Mormon God's Penis

[_silentkid]

All this talk about Mormon God's penis and no mention of His balls. We're neglecting the balls, people!

[_William Schryver]

I wonder if those same people will, with pious outrage, rush to inform God how immoral He was in doing such a thing?

I would, if I thought he'd really done it.

Come on, Chris! You don't even really think there is a God, let alone one with a bona fide body replete with all the tools.

But, just for the sake of argument, since we know Jesus of Nazareth did in fact have a physical body, and that that body emerged into the world via the womb of Mary, whose sperm swam up the fallopian tube nine months earlier and fertilized the ovum inside her? Or are you suggesting that we should understand something different about the phrases "only begotten" and "Son of God?"

[_Sethbag]

Actually Will, you're the only apologist I can think of who doesn't think this. Pretty much everyone else I can remember talking about this refuses to opine at all whether God's sperm actually fertilized Mary's ovum, or whether God used some other, miraculous technique. They don't seem to want to take the intellectual stand that sperm/egg fertilization is in fact the logical extension of the idea that God has a dick and uses it in his Celestial procreation.

I personally agree with Tarski's comments in the past that the idea that a God exists, who pre-dated the creation of the Earth, and who nevertheless has a (perfected) evolved, homo sapiens mammal body, is absurd.

If I'm wrong about the existence of God, and there really is one, I very much doubt that he's a mammal, has a Willy, etc.

[_William Schryver]

Actually Will, you're the only apologist I can think of who doesn't think this. Pretty much everyone else I can remember talking about this refuses to opine at all whether God's sperm actually fertilized Mary's ovum, or whether God used some other, miraculous technique. They don't seem to want to take the intellectual stand that sperm/egg fertilization is in fact the logical extension of the idea that God has a dick and uses it in his Celestial procreation.

I personally agree with Tarski's comments in the past that the idea that a God exists, who pre-dated the creation of the Earth, and who nevertheless has a (perfected) evolved, homo sapiens mammal body, is absurd.

If I'm wrong about the existence of God, and there really is one, I very much doubt that he's a mammal, has a Willy, etc.

This is why Star Trek should be required viewing.

Of course God is a bipedal mammal, in whose image we were created. And, with some variations, most sentient life in this galaxy is humanoid. Otherwise how could Klingons, Romulans, Humans, and Vulcans cross-breed the way they do?

But seriously, I'm certainly not the only apologist who thinks that God has reproductive genitalia. I'm probably just one of the few who is willing to talk about it. Of course, all of LDS doctrine depends on the very notion of God as an exalted man -- with all that is logically entailed by that phrase. Brigham Young understood it perfectly, and often taught as much from the pulpit of the Tabernacle. Victorian sensibilities eventually purged the carnal literality out of Mormon public discourse, but the concepts are certainly still understood and believed by the majority of Latter-day Saints.

And why not? If God isn't an exalted man with reproductive capacity and all the "alpha male" characteristics that beastlie abhors so much, then there is no God at all.

[_Sethbag]

How does it follow that if God isn't an exalted man with a Celestial peckerwood, there isn't a God at all?

God -> peckerwood

!peckerwood -> !God

I'm curious why you think God's weener and God's existence constitute a modus tollens kind of argument.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Kimberly Ann believes in God? I am honestly a little shocked.

I think Wade is just using the label "Methodist" to lampoon the godless people who are defending the orthodox God-concept in this thread.

That would make more sense. I wasn't aware KA had any belief in deity.

I do believe KimberlyAnn does actually attend a Methodist congregation each week. I would presume that means she has some belief in God. Of course, I'm sure she'll correct any misperceptions should she check back in on this thread.

But what an odd thing for you to have said originally.

I've stated many times on this board, and others, that I'm not an atheist. I don't disbelieve in God, and most often, I DO believe in Him. Actually, I want to. I'd like to be more sure of what I believe, but for now, I have to live with my uncertainty.

Not long before I stopped posting on RfM, I made a thread there about why I didn't want to let go of God. It got a bit of criticism, but, mostly, I got a lot of supportive emails and comments. And those from rabid ex-Mos, too. Guess they're not all bad. ;)

I do attend a Methodist church each week and like it very much.

KA

I didn't know. Good to know, KA.

[_beastie]

But seriously, I'm certainly not the only apologist who thinks that God has reproductive genitalia. I'm probably just one of the few who is willing to talk about it. Of course, all of LDS doctrine depends on the very notion of God as an exalted man -- with all that is logically entailed by that phrase. Brigham Young understood it perfectly, and often taught as much from the pulpit of the Tabernacle. Victorian sensibilities eventually purged the carnal literality out of Mormon public discourse, but the concepts are certainly still understood and believed by the majority of Latter-day Saints.

Snicker. Usually it's critics insisting that BY and others taught that God had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus, and the apologists insist he did NOT.

Part of the problem in discussing things with apologists is that they tend to deceive, even if it's by omission. If you are correct, and "the vast majority" of LDS, along with apologists, do believe that God had sex with Mary, then apologists have been so deliberately misleading on this point they are, for all practical purposes, liars.

And why not? If God isn't an exalted man with reproductive capacity and all the "alpha male" characteristics that beastlie abhors so much, then there is no God at all.

Seth already quizzed you about this particular parcel of so-called "logic".

As for me, I've already stated that I think the likelihood of this god of your existing is as strong as the likelihood that santa really does live in the North Pole and is making lists of good boys and girls. So discussing this is devoid of emotional attachment of any sort, for me. But I do draw conclusions about human beings who find such a god worthy of worship. In the end, he resembles a mafia boss with loyalty tests and rewards for his alpha males. If such a god really exists, there is nothing I can do about it, but I certainly wouldn't find such a god worthy of worship.

Seriously, why would such a god be worthy of worship, love, and respect?

[_Sethbag]

Because if you don't, you'll get whacked. ;-)

[_cksalmon]

And why not? If God isn't an exalted man with reproductive capacity and all the "alpha male" characteristics that beastlie abhors so much, then there is no God at all.

Goodness, that's a more than a bit parochial, isn't it?

CKS

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Snicker. Usually it's critics insisting that BY and others taught that God had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus, and the apologists insist he did NOT.

Actually, I believe it would be more accurate to say most apologists (those who publish, not the internet message board type like me) would say Brigham Young's views on deity and procreation are not considered official doctrine of the LDS Church.