Mormon God's Penis

[_Bond...James Bond]

Even more shocking, God has a rectum.

And chronic hemmeroids. No wonder he was cranky during the Old Testament...

[_Mercury]

has this been initiated by Kerry Shirts?

Absolutely.

Shirts's is very enthusiastic about this. He is the only one of whom I know.

CKS

Hmm, bit of a complex I do think.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Perhaps. But I think it's important to note that trinitarians distinguish between the Persons of God (Father, Son, HG) and the Being of God. The Persons are just that, Persons. Therefore, I don't think the notion is quite as alien as you think though I hear from many Christians that even though the Persons look like people, they are sexless.

Uh... not quite sure who you've been talking to, but you're wrong. Yes, mainstream Christians do tend to think of Jesus as a "person" in the physical sense, because he was incarnated and resurrected. But they certainly do not conceive of the Holy Spirit as having a person-like form. And if they speak of God the Father appearing in person-like form it is either metaphor or manifestation; it is not his actual form. When mainstream Christians speak of God in three persons, the word "person" refers more or less to centers of consciousness. Almost all mainline Christians with whom I've spoken are agreed that God the Father is genderless. Most people also conceive of the Holy Spirit as genderless, though there is a move afoot in some liberal theological circles to speak of the Holy Spirit in the feminine tense in order to balance the maleness of Christ.

[_Mercury]

Even more shocking, God has a rectum.

And chronic hemmeroids. No wonder he was cranky during the Old Testament...

I wonder if God has a Prostate.

[_karl61]

I think the big question is first, was God a homo-sapien? If he was then everything naturally follows.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Really, I wonder if Kerry hasn't tapped right into the mind of Joseph Smith.

Smith was obviously interested in Egyptian mythology early on in the formation of his new religion. Sometimes I think he put together Mormonism in a hodge-podge fashion, but there may have been more forethought than I imagined.

I noticed CKSalmon's MADB thread wherein he inquired as to the origin of Ahman, as used by Joseph Smith. Early in the D&C, Smith mentioned Adam-ondi-Ahman, and though it may not be the origin, I've long wondered if it weren't a nod to the Egyptian god Amun Ra, or Ammon Ra, the Sun god, also considered a fertility god, who created worlds by, interestingly enough, ejaculating them into existence. As the Rosetta Stone was discovered in 1799, there was much buzz concerning all things Egyptian, and it would certainly be in the realm of possibility that Smith was at least cursorily familiar with the Egyptian god, Amun Ra.


Only a few years after Smith's first mention of Ahman, he purchased the papyri used to "translate" the Book of Abraham.

The notion of eternally procreating gods may have been planted early in Smith's mind, finally culminating in polygamous, eternal marriages with endless sex. Phallic religion, indeed.

Kerry may see such possible connections as proof of Smith's prophetic ability. I don't. I see them as exactly the opposite.

I haven't made any in-depth study on this topic and the above is merely speculation on my part, and generally uneducated speculation at that. It's just some thoughts I've had on the subject. Take them for what they're worth, which is exactly what was paid for them.

KA

[_bcspace]

Perhaps. But I think it's important to note that trinitarians distinguish between the Persons of God (Father, Son, HG) and the Being of God. The Persons are just that, Persons. Therefore, I don't think the notion is quite as alien as you think though I hear from many Christians that even though the Persons look like people, they are sexless.

Uh... not quite sure who you've been talking to, but you're wrong. Yes, mainstream Christians do tend to think of Jesus as a "person" in the physical sense, because he was incarnated and resurrected. But they certainly do not conceive of the Holy Spirit as having a person-like form. And if they speak of God the Father appearing in person-like form it is either metaphor or manifestation; it is not his actual form. When mainstream Christians speak of God in three persons, the word "person" refers more or less to centers of consciousness. Almost all mainline Christians with whom I've spoken are agreed that God the Father is genderless. Most people also conceive of the Holy Spirit as genderless, though there is a move afoot in some liberal theological circles to speak of the Holy Spirit in the feminine tense in order to balance the maleness of Christ.

Agreed. I was simply pointing out the basic trinitarian doctrine that differentiates between Persons and the Being. Only Christ is incarnate in this doctrine though you'd be suprised how many nonLDS Christians see the Person of the Father also as a man.

[_Moniker]

Perhaps. But I think it's important to note that trinitarians distinguish between the Persons of God (Father, Son, HG) and the Being of God. The Persons are just that, Persons. Therefore, I don't think the notion is quite as alien as you think though I hear from many Christians that even though the Persons look like people, they are sexless.

Uh... not quite sure who you've been talking to, but you're wrong. Yes, mainstream Christians do tend to think of Jesus as a "person" in the physical sense, because he was incarnated and resurrected. But they certainly do not conceive of the Holy Spirit as having a person-like form. And if they speak of God the Father appearing in person-like form it is either metaphor or manifestation; it is not his actual form. When mainstream Christians speak of God in three persons, the word "person" refers more or less to centers of consciousness. Almost all mainline Christians with whom I've spoken are agreed that God the Father is genderless. Most people also conceive of the Holy Spirit as genderless, though there is a move afoot in some liberal theological circles to speak of the Holy Spirit in the feminine tense in order to balance the maleness of Christ.

Bcspace, what CaliforniaKid wrote is what I meant to write.

:)

[_bcspace]

Bcspace, what CaliforniaKid wrote is what I meant to write.

I don't think there is much to disagree over.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Agreed. I was simply pointing out the basic trinitarian doctrine that differentiates between Persons and the Being.

Orthodox Christian doctrine technically sees God the Father as the fount of divinity, meaning he is more closely identified with the Being than are the other two persons. I think this resonates pretty well with the way most laity think about the three persons, anyway (e.g., when they say "God" they usually mean "the Father").

Only Christ is incarnate in this doctrine though you'd be suprised how many nonLDS Christians see the Person of the Father also as a man.

I think you might be surprised how few of them do. Of course, I say that as someone who read his Bible a lot, actually listened to the sermons on Sunday, and participated quite enthusiastically in charismatic worship. It might be different for nominal Christians. But by the time I was about 8 years old I experienced a bit of a crisis because I was trying to pray to God but knew that if I visualized him in any way, it would be all wrong. It took me a while to feel comfortable praying without visualization. 8 years old is pretty young to have that strong a conviction of the incorporeality of God.