Selek the Terrible -- and major freak show on MAD

[_Mister Scratch]

Both I think.

Wait a sec...im lost, are we debating the literal sex of god with mary

I think even the most hardened antiMormon is forced to admit (at least privately) that LDS doctrine does not say God had sex with Mary. I also think that even the most hardened of the "watered-down" Mormons must also admit (at least privately) that such is not precluded.

Well, here is another bit of doctrine: "24 July, 1853 - Brigham Young preaches, 'The Father came down in his bodily tabernacle and begot Jesus.'" (source: Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power)

or the figurative "impregnation"?

Some are erroneously arguing that one must go through some sort of sexual act or another in order to get sperm and egg to combine. Considering the possibilities with God, it might even be erroneous to argue that sperm and egg even have to be involved to make a fetus though I argue such for clarity's sake.

I don't think this is really a tenable argument. What is the point of the various teachings by the Brethren on this subject, and the treatment of sex as "sacred" within the context of LDS belief, if we are not meant to view the union of Elohim and Mary as literal? It seems to me that one has to view HF and Mary's coupling as a physical, literal act if all the other teachings on the subject of sex are to make any sense.

[_Yoda]

I'm still waiting for a TBM to answer the question of, if God did in fact have intercourse (if - not saying that's the doctrine, but the doctrine leaves this possible), then would Mary have enjoyed it?

I am not just saying that to get a rise out of anyone, either. I honestly think that a huge part of the self-righteous indignation expressed by some TBMs about this has its root in the fact that they are squeamish about sex generally. I think that a twisted and "dirty" attitude toward sex would naturally cause one to revile the notion that God had it with Mary. If God had sex with Mary, is it possible that she had an orgasm? Again, if you're outraged at the very question, you have something unnatural and twisted with your attitude toward sex.

Did Joseph Smith enjoy the sex he had with his plural "wives"? Did the wives enjoy it? Is it squeamish to some to read that very question? Why, if you think that the sex would have been justified?

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that if God spiritually "begat" Mary, then she is his daughter. Therefore, the sexual act with Mary becomes incest. That just doesn't sit well with me at all. It frankly makes my stomach turn.

Now, if Mary was, in fact, an incarnated version of our "Heavenly Mother", and she is, in fact, God's wife, rather than his daughter, I'm ok with it. But the current doctrinal speculation teaches that Mary is both God's daughter, and one of his plural wives in the next life. How does that make sense? It makes God out to be a massoginist pervert.

[_Runtu]

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that if God spiritually "begat" Mary, then she is his daughter. Therefore, the sexual act with Mary becomes incest. That just doesn't sit well with me at all. It frankly makes my stomach turn.

Now, if Mary was, in fact, an incarnated version of our "Heavenly Mother", and she is, in fact, God's wife, rather than his daughter, I'm ok with it. But the current doctrinal speculation teaches that Mary is both God's daughter, and one of his plural wives in the next life. How does that make sense? It makes God out to be a massoginist pervert.

I think it says more about the guy who came up with this stuff than it does about God.

[_Sethbag]

No doubt. The reason this whole topic gives people the creeps and pisses off the TBMs is that it just doesn't make any sense no matter how you slice it. Either God is having sex with his own spirit daughter, or he's impregnating his spirit daughter with his own celestial sperm. No matter how you look at it, there is sexual reproduction going on between a male, deified homo sapiens named Elohim and his female, homo sapiens spirit daughter. And the lame attempts to say maybe Mary is one of his celestial wives in the next life or something is just lame. It doesn't fit the pattern here.

Seriously, the whole concept of the divine conception of Jesus by the combination of an ovum from Mary and spermatazoa from Elohim is just creepy and certainly does sound a lot like the Greek myths regarding Zeus and his sexcapades with earth women. None of this seems to make much sense as reality, but makes perfect sense given the mythological nature of the whole belief system.

[_Alter Idem]

First off, let me say (for those who think I don't mind all the scatalogical stuff on this board) that I did not read most of these posts--too much of the "m" word etc. for me. However, I wanted to comment on this topic when I saw it on MADB but it was closed.

I did skim Sethbag's question so as a TBM I'll give you my answer, which is "no" because I don't believe Mary had intercourse, therefore there is not a question of whether or not it was "enjoyable".

I have read speculation of some LDS that it was a physical act. I do not believe it. If it had been a physical act, Mary would no longer have been a virgin. Besides, this position contradicts scripture, therefore I reject it.

I think this topic came up on MABD/FAIR before and I don't believe anyone criticized the OP. It may have been closed because most threads that have to do with sexual topics get closed. CKS, I don't think the thread was inappropriate, it was a legitimate LDS topic for debate; problem is that when it starts getting discussed, it will probably take an inappropriate turn (like it did here at MD(yuck!)).

I think you just get jumped all over because the mood at MADB is less tolerant of critics these days. Sorry. Also, there are certain posters who, if they join a thread, will very likely get it shut down because of their aggressive style.

[_Sethbag]

Alter Idem, you don't believe in sexual intercourse between Elohim and Mary. Ok.

Do you believe that sperm from Elohim's perfected, celestial body, fertilized an ovum from Mary, and resulted in the conception of Jesus in Mary's body?

[_Runtu]

First off, let me say (for those who think I don't mind all the scatalogical stuff on this board) that I did not read most of these posts--too much of the "m" word etc. for me. However, I wanted to comment on this topic when I saw it on MADB but it was closed.

I did skim Sethbag's question so as a TBM I'll give you my answer, which is "no" because I don't believe Mary had intercourse, therefore there is not a question of whether or not it was "enjoyable".

I have read speculation of some LDS that it was a physical act. I do not believe it. If it had been a physical act, Mary would no longer have been a virgin. Besides, this position contradicts scripture, therefore I reject it.

I think this topic came up on MABD/FAIR before and I don't believe anyone criticized the OP. It may have been closed because most threads that have to do with sexual topics get closed. CKS, I don't think the thread was inappropriate, it was a legitimate LDS topic for debate; problem is that when it starts getting discussed, it will probably take an inappropriate turn (like it did here at MD(yuck!)).

I think you just get jumped all over because the mood at MADB is less tolerant of critics these days. Sorry. Also, there are certain posters who, if they join a thread, will very likely get it shut down because of their aggressive style.

For what it's worth, I never believed the whole thing, either. I particularly disliked McConkie's idea that Mary could have had sex and still have been a virgin because she didn't have sex with a mortal man. That was just pathetic.

[_gramps]

First off, let me say (for those who think I don't mind all the scatalogical stuff on this board) that I did not read most of these posts--too much of the "m" word etc. for me. However, I wanted to comment on this topic when I saw it on MADB but it was closed.

I did skim Sethbag's question so as a TBM I'll give you my answer, which is "no" because I don't believe Mary had intercourse, therefore there is not a question of whether or not it was "enjoyable".

I have read speculation of some LDS that it was a physical act. I do not believe it. If it had been a physical act, Mary would no longer have been a virgin. Besides, this position contradicts scripture, therefore I reject it.

I think this topic came up on MABD/FAIR before and I don't believe anyone criticized the OP. It may have been closed because most threads that have to do with sexual topics get closed. CKS, I don't think the thread was inappropriate, it was a legitimate LDS topic for debate; problem is that when it starts getting discussed, it will probably take an inappropriate turn (like it did here at MD(yuck!)).

I think you just get jumped all over because the mood at MADB is less tolerant of critics these days. Sorry. Also, there are certain posters who, if they join a thread, will very likely get it shut down because of their aggressive style.

For what it's worth, I never believed the whole thing, either. I particularly disliked McConkie's idea that Mary could have had sex and still have been a virgin because she didn't have sex with a mortal man. That was just pathetic.

What else can one say, when they have to try to justify both scripture and prophets. It gets one in a bind, doesn't it? Hence, the watering down idea of what is and is not doctrine. Gosh, I'm glad I'm out. Really, I am.

[_Alter Idem]

Alter Idem, you don't believe in sexual intercourse between Elohim and Mary. Ok.

Do you believe that sperm from Elohim's perfected, celestial body, fertilized an ovum from Mary, and resulted in the conception of Jesus in Mary's body?

No, I don't think that is necessary either. I guess I've seen too many scifi movies. I see it as being a miracle. How it happened, I have no clue. But I agree with Runtu. Sex is sex. It doesn't matter if it's with a God or a Mortal. If the scriptures say Mary was a virgin then to me that means she did not have sex. Just like the scriptures say that Joseph did not "know his wife" until after Jesus was born. That to me means, she was a virgin, until she and Joseph came together.

I will say though that for those who believe there was an actual physical act; this puts another possible spin on the story in Genesis of the Sons' of God and the Daughters of Men begatting the giants in the land.

[_why me]

Why would god need sperm? We are his spirit children are we not? Did he create us from sperm? We are god's creation from the preexistence. He can place a 'soul' in somone without sperm since he is god. He already created us in the preexistence and so we had bodies already.

The act of procreation between humans is a way to create life that already exists. It is a human way to do it. But god being god, can do it anyway he chooses since that 'soul' already exists.