Mormonism'S Anthropomorphic God: Why Is This A Problem For Other Theists?

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Latter-day Saints are frequently derided by their critics for maintaining a belief in an "anthropomorphic" God. In light of this criticism, it is interesting to consider a recent observation by biblical scholar, Esther J. Hamori. In truth, all "theism," i.e. a belief in at least one god is, as Hamori explains, anthropomorphic:

"All theism is anthropomorphic, and there is no escaping it. The rejection of anthropomorphism is a bungled endeavor from the start, because at best one can oppose a certain point along the spectrum of anthropomorphism, but never the phenomenon outright—at least, if one should remain a theist… The very notion of a God one can address is anthropomorphic. Without any kind of anthropomorphism, there can be no religion as we know it. Positing a deity with a mind or a will at all is excluded. Turning one’s will over to something without a will is senseless, and worshipping a thing without a mind is idolatry. Prayer is certainly out of the question." Esther J. Hamori, When Gods were Men: The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2008), 46-47.

It seems therefore, that this is a strange criticism to raise against Mormonism.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Yep. The "primitive" LDS understanding of anthropomorphic, gendered, embodied Gods is one of the most wonderful things about our religion, in my opinion. It really is, as Joseph Smith said, the "great secret". In theological discussions, I constantly hear that our beautifully idiosyncratic bodies are suffocatingly "limiting" and any real God would transcend mere embodiment, but I just can't understand that. To me, bodies aren't limiting, they're liberating! They let us move, let us dance! They're organized in the very image of the Gods! When they are healthy and whole and cared-for, they are the most amazing creations I can imagine. The great promise of the Resurrection is that our bodies will be healed, so that our age and sickness and infirmity is done away with. Love it.

Some cool papers:

Sapphiric God: Esoteric Speculation of the Body Divine in Biblical and Post- Biblical Jewish Tradition by Wesley Williams

God is a Divine Man in Biblical Tradition by Wesley Williams

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and (William) James by David Paulsen

Plus this excellent FAIR video:

Edited March 9, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[BCSpace]

I have no problem describing God as a homo sapiens as that is the implication of our doctrine.

[Storm Rider]

I think this is one of the great heresies of man's philosophy. They have taken the physical body and degraded it until it is the ultimate limitation of humanity. Conversely, they have made God the great bodiless "thing" devoid of all passions, emotions. There is not trace of man being made in his image or likeness. The very words so often read in the OT are left without any comprehension or remark. Man is made in this image and likeness, but not anything like God.

This heresy then leads to complete lack of understanding of the resurrection. Though freely admitted, it is without logic. The great God of the universe would condemn man to a physical body for eternity? If physicality is so limiting, how can it be glory or a being of glorification?

Then the ultimate of apostasy they fail to understand that God grants to man his glory in all things. We become the fallen creature that is so fallen that the creator of all that is cannot make us like him. That the creature cannot be given the full gift of glory. Where did this limitation come from? How can the creator be stopped; you may become a joint-heir with Christ, but not really. You can come this far, but God can take you no further. The Atonement fails at the end to truly expatiate humanity.

As an aside, I personally reject the term anthropomorphic. Man does not make God in his image, but just the opposite. God has created man in his image and after his likeness.

[LeSellers]

I have no problem describing God as a Homo sapiens as that is the implication of our doctrine.

We might think of our species as Deus caecus ("blind god", if my translator software is accurate—I don't have Latin). While God is certainly a "wise" (or knowing) Man, it's a bit pompous for us to ascribe the title to ourselves, in my mind.

Lehi )

[LeSellers]

I personally reject the term anthropomorphic. Man does not make God in his image, but just the opposite. God has created man in his image and after his likeness.

Yes. We are theomorphs.

Lehi

[Jaybear]

If God can see everything, why does he need eyes.

If He can hear our thought, why does he have ears.

If He can be anywhere, he would never have to walk.

If He can control and manipulate matter, he doesn't need hands.

If He is immortal, the heart is useless.

The LDS belief were derided by critics back in the 5th century BC, by greek philosopher Xenophanes:

'The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black, While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.

Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw, and could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.'

So how did Joseph Smith describe the LDS God?

[wenglund]

If God can see everything, why does he need eyes.

A God without eyes is, by definition, literally blind.

If He can hear our thought, why does he have ears.

A God without ears is, by definition, literally deaf.

If He can be anywhere, he would never have to walk.

A God without legs cannot, by definition, literally stand.

If He can control and manipulate matter, he doesn't need hands.

If God has no hands then, by definition, he cannot literally touch, point, caress, lay on hands, or have the Son at his right hand.

If He is immortal, the heart is useless.

A God without heart is, by definition, literally loveless and unfeeling.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill Hamblin]

We need to understand that while God has a body, this does not mean that he is a body.

[KevinG]

Louis Prima is a god! I knew it!

[Jaybear]

A God without eyes is, by definition, literally blind.

A God without ears is, by definition, literally deaf.

A God without legs cannot, by definition, literally stand.

Circular reasoning. You are imposing limits on God, as if he were mortal.

A God without heart is, by definition, literally loveless and unfeeling.

I don't think the word "literally" means what you think it means.

We need to understand that while God has a body, this does not mean that he is a body.

As the same could be said of Bill Hamblin, I am not sure I see your point with this comment.

[KevinG]

If Xod can see everything, why does he need ligh receptor stalks.

If He can hear our thought, why does he have auditory cones.

If He can be anywhere, he would never have to flagellate.

If He can control and manipulate matter, he doesn't need suckers.

If He is immortal, the circulatory chamber is useless.

The Venusian belief were derided by critics back in the Second Galactic panmillenia, by Xthotl philosopher Xenophobes:

(and yes there is a point to my smarta**ery)

[volgadon]

The LDS belief were derided by critics back in the 5th century BC, by greek philosopher Xenophanes:

I think youmight be interested in wat M. L. West has to say.

On the last point I think Xenophanes was wrong. I feel sure that the domestic cat, for instance, does not conceive of a feline deity but identifies his or her owner

as the supreme power in the world, providing each day his daily bread, capable of projecting articles through the air, of opening or closing the most massive and unyielding doors, of turning a room in an instant from light to dark or from dark to light, a controller of heat sources, no doubt also responsible for day and night, sunshine and rain. It is by no means self-evident that it was natural for man from the beginning to conceive his gods in human form. Many peoples ascribe divinity to animals, which, after all, are often more mysterious, unpredictable, and terrible than other humans.

[wenglund]

Circular reasoning. You are imposing limits on God, as if he were mortal.

Unlike you, I don't view eyes to see with, or ears to hear with, or legs to stand on, or hands to hold with, or hearts to feel with, as limitations. In fact, I reasonably view the absence of such thing as limitations--or, as we say today, disabilities or handicaps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 9, 2012 by wenglund

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The disparagement of embodied deities has been going on forever, from Xenophanes all the way down to Freud and modern Fundamentalism, which, for all their differences, share the premise that embodiment is a more simplistic or primitive or unsophisticated conception of God than the untouchable God of philosophy. If one discounts the historical witnesses, then of course all that's left is the psychological explanation that people see their flawed parents and then have to invent an idealized daddy (and/or mommy) to worship. While this explanation might offer a plausible alternative account for the origin of the unseeable absolute First-Cause God of Aristotle, it is, again, extremely unsatisfying as an explanation for the historical witnesses who report the physical visitations by the embodied deities and Messengers which Mormonism (and other "primitive" religions) have posited. I think this is why we lay so much stress on being ordained by the physical laying on of hands - we carry the contextualizing history of the Gospel, the Good Story, to others through a chain of touch, a chain of witnesses.

[Chris Smith]

I don't think the word "literally" means what you think it means.

lol. That was my thought when I read that, too.

[Jaybear]

I think youmight be interested in wat M. L. West has to say.

Fair criticism. Xenophanes mistake was to reference the imagined mindset of domesticated animals.

He should have left it at the lion.

But he nailed the hair color, skin color, and facial features of the LDS perception of God.

[volgadon]

Fair criticism. Xenophanes mistake was to reference the imagined mindset of domesticated animals.

He should have left it at the lion.

Xenophanes' entire line of reasoning is problematic, unless you want to propose that Egyptians were bull, crocodile, hypopotamus, jackal and falcon-shaped.

But he nailed the hair color, skin color, and facial features of the LDS perception of God.

What a remarkable achievement for someone dead and decomposed thousands of years prior.

[wenglund]

lol. That was my thought when I read that, too.

Speaking of limitations, some minds seem incapable of grasping how something symbolic can also be literal. Believe it or not, this post consist of me literally typing symbols.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BCSpace]

While God is certainly a "wise" (or knowing) Man, it's a bit pompous for us to ascribe the title to ourselves, in my mind.

I don't agree as God ascribes that title to us even in mortality.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black, while the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair."

If it's possible for our righteous ancestors to become deified as Gods, then the Ethiopians and Thracians are correct. So are the Maoris, and the Hindus, and the Norse, and the ...

I like what Brigham Young said: "Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider Our Heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or his Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species of one family and Jesus Christ is also of our species." JD 4:217

It's the human family that is important. What's funny is that while humanists effectively "deify" an idealized version of thinkers like Thales and Xenophanes, Mormonism is itself simply the highest form -- and most logical extension of -- humanism (though we take the histories of immortal humans rather more seriously than the anthropologists who claim they're just "myths"). As Joseph Smith said:

“We ought always to be aware of those prejudices which sometimes so strangely present themselves, and are so congenial to human nature, against our friends, neighbors, and brethren of the world, who choose to differ from us in opinion and in matters of faith. Our religion is between us and our God. Their religion is between them and their God. There is a love from God that should be exercised toward those of our faith, who walk uprightly, which is peculiar to itself, but it is without prejudice; it also gives scope to the mind, which enables us to conduct ourselves with greater liberality towards all that are not of our faith."

As Christ said, we mere humans are the Gods -- but that also means that we have the capacity to fall and become bad Gods (those who have a "spirit of bloodshed" like the Adversary). That's why the At-one-ment is so important -- it reconciles all Uncreated Intelligences and teaches us to sacrifice for each other. Christ's physical body was His Tabernacle, His Temple, making Himself a Template for us -- the only correct Way, the self-sacrificing pattern which is the only one worthy of emulation. The reason that's even possible is because we're all part of the same genealogical "pantheon", and therefore have the same responsibility to be as loving as our Heavenly Father and Mother and Brother.

[Chris Smith]

Speaking of limitations, some minds seem incapable of grasping how something symbolic can also be literal.

You know, Wade, if you feel misunderstood you could say so without deriding people's intelligence. Just saying.

[Jaybear]

Xenophanes' entire line of reasoning is problematic, unless you want to propose that Egyptians were bull, crocodile, hypopotamus, jackal and falcon-shaped.

His reasoning is problematic to the extent he is quoted to explain ALL religions. His critique of anthropomorphic religions is valid.

What a remarkable achievement for someone dead and decomposed thousands of years prior.

You think that is remarkable, here is what he had to say about the Mormon "truth" testimony:

No human being will ever know the Truth, for even if they happen to say it by chance, they would not even known they had done so.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Jaybear

[wenglund]

You know, Wade, if you feel misunderstood you could say so without deriding people's intelligence. Just saying.

Now Chris, I was just playfully turning your cause for laughter back on you. If you are sensitive to such thing, then you may wish to take care to begin with. Just saying as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LeSellers]

I don't agree as God ascribes that title to us even in mortality.

Please show me where God called us homo sapiens ("knowing man"). Because that is what I am talking about.

Lehi