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

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

You're making an unwarranted jump from "viewing God as limited in time and space" to "simply not caring" about interacting one on one. It doesn't bother me that I don't see my parents every waking moment of every day for all eternity, and in that sense it's "not a big deal" -- assuming we are eternal beings, then it's not like we're under the pressure of a time limit. But I still miss them. It's not a "weakness" in Mormon theology, it's just (from my perspective) a fact of life.

What I don't understand is why merely "seeing God" is supposed to be "Heaven". What would we do, just hang out and stare at each other? I think that the Mormon view of taking part in the work of creation over worlds without number gives a far more satisfying purpose to life.

[Uncertain]

You're making an unwarranted jump from "viewing God as limited in time and space" to "simply not caring" about interacting one on one. It doesn't bother me that I don't see my parents every waking moment of every day for all eternity, and in that sense it's "not a big deal" -- assuming we are eternal beings, then it's not like we're under the pressure of a time limit. But I still miss them. It's not a "weakness" in Mormon theology, it's just (from my perspective) a fact of life.

You accept by virture of the fact God has a physical body he can only be in one place at a time. You accept this means you will only interact infrequently with God in heaven. Sounds like we are in agreement this was my only argument in this thread. From your perspective the lack of seeing God is simply a fact of life you would miss the interaction of one on one time with God. Like you miss the interaction of visiting with your parents but this is how things are and you accept this. Hence it is not that you simply don't care about seeing God. You simply accept you will interact with God only rarely one on one. Fair enough, I was incorrect you do care about seeing God and will miss the fact you see him only infrequently but accept this is how the the Universe is constructed. You don't view this as a weakness in Mormon theology because you view this as a consequence of brute fact. I hope you can see how those who don't accept your view of how the after life works will see a weakness in wanting to visit with God in a face to face fashion on a regular basis and not being able to. Telling them this is just how the universe works is begging the question they will simply reply the above weakness (as they see it) is evidience the Universe does in fact not work in the fashion you claim.

What I don't understand is why merely "seeing God" is supposed to be "Heaven". What would we do, just hang out and stare at each other? I think that the Mormon view of taking part in the work of creation over worlds without number gives a far more satisfying purpose to life.

I think this is something of a caricature of the tradional view. When you are with your parents do you simply sit and stare at each other? And frankly if I had to chose an afterlife it would not be the LDS version. I find some aspects of Buddhist thought more satisifying. I can't imagine not getting bored existing for all eternity no matter what I do whether its creating worlds without number or sitting around staring at God. In the end both would bore me to tears if done long enought. Exisiting for all eternity as a sentient intelligience just does not sound very appealing to me. What can I say to each their own.

Best,

Uncertain

[mfbukowski]

I am really starting to suspect the resistance is due more to the source, than it is the conclusion the dastardly heritic came up with it so we must resist at all costs!

The point was merely that being "in" more than one place at once is a logical contradiction. If one was in another place, one was not in the first place. The entire notion of "being in a place" means being in ONE place.

The fact that someone says a logically contradictory statement about God does not "limit" God.

[mfbukowski]

Baloney. This was a view adopted by certain Alexandrian Jews. They were living in the capital, so to speak, of intellectual activity in the Hellenistic world. One could not live there and remain apathetic. Some adopted Greek methods wholeheartedly, oters were more reserved. The kind of work done by Alexandrian grammarians often revolved revolved around problems percieved in the Homeric texts. If these problems were raised by Greeks in regard to their own texts, they could be raised regarding Jewish ones as well. Educated Jews responded by applying the same methods to defend the Hebrew Bible. A similar issue arose in Muslim times, which led to th rise of Jewish Medieval philosophy. Jews in Palestine were no less educated and exposed to Greek thought than those in Alexandria. They borrowed much from their Alexandiran counterparts, but used it to defend the honour of God and distance him from mortal, worldy isues such as eating and drinking, yet didn't go so far as to eradicate anthropomorphism.

Oh I get it.

You mean it's kind of like living in New York and making fun in a broadway play of all the bumpkin Mormons who believe that God is a man.

[Uncertain]

The point was merely that being "in" more than one place at once is a logical contradiction. If one was in another place, one was not in the first place. The entire notion of "being in a place" means being in ONE place.

The fact that someone says a logically contradictory statement about God does not "limit" God.

I am not sure I agree with the implications of your point. I agree being in two places at once is problematic I disagree with God being in two places at once in the sense you mean assuming the tradional view. Where are you currently located? Do you take up "space"? Well say you take up 3 cubic meters of space. Pick your spleen do you exist where your spleen exists of course you do. Now pick your lower intestine do you exist where you lower intestine exists of course you do. You are simultaneously existing where your spleen is and where you lower intestine is. You are existing in some sense in two places at once with no logical contradiction. If an entity takes up any space at all then they are existing in all of those points at once. In the tradional view God is like you and your spleen he exists in all space so he also exists in every point covered by space. You exist in every point occupied by the matter than makes up you. You don't have a "null" point of existience you take up space and hence you exist simultaneously in all the space you take up. This is similiar in my understanding to the tradional view of God he exists in all space. God is not in two places at once under the tradional view he is in one place the entire universe. Just like you are in one place the place occupied by the spiritual matter that makes up who you are. To those embedded in the universe it may appear he is in two places at once but he is not. Just like to a bacteria in yout gut and a bacteria in your bloodstream it may appear to them "you" are at two different places at once this is false. You are in one space and the bacteria take up subsets of your overall space. God is in one space the entire universe and we take up subsets of this space. God however is not in two places at once. If God interacted in a face with face fashion at one time with every soul under the tradional view God is not in two different places. God is in one place the place occupied by him. Just like you are in one space the space occupied by you it just so happens Gods space is much bigger than your space and includes your space.

Does that fact you take up space mean you are a logical contradiction existing in two different places at once? Of course not the very same logic applies to God.

In any case this is very different point that what I was arguing. I was simply pointing out if God exists as a physical body he necassarily exists in a single small location. It then follows he can only interact in a face to face fashion at one time with those who are also at his location. This is what I was referring to when I made the statement I don't see why there is so much resisitance. You appear to be engaging in a tu quoque based argument claiming God could not be in two places at once under the tradional view either so both suffer from the same issue. This is a sidetrack from my point which initially got so much resitance to what was I thought entirely straightforward.

In any case we are wanding somewhat far afield of my orginal point. I will be interested in reading you response but will likely not respond.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited March 12, 2012 by Uncertain

[LeSellers]

Where are you currently located? Do you take up "space"? Well say you take up 3 cubic meters of space.

Wow!! I'd weigh at least three tonnes (6,600 pounds).

No one's that fat.

Lehi

Edited March 12, 2012 by LeSellers

[Uncertain]

Wow!! I'd weigh at least three tonnes (6,600 pounds.

No one's that fat.

Lehi

You haven't seen me . I pulled that number from thin air. It does not matter what number is used what matters is the fact that I occupy space hence I exist simultaneously in every point of the space I occupy without contradiction. I don't exist in two places at once I exist in one place made up of many smaller "places".

Best,

Uncertain

[LeSellers]

I pulled that number from thin air.

I figured that.

Most USmericans haven't the faintest idea what cubic meter is. One cubic meter of water is about 264¹/₆ gallons and (at 4° C) masses 1,000,000 grams (1,000 kilograms, 1 tonne/long ton, 2,200 pounds).. <macabre>Roughly half the size of an open grave </macabre>.

Otherwise, I got your point.

I'm a technical writer, fer cryin' out loud, I am paid to pick nits like this one.

Lehi

[Uncertain]

I figured that.

Most USmericans haven't the faintest idea what cubic meter is. One cubic meter of water is about 264¹/₆ gallons and (at 4° C) masses 1,000,000 grams (1,000 kilograms, 1 tonne/long ton, 2,200 pounds).. <macabre>Roughly half the size of an open grave </macabre>.

Otherwise, I got your point.

I'm a technical writer, fer cryin' out loud, I am paid to pick nits like this one.

Lehi

Fair enough pick away . I actually have no excuse I work in the sciences in academia and know how big a cubic meter is. I just did not want to bother figuring out how many cubic meters an average person is so went with a nice round number way easier.

Edited to add.

If you are a technical writer my posts must drive you crazy. I write fast and rarely spell check so I am sure my grammar and spelling are horrendously bad. Back away slowly it's a train wreck.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Uncertain

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

This is the third time this objection has been raised when I anticapted this very avenue of attack and addressed it in my opening post #37.

Here it is:

"Now you could claim there is some other source of interaction God can provide that makes up for personal one on one time. Like for example the Holy Ghost acting as a proxy and so although we could not get to interact in a one on one fashion with God all that much. Its okay because we can fell his influnece through the Holy Ghost and that makes it all good. Actually interacting with God in a tangible physical personal fashion as we do with our parents on earth would be incredibly rare. But is all good because we feel his presence through the Spirit. Something like a super version of child support ."

(bold added by me)

I assume this is what you are referring to when you state Gods influence can be felt "everywhere". It almost sounds like you are arguing the tradional version of God is also correct in that God is everywhere directly not by proxy through the spirit but directly present as other more tradional Christians believe. In which case sure this solves the problem. It is my understanding arguing God is directly present everywhere in an identical fashion as other tradional Christians believe is not LDS doctorine and other LDS have argued against this idea in this thread. So I assume you are referencing the Holy Ghost acting as proxy idea. Which is the idea I addressed in my opening post.

You assumed incorrectly. There is no notion of "proxy" anywhere in what I said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncertain]

You assumed incorrectly. There is no notion of "proxy" anywhere in what I said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

tomato tomahto the statement applies in either case. If you are satisfied with a substitute instead of personal face to face interaction with God thats fine. I am not claming you should necassarily care if you only see God in a face to face fashion once every trillion years or so. To each their own.

Best,

Uncertain

[mfbukowski]

You are simultaneously existing where your spleen is and where you lower intestine is. You are existing in some sense in two places at once with no logical contradiction. If an entity takes up any space at all then they are existing in all of those points at once. ...

Does that fact you take up space mean you are a logical contradiction existing in two different places at once? Of course not the very same logic applies to God.

In any case this is very different point that what I was arguing. I was simply pointing out if God exists as a physical body he necassarily exists in a single small location.

Wow that's a good one. I can be in many places at once, or so you say, and yet God exists in a "single small location"

It should be clear that there are problems with this line of thinking.

I think you are right.

In any case we are wanding somewhat far afield of my orginal point. I will be interested in reading you response but will likely not respond.

Seems like a good idea to me.

Here's the deal. These are all semantic, linguistic issues based on how we define words, nothing more nothing less. If you want to define "entity" to be something that can be everywhere at once, good for you. That means he is here right now, but I can't seem to see him. Now you have to make him "immaterial". If you want to do that, fine with me. If you want to say that the word "place" has no meaning, knock yourself out. If you want to say that there can be an "entity" that exists everywhere at once, good for you.

Worship whomever or whatever you can dream up, be my guest.

But don't tell me that your contradictory definitions "limit" MY God because they don't.

Edited March 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

You haven't seen me . I pulled that number from thin air. It does not matter what number is used what matters is the fact that I occupy space hence I exist simultaneously in every point of the space I occupy without contradiction. I don't exist in two places at once I exist in one place made up of many smaller "places".

Best,

Uncertain

Exactly how many smaller places?

Edit:

And when Mrs. Uncertain is looking for you and you say "I'm here"! which set of co-ordinates to you give here to exactly where "you" are?

I am just trying to show that the notion that you are suggesting is far from what we ordinarily define as a "place". By using words in contexts in which they never appear, the lose their meaning entirely.

Edited March 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

tomato tomahto the statement applies in either case. If you are satisfied with a substitute instead of personal face to face interaction with God thats fine. I am not claming you should necassarily care if you only see God in a face to face fashion once every trillion years or so. To each their own.

Best,

Uncertain

What- does your cloud who is everywhere now have a face? Sounds like that gives him some dimensions. How big is his nose?

[volgadon]

Oh I get it.

You mean it's kind of like living in New York and making fun in a broadway play of all the bumpkin Mormons who believe that God is a man.

Neve thougt of it quite like that.

Edited March 13, 2012 by volgadon

[saemo]

Omnipresence is an attribute of God.

Yes or no?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

No. The word is not found in scripture. Neither, for that matter, is "omniscient." Even the single occurrence of "omnipotent" in the Book of Revelation is a relic of the King James Version and those derived from it, such as Webster's.

[maklelan]

Omnipresence is an attribute of God.

Yes or no?

Not according to the Bible.

[altersteve]

Omnipresence is an attribute of God.

Yes or no?

Not literally. But God having a body does not mean He's not "omnipresent" through the Light of Christ, which is His glory and influence that permeates His entire creation.

Edited March 13, 2012 by altersteve

[Xander]

Mak, I think we agree more than we disagree so I'm cutting to the heart of the matter:

No, you've been asserting that the Bible doesn't suggest that his natural state is anthropomorphic.

What I said is, "A theophany is simply an appearance of God. How God chooses to appear is up to him. But it doesn't mean his choice is indicative of his natural state." And again, "What I'm saying is that just because they conceived of God in such terms, doesn't mean that is how God is in his natural state."

All the Bible does is tell us is that some writers claimed to have had an encounter with God and each expresses their experience as thought there were visited by an anthropomorphic being.

But the Bible doesn't tell us why he appeared that way or why these people say he appeared that way.

You are making a huge leap here, going from how God allegedly appeared at times in the Bible, to saying that this must be his natural state, and then citing scholars who assert that this is what the biblical authors believed (when they have no way of knowing this) and expecting me to accept it on their say-so. I say phooey to that because I see nothing in these verses that would suggest the author was stating a doctrinal absolute about God's nature. And the theophanic references are at the very least, sporadic, ambiguous, vague and inconsistent on a number of levels. For example, why is it that Jacob is wrestling with an angel who refers to Jehovah, but later Jacob says he wrestled with God? When he says he saw God, is he referring to God the Father or just the generic use of elohim as it referred to all heavenly beings (i.e. angels)? Also, the Bible says no man can see God and live, but then some claim that they did and lived. There isn't a single unambiguous, detailed description of God anywhere except maybe in Ezekiel, which of course we already know is drenched in symbolism/metaphor and the Daniel reference was based on a flippin dream! But even then, we have little detail provided about the so-called body of God. Also, the NT says no man has ever seen God, and then calls God a spirit. So yes, there is ambiguity there when dealing with the "biblical" view of God's natural state.

Moreover, in some of these verses you referenced, we see the theophany involving Jehovah or the angel of Jehovah, which in the case of Mormon theology, refers to Jesus Christ, not God the Father.

This is the first you've intimated that the Bible may suggest it, but that that's not how it is in reality.

I've always conceded that point. In fact I've written quite a bit on that as an apologist, using some of the same references you've already mentioned. You must have missed my previous comment: "What I'm saying is that just because they (i.e. biblical writers) conceived of God in such terms, doesn't mean that is how God is in his natural state."

But I maintain that this wasn't as strong a belief as you seem to think, and there is evidence for this to be found in the fact that orthodox Jewish philosophers had little problem adopting those Hellenized ideas about God that put to rest the view that God appeared as an anthropomorphic being, therefore that's what he is.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Xander

[saemo]

Not according to the Bible.

Jeremiah 23:23,24

Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord

Matthew 18:20

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

(Do you believe there is somewhere that you can hide from God?)

Edited March 13, 2012 by saemo

[maklelan]

Mak, I think we agree more than we disagree so I'm cutting to the heart of the matter:

What I said is, "A theophany is simply an appearance of God. How God chooses to appear is up to him. But it doesn't mean his choice is indicative of his natural state." And again, "What I'm saying is that just because they conceived of God in such terms, doesn't mean that is how God is in his natural state."

All the Bible does is tell us is that some writers claimed to have had an encounter with God and each expresses their experience as thought there were visited by an anthropomorphic being.

But the Bible doesn't tell us why he appeared that way.

It seems to me in answering this question you're moving beyond any kind of critical methodology and trying to incorporate what you believe to be metaphysically true about God's being. I think here the most simple answer is the only one that is supported by any biblical evidence: that's the way they believe him to be.

You are making a huge leap here, going from how God appears at times in the Bible, to saying that this must be his natural state, and then citing scholars who assert that this is what the biblical authors believed (when they have no way of knowing this) and expecting me to accept it on their say-so. I say phooey to that because the theophanic references are at the very least sporadic, ambiguous, vague and inconsistent on a number of levels. For example, why is it that Jacob is wrestling with an angel who refers to Jehovah in second person, but later Jacob says he wrestled with God?

I've already explained this. The word "angel" is a late interpolation that redactors and editors slid into the text to obscure the notion that God was physically interacting with humans, which became problematic in Deuteronomistic and Hellenistic literature. I address this in detail in my master's thesis, as well as this blog post. This kind of interpolation was remarkably common. The Septuagint interpolated the "angel of Yhwh" in places like Exod 4:24 and elsewhere. The Samaritan Pentateuch interpolates the "angel of Yhwh" in two of Balaam's visions in the night. The Targums interpolate the angel of Yhwh in dozens and dozens of places. In light of this interpolation, there's really no problem at all with the text.

When he says he saw God, is he referring to God the Father or just the generic use of elohim as it referred to all heavenly beings (i.e. angels)?

No, he was referring to God. There's no text anywhere in the Hebrew Bible that insists looking at an angel produces instant death. It's only the very face of God that does that. Additionally, the name of the place, Peniel ("Face of El"), and the folk etymology regarding the name Israel ("he strove with El") render it quite unlikely Jacob was just talking about a generic angel.

Also, the Bible says no man can see God and live, but then some claim that they did and lived. There isn't a single unambiguous, detailed description of God anywhere except maybe in Ezekiel, which of course we already know is drenched in symbolism/metaphor and the Daniel reference was based on a flippin dream! But even then, we have little detail provided about the so-called body of God.

We have little detail because we have little detail of anything but architecture in the Hebrew Bible, and even then only in specific sections of text.

Moreover, in some of these verses you referenced, we see the theophany involving Jehovah or the angel of Jehovah, which in the case of Mormon theology, refers to Jesus Christ, not God the Father.

Mormon theology has nothing to do with my conclusions about the biblical conceptualizations of God.

I've always conceded that point. In fact I've written quite a bit on that as an apologist, using some of the same references you've already mentioned. You must have missed my previous comment: "What I'm saying is that just because they (i.e. biblical writers) conceived of God in such terms, doesn't mean that is how God is in his natural state."

I didn't miss it, I responded directly to it.

But I maintain that this wasn't as strong a belief as you seem to think, and there is evidence for this to be found in the fact that orthodox Jewish philosophers had little problem adopting those Hellenized ideas about God that put to rest the view that God appeared as an anthropomorphic being, therefore that's what he is.

That generations from centuries later had little trouble conflating culturally popular ideologies with sacred religious texts has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what texts from centuries before meant in their earlier contexts. Interpreting religious texts within a community has always been a negotiation between sacred past and expedient present, and the expedient present almost always has the clear priority.

[maklelan]

Jeremiah 23:23,24

Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord

Matthew 18:20

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

(Do you believe there is somewhere that you can hide from God?)

Having visual or physical access to every corner of the universe does not mean one simultaneously is present in every corner of the universe. Your Matthew text actually complicates your own claim, since where two or three are gather, but not in his name, isn't he not in the midst of them, and thus not omnipresent? You also have to deal with the numerous texts that very clearly show God with a discrete physical body. For instance, in Gen 3:8 Adam and Eve hear the sound of of God walking in the garden in the cool of the afternoon. In Gen 11:7 God says "let us go down and there confound their language." In Gen 4:16 Cain left the presence of God. In Gen 18:21 God has to "go down" in order to see what is going on in Sodom and Gomorrah. In dozens of places his presence is described as a discrete entity that can be present or absent. Several times God has to move from one location to another to see what is happening.

[Jaybear]

It seems to me in answering this question you're moving beyond any kind of critical methodology and trying to incorporate what you believe to be metaphysically true about God's being. I think here the most simple answer is the only one that is supported by any biblical evidence: that's the way they believe him to be.

...

It seems to me that your are (deliberately?) missing Xander's point.

Xander said: But the Bible doesn't tell us why he appeared that way.

Do you disagree?

If so, please cite the verse that supports your conclusion.

If not, what is the point of the argument?

[thesometimesaint]

Genesis 11:7-9

King James Version (KJV)