Suggestions for improving race relations in the Church

[RevTestament]

48 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

I understand. So when the JoD (a compilation of sermons and other materials) was created in volumes, was it published by the church? 

Never mind, let me read the stuff you quoted. 

The Journal of Discourses should be considered an abridged version of the conference talks. We know where we have Watts' own shorthand notes that the text in the Journal of Discourses doesn't always comport with what the notes indicate was actually said. So Watts or someone in the publishing process seemed to alter the wording some. Whether this was to make the text fit a format or for other reasons, I don't think anyone is quite sure. However, based upon the opinions of a few who spent many years learning Watts' shorthand, this is the case. So it would be a mistake to accept the JoD as a word for word transcript of what was actually said in these conferences. But that is actually true of our modern conferences as well. I have noted that not everything said always makes it into official church publication. In addition as you seemed to likely suspect, the JoD was not published by the Church. It was privately published as a way of getting conference talks to Church members in Great Britain.

[Darren10]

On ‎6‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 4:40 PM, carbon dioxide said:

" Use more African-American faces in church art and manuals and display more artwork depicting Christ as he would appear: as a Middle Eastern Jewish man."

 

What exactly does a Middle Eastern Jewish man of 2000 years ago look like.  Then add the unique issue with Jesus.  If Jesus did not have a human father and one appearance is based heavily on genetics, what would Jesus really look like since half of his DNA is not from a Middle Eastern source? 

Interesting. His father's side would probably look a lot like whatever spirit looks like (though not necessarily manifested physically) since that's the part of all of us which comes from God the Father's DNA, or the equivalent exalted being's version of it.

[Calm]

" I think giving an apology once everyone is finally equally enlightened can sometimes detract from all that needs to be attended to under a new set of societal / cultural circumstances and revelation"

I think the reason apologies are desired is because we haven't reached the place of equal enlightenment yet and it is hoped by some this will move us closer to that goal.

[Darren10]

20 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I guess my problem with this is that the priesthood ban seems to have perpetuated the belief that those of African descent were less worthy.  It wasn't the LDS church that changed society to accept blacks as equals; it was society that changed, and the LDS church was slow to follow (1978 is quite late in the civil rights game).

Also, can you clarify who the "we" is that needed to be prepared sufficiently?  Is it white LDS members?  If so, it's a tough sell to black people to tell them that they cannot be treated equally because the whites aren't ready for them to be treated equally.  I think it is even worse if the "we" is the black LDS members, because then you have entered racist condescension by telling them that they are not ready for what whites get because they are black.

Finally, I have a hard time with God operating the way your explanation goes.  The underlying principle seems to be that if the overwhelming ideas of society are wrong, God will go along with them because it would be too hard for His followers otherwise.  That makes God's morality dependent upon society's ills.

I think the Holy Spirit very much manifests itself to mankind collectively through prophets and to individuals based heavily on personal experience. I've no doubt you have had many spiritual experiences via your faith and I have via mine. You and I have also probably had spiritual manifestations confirming our faiths as the "one true" faith yet logically both cannot be the "only" true faith. The way I make sense of this is that the Holy Spirit manifests Himself differently to you and me because your experience and my experiences are very different when we get into particulars. In time, as you or I grow bit by bit, degree by degree, perhaps we will have different spiritual manifestations.

[Jeanne]

21 hours ago, Gillebre said:

On my mission I was able to talk with a man, one that previous missionaries had talked to at one point or another, and it was quite interesting. He was black, and he told me that he always would ask visiting members or missionaries about the Priesthood ban. He said that they would hem, haw, and say they'd look into it and get back to him, but none ever did. He asked me if I would be willing to share with him my thoughts about it, discuss it with him, and I agreed.

The substance of my belief and understanding on the matter, which is something I've studied and reflected on a lot, is that it came down to what God's children were ready to receive. Our Heavenly Father is deeply aware of what we, both as individuals and as a larger people, can and cannot handle. He knows what we're ready for and what would be too much for us. I believe that there are principles of truth, whether entirely new or just added facets to what we already possess, that we are not ready for at this stage of our progress and growth. I think that there are situations where the Lord will not reveal certain things to us because we're not sufficiently prepared to accept and honor what He intends for us to have. Consider the law of consecration: we are commanded presently to tithe, and to prepare ourselves through willingness to be ready to live fully consecrated lives, both temporally and spiritually, when the time comes that the law of consecration is in full effect.

The pure truth is that skin color bears no consequence on God's love, the Atonement of Jesus Christ, or the expectations that are placed upon us as members of His Church, in my opinion. He came to rescue each of us and His love doesn't change. Yet the people lived for many decades, centuries even, with the entirely false concept that skin color mattered, that one's worth was affected by it. No grand manifestation from Heaven is going to erase years upon years of culture and ingrained beliefs (however wrong they are). Such changes take time, and when He saw that we were prepared sufficiently, the inspired changes were revealed and implemented as a more fully binding expectation. Before that time of course the truth was still there that all human beings were His children, created in His image, yet those persistent elements of society and culture which said that your race (or even your sex) didn't just go away.

Ultimately this man that I was talking to as a missionary accepted my answer as something that could understand. God loves us enough to know when we aren't ready for certain things He wants us to eventually have. He will wait patiently as the Holy Ghost and the Angels minister to us and help soften our hearts day by day until we're eventually humble enough to embrace the purest and complete truths. He's always with us, and hearts change one at a time. This culture is being purified, and though it's taking years, decades or longer to happen, it most definitely will.

I hope that something I've said was helpful.

Actually, I think that the essay on the Priesthood ban should be replaced with what you wrote. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The Journal of Discourses should be considered an abridged version of the conference talks. We know where we have Watts' own shorthand notes that the text in the Journal of Discourses doesn't always comport with what the notes indicate was actually said. So Watts or someone in the publishing process seemed to alter the wording some. Whether this was to make the text fit a format or for other reasons, I don't think anyone is quite sure. However, based upon the opinions of a few who spent many years learning Watts' shorthand, this is the case. So it would be a mistake to accept the JoD as a word for word transcript of what was actually said in these conferences. But that is actually true of our modern conferences as well. I have noted that not everything said always makes it into official church publication. In addition as you seemed to likely suspect, the JoD was not published by the Church. It was privately published as a way of getting conference talks to Church members in Great Britain.

That happens rarely, if ever.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Interesting. His father's side would probably look a lot like whatever spirit looks like (though not necessarily manifested physically) since that's the part of all of us which comes from God the Father's DNA, or the equivalent exalted being's version of it.

I recall a prophecy, I think it is in Isaiah, that Jesus would not be extraordinary in appearance. "He had no comeliness that we should desire him," something of that nature.

Edited to add: It's in Isaiah 53:2.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

" I think giving an apology once everyone is finally equally enlightened can sometimes detract from all that needs to be attended to under a new set of societal / cultural circumstances and revelation"

I think the reason apologies are desired is because we haven't reached the place of equal enlightenment yet and it is hoped by some this will move us closer to that goal.

Apparently, the Lord elected to leave the ban in place despite repeated petitions for guidance from prophets. I don't know that it's appropriate to demand an apology for behavior by Church leaders in being scrupulous about doing what the Lord wanted done when He wanted it done.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That happens rarely, if ever.

You can call me a liar if you want, but I have personally observed it. So it does happen as frequently as for conferences 18 years ago.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

You can call me a liar if you want, but I have personally observed it. So it does happen as frequently as for conferences 18 years ago.

I didn't call you a liar. I said it happens rarely enough that it is insignificant, especially by comparison to what was done with the Journal of Discourses.

And 18 years is quite a while ago. Has it not happened since then?

Edited June 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn't call you a liar. I said it happens rarely enough that it is insignificant, especially by comparison to what was done with the Journal of Discourses.

And 18 years is quite a while ago. Has it not happened since then?

 I have not personally noted it in conferences Monson has presided over, no. Have you?

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently, the Lord elected to leave the ban in place despite repeated petitions for guidance from prophets. I don't know that it's appropriate to demand an apology for behavior by Church leaders in being scrupulous about doing what the Lord wanted done when He wanted it done.

Apologies can be desired without being demanded.

[RevTestament]

On 6/10/2017 at 9:06 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I guess my problem with this is that the priesthood ban seems to have perpetuated the belief that those of African descent were less worthy.  It wasn't the LDS church that changed society to accept blacks as equals; it was society that changed, and the LDS church was slow to follow (1978 is quite late in the civil rights game).

Also, can you clarify who the "we" is that needed to be prepared sufficiently?  Is it white LDS members?  If so, it's a tough sell to black people to tell them that they cannot be treated equally because the whites aren't ready for them to be treated equally.  I think it is even worse if the "we" is the black LDS members, because then you have entered racist condescension by telling them that they are not ready for what whites get because they are black.

Finally, I have a hard time with God operating the way your explanation goes.  The underlying principle seems to be that if the overwhelming ideas of society are wrong, God will go along with them because it would be too hard for His followers otherwise.  That makes God's morality dependent upon society's ills.

It's not necessarily a question of "worthiness." So to that extent I disagree with what used to be proposed. As I pointed out to the missionaries who came to speak with me in my early teens, everyone here on earth agreed to Heavenly Father's plan or they wouldn't be here. Therefore, they all must have an opportunity to receive the gospel at some point, or God would not be just. Those who have died without hearing it, will have an opportunity to hear by the last day of judgment. However, God must also keep His promises to those who have kept their part of the promise or there is no such thing as eternal promises. Not all have made those covenants. Indeed, the history of the world seems to indicate that very few have in comparison to world population. However, unless some mistake my comments, I am by no means attributing any kind of racial nor ethnic component to this.

[Darren10]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I recall a prophecy, I think it is in Isaiah, that Jesus would not be extraordinary in appearance. "He had no comeliness that we should desire him," something of that nature.

Yeah. I had that in mind as I created my post. 

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 I have not personally noted it in conferences Monson has presided over, no. Have you?

As a working news reporter, I am privileged to be given copies of the texts in advance. Occasionally a speaker will change a word or a phrase, apparently for the sake of clarity, rhetorical impact, etc., or even leave out a paragraph, apparently for the sake of time. When it has happened, it has been so insignificant that none of the occasions stand out in my memory.

Presumably, what makes it into print in the Ensign/Liahona is the version that the speaker delivers from the pulpit, even if it differs somewhat from the advance text.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Apologies can be desired without being demanded.

One could substitute the word "desire" for the word "demand" and it would not alter the intent of the sentence very much.

Furthermore, a desire can take on the character of a demand, depending on whether and how forcefully and frequently it is expressed in public.

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

There have been 3 African Popes and they have all been sainted:  Pope Saint Victor I, reigned 186-197 and declared the timing of Easter, Pope Saint Militiades, reigned 311-314, and Pope Saint Gelasius I, reigned 492-496 declared February 14 as Valentine's Day.  These Popes were from North Africa, so the color of their skin is questionable.

2

All three are considered to be of Berber origin, and I wouldn't say their skin color is at all questionable.  Berbers of that time period would have looked more-or-less like everyone else in the Mediterranean region. Even as late as 1497, a contemporary Spanish painter depicted captured Berber leaders (Guanches from the Canary Islands) as hardly different from Ferdinand and Isabella.  And these Popes were not chosen from or by the College of Cardinals, a body which has only been responsible for choosing the Pope since 1059, and that is what I was getting at.  No black African cardinals until the 20th Century.

My point was that in more recent times, despite the significant fraction of black African Catholics in the world, it wasn't until quite recently that a black African was chosen to be a Cardinal.  

Now, please keep in mind that I am not saying that this lack was in fact due to racism -- but as it is said, appearances can be suggestive.   

Quote

Now, to the greater issue of God's will and racism.  I don't think you can compare racism in Catholicism to the racism of the priesthood ban.  In Catholicism we don't believe that everything that the Pope does is God's will.  If a Pope had racist views, that doesn't mean it is God.  In other words, we wouldn't have to defend God as being racist, but simply dismiss the Pope as being racist.  We don't hang our truth claims on the perfection of the Pope.  

1

3

Here you're making the assumption that the priesthood ban was racist.  Now, if the LDS Church isn't the restored Church of Jesus Christ, then your assumption would be quite valid, I think.  And of course you're a believing Catholic, and that explains that.  But if the LDS Church is the restored Church of Jesus Christ, I say AGAIN that then the ban was either a policy that God at first directed, and then later rescinded (making it not racist at all), or it was a policy that God permitted pending increased readiness of his people to abandon it.  

In Mormonism we don't believe that everything that the Prophet does is God's will.  If a Prophet had racist views, that doesn't mean it is God's.  In other words, we wouldn't have to defend God as being racist, but simply dismiss the Prophet as being racist.  We don't hang our truth claims on the perfection of the Prophet.  

But if God withholds the priesthood from those who are not descendants of Aaron, is this Moses being racist, or is it God's will?  Some may say the former, some may say the latter, and some may say that God himself is racist for having a Chosen People at all.  And did Brigham Young withhold the priesthood from the blacks because he was a racist, or because God told him to do it?  I don't know, and in fact nobody knows.  There's certainly lots of speculation, and a lot of hard feelings.  There are certainly quite a few black members of the LDS church who were and have been assured through the spirit that it was something not important enough to reject the church over.

 

Quote

We have had some terrible Popes morally speaking and while it is not a good thing, within our theology it doesn't affect the Pope's authority.  So, for example, the treatment of Natives and others by Catholics can be fully condemned without it being a wholesale condemnation of Catholicism (see Pope Francis's apology to Natives).  I think this is harder to do in Mormonism, because as it appears to me the LDS closely link the authority of the Prophet with moral perfection.  So, a morally bad prophet would be a major issue for Mormonism.  Perhaps this is why it seems like people have a hard time with the controversial aspects of LDS history (Joseph Smith's polygamy, priesthood ban, etc) because they feel like it calls into question the issue of LDS authority.  I can point to some Pope's decisions and say that was the result of moral imperfection and was wrong and not God's will.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it would be quite hard for a devout Mormon to point to the priesthood ban and say that it was the result of Brigham Young's racism, it was wrong, and it was not God's will.  Hence the explanation as to why God willed it.

I probably shouldn't get too deeply involved in this conversation because the reasoning for the priesthood ban is mainly an internal LDS matter.  As you pointed out, if I believed that there was authority in the LDS priesthood, then I would be LDS, too

I do, however, wish you all success in trying to work through the difficult issues.  There are things that are hard for me in Catholicism and working with them helps me with humility and faith, which is the golden road to God, and I wish for all to be closer to God, especially my LDS friends here

 

1

Well, I tend to think of the Prophet as having some degree of moral perfection, and believe it or not I think of the Pope as having some degree of this as well. Probably the same degree.  How could someone devote their life to service to their fellow man in this manner arrive at that point in that life where they were chosen (by God, we both believe) to serve in such a high calling, without having some degree of moral perfection?  But nowhere it is written that the Prophet or the Pope is perfect!  

I could largely restate most of your text in the quote above with LDS terms and be in complete agreement with it.  And if the priesthood ban was the result of Brigham Young's racism, I say that in that case it was wrong -- but despite that, I say: given that Brigham was a true Prophet of God, then it was something temporarily permitted by God because He knows the heart of his children.  And I say again, I don't know which it was, though I tend now to come down on the side of mistaken but permitted.  You are aware that the Apostle Paul wrote some things which he clearly identified as his opinion, "by permission"? And he meant that it was permitted by God to say those things, although they might not have been God's explicit will.  I sometimes think of the hundreds of years when the children of Israel followed by exactness a code of laws and ordinances given by Moses, only to have God send His Son Jesus Christ to fulfill that law and do away with those ordinances.  Were those laws and ordinances a mistake?  Or something that was given at that time for a certain purpose that was later no longer necessary?  And the Jews continue to hold to them because they rejected Jesus as the Messiah -- apparently, God permits this mistake, because despite their rejection of Christ and their continuing to hold on to a fulfilled law, He sent them back to the Holy Land in His due time, instead of rejecting them wholly.  

I definitely appreciate that there are difficulties in Catholicism, and that you continue to work with them.  I would hope that you appreciate that I deal with similar things -- although perhaps my dilemma is less than yours because the LDS church doesn't have 2,000 years of ecclesiastical history to sift through discriminating between diamonds and lumps of coal!

And I hope that you appreciate the fact that I actually like the Catholic Church, and hold it second in my heart.  Although not born either Mormon or Catholic, I think that there are no other valid choices for me -- although I might add Orthodox to the list.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Stargazer

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

" I think giving an apology once everyone is finally equally enlightened can sometimes detract from all that needs to be attended to under a new set of societal / cultural circumstances and revelation"

I think the reason apologies are desired is because we haven't reached the place of equal enlightenment yet and it is hoped by some this will move us closer to that goal.

This is interesting because an apology can be desired by: a person for himself; a person in behalf of another whom he thinks should receive one; and, the apologizing person. “Party” can be substituted for person to allow for groups or organizations. In this case, the apology could be for the disavowed racist theories (which could be taught irrespective of a ban in place); the ban itself; the practices and behavior of some members, leaders, and the organization; or any/all of these.

I think the motive or belief that the apology will move any of these persons toward equal enlightenment can be viewed in terms of the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. The reward (the penny) is being part of Zion in both spirit and name. The labor is to improve the society (vineyard) from which Zion (the productive vineyard) emerges, in this case on the basis of race relations. In turn, with the reward, Zion improves the borders and frontiers of that society from which it emerges on the basis of divine relations. Enlightenment about race relations is represented by arriving on the scene, and some certainly arrived early and some quite late. Using the parable, all laborers participate in the advancement of the society and then become Zion regardless of when they first became enlightened. It seems there is no unfairness in this since they all showed up at will according to their circumstances, labored according to the hours and light they had, and all agreed and then at the end of the day accepted to be part of Zion. Whatever they were doing before they came on the scene has no bearing on the outcome since everyone not on the scene was equally unenlightened.

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Interesting. His father's side would probably look a lot like whatever spirit looks like (though not necessarily manifested physically) since that's the part of all of us which comes from God the Father's DNA, or the equivalent exalted being's version of it.

That's not necessarily true. It's more or less akin to the assumption that Mary wasn't a virgin birth -- a common believe in Brigham's time but not necessarily true. Even with a virgin birth (i.e. IVF) it's not necessarily the case that the DNA matched Mary or God's mortal DNA. Indeed there are some strong reasons to doubt it would.

The main problem is of course reading our modern conception of biology back into accounts 2000 years old.

Edited June 12, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Meerkat]

I'm fine with suggestions in the article that aren't political in nature such as extending callings based on race as opposed to inspiration.  I'm for any reasonable thing that will help people feel more comfortable and accepted in the Church.  The longer I work on my personal Salvation, the less I'm bothered about anything.  But I do remember a few decades ago coming out of the Chamber of Commerce.  A woman with four children approached me and asked for $5 for bus fare to get her children back to the motel they were living in.  I gave her what she asked for.

A few minutes later, I saw her approach another person coming out of the Chamber.  "Sir," I said, "I just gave her $5 for bus far back to her motel.  She should be okay."  He thanked me and put his money back in his pocket.  She was not pleased, and communicated her displeasure with a stern look.

That night, I met with the Missionaries, who were teaching a single sister with four children.  Pleased with myself, I shared my story with her.  She responded, "Now, I have a story for you.  Five years ago, I was that woman with four children on the street.  My husband had left me with no money to pay the rent or buy food for my babies.  That was me."  

She asked "What do you think is harder-- asking a person for $1.50 for a quart of milk, a dollar for a box of cereal, $4.00 for bus fare, $5.00 so I could put it together with another $5 and another $15 for another day's rent at the motel? Another $10 for dinner?" Or "Mister, do you have $5 for bus fare to get us back to our motel?"  "Sometimes you come up with a story out on the street just to get you by."  I felt more than a little sheepish, but I learned something that day.

I'm not saying that every panhandler is worthy of my money.  But some are in a bind and worthy of encouragement rather than a dirty look.  Realistically, looking back, there were times that we could have been out on the street had we not had family support or the Church.  So I need to be careful in how I view people in circumstances different from mine.

Speaking with black people, or Hispanics, at least some see prejudice in many places that I am oblivious to.  Many have a story that I am not familiar with.  I should become familiar with their story.  At the very least, I should listen carefully to their feelings and be open to what they feel they need-- especially if it doesn't make a difference to me.  

There are a lot of things I, as a white person, am truly oblivious to.  Why, for example, should we not leave the statues up in New Orleans as historic references to Southern Civil War heroes?  That seemed reasonable to me until I read an article explaining that in 1860 the total population of Louisiana was 708,002 of which 47% were enslaved.  Some say the monuments were erected over the ensuing decades to revise history and memorialize the Lost Cause of the South.  Does it seem reasonable that there would be a difference between how white Southerners and black Southerners might feel about it?  There may be other ways to remember the Civil War that are not as painful to those who suffered great trauma and, to this day, experience prejudice on a regular basis.  I don't believe in reparations, nor do I believe in the Great Society.  But I do believe that some of these painful subjects are worth studying.  If we can bring emotional relief, why should we not do it?

Regarding callings, they may occur organically.   We live in a predominantly white area.  Back in the early 80's we had a black bishop in our stake. He was much beloved, as are the rest of our bishops.  Last month, our visiting General Authority was black.  I don't see race as an issue in my Church experience. But if some do, Lord bless them.  Finally, I LOVE Gospel music, and would love to hear more of it.    

We've got trials on ev’ry hand, And we cannot understand, All the ways that God would lead us To that blessed Promised Land;                                           But He guides us with His eye And we’ll follow till we die. For we’ll understand it better by and by.

By and by when the morning comes, When the saints of God are gathered home, We’ll tell the story how we’ve overcome:                                                   We will understand it better by and by.

Temptations, hidden snares Often take us unawares, And our hearts are made to bleed For many a thoughtless word or deed,                                               And we wonder why the test When we try to do our best. But we’ll understand it better by and by.

[Calm]

Well said, Meerkat...few more posts and we can use the rep function as signs of our interest and approval....

[Bernard Gui]

On 6/9/2017 at 4:51 PM, strappinglad said:

There are a couple of acting positions in the temple  film where ,if the actor were black , would raise eyebrows. Better we don't go there for at least a generation.

Are there distinctive temple films for the Asian saints, or the African saints? If not, there probably should be.

With CGI getting better all the time, we could make a variety of the videos in CGI. Patrons would be given VR goggles with a controller linked to the Church genealogy computer system. They could dial in whatever race or mixture of races or ethnicities they wanted or needed  for the various characters. We could choose from an infinite palette of skin tones, facial features, dialects, hair styles, etc. Let's say my heritage is Polish, Polynesian, Korean, and Ethiopian. I could enter those parameters with the correct percentages as determined by my DNA sampling ( which, come to think of it, could be built right into the system thus eliminating the need for patron input) and the computer would generate the appropriate images. They would all look like me. I sit back and enjoy. Everyone would be happy.

Perhaps this is something S. Dilbert Young should investigate.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[MiserereNobis]

From the Mormon point-of-view, what do you think God looks like?  What is His age?  His hair?  His skin color?  Since God is a physical being in your theology, He must have these attributes.  What are they?

[strappinglad]

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

From the Mormon point-of-view, what do you think God looks like?  What is His age?  His hair?  His skin color?  Since God is a physical being in your theology, He must have these attributes.  What are they?

John 14:7 . Now all you need to do is figure out what Christ looked like. I'll start.... a human

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

John 14:7 . Now all you need to do is figure out what Christ looked like. I'll start.... a human

Obviously I understand this is what Mormons believe.  My point was for the details.  Age, hair, skin color, etc.  This seems to fit the ideas of this thread.  How does one represent God if one really believes God has a physical body and representations of God are not just symbolic/metaphorical?

What do you think God looks like?