Was Jesus "Sired" via Artificial Insemination?

[_Mister Scratch]

Excuse me? *I* am not the one who suggested that HF employed the "turkey baster" method of conception.

Neither did DCP. You still don't get it.

Yes he did. He stated quite plainly that he believes "artificial insemination" is a viable alternative to the physical sex theory.

[_Ray A]

Hi, Ray. I went ahead and underlined the relevant portion of text. You *do* know how artificial insemination works, don't you? In context, it's clear that The Good Professor was trying primarily to pooh-pooh away the notion that HF had sexual intercourse w/ Mary. But I ask again: is the suggestion of artificial insemination, and everything attending such a procedure, really a preferable theory?

I am aware of how AF works. He was not suggesting AF. He wrote that God probably has a "better understanding" than what occurs in AF clinics.

That is the context here. AF is a human reproductive means. God has a "better understanding" than that.

[_Bond...James Bond]

You will have to answer to Heavenly Father on this.

I doubt it. After all of his procrastinating on dealing out judgement and so forth I'm betting HF has got quite a backlog of cases in his docket.

[_Jason Bourne]

The MAD thread in question was mentioned on Dartagnan's "Paharon is an idiot" thread, but I think it is worth another glance. The thread in question, begun by David Waltz, was meant to address a James White blog posting in which White asserts that LDS scholars are embarrassed about the old doctrine that God had physical sex with Mary in order to create Jesus. Of course, TBMs have long been very uncomfortable with this idea, despite wanting very desperately to cling to the notion of Jesus being God's "literal son."

Anyways, it turns out that a new theory has been floated, which neatly dispenses with the troublesome issue of physical sex:

You haven't heard of artificial insemination? In vitro fertilization hasn't reached your neighborhood?

(Personally, I'm betting that God has an even better understanding of reproductive biology than my local fertility clinic does. But I'm just a wild and crazy guy. Maybe I'm way out there in left field, and we've completely caught up to the Divine Mind on this one.)

Um, wow... I am pretty amazed that apologetics, and Mormonism in general, is so crippled with rank Victorianism that DCP would prefer this artificial insemination theory to one which embraces more normative procreative methods. I mean, is this really preferable as an explanation? Does the Good Professor want us to assume that Heavenly Father scrubbed up and wielded a syringe full of his own Holy Seed prior to impregnating Mary? (Further, doesn't this suggest that HF had to have masturbated beforehand? Truly, the implications here are utterly staggering....)

I think maybe we really ought to just say yep, LDS leaders taught that God is Jesus Father in the normal way. I mean really, is this so awful of and idea? Instead, we back peddle from all the things we used to teach that seemed to make us interesting and in fact, sort of made sense in many ways, given some of the unique LDS teachings. One of the reasons I moved away from hobby apologetics was it seems so much of what I was brought up with as doctrine and teachings of the LDS Church were no longer doctrine-it was never official, it was opinion, it was never canonized-and I did this too. But I could no longer do that. Now we have some, even one poster here, who says there is really no official doctrine and the only way to know doctrine is to do God's will.

I even recently have listened to some podcasts by Blake Ostler, who I like and admire. But when he commented on the titles of his three volume book-Exploring Mormon Thought-that Mormonism really has a lot of thought and ideas that are in flux but little doctrine. I just scratched my head.

When I was young in the 70s and we talked in seminary about God being a man, how we can be gods, create worlds, how Jesus was really literally God's son and so on. So much of what I thought was pretty cool stuff compared to traditional Christianity seems gone.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hi, Ray. I went ahead and underlined the relevant portion of text. You *do* know how artificial insemination works, don't you? In context, it's clear that The Good Professor was trying primarily to pooh-pooh away the notion that HF had sexual intercourse w/ Mary. But I ask again: is the suggestion of artificial insemination, and everything attending such a procedure, really a preferable theory?

I am aware of how AF works. He was not suggesting AF. He wrote that God probably has a "better understanding" than what occurs in AF clinics.

That is the context here. AF is a human reproductive means. God has a "better understanding" than that.

He was clearly suggesting AF as an alternative to the "physical sex" theory. If he wanted to emphasize the "better understanding"/ "we don't know how it happened" interpretation, then he shouldn't have mentioned AF at all. But, the fact of the matter is that he mentioned AF, thus insinuating (probably on accident) that HF may have masturbated.

[_the road to hana]

You should be more respectful about things you simply have not a hope of understanding.

Exactly. Which is why previous LDS leaders should never have commented or speculated on it in the first place. To non-LDS, it's Mormons who appear to have reduced the sacred to the profane.

[_Mister Scratch]

I think maybe we really ought to just say yep, LDS leaders taught that God is Jesus Father in the normal way. I mean really, is this so awful of and idea? Instead, we back peddle from all the things we used to teach that seemed to make us interesting and in fact, sort of made sense in many ways, given some of the unique LDS teachings. One of the reasons I moved away from hobby apologetics was it seems so much of what I was brought up with as doctrine and teachings of the LDS Church were no longer doctrine-it was never official, it was opinion, it was never canonized-and I did this too. But I could no longer do that. Now we have some, even one poster here, who says there is really no official doctrine and the only way to know doctrine is to do God's will.

I even recently have listened to some podcasts by Blake Ostler, who I like and admire. But when he commented on the titles of his three volume book-Exploring Mormon Thought-that Mormonism really has a lot of thought and ideas that are in flux but little doctrine. I just scratched my head.

When I was young in the 70s and we talked in seminary about God being a man, how we can be gods, create worlds, how Jesus was really literally God's son and so on. So much of what I thought was pretty cool stuff compared to traditional Christianity seems gone.

I agree with you, Jason. Sadly, there is just so much squeamishness and prudery in much of Mormonism---not to mention a terrible fear of embarrassment---that many of the interesting things are whitewashed and spun to the point where they are no longer recognizable. It really would be better, in my opinion, to just concede that yes, HF had sex with Mary. To fail to do so is to be forced to fall back on these adolescent and stupid theories such as DCP's artificial insemination thing, which, in my opinion, is much worse.

[_Dakotah]

If God is literally his father, Mary his mother... and they are not married, what does that make him?

[_Ray A]

thus insinuating (probably on accident) that HF may have masturbated.

I don't see any such insinuation. He also wrote:

Maybe I'm way out there in left field, and we've completely caught up to the Divine Mind on this one.

He is not suggesting any particular procedure, A.I., AF, or physical sex.

[_Scottie]

So, I guess that means that God has 46 chromosomes?

I mean, to be a resurrected being, wouldn't you have some different gene configurations that make you live forever and read human minds and create boulders so big you can't lift them and, you know...God stuff?