That is the pre-mortal Jesus talking about how he is going to be born in the flesh when he enters mortality. It is irrelevant to the idea of God the Father having a physical body.
As you may see above, Graham nowhere mentions "God the Father" until later in his post (indeed, the second to last paragraph) where he introduces this definitional equivocation in his argument. He says "God," for the bulk of it, only introducing "God the Father" once, in a later paragraph.
Now, Christ and the Father are "one." If one has seen me, Jesus says in the New Testament, one has "seen the Father," Paul says that the Father is "the express image" of the person of the Father. "Let us go down," the Grand Council said, and make man in "our" image and in "our" likeness.
The Savior also mentioned that he did nothing, and came to do nothing, that he had not seen the Father do. His entire life was an extension and representation of the Father's. A "spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." was Jesus remark about his fundamental material structure and individuality, and if Jesus and the Father are one, and if everything Jesus does is a representation of that which has and is done by the Father, then Christ and his Father are of the same species, the same type, the same class, and the same ontological nature, a part of which, because it is ultimate and fundamental, is their individual and material form.
The Book of Mormon says nothing out of harmony with the New Testament here, and indeed, goes beyond it in the Book of Ether toward the full understanding of God's nature as found in D&C 130:22.
Its long become apparent that having a philosophically
substantive and intellectually mature debate with either you or Graham is a human impossibility, but respond I continue to do, just for the record.
