart and spirit - empowered by the Holy Spirit who guides us into all understanding (John 14:26) and sincere adoration. 
• Believers experience freedom because the Spirit transforms them and frees them from sin and death, as well as religious burdens prescribed by Judaic Law (2 Corinthians 3:17)
• True worship requires both Spirit-led sincerity and adherence to God’s revelation through Scripture and modern-day Prophets and Apostles.
• This harmonizes inner experience with personal divine revelation 
• John 4 and 2 Corinthians 3 affirm that God’s spiritual nature demands worship and relationship initiated and empowered by the spirit, producing authentic worship and true freedom for believers

Think about it: 1 John 4:8 says, “God is love.” Does that mean God is only love, nothing else? No—it’s one aspect of His nature. Similarly, “God is spirit” highlights His spiritual essence, not a denial of physical form. Plus, in John 14:9, Jesus says, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” If Jesus has a body—and He does, post-resurrection—couldn’t that hint at the Father’s nature too?  

Seth pairs this with Luke 24:39: “A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” Fair point—Jesus is proving His resurrection here, not describing the Father. But does this rule out a glorified, physical God? Not necessarily. Let’s hold that thought.

HOW CAN A PHYSICALLY EXALTED RESURRECTED GOD BE OMNIPRESENT?

SETH MISSES THE MARK ON LDS COSMOLOGY AND THE NATURE OF GOD

Seth argues that a physical body means God can’t be omnipresent—everywhere at once. He cites Psalm 139: “Where shall I go from thy spirit?” and Jeremiah 23:24: “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” In Mormonism, he says, God’s stuck on a planet near Kolob, far from us.  

Here’s where a strawman fallacy might creep in—misrepresenting our belief. Latter-day Saints don’t see God as limited by His body. Doctrine and Covenants 88:7-13 explains that God’s influence—through the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost—permeates all creation. His physical presence may be localized, but His power and awareness are infinite.  

The blog “God and the Godhead: A Mindful Latter-day Saint Apologetic Perspective” supports this: God’s “fatherly care” extends universally, not confined by physicality. Scholars like Francesca Stavrakopoulou, in God: An Anatomy (cited in Petersen’s review), argue that ancient Israelites saw God as both physical and transcendent walking in Eden yet ruling all. So, omnipresence and a body aren’t mutually exclusive—it’s about how God operates, not where He’s stuck.

• He cites Psalms 139: “Where shall i go from thy spirit?”
• He also cites Jeremiah 23:24 “Do I not fill heaven and earth?”
• He misrepresents LDS understanding stating that God resides on a planet - when in reality - God’s throne is near the star Kolob:
• "And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it; . . . And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest” (Abraham 3:2, 9; emphasis added)
• Doctrine and Covenants 88:7-13 teaches that God’s influence - via the light of Christ and the Holy Spirit - fills the universe. His physical body does not limit His very power and awareness. 
• Deuteronomy calls God a “all-consuming fire,” yet fire has form and still spreads. 
• 1 John 1:5 says, “God is light,” which is both tangible and pervasive
• A resurrected and glorified body does not trap God - it is how He interacts with creation while remaining infinite.
• Scholar Francesca Stavrakopoulou notes that ancient Israelites saw God as an anthropomorphic being yet transcendent - walking in Eden, yet ruling all. 
• Latter-day Saint teaching of God’s anthropomorphic nature aligns with this Biblical Duality - not limitation

Reason the Holy Spirit Does not have a resurrected Body

Is Seth Correct regarding the LDS view on the Holy Spirit? Seth appears to beg the question: “If a body is key to Godhood, why is the Holy Spirit a Spirit?

Seth raises a great question: If Mormons believe a body is essential for progression to godhood, why is the Holy Ghost a spirit? He suggests this is a contradiction, a false dilemma fallacy—assuming it’s either/or without nuance.  

In LDS theology, the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—are distinct beings with unique roles. Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 says the Father and Son have glorified bodies, but the Holy Ghost is a “personage of spirit” to fulfill His mission: testifying, comforting, and guiding universally. The blog “The Embodiment of God and the Holy Ghost” explains this via Ronald E. Bartholomew’s research: His spirit nature enables Him to “dwell in us” as an influence, not a literal indwelling.  

Progression applies to mortals striving for exaltation—us, not the Godhead. The Holy Ghost’s divine status isn’t diminished; His role is specialized. Seth’s point is valid to question, but it doesn’t dismantle our view—it highlights the Godhead’s harmony.

• He argues, based on D&C 130:22 - and the revelation of the Holy Spirit being a “personage of spirit” and not a resurrected, glorified, and exalted being appears contradictory
• This is not an inconsistent doctrine as Seth attempts to lead on
• Seth sets up a strawman argument via quote mining regarding the Lectures of Faith that were at one time included in the original Book of Commandments (now Doctrine and Covenants)
• Critics, like Seth, attempt to charge that since LDS doctrine teaches a body is required for exaltation, the Holy Spirit cannot be fully God - because he does not have a physical body.
• Yes, D&C 93:33 (and other scriptures) teach a body is necessary for a fullness of Joy
• It is speculated that at some point - the Holy Spirit may receive a resurrected body at some point. 
• Joseph Fielding Smith observed that one ought to “avoid speculating on destiny of the Spirit” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 39)
• Joseph Smith proclaimed that the Holy Spirit will eventually receive a resurrected body: “Joseph Smith said the Holy Ghost will one day receive a body. He said: “The Holy Ghost is yet a spiritual body and is waiting to take to himself a body, as the Savior did.”[Joseph Smith, Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings, edited by Larry E. Dahl and Donald Q. Cannon (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997) See also: The Words of Joseph Smith, p. 382.]
• The Holy Spirit actually does have a body - it is a spiritual body, not a resurrected body
• It should be worthy to point out that in LDS thought, “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by pure eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.” (D&C 131:7-8). Why exactly the Holy Ghost has not received His Body lies in the realm of speculation.

Do Hosea 11:9 and Deuteronomy 4:15-16 Deny an anthropomorphic God?

Seth cites Hosea 11:9—“I am God and not man”—and Deuteronomy 4:15-16, where God warns against making images since no form was seen at Horeb. He sees these as proof God isn’t physical. But is that the full story?  

The blog “Was God Ever a Man?” offers a steelman: In Hosea 11, God’s contrasting His mercy with human fickleness—He won’t destroy Israel despite their rebellion. It’s about character, not ontology. Assuming it denies a body might be eisegesis—reading into the text what isn’t there. Similarly, Deuteronomy 4 is about idolatry, not God’s nature. God didn’t show a form then, but elsewhere—like Genesis 18, where He eats with Abraham—He does.  

Mark S. Smith’s The Early History of God (noted in “The Embodiment of God”) shows ancient Israelites saw Yahweh as anthropomorphic—enthroned, tangible—before later abstraction. Hosea and Deuteronomy don’t disprove a physical God; they emphasize His holiness and uniqueness.

God’s Throne - God’s Nature

Point of fact: The Pesachim 54:11 and the Bereshit Rahab both reason that one of the phenomena of creation is the very Throne of Glory prior to the creation of this Earth. This idea seems to mirror the hints we find through Christ himself in answering the mother of the two sons of Zebedee in Matthew 20 where he says that the Father prepares a place for those who will receive such honor - a throne of Glory (Matthew 20:20-23; Mark 10:35-45). 

The Throne of Glory and the Temple were created before the world was created, as it is written: “Your Throne of Glory on high from the beginning, in the place of our Sanctuary” (Jeremiah 17:12). The name of Messiah was created before the world was created, as it is written in the chapter discussing the Messiah: “May his name endure forever; his name existed before the sun” (Psalms 72:17). The name of Messiah already existed before the creation of the sun and the rest of the world. This baraita states that Gehenna was created before the world was created and not during twilight before the first Shabbat.

And from Bereshit Rahab 1:

In the beginning, God created” – six items preceded the creation of the world; some of them were [actually] created, and some of them God contemplated creating, [though He did not actually do so]. The Torah and the Throne of Glory were created. Torah, from where is it derived? As it is stated: “The Lord made me at the beginning of His way” (Proverbs 8:22). The Throne of Glory, from where is it derived? “Your throne stands firm from earliest time, [You are from eternity]” (Psalms 93:2). 

Here, the question is begged - if God is without beginning or end, and unchanging - then how come these Jewish commentaries that are authoritative give the notion that the Throne of Glory was created? Does this not imply that prior to their creation - such a throne had not existed? Furthermore, does it bring up another question - If the Father of Christ, and the father of us all, is preparing (creating) thrones of glory - one of which Christ will receive through divine inheritance - what does that say in relation to us as we are heirs and joint heirs with through Christ? (Romans 8:17).

In Jewish tradition, several prophets, including Micah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, were granted extraordinary visions of God seated on a throne, referred to in Hebrew as "kisse." These visions highlight the majesty and supreme authority of God over creation. The Jewish Virtual Library provides a detailed entry on this theme:

The vision of God sitting on a throne (kisse) is described by several prophets, among them Micaiah (I Kings 22:19), Isaiah (Isa. 6), Ezekiel (Ezek. 1), and Daniel (Dan. 7:9). Talmudic and midrashic sources developed this theme further, and it entered into religious poetry, liturgy, and mystical heikhalot tracts of the early centuries C.E., which speak of the throne as the merkavah, or "chariot" (see *Merkabah Mysticism). Among Jewish philosophers, Saadiah and Maimonides, who objected to all anthropomorphic descriptions of God, attempted to explain the visions of the throne allegorically, in contrast to Judah Halevi who accepted a more literal interpretation of the chariot vision (Kuzari, 3:65) and who used the image of the throne in his religious poems.

This diversity of interpretation reflects the richness of Jewish thought. Philosophers like Saadiah and Maimonides sought to distance these visions from physical depictions of God, favoring symbolic meanings, while Judah Halevi embraced a more tangible understanding, weaving the throne imagery into his poetic expressions of faith. Regardless of approach, these visions underscore the Throne of Glory as a powerful symbol of divine rule.

Among these prophetic accounts, Ezekiel’s vision stands out for its vividness and depth, offering a striking portrayal of God’s divine glory enthroned. Recorded in Ezekiel 1:1-28 and 3:12, this inaugural vision and commission bring Ezekiel as close as possible to perceiving God directly. He witnesses God’s throne, hears its movement, and is overwhelmed by the divine Presence. This passage serves as the haftarah reading for Exodus 19:1-20:23, recited on the first day of Shavuot, the festival commemorating the Torah’s revelation at Mount Sinai.

Rabbinic tradition calls this narrative "the episode of the chariot" due to its use of imagery linked to the Ark of the Covenant, which 1 Chronicles 28:18 describes as God’s chariot (see also Psalms 68:18; 18:11). The Ark, often depicted as the place where the "Lord of Hosts is enthroned on the cherubim" (1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 6:2; 1 Chronicles 13:6), connects Ezekiel’s vision to the Holy of Holies in the Temple. This linkage aligns with Pesachim 54:11, which states that the Throne of Glory and the Temple were created before all else, uniting God’s heavenly throne with His earthly sanctuary.

Given the profound and sensitive nature of this material, the Mishnah stipulates that it should only be expounded by a "sage that understands his own knowledge"—a scholar fully versed in Jewish tradition. This restriction underscores the need for careful interpretation to avoid misrepresentation of God’s nature.

The Jewish Study Bible’s commentary on Ezekiel 1:4-28a (p. 1045) notes that this vision of God’s Throne Chariot draws heavily on the imagery of the Holy of Holies, reinforcing the connection to the Temple’s preeminent creation. In verses 26-28 (p. 1048), Ezekiel offers a detailed description of the divine Presence:

(26) Sapphire (possibly lapis lazuli), see Exodus 24:10, which employs the imagery of blue sapphire or lapis to depict the pavement under God’s feet, which humans see as the sky. (27) Gleam as of amber and fire convey the power and incorporeality of the divine Presence. (28) The rainbow symbolizes God’s covenant with creation (see Genesis 9:8-17). The Presence of the Lord, a priestly term for God’s glory (Exodus 16:6-7; 40:34-38). The voice of someone speaking: Cf. 1 Kings 19:12, which portrays the Divine Presence as "a still small voice" or "a soft murmuring sound." Ezekiel, in a sign of reverence and fear, lies prostrate before the Ark in the Holy of Holies of the Temple (1 Kings 8:54; Psalm 5:8; 99:5; 132:7; 138:2; 1 Chronicles 16:29; 2 Chronicles 20:5-18).

Ezekiel sees a figure on the throne resembling a man, with a lower part like fire and an upper part gleaming like amber, symbolizing God’s power and transcendence. The rainbow encircling the throne recalls God’s covenant with humanity (Genesis 9:8-17), while the "voice of someone speaking" evokes the "still small voice" of 1 Kings 19:12. In awe and reverence, Ezekiel falls prostrate, mirroring the posture of worship before the Ark in the Temple’s innermost sanctuary.

The Throne of Glory thus embodies God’s divine sovereignty, majesty, and authority over all creation. This concept extends into Christian theology, where the throne signifies the preeminence of Christ, described as the Creator of all things in Colossians 1:16. Furthermore, Revelation 3:21 promises that those who overcome, as Christ has, will sit with Him on His throne, just as He sits with the Father. This foreshadows a future where believers share in Christ’s glory and authority, fulfilling the divine plan initiated before creation.

In both Jewish and Christian traditions, the Throne of Glory represents God’s ultimate governance. Ezekiel’s vision, with its rich imagery and theological depth, bridges the heavenly and earthly realms, while Christ’s role as Creator and the promise of shared glory expands its significance, offering a vision of divine sovereignty that transcends time and creation itself.

• Seth attempts to reason from Hosea 11:9 and Deuteronomy 4:15-16
• Seth points to Hosea 11:9 - “I am God and not man”
• Seth also points to Deuteronomy 4:15 - 16, where no form was seen at Horeb, arguing God is not physical
• Seth argues that context matters - and yet fails to follow his own understanding of appealing to the context of scripture here
• Hosea (as I have mentioned in a previous video and blog post) contrasts God’s mercy with human weakness - He won’t destroy Israel despite their sin. 
• Deuteronomy 4 warns of idolatry - not God’s very nature
• Genesis 18 reveals that God appeared to Abram (YHWH - Pre-incarnate Christ and two angels/messengers 
• Mark S. Smith’s research reveals early Israelites viewed God as anthropomorphic - tangible and enthroned
• Genesis 1:26-27 Hebrew literally means - exact image and likeness of God in nature and being. 
• Critics fail to understand that throughout the Old and New Testament - God is described as “Sitting on a Throne”. 
• Thrones depict divine authority, supremacy, and divine presence
• God is described as seated before a divine council (e.g. Job 1, 2). 
• Christ is seated on a throne of Glory with the Father (Revelation 3:21)
• God’s throne is tied to the Holy of Holies - the Ark of the Covenant - and Davidic King’s Throne
• Christ taught that the Apostles themselves will be seated with Christ on Divine Thrones of Glory (Matthew 19)
• Christ also taught that the “Father prepares a place” for those who will receive “thrones of Glory” (Matthew 20). 
• Pesachim 54:11 and Bereshit Rahab 1 all refer to God’s Throne of Glory coming into existence - being created

Is it Figurative or Literal?

Seth says biblical mentions of God’s “hands” or “eyes”—like Psalm 8 or Proverbs 15—are figurative, not literal. He warns against a “woodenly literal” view, citing wings and feathers as absurd if taken literally. Fair critique—context matters.  But here’s a slippery slope fallacy risk: dismissing all anthropomorphisms as metaphors might overlook intent. 

Exodus 33:11—God speaks to Moses “face to face”—and Acts 7:56—Stephen sees Jesus at God’s right hand. Are these just poetic? Scholarly work, like Stavrakopoulou’s, suggests early biblical writers meant them as real descriptors of a relatable God.  

In LDS theology, Genesis 1:26-27—“in our image, after our likeness”—includes physical form. Hebrews 1:3 calls Jesus the “express image” of the Father’s person. If Jesus has a body, why not the Father? We see these as glimpses of truth, not mere symbols.

• Seth creates a false dichotomy where he reasons that if one takes a literal (anthropomorphic interpretation) then passages that say God has wings is literally defining God as having physical wings. 
• There is a difference in poetic language interpretation that is figurative and not literal
• God having winds is poetic expression - utilizing a metaphor
• It is like saying - “If God is spirit” and another says “God is Love” then God is literally Love
• Exodus 33:11 is not figurative as it is literal in that Moses saw God “face to face’
• Acts 7:56 is where Stephen sees in vision the Glory of the Father and Christ at His right hand through the power of the Holy Spirit
• Non-LDS Scholar Stephen H. Webb notes that “Mormons” revived early Christian beliefs in an embodied God - discarding Greek-influenced creeds
• Christ’s Incarnation and Resurrection
• Seth recites John 1:14 and appears to imply that Chris is the “only begotten” in the sense of the incarnation - Latter-day Saints actually agree with this
• Seth further claims that this applies to Christ alone and not to the Father
• He attempts to reason this by reinterpreting John 5:19 as being in the context of the miracles he just preformed and not mortality. 
• Seth argues to appeal to context of scripture regarding John 5:19 and only focuses on the verses prior to John 5:19 - not the context of verses that proceed after John 5:19 regarding the two resurrections, judgment, and Christ laying down His life, as he seen the Father do, in order to raise it up again - being the first fruits (cf. John 5:19-47)
• Christ’s very real bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) speaks volumes to the reality of a divine being taken on mortality, living, dying, and then rising up with a resurrected body. 
• Seth, like all critics, attempt to reason from a 3rd century Gnostic and Greek influenced, immaterial God - Far from what the Bible actually describes and reveals
• Biblical Scholars affirm Latter-day Saint belief on God’s ontological nature

Does the Incarnation Prove Only Jesus Has a Body? What of His Resurrection?

Seth argues that Jesus’ incarnation—John 1:14, “The Word became flesh”—applies only to the Son, not the Father, per Trinitarian distinctions. He tackles John 5:19—“The Son does what he sees the Father do”—saying it’s about miracles, not mortality.  

This assumes a begging the question fallacy—presupposing the Trinity to refute our view. In LDS theology, the Godhead isn’t one essence but three beings. “Was God Ever a Man?” explores John 5:19 through the “eternal now principle”—Christ sees the Father’s timeless acts, possibly including a past mortal phase (King Follett Discourse). If Jesus became mortal and resurrected, mirroring the Father’s path isn’t far-fetched.  

John 20:17— “I ascend to my Father and your Father”—and Colossians 1:15— “the image of the invisible God”—suggest a physical connection. The incarnation shows divinity can embrace physicality without losing glory.

• Seth recites John 1:14 and appears to imply that Chris is the “only begotten” in the sense of the incarnation - Latter-day Saints actually agree with this
• Seth further claims that this applies to Christ alone and not to the Father
• He attempts to reason this by reinterpreting John 5:19 as being in the context of the miracles he just preformed and not mortality. 
• Seth argues to appeal to context of scripture regarding John 5:19 and only focuses on the verses prior to John 5:19 - not the context of verses that proceed after John 5:19 regarding the two resurrections, judgment, and Christ laying down His life, as he seen the Father do, in order to raise it up again - being the first fruits (cf. John 5:19-47)
• Christ’s very real bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) speaks volumes to the reality of a divine being taken on mortality, living, dying, and then rising up with a resurrected body. 
• Seth, like all critics, attempt to reason from a 3rd century Gnostic and Greek influenced, immaterial God - Far from what the Bible actually describes and reveals
• Biblical Scholars affirm Latter-day Saint belief on God’s ontological nature

Seth’s arguments are rooted in a spirit-only God shaped by Greek philosophy, as “The Embodiment of God” notes via Petersen. But ancient texts—like the Book of Jubilees or Sumerian myths in “The Nature of God and Creation”—depict a physical deity creating in His likeness. This aligns with Joseph Smith’s First Vision: God and Jesus as tangible beings.  

Our belief isn’t unbiblical—it’s a restoration of early truths. We don’t worship a “different God,” as Seth claims; we see Him as a loving Father, relatable yet infinite. His body doesn’t limit Him—it exalts us, promising resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) and eternal growth.

Conclusion: A Call to Reflect

Thanks, Seth, for sparking this convo. Your points are sincere, and I hope our response shows where we agree—and differ—mindfully. To my viewers: What do you think? Does God’s physicality change how you see Him? Drop your thoughts below—I’d love to hear them.  

For more, check out those blog posts linked in the description. Let’s keep seeking truth together, with respect and faith. Until next time, may you feel God’s love—however you envision Him.  

LATTER-DAY SAINT THEOLOGY AND COSMOLOGY ON GOD’S ONTOLOGICAL NATURE IS FIRMLY ROOTED IN BIBLICAL TRUTH

SETH MISSES THE MARK ON LDS COSMOLOGY AND THE NATURE OF GOD

• SETH USES A HASTY GENERALIZATION FALLACY REGARDING JOHN 4:24 ALONG WITH TYPICAL TRINITARIAN EISEGESIS PROOF TEXTING
• SETH EMPLOYS A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT REGARDING HOW GOD CAN’T BE OMNIPRESENT IF HE IS AN EMBODIED EXALTED BEING
• SETH USES A FALSE DILEMMA ARGUMENT REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT WHERE HE ASSUMES AN EITHER/OR WITHOUT PROPER NUANCE
• SETH USES MORE EISEGESIS INTERPRETATION RATHER THAN EXEGESIS INTERPRETATION REGARDING HOSEA 11:9 AND DEUTERONOMY 4:15-16
• SETH USES A SLIPPER SLOPE FALLACY REGARDING FIGURATIVE AND LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS REGARDING ANTHROPOMORPHIC DESCRIPTORS - POETIC VERSES NON-POETIC
• SETH BEGS THE QUESTION REGARDING THE INCARNATION OF CHRIS WHEN IT COMES TO JOHN 1:14 AND JOHN 5:19
• BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP PROVES THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD AS UNBIBLICAL
• HISTORICAL ANALYSIS PROVES THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD AS UNBIBLICAL