Philosophy and Theology

I wrote that I would write more later about the different perceptions of God between LDS and perceived Christian orthodoxy. It's now much later; but I have spent some time following up on ideas related to this subject. Here is what happened in the interim.

It's clear, as noted by the scholar Edwin Hatch, that there is a vast difference between the doctrines of the New Testament and those promulgated at Nicaea. Following our discussion on the creeds, and while I was preparing to teach my New Testament class, I was struck with this passage from Revelation 9:20

And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk.

 The striking part is the very clear contrast between false gods and the God of Israel. The devils and idols cannot see, hear or walk. Perhaps that stood out for me because I had been listening to some remarkable lectures on Christian theology by Professor Phillip Cary. He had provided a rule for interpreting scripture in the course of one of his lectures, noting that scripture is interpreted literally unless it would be ludicrous to do so. He gave as an example a passage from Genesis that couldn't be taken seriously--where God is referred to as walking in the garden in the cool of the day. (Gen. 3:8) Professor Cary explained, "If you take that literally, you're not taking the text seriously. God doesn't literally walk in the cool of the evening."

I thought that was a rather cavalier attitude and hoped he would be willing to respond to an email from me. He graciously and quickly replied and gave me permission to quote his answer:

You raise an important issue.  I don't think Rev. 9:20 decides the issue, since I would take its point to be that idols are not even alive, much less divine.  And in any case, from an orthodox (non-anthropomorphic) perspective, God's seeing and hearing are as metaphorical as his walking, since he has literally neither eyes nor ears, any more than he has legs.

Yet the general issue you raise remains. It's not hard to arrive at a very anthropomorphic conception of God if you don't accept the alliance between Christian doctrine and classical philosophy. You don't have to be a Mormon to take this path.  All you have to do is take literally the attribution of emotion to God in the Old Testament. For if God literally has emotions, then he must exist in time (so that his emotional states can change) and if he exists in time then he must also exist in space (as if clear from modern physics and Einsteinian relativity theory) and if he exists in space he must have some kind of body. (Phillip Cary 2/23/2010)

 I am still astounded at the implications of his answer--which is representative of mainstream orthodox Christian theology. The requirements of classical philosophy remove God from both time and space. This constructed Being of philosophical conclusions can experience no emotion--neither compassion nor tenderness. He is so transcendent that he does not love, neither does he mourn. This is the meaning of a God without body, parts, or passions.

As I mulled over the ramifications of the orthodox perspective, I remembered that Judaism shares to a great extent the same philosophy regarding God existing (if that is possible) outside of time and space who neither walks, nor sees, nor eats, nor smells (see also Deut. 4:28). I wrote to James Kugel, a professor of Hebrew who had been quoted in a news report as having concluded that the God of the Old Testament was corporeal. I wrote to Dr. Kugel and asked him when he believed the change of perception took place so that the Jewish idea of God mirrored that of Christian philosophy.  He suggested that I read his book, "The God of Old," since it is a fairly complicated answer.

I read the book which led me to several others on Jewish theology by Gershom Scholem. Essentially, the rabbis of the middle ages became concerned that their concept of God wasn't as transcendent as the God of philosophical Christianity; so there was a concerted effort to modernize the God of Judaism. Kugel quotes Scholem as lamenting this development because it changed what it was that made God a "living God."

The philosophers and theologians [of medieval times] were concerned first and foremost with the purity of the concept of God and determined to divest it of all mythi­cal and anthropomorphic elements. But this determina­tion to ... reinterpret the recklessly anthropomorphic statements of the biblical text and the popular forms of religious expression in terms of a purified theology tended to empty out the concept of God ... The price of God’s purity is the loss of his living reality. What makes Him a living God ... is precisely what makes it possible for man to see Him face to face. (G. Scholem, “Kabbalah and Myth”) [Kugel, James "The God of Old" p. 201]

Kugel points out that earlier Israelites conceived of a God as "a physical being not much bigger in size than an ordinary human." This reminded me of a news report of Mormon missionaries in 1836 in the Ohio Observer:   "They believe that the true God is a material being, composed of body parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself."

The orthodox perspective that denies the "body, parts and passions" of God stands in stark contrast to the personage described by Joseph Smith. The passages we view as literal, they see as "figurative expressions accommodated to our way of conceiving things." I see some real problems with such explanations as did early LDS apologist B.H. Roberts--because the passages aren't figurative of anything other than anthropomorphic characteristics. One  passage in particular--Deuteronomy 23:12-14-- illustrates this point.

Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad:  And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:

Why were they to bury this waste? The answer comes in the next verse: "For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp..."

And this is only one instance of scores of other passages referring to God as a corporeal being. But more important to me is the certainty that God loves--"For God so loved the world." He is not merely the attribute of love; he does love with tender compassion. That is the nature of a perfect Father.

As B. H. Roberts pointed out years ago, Jesus Christ is the manifestation of the Father. He is the express image of His Father. He existed in both time and space, he displayed tenderness, loving kindness and anger. He wept. His nature did not change at his resurrection as is demonstrated in the Book of Mormon. 

And when he had said these words, he wept, and the multitude bare record of it, and he took their little children, one by one, and blessed them, and prayed unto the Father for them. And when he had done this he wept again;

He continues to exist in both time and space as a resurrected being. He possesses all the attributes He manifested in His mortal ministry.