A common criticism of the Latter-day Saint religion is our notion of a corporeal God. The notion is taken as morally reprehensible to the traditional Christian’s sensibilities. No sooner have the words left the mouth of a Latter-day Saint than he is denounced as an anthropomorphite.
Aside from being epithetical invective, the term is a declaration of anathema to a specific concept. The issue that traditional Christian theists take with what they denounce as “anthropomorphism” is that it violates the concept of an absolutely infinite God. Embodiment is a limitation, thus God must not be embodied. The LDS conception of a corporeal deity is most certainly at odds with this belief.
This state of affairs invites then to ask two questions. Firstly, what is wrong with anthropomorphism? Secondly, and more importantly, what is right about the alternative? One cannot rightly denounce one choice unless they provide an alternative. I will attempt to set forth what critics find repugnant about “Mormon anthropomorphism,” and provide a defense of such coupled with a critique of the alternative position, addressing common objections as they arise. Read more...
For all of my philosophical papers, click HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment