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

[maklelan]

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?

I agree that the Bible doesn't explicitly state, "he appeared that way because . . . ," but since the Bible never explains anything in that manner, and because I directly provided a reason for why in my response, obviously I do disagree regarding the claims that we cannot determine why from the biblical text. We can quite easily determine why, and I have been pointing this out the entire time.

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

I've already pointed to several texts that quite explicitly and without qualification describe God in unilaterally anthropomorphic terms. I've also pointed out that there is not a single text that problematizes viewing the early Israelite and Jewish conceptualizations of deity as fundamentally anthropomorphic. So far the only direct response to my evidence has been to suggest that there's ambiguity in the Jacob account, despite the fact that I already explained exactly why there was not.

Edited March 13, 2012 by maklelan

[Jaybear]

I agree that the Bible doesn't explicitly state, "he appeared that way because . . . ," but since the Bible never explains anything in that manner, and because I directly provided a reason for why in my response, obviously I do disagree regarding the claims that we cannot determine why from the biblical text. We can quite easily determine why, and I have been pointing this out the entire time.

More accurately, in the absence of the express statement, you can infer from the text why.

Such an inference, even if eminently reasonable, does not contradict Xanders first statement on the matter: "True, but the Genesis account doesn't require a Mormon interpretation."

Simply put, you are both right, except where you are claiming the other is wrong.

[saemo]

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.

Well, you didn't answer what I asked. That's ok.

[KevinG]

More accurately, in the absence of the express statement, you can infer from the text why.

Such an inference, even if eminently reasonable, does not contradict Xanders first statement on the matter: "True, but the Genesis account doesn't require a Mormon interpretation."

Simply put, you are both right, except where you are claiming the other is wrong.

Does this mean you support the idea that the Mormon idea of an Antrhopomorphic God should not be problematic for other Theists?

[wenglund]

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

You seem intent on warping my statement beyond my recognition, and so I will leave you to grapple with the straw man you keep propping up.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Omnipresence is an attribute of God.

Yes or no?

I would say yes, though in a relative sense (I say "relative" because there are scriptures that speak to "places" where God does not dwell).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[maklelan]

More accurately, in the absence of the express statement, you can infer from the text why.

Now you're playing with semantics in an effort to imply the conclusion isn't as strongly supported. The fact remains that there is no support in any Hebrew Bible text for a non-anthropomorphic understanding of deity. If you want to call my conclusion an inference that's fine, but you cannot show that any other inference is nearly as supported by the textual evidence.

Such an inference, even if eminently reasonable, does not contradict Xanders first statement on the matter: "True, but the Genesis account doesn't require a Mormon interpretation."

I understand "Mormon interpretation" to mean "anthropomorphic reading." That's the way I've approached the question, and that's the way he has appeared to me to engage it. In that sense, it does contradict it. The author of Genesis 1 did not believe in a non-anthropomorphic deity.

Simply put, you are both right, except where you are claiming the other is wrong.

Way off base.

[maklelan]

Well, you didn't answer what I asked. That's ok.

The question is a red herring. Whether or not we can hide from God has no bearing on whether or not he is omnipresent. I explained that. I also showed several texts that quite unambiguously show that he is not omnipresent. It appears to me that you are unwilling to directly engage the texts I brought up, and are instead trying to deflect the argument with this complaint.

[saemo]

The question is a red herring. Whether or not we can hide from God has no bearing on whether or not he is omnipresent. I explained that. I also showed several texts that quite unambiguously show that he is not omnipresent. It appears to me that you are unwilling to directly engage the texts I brought up, and are instead trying to deflect the argument with this complaint.

It's a serious question, that when I think of in a Mormon context, I can only come up with the Mormon teaching of the Holy Ghost being the one who is present. Which just brought up more questions, such as, when you believe you'll become a God do you also have a Holy Ghost so that you can be "omnipresent". Wasn't making sense to me, so I'd thought I'd ask.

You didn't answer, just gave me diversions, but as I said, that's OK. Just thought I'd ask.

[maklelan]

It's a serious question, that when I think of in a Mormon context, I can only come up with the Mormon teaching of the Holy Ghost being the one who is present. Which just brought up more questions, such as, when you believe you'll become a God do you also have a Holy Ghost so that you can be "omnipresent". Wasn't making sense to me, so I'd thought I'd ask.

But these concerns don't have any bearing on the question of whether or not the Bible communicates an omnipresent deity, which was my comment.

You didn't answer, just gave me diversions, but as I said, that's OK. Just thought I'd ask.

I showed that your texts did not indicate omnipresence, and that there are several texts that show God is explicitly not omnipresent. My comment was that the biblical text does not show an omnipresent deity. Every subsequent comments has direct bearing on that assertion. I have diverted from nothing.

[Verum]

An embodied, gendered God is in a lot of ways a beautiful, interesting doctrine in that it allows man to constantly strive for something greater. It also gives profound meaning of the parental love and and nature of God and how that love should be reflected by us to all humankind.

On the other hand, some see this doctrine of a human God as sort of of man's way of worshiping himself....

[saemo]

But these concerns don't have any bearing on the question of whether or not the Bible communicates an omnipresent deity, which was my comment.

I showed that your texts did not indicate omnipresence, and that there are several texts that show God is explicitly not omnipresent. My comment was that the biblical text does not show an omnipresent deity. Every subsequent comments has direct bearing on that assertion. I have diverted from nothing.

I was thinking in a Mormon context, and what is taught. Googled at lds.org, which basically says the same thing you have. God is omnipresent, but then God is not omnipresent.

In a Catholic context, I'm OK with this, as it conveys God's omnipresence as being experiential, as well as universal. i.e., as we experience God's presence, God is here, now. As God is (His nature), He is present to more than just myself, here and now.

Edited March 13, 2012 by saemo

[maklelan]

I was thinking in a Mormon context, and what is taught.

I thought the comment "Not according to the Bible" was sufficiently clear to limit the scope of my assertion to the Bible. Your response, quoting two biblical texts, indicated to me that you were aware of that limit.

Googled at lds.org, which basically says the same thing you have. God is omnipresent, but then God is not omnipresent.

I have never said God is omnipresent.

In a Catholic context, I'm OK with this, as it conveys God's omnipresence as being experiential, as well as universal. i.e., as we experience God's presence, God is here, now. As God is (His nature), He is present to more than just myself, here and now.

[Anakin7]

From my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Temple Archives - http://drwesleymuhammad.com/research

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited March 13, 2012 by Anakin7

[wenglund]

On the other hand, some see this doctrine of a human God as sort of man's way of worshiping himself....

This makes no sense to me. It seems to confuse not only the subject (God) with the object (mankind), but also it confuses the nature of the subject (the anthropomorphism of God) with the subject itself (God)--it is not the anthropomorphism of God that is worshiped, but God, himself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Omnipresence is an attribute of God.

Yes or no?

Did you stop beating your wife yet? Yes or no?

Obviously some questions are not best answered by yes or no.

Define "attribute". How does one "have" an attribute? Do you put them in your pocket?

The point I am making is that "attributes" are descriptions, and are not "real". They are not observations- they are literally something we "attribute" to someone else.

If you want to define God that way, if you like that word, we can describe God that way too. It won't be the same description- because guess what- we don't believe what you believe.

[mfbukowski]

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."

How would one find out whether or not these statements are true or false?

How would one see God's "natural state" in order to compare it with the description and say whether or not it is "true". Since we cannot know scientifically what God's "natural state" IS, the question of how he "actually is" becomes irrelevant.

All we can know about it is what is revealed, and what our testimony confirms. And as we know, testimonies differ. But that is another question entirely.

Edited March 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

An embodied, gendered God is in a lot of ways a beautiful, interesting doctrine in that it allows man to constantly strive for something greater. It also gives profound meaning of the parental love and and nature of God and how that love should be reflected by us to all humankind.

On the other hand, some see this doctrine of a human God as sort of of man's way of worshiping himself....

And seriously, what is wrong with worshiping human potential, if you want to put it that way?

Our potential is to become the most perfect beings we can possibly become- exaltation. I have no problem worshiping a being who has already achieved all we can achieve for ourselves.

Edited March 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

In a Catholic context, I'm OK with this, as it conveys God's omnipresence as being experiential, as well as universal. i.e., as we experience God's presence, God is here, now. As God is (His nature), He is present to more than just myself, here and now.

Now we are actually on the same page. The bottom line for me is experience- and yes I also experience God as omnipresent. I have never been anywhere where he as not been.

But then again I have never been outside myself.

[Zakuska]

For God to be omnipresent, He would literally have to be his own creation, he would literally have to be every proton neutron electron in all of existance.

While God's presence can be felt every where, As Makelan has rightly observed there are places where God is NOT (ie the heart of a Demon or "unregenerate" soul) and therefore can't be omnipresent using the conventional definition of the word.

Yet more verses which indicates the non-omnipresence of God.

John 16:28

28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

Why would Christ have to "GO" to his Father if his Father were omnipresent and already here?

[wenglund]

For God to be omnipresent, He would literally have to be his own creation, he would literally have to be every proton neutron electron in all of existance.

While God's presence can be felt every where, As Makelan has rightly observed there are places where God is NOT (ie the heart of a Demon or "unregenerate" soul) and therefore can't be omnipresent using the conventional definition of the word.

Yet more verses which indicates the non-omnipresence of God.

John 16:28

28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

Why would Christ have to "GO" to his Father if his Father were omnipresent and already here?

Several decades back I wrote a book that addressed the anthropomorphic nature of God the Father using mostly references from the Bible, and one of the chapters dealt with the non-absolute omnipresence of God. For those interested, I will attach the chapter to this post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund0-

Chap2.htm

[Tarski]

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-

By the same token the absence of a trunk (like an elephant) is a limitation as is the absence of flippers or gills.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Tarski

[mfbukowski]

Several decades back I wrote a book that addressed the anthropomorphic nature of God the Father using mostly references from the Bible, and one of the chapters dealt with the non-absolute omnipresence of God. For those interested, I will attach the chapter to this post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund0-

Very interesting arguments! If it's ok with you I will summarize one and twist it a bit.

How can God be omnipresent if we are now not IN his presence? Since we are sinners and there is a veil drawn?

Those who think that the greatest reward would be to be in "God's presence" have nothing to look forward to if he is omnipresent.

As Wade points out, if there is one place where God will not go nor cannot be- he is not "omnipresent".

For there to be light there must be darkness somewhere.

[mfbukowski]

By the same token the absence of a trunk (like an elephant) is a limitation as is the absence of flippers or gills.

That's the whole point. You can see anything you want as a "limitation", since limitations are in the eye of the beholder.

[mfbukowski]

... - we carry the contextualizing history of the Gospel, the Good Story, to others through a chain of touch, a chain of witnesses.

"Good Story" = good point.

Dang it. There you go getting it right again.

Forget all the bad stuff I have been saying about you.

Just noticed this. I guess I will actually have to read your posts more often.

Edited March 13, 2012 by mfbukowski