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

[maklelan]

True, but the Genesis account doesn't require a Mormon interpretation. Christianity has survived for two thousand years while interpreting these references as mere theophanies. 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. That is something that resonated with the older, primitive thinkers. It was abandoned early on and then finally adopted again by the Mormons.

But this just retrojects a conservative Christian worldview onto a text that has nothing to do with conservative Christianity. Why is that preferable to a Mormon worldview? An anthropomorphic reading of Genesis and general understanding of deity was universal from its composition down to the Common Era (around the second century CE in Christianity, and a little later in Judaism).

[Xander]

But this just retrojects a conservative Christian worldview onto a text that has nothing to do with conservative Christianity.

The Bible has nothing to do with Christainity? Ok.

Why is that preferable to a Mormon worldview?

The Mormon "worldview"? We're talking about biblical interpretation here. Mormons interpret scripture through Joseph Smith's teachings. It just so happens that Joseph Smith's understanding is typical of those primitive folks who were incapable of thinking more dimensionally. That changed with the Greeks.

An anthropomorphic reading of Genesis and general understanding of deity was universal from its composition down to the Common Era (around the second century CE in Christianity, and a little later in Judaism).

This is simply not true. In the second century b.c. The Jewish philosopher Aristobulus was rejecting the literal interpretation of these anthropomorphisms. No one doubts that the Bible tells us that God had at times appeared in human form. This however, doesn't tell us anything about God's natural state so it is wrong to say this is what the Bible suggests. When God appeared as a Pillar of Cloud by day and a Pillar of Fire by night, was this hsi natural state? There is enough ambiguity in the biblical theophanies to suggest that God isn't necessarily embodied in any form. We use anthropomorphic terms in describing God because those are the only terms we're familiar with. Thus, God is jealous, loving, merciful, and he can see, stand, smell, etc. All the qualities humans understand and are therefore able to attribute to him/her/it. There is no compelling reason to think the Bible teaches God is necessarily an anthropomorphic being.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Xander

[Flyonthewall]

Perhaps I missed it, but could you please provide a reference where it states that God appeared AS a pillar of Cloud or Fire?

A quick search only lets on that God was IN the pillar of Cloud/Fire.

If I appeared IN a car, that by no means that I am the car or that the form of a car is my natrual state.

[maklelan]

The Bible has nothing to do with Christainity? Ok.

Not when it was composed, or for centuries after.

The Mormon "worldview"? We're talking about biblical interpretation here. Mormons interpret scripture through Joseph Smith's teachings. It just so happens that Joseph Smith's understanding is typical of those primitive folks who were incapable of thinking more dimensionally. That changed with the Greeks.

So Joseph Smith's theology is typical of pre-Hellenistic Judaism, but then Greek thinking was appropriated and saved the day? Doesn't this just play right into Mormon aologists' hands?

This is simply not true. In the second century b.c. The Jewish philosopher Aristobulus was rejecting the literal interpretation of these anthropomorphisms.

Yes, some Hellenistic Jewish philosophers rejected anthropomorphisms, although the more common assertion among them was that God just could not be seen by humans. Perhaps I used "universal" in the wrong sense. Anthropomorphism was the norm, however, even in Egypt and in Rabbinic Judaism for centuries. A good publication on this is Shamma Friedman, "Anthropomorphism and Its Eradication," in Iconoclasm and Iconoclash: Struggle for Religious Identity (Leiden: Brill, 2007). Anti-anthropomorphism was the subject of my Oxford master's thesis, and my current one addresses Israelite conceptualizations of deity in general, by the way.

No one doubts that the Bible tells us that God had at times appeared in human form.

The Hebrew Bible never indicates ancient Israelites and Jews believed God had any form other than a human one. Even 50 years ago James Barr pointed out that Israelites described God in human terms because that's the form they believed he had (Barr, "Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament," in Congress Volume: Oxford 1959 [Leiden: Brill, 1960,], 31-38).

This however, doesn't tell us anything about God's natural state so it is wrong to say this is what the Bible suggests. When God appeared as a Pillar of Cloud by day and a Pillar of Fire by night, was this hsi natural state?

It doesn't say God appeared as a pillar of cloud or fire. It says he appeared in a pillar of cloud and fire. The idea was that the cloud and the fire would obscure his body, and specifically his face, which was too glorious for them to survive.

There is enough ambiguity in the biblical theophanies to suggest that God isn't necessarily embodied in any form.

This is untrue. The descriptions of God as anthropomorphic are quite unambiguous. It is only literary conventions that appeal to other motifs that are unclear and inconsistent, and it's because they're just literary conventions.

We use anthropomorphic terms in describing God because those are the only terms we're familiar with. Thus, God is jealous, loving, merciful, and he can see, stand, smell, etc. All the qualities humans understand and are therefore able to attribute to him/her/it. There is no compelling reason to think the Bible teaches God is necessarily an anthropomorphic being.

If the Bible is only capable of speaking in anthropomorphic terms, where do we find any indication that they conceived of God as something other than anthropomorphic? Certainly not the silly notion that because reference is a couple times made to God's "wings," the hundreds of places where his anthropomorphic body is described or mentioned must inescapably also be metaphorical.

The approach you take, by the way, is addressed and undermined in numerous scholarly texts, but most thoroughly in E. La B. Cherbonnier, "The Logic of Biblical Anthropomorphism," Harvard Theological Review 55.3 (1962): 187-206, and more recently in David Aaron, Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphors, Semantics and Divine Imagery (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 33-35. You might also check out Benjamin D. Sommer's book The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), which shows pretty definitively that God was absolutely conceived of as corporeal, although his discussion of fluidity takes a quite conservative exegetical approach that neglects a great deal of recent research addressing similarly pluriform divine descriptions in other cultures that provide a much better model for understanding Israelite views of the same. The most recent publications on this are What Is a God? Anthropomorphic and Non-Anthropomorphic Aspects of Deity in Ancient Mesopotamia (edited by B. N. Porter; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009); Beate Pongratz-Leisten, "Divine Agency and Astralization of the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia," in Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism (edited by B. Pongratz-Leisten; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 137-88; Spencer L. Allen, "The Splintered Divine: A Study of Ištar, Baal, and Yahweh Divine Names and Divine Multiplicity in the Ancient Near East" (PhD diss., The University of Pennsylvania, 2011). As far as early Christianity goes, David Paulsen's articles in Harvard Theological Review in

1990 and again in 2002 are pretty helpful and provide plenty of bibliographic data.

[Xander]

Not when it was composed, or for centuries after.

Then by that same token, it had nothing to do with Mormonism.

So Joseph Smith's theology is typical of pre-Hellenistic Judaism, but then Greek thinking was appropriated and saved the day? Doesn't this just play right into Mormon aologists' hands?

Yes, Greek philosophy has become a favorite punching bag among LDS apologists. But why? Just because later biblical interpretations were influenced by Greek philosophy doesn't make them wrong. Platonism provided more tools to reason the scriptures as they pertained to theological topics, such as the nature of God. Why is that such a bad thing? Clement of Alexandria argued that Greek Philosophy was straight from God, and prepared the Church for better understanding. This of course begs the question, but to me it is more plausible than Mormonism's "it was an apostasy" argument. After all, just look at what Greek philosophy has given to the world.

Yes, some Hellenistic Jewish philosophers rejected anthropomorphisms, although the more common assertion among them was that God just could not be seen by humans.

Yes, because his glory would kill them. Contrary to Joseph Smith's teaching and experience, I might add.

Perhaps I used "universal" in the wrong sense.

We all make mistakes.

Anthropomorphism was the norm, however, even in Egypt and in Rabbinic Judaism for centuries.

Of course it was. But this doesn't tell us God's natural state must be anthropomorphic. It only tells us that this is how the primitive thinking went until it became more sophisticated. The Greeks simply provided the tools for such thinking. Greek philosophy didn't require such thinking, obviously. You still have the Greek gods on Mt. Olympus who were described in literal anthropomorphic terms. But the ancient Jews saw Greek Philosophy as a better means to convey the transcendent nature of Israel's God.

The Hebrew Bible never indicates ancient Israelites and Jews believed God had any form other than a human one.

So what if that's what they believed? There are also examples where God's form is spoken in abstract terms. In fact, how many solid examples can you point to where God appears to humans as a man? Most of this is just inference from ambiguous accounts.

Even 50 years ago James Barr pointed out that Israelites described God in human terms because that's the form they believed he had (Barr, "Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament," in Congress Volume: Oxford 1959 [Leiden: Brill, 1960,], 31-38).

That is just Barr's opinion which is based on a number of things we simply do not know. What we do know is that the Biblical writers referred to God in anthropomorphic terms. Why they did so can be explained in a number of ways, but until one of us goes back in a time machine and interviews them all, we'll never know for certain why they did this. But we do have the theophany accounts which might lead some of the earlier, unsophisticated thinkers to believe that just because God showed up as a man, that this somehow means God is a man. El, the father of Yahweh, was originally believed to be a Bull, which later became his "animal symbol" according to Mark Smith (which probably explains the gold calf at Sinai). Yahweh is referenced as a Bull in the Old Testament, so this suggests the early Israelites were not shy about speaking of God metaphorically.

A good publication on this is Shamma Friedman, "Anthropomorphism and Its Eradication," in Iconoclasm and Iconoclash: Struggle for Religious Identity (Leiden: Brill, 2007). Anti-anthropomorphism was the subject of my Oxford master's thesis, and my current one addresses Israelite conceptualizations of deity in general, by the way.

I'm aware of that. And you're aware that I've read plenty on this subject as well. There has been plenty written about the anti-anthropomorphism movements, but none of these scholars have described them as apostate movements that have corrupted the true nature of God. That's only what the LDS apologist argues. The anti-anthropomorphism theme has been pounded to death by scholars over the past few decades, and they're all pretty much saying the same things.

This is untrue. The descriptions of God as anthropomorphic are quite unambiguous. It is only literary conventions that appeal to other motifs that are unclear and inconsistent, and it's because they're just literary conventions.

Then why don't you go ahead and provide a list of the concrete anthropomorphic theophanies listed in the Bible and let's analyze them. I think you overstate your case.

If the Bible is only capable of speaking in anthropomorphic terms, where do we find any indication that they conceived of God as something other than anthropomorphic?

In plenty of places. For example, Yahweh is described as a woman giving childbirthin Isaiah 42:12. Does this mean Yahweh is literally a woman? In almost every theophany God is consumed by a glorious light. Last time I checked, man doesn't share that quality with God, and thus, this is a consistent non-anthropomorphic attribute of the biblical God.

It doesn't say God appeared as a pillar of cloud or fire. It says he appeared in a pillar of cloud and fire. The idea was that the cloud and the fire would obscure his body, and specifically his face, which was too glorious for them to survive.

Right, and why would we believe this incident happened at all if Joseph Smith's first vision is to carry any weight? Obviously seeing God doesn't destroy a man where he stands, so why would God need to hide in a cloud?

Certainly not the silly notion that because reference is a couple times made to God's "wings," the hundreds of places where his anthropomorphic body is described or mentioned must inescapably also be metaphorical.

The wings would be a zoomorphic reference, and yes, it does prove that God is biblically referenced in metaphor. Most of the references to his body parts can easily be understood as metaphors, though I'm not saying all of them are. For instance, the Hand of God is a typical metaphor referring to his power, yet apologists usually use all of these references to stack the deck in favor of the Mormon doctrine of a corporeal anthropomorphic God. But I do not deny that people believe God was a literal corporeal being. Since Genesis is essentially based on earlier Babylonian creation myths, it should hardly be surprising that they really believed physical gods were in heaven literally fighting it out among themselves, having orgiastic sexcapades, etc. By trying to find harmony with this ancient worldview and Mormon doctrine, apologists are really playing right into the critics' hands.

What I contest is the notion that the Bible alone tells us that God has a body as his natural state. In reality, Mormon doctrine tells us this, and of course it uses the anthropomorphic references as support. But all we really know from the Bible is that, according to some biblical writers, God chose to appear as a man on very rare occasions. But the accounts are ambiguous and inconsistent as they are.

The approach you take, by the way, is addressed and undermined in numerous scholarly texts, but most thoroughly in E. La B. Cherbonnier

No it isn't. I just threw out another way of reading these scriptures, and there is no consensus among scholars. You seem to think I'm challenging how some of the earliest Israelites conceived of God. I'm not. 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. And just because this view changed dramatically with the help of Greek influence, doesn't make the newer view incorrect.

I'd also like to point out that demonizing Greek philosophy is really a poor argument by apologists. The fact that so many Jews were easily "hellenized" is indicative of how weak their marriage was with the primitive view. They viewed the older view as group speculation that could easily be explained in other ways. It wasn't essential Jewish doctrine, if anything it was folklore spread among those without education.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Xander

[maklelan]

Then by that same token, it had nothing to do with Mormonism.

Agreed.

Yes, Greek philosophy has become a favorite punching bag among LDS apologists. But why?

Because it altered the earlier Jewish and Christian ideologies with which Mormons identify.

Just because later biblical interpretations were influenced by Greek philosophy doesn't make them wrong. Platonism provided more tools to reason the scriptures as they pertained to theological topics, such as the nature of God. Why is that such a bad thing? Clement of Alexandria argued that Greek Philosophy was straight from God, and prepared the Church for better understanding. This of course begs the question, but to me it is more plausible than Mormonism's "it was an apostasy" argument. After all, just look at what Greek philosophy has given to the world.

I'm not an opponent of Greek philosophy.

Yes, because his glory would kill them. Contrary to Joseph Smith's teaching and experience, I might add.

Contrary to the Bible, as well. There are several instances where a human being got to see God directly and then feared for their life but were not destroyed. The exceptions to the rules are what make for interesting literature, and the Bible's full of them. Many of these instances have interpolated the angel of Yhwh in an effort to obscure the direct interaction with God, but the textual evidence for the original references to God himself remain in each instance, and there is no text anywhere in the Hebrew Bible that suggests it is dangerous to look upon an angel. I discuss this here and in my thesis here (pp. 35-41).

We all make mistakes.

That we do.

Of course it was. But this doesn't tell us God's natural state must be anthropomorphic.

Nothing in the Hebrew Bible indicates any natural state other than an anthropomorphic one. It is the Platonic corporeal/spirit dichotomy, with the exaltation of the value of spirit, that contributed to an anti-anthropomorphic view of deity. Prior to that, there were just different kinds of aniconism, and a view of God's being as too glorious to behold. This gets confused with anti-anthropomorphism sometimes because of our interpretive lenses.

It only tells us that this is how the primitive thinking went until it became more sophisticated.

But the Bible is the product of this primitive thinking. The Greeks simply provided the tools for such thinking. Greek philosophy didn't require such thinking, obviously. You still have the Greek gods on Mt. Olympus who were described in literal anthropomorphic terms. But the ancient Jews saw Greek Philosophy as a better means to convey the transcendent nature of Israel's God.

We have two problems here. First, you earlier suggested that there's nothing wrong with Greek philosophy introducing new ideas and new ways of thinking into Judaism and Christianity, which is quite at odds with the conventional Christian response, but here you align with the conventional response by suggesting that Greek philosophy did not provide new ideas, but just new vocabulary for communicating ideas they already had. Did they have these ideas or not? Second problem follows from the first: I and the vast majority of scholars today reject the notion that the ideas promulgated in and after the Greco-Roman period were held prior to that period, but just had no effective way of being communicated. Without an effective way to communicate them, they cannot be communicated, and thus they cannot be shared within a community. It is simply impossible for a belief about anything to exist in a community where the belief cannot be communicated effectively. I see no indication in any text written prior to the Greco-Roman period, or in any material remains from before that period, that God was seen as anything other than fundamentally anthropomorphic.

So what if that's what they believed? There are also examples where God's form is spoken in abstract terms.

Please share them and we can examine them.

In fact, how many solid examples can you point to where God appears to humans as a man? Most of this is just inference from ambiguous accounts.

-Gen 16:7-14

-Gen 18:1-16

-Gen 32:24-30

-Exod 24:10-11

-Exod 33:20-23

-Judg 6:11-23

-1 Kgs 22:19

-Isa 6:1

-Ezek 1:26-28

-Dan 7:9

This does not include things like Gen 3:8, where Adam and Eve, freshly created in the physical image of God, hear the sound of God walking in the garden, or the numerous references to God's hands, feet, face, etc.

That is just Barr's opinion which is based on a number of things we simply do not know.

So the Regis Professor of Hebrew's scholarship can be dismissed with a simple "that's just his opinion"?

What we do know is that the Biblical writers referred to God in anthropomorphic terms. Why they did so can be explained in a number of ways, but until one of us goes back in a time machine and interviews them all, we'll never know for certain why they did this.

Of course, the evidence doesn't support any conclusion except the notion that they viewed God as fundamentally anthropomorphic. There's nothing in any Israelite or Jewish text written prior to the Greco-Roman period that suggests otherwise. Asserting that while there may be no evidence, they may have believed something entirely different from what is in the texts not only neglects the law of parsimony, but argues from naked assertion. "We'll never know for certain" isn't an effective argument where the evidence quite clearly indicates a simple and straightforward conclusion.

But we do have the theophany accounts which might lead some of the earlier, unsophisticated thinkers to believe that just because God showed up as a man, that this somehow means God is a man. El, the father of Yahweh, was originally believed to be a Bull,

No, he was not originally believed to be a bull. He was sometimes iconographically conceptualized as a bull because of the associations with power and fecundity. The Syro-Palestinian literature, however, quite clearly describes him as a man, and specifically as an old man with a big beard and a huge member who lived in a tent and liked to get drunk and have sex. That imagery is by far the most common for El.

Edited March 11, 2012 by maklelan

[maklelan]

which later became his "animal symbol" according to Mark Smith (which probably explains the gold calf at Sinai).

I have looked through Smith's Early History of God, Memoirs of God, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, "Ugaritic Studies and Israelite Religion," and God in Translation, and I don't see any place where he suggests El was originally believed to be a Bull. Most believe the golden calf is pedestal, not representative of the deity himself.

Yahweh is referenced as a Bull in the Old Testament, so this suggests the early Israelites were not shy about speaking of God metaphorically.

Of course they spoke about him metaphorically. This doesn't mean they exclusively spoke about him metaphorically, though.

I'm aware of that. And you're aware that I've read plenty on this subject as well. There has been plenty written about the anti-anthropomorphism movements, but none of these scholars have described them as apostate movements that have corrupted the true nature of God.

That's not an academic approach, and nor am I describing the developments that way.

That's only what the LDS apologist argues. The anti-anthropomorphism theme has been pounded to death by scholars over the past few decades, and they're all pretty much saying the same things.

Not really.

Then why don't you go ahead and provide a list of the concrete anthropomorphic theophanies listed in the Bible and let's analyze them. I think you overstate your case.

See above.

In plenty of places. For example, Yahweh is described as a woman giving childbirthin Isaiah 42:12.

Isa 42:14 says, "I will cry out like a travailing woman" (אתאפק כיולדה). That's a simile, not a description of Yahweh as a woman, and it's fundamentally different from the numerous places where God is directly described as anthropomorphic.

Does this mean Yahweh is literally a woman? In almost every theophany God is consumed by a glorious light.

Can you list these theophanies that describe a "glorious light"? If you just mean the Hebrew word "glory," it is actually frequently just used as a euphemism for "deity," as in Ps 106:20.

Last time I checked, man doesn't share that quality with God, and thus, this is a consistent non-anthropomorphic attribute of the biblical God.

Actually Moses is described in much the same way in Exod 34:29-35. The Israelites were even afraid to talk to him, obviously fearing that the glory of his face was dangerous. Irrespective, a shining body does not undermine anthropomorphism, it just aligns with the notion that God's anthropomorphic body is more glorious than a mortal one (exactly as Joseph Smith described him, too).

Right, and why would we believe this incident happened at all if Joseph Smith's first vision is to carry any weight? Obviously seeing God doesn't destroy a man where he stands, so why would God need to hide in a cloud?

God's face has only been made visible to a select few in Judaism and Mormonism's sacred past. The fact that he hides his appearance from the masses heightens the significance of the exceptions to the rule. Ron Hendel describes it in this way (Hendel, "Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel," in The Image and the Book [Leuven: Peeters, 1997], 222):

The God-sightings in the Bible that do not result in the viewer's death are the exceptions that prove the rule. By the logic of the gradations of holiness, only the most holy people are spared death in the presence of God. J. Barr aptly notes that 'nothing is indeed more significant about the anthropomorphic theophanies than that they have occurred to special and isolated persons in the past'. Only the special ones of the past are able to survive the 'holiness and awfulness of his aspect which must bring death to men who see him.' Seeing God and surviving is a form of blessing, an indication of religious worth.

[maklelan]

The wings would be a zoomorphic reference, and yes, it does prove that God is biblically referenced in metaphor.

Of course it does. The question is what compels one to conclude the default anthropomorphism of the Hebrew Bible is also metaphor.

Most of the references to his body parts can easily be understood as metaphors, though I'm not saying all of them are. For instance, the Hand of God is a typical metaphor referring to his power, yet apologists usually use all of these references to stack the deck in favor of the Mormon doctrine of a corporeal anthropomorphic God.

I don't see that very frequently, and I certainly don't appeal to that notion. In my thesis, for instance, I stated in the introduction, "References to God‘s various body parts are often metaphorical expressions of his activity and power, and in many cases do not differ significantly from references to his wings."

But I do not deny that people believe God was a literal corporeal being. Since Genesis is essentially based on earlier Babylonian creation myths,

Genesis 1 is somewhat responding to Babylonian ideology, but Genesis 2 is based on earlier Syro-Palestinian ideologies.

it should hardly be surprising that they really believed physical gods were in heaven literally fighting it out among themselves, having orgiastic sexcapades, etc.

Actually Genesis 1 tries hard to refute that kind of theomachy and theogony.

By trying to find harmony with this ancient worldview and Mormon doctrine, apologists are really playing right into the critics' hands.

That depends on where the critics are coming from.

What I contest is the notion that the Bible alone tells us that God has a body as his natural state. In reality, Mormon doctrine tells us this, and of course it uses the anthropomorphic references as support. But all we really know from the Bible is that, according to some biblical writers, God chose to appear as a man on very rare occasions. But the accounts are ambiguous and inconsistent as they are.

As they are, some of them are ambiguous, but as we can quite confidently reconstruct them, there is little ambiguity to them at all. There is no indication anywhere in the Bible that any of God's manifestations to humanity represent an intentional manipulation of his nature or appearance. That's an idea that is read back into the text by later community's that are uncomfortable with anthropomorphism.

No it isn't. I just threw out another way of reading these scriptures, and there is no consensus among scholars.

That there is no clear consensus is indicative of little more than the reticence of conservative scholars.

You seem to think I'm challenging how some of the earliest Israelites conceived of God. I'm not. 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.

No, you've been asserting that the Bible doesn't suggest that his natural state is anthropomorphic. This is the first you've intimated that the Bible may suggest it, but that that's not how it is in reality.

And just because this view changed dramatically with the help of Greek influence, doesn't make the newer view incorrect.

I'm not trying to assert a metaphysical reality, I'm trying to show what the biblical text does and does not say.

I'd also like to point out that demonizing Greek philosophy is really a poor argument by apologists.

I'm not demonizing anything at all.

The fact that so many Jews were easily "hellenized" is indicative of how weak their marriage was with the primitive view.

We might also call that "primitive view" the "biblical view," in the interest of not demonizing certain ideologies.

They viewed the older view as group speculation that could easily be explained in other ways. It wasn't essential Jewish doctrine, if anything it was folklore spread among those without education.

Now who's demonizing whom?

[wenglund]

Well one way in which God is potentially limited by his physical body is the amount of personal time he can spend with his children. LDS like to portray God as a loving father figure. Well there is at least one way Gods physical body limits his abilit to act as a loving father at least as loving fathers behave on earth. If God indeed has a distinct and single physical body than clearly he would be limited in how much one on one time he can spend with his children.

This mistakenly assumes that an anthropomorphic God is only anthropomorphic. Whereas, according to my belief, God is both anthropomorphic and omnipresent, not unlike the sun. He has a body of limited size and shape, but his light and spirit fill the universe in like manner to how other Christians believe.

As such, this means that the anthropomorphic God I believe in can not only spend as much one-on-one quality time with his children as non-anthropomorphic Gods, but he can also do so in body when appropriate, where the non-anthropomorphic God cannot.

In other word, not only does Gods anthropomorphism not limit him, but it give him ability to do bodly things that a non-anthropomorphic God can't do. It is not the anthropomorphism that limits God, but rather non-anthropomorphism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 11, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I find it a bit quirky for a now non-believer to be arguing against the anthropomorphic nature of God, when the object of worship for that non-believer clearly now is man, particularly himself.

Could unwitting irony be the consolation prize for flunking the test of faith?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

The fact that so many Jews were easily "hellenized" is indicative of how weak their marriage was with the primitive view. They viewed the older view as group speculation that could easily be explained in other ways. It wasn't essential Jewish doctrine, if anything it was folklore spread among those without education.

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.

[mfbukowski]

I find it a bit quirky for a now non-believer to be arguing against the anthropomorphic nature of God, when the object of worship for that non-believer clearly now is man, particularly himself.

This exactly goes to the core of the issue

[wenglund]

That wasn't the case here.

I believe it was. You were overtly laughing it up with Jaybear over an intellectual mistake you thought I had made. And, when I had my own laugh back, you felt the need to call me on it. So, beams and motes--again, not that I was offended.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

This exactly goes to the core of the issue

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncertain]

You have characterized Jeremy's thoughts with that statement twice, yet he never said that - only you did. He may ignore this but it is bad form for you to debate with someone by rebutting the words you put in their mouth.

Sorry for the delay I have been gone this weekend. In response to my point Jeremy posted this Post #43 " I can't speak for other Mormons, but it's true enough for me." and this post #45 "Of course it is, in the sense that a physical body in a distinct location necessarily entails that we cannot be everywhere at once. Is it necessary to characterize this limitation in a pejorative sense?"

(bold added by me)

Please show me how I have "placed words in his mouth". It really does appear he agreed with my point that if God has a physical body he can't be in more than one place at a time. I really don't see why there is so much resistant on this. It appears straighforwardly uncontroversol. I dare say if a believer had made this point there would be no resistance. I do not see in any fashion how I have placed words in his mouth. But I am certainly open to correction if he so desires. The fact he has not done so appears to indicate I understood him correctly.

Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

Gosh you're driving me nuts!

If God doesn't have a body and is "everywhere" you are NEVER going to interact with him personally because he doesn't have a face. They talk about the "Beatific Vision" but there will be nothing to see but a cloud I suppose and that cloud fills the universe.

You cannot reconcile Hebrew biblical anthropomorphism and a personal God no matter how hard you try.

**Edit the above:- got distracted- it was supposed to say:

"You cannot reconcile Hebrew biblical anthropomorphism and a personal God with Platonic Forms no matter how hard you try" My brain was moving faster than the old fingers!**

Being everywhere is the same as being nowhere- can't you see that? Not being in time is being "nowhen" not being in a place is being "nowhere".

How can you worship a .... whatever .... that's nowhere and nowhen? What is it?

It defies language. That's where you get all the "essence" and "substance" and "being" mumbo jumbo that is totally unintelligible.

Sorry you are getting frustrated. I really don't see what is so controversol about this point. If God has a physical body he can only exist in one place at a time. This is the limitation that comes with having a physical body. This seems straighforwardly obvious to me.

Asked and answered post #57 in response to the same point you raise here which is alread raised by volgadan. I reproduce the post below.

"Again I hesitate to speak for othodox Christians since I am not one. But It is my understanding they view God as everywhere so God could in fact interact in a personal face to face fashion to every single soul at once if he so desired. This could be by God for example fashioning a temporary form to interact with. Similar I imagine to what orthodox Christians think happened when Moses spoke with God or any of the other prophets interacted in a personal fashion with God."

Best,

Uncertain

Edited March 12, 2012 by Uncertain

[Uncertain]

Aha! found a review that contains some relevant stuff- suggest you read the whole thing- especially the last half which quotes McMurrin extensively.

http://signaturebook...ormon-religion/

That last sentence says it all. To put it simply, you are not going to get "face time" with something that doesn't have a face.

I think you missunderstand me. I am not defending the tradional Christian view in fact the very arguments you reverence here and your post #71 are ones I was thinking of when you were trying to argue God is not bound by time i.e. (your post #64). Even if you are correct and the tradional Christian view also necassarily restricts face to face time with God. How does this in any fashion defeat my argument concering the implication of God having a single physical body? It appears you are engaging in nothing more than tu quoque.

As it happens I do not believe as I have already pointed out that the tradional Christian view restricts face to face time with God. After all if God is everywhere than he could interact with everyone at once since he is already present where everyone else is. He could if he so desired fashion numberless temporary forms to interact with each temporary form containing God himself. After all tradional Christians believe God did just this, when he spoke to the prophets "face to face".

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!

Best,

Uncertain

Edited March 12, 2012 by Uncertain

[Uncertain]

duplicate

Edited March 12, 2012 by Uncertain

[thesometimesaint]

Uncertain:

What is the point of Resurrection if it is on again, and off again?

[Uncertain]

Uncertain:

What is the point of Resurrection if it is on again, and off again?

You would have to ask a tradional orthodox Christian that question. For that matter I am not sure they would accept that the form God took when he spoke with Moses on Mt. Sinai was a physical tangible body. Which negates the problem you refer to.

Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

duplicate

Apparently trying to edit posts creates duplicates.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Uncertain

[Uncertain]

This mistakenly assumes that an anthropomorphic God is only anthropomorphic. Whereas, according to my belief, God is both anthropomorphic and omnipresent, not unlike the sun. He has a body of limited size and shape, but his light and spirit fill the universe in like manner to how other Christians believe.

As such, this means that the anthropomorphic God I believe in can not only spend as much one-on-one quality time with his children as non-anthropomorphic Gods, but he can also do so in body when appropriate, where the non-anthropomorphic God cannot.

In other word, not only does Gods anthropomorphism not limit him, but it give him ability to do bodly things that a non-anthropomorphic God can't do. It is not the anthropomorphism that limits God, but rather non-anthropomorphism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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.

I

[thesometimesaint]

Uncertain:

We have a few here. I'll open the question to them also.

Moses isn't the only one that had physical dealings with God.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

KevinG, on 09 March 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

You have characterized Jeremy's thoughts with that statement twice, yet he never said that - only you did. He may ignore this but it is bad form for you to debate with someone by rebutting the words you put in their mouth.

Sorry for the delay I have been gone this weekend. In response to my point Jeremy posted this Post #43 " I can't speak for other Mormons, but it's true enough for me." and this post #45 "Of course it is, in the sense that a physical body in a distinct location necessarily entails that we cannot be everywhere at once. Is it necessary to characterize this limitation in a pejorative sense?"

(bold added by me)

Please show me how I have "placed words in his mouth". It really does appear he agreed with my point that if God has a physical body he can't be in more than one place at a time. I really don't see why there is so much resistant on this. It appears straighforwardly uncontroversol. I dare say if a believer had made this point there would be no resistance. I do not see in any fashion how I have placed words in his mouth. But I am certainly open to correction if he so desires. The fact he has not done so appears to indicate I understood him correctly.

I could be wrong, but I think KevinG was talking about the fact that you said that my position is to "simply not care" about seeing God. Which is of course a silly characterization of my view. *grin*

Edited March 12, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Uncertain]

I could be wrong, but I think KevinG was talking about the fact that you said that my position is to "simply not care" about seeing God. Which is of course a silly characterization of my view. *grin*

In which case I apologize. However I am somewhat confused. If you agree God can only be in one place at a time and if you agree there are many many souls in the Celestrial kingdom. Then it follows actually interacting in a one on one fashion with Gods physical form will be something that occurs very rarely if ever. Something I thought you agreed with. If you accept the above then you either don't view interacting with God on a regular basis as a big deal i.e.(simply don't care) or you thing this is a weakness in Mormon theology. Since I assume you don't think this is a weakness in Mormon theology I assumed you viewed interacting in a one on one fashion with the physical form of God as not important. This is the impression I got from this post of yours #58 :

" it really doesn't bother me not to see God face-to-face every single day. I don't get why that alone would be a "Heaven" for our traditional-Christian brothers and sisters. The point is to create innumerable Zions wherever there are people, making uncountable Heavens for each other. If we really are eternal beings, a visit every trillion years isn't a big deal, right?"

(bolded added by me)

So I clearly misunderstood what you trying to say. But I would claim not without cause. So to clarify you do view it a big deal if you don't get to interact with God in a face to face fashion on a regular basis when you are in the Celestial kingdom?

Best,

Uncertain