http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865668355/Mormons-with-doubts-shouldnt-give-up-faith-without-intellectual-and-spiritual-kicking-and.html

Mormons seem to be taking the offensive lately towards those of us who dared to leave by publishing blogs and articles in their heavily controlled and monitored online sources, that question the validity of our concerns and accuse us of leaving for no good reason.

We are not the ones who sing the praises of a man who actually drew a cartoon of God with an erection, which Mormons carry around with them to this day, every time they pick up a copy of their pornographic cartoon scriptures.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile_2/Identification_of_the_ithyphallic_Egyptian_god_%22Min%22_as_%22God_sitting_upon_his_throne%22

Question: Is the representation of Min actually Egyptian "pornography"?

This attitude demonstrates not only an immaturity about sexuality, but it also a misunderstanding of ancient Egyptian religion
To answer this question about Facsimile 2 figure 7, the first thing we need to disabuse is that it constitutes "pornography" because it shows the deity with an erect phallus. This attitude demonstrates not only an immaturity about sexuality, but it also a misunderstanding of ancient Egyptian religion. The characterization of this as "pornography" is grossly inappropriate. The Egyptians would almost certainly have not conceived of this figure on the hypocephalus as "pornographic" in the way most people understand the word. This attitude reflected by some is a good example of how our modern, sexually-obsessed society can easily misinterpret religious art. We see an erect penis in a drawing and think "pornography," whereas an ancient Egyptian would have seen one and thought of fertility, virility and life. Hence the depiction of Min with an erection was a sign of his life-giving ability. We have analogies in Northwest Semitic depictions of God. (El is both called and depicted as a virile bull in the Ugaritic texts, both because of his procreative powers and his greatness over the other gods.)
Another thing to keep in mind is just how common syncretism of religious ideas and iconography was between Near Eastern cultures. We know ancient Hebrews and other Near Eastern people used a phallic God to depict “the God of the Bible” all the time. The Canaanite god Baal, for example, shares the same epithet with Yahweh ("cloud rider") in Psalm 68:4."

Huh? So no problem whatsoever making graven images of a Pagan Egyptian God with a hard on and identifying it as the "God of Abraham" when that God told Moses to make no graven images of him?

I'm pretty sure the God of Abraham would have had a HUGE problem with being drawn up by a false prophet, who drew an actual cartoon of God, with a hard on, like a naive little kid. And Mormons lap this up, yet have a problem with "Porn Shoulders"?

And we're the ones who are "immature about sexuality" and "sexually obsessed society who can easily misinterpret religious art.?"

Wait, yet Mormons are the ones who give Art Students a 0/100 for exposing their shoulders in an art project?

Now who believes in a cartoon of God again?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2016 06:07PM by koriwhore.

But the church is a cartoon version of a church.

CULT=Cartoon version of a real church
Doomsday Sex Cult = abusive cartoon version of a real church

You should read the comments. I only got through about a few dozen of them, but several people pretty much accuse the writer of this of it being a puff piece for other Mormons as basically a guideline for how to view people who have left the church, and were also offended that the writers place people into three arbitrary groups. A lot of other interesting stuff, too. I don't think I saw one positive comment about the article, and a lot of the comments seem to be from people who are currently Mormons. It seems to indicate to me that people more and more aren't buying what the church is selling.

Plus, anyone who has the audacity to claim that someone who left the church was too lazy to fight hard enough intellectually to believe in it is so ridiculous and so offensive I cannot properly articulate a response to it. I just don't know what to say to that. It's offensive in too many ways.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2016 09:34AM by midwestanon.

Yes, this! If TSCC were true, one should not have to "fight hard intellectually" to be able to believe its claims.