Was Jesus "Sired" via Artificial Insemination?

[_charity]

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

And neither did Dr. Peterson. He said God knows more about conception than the local fertility clinic. Read the post before you run off into the mud.

[_the road to hana]

He said God knows more about conception than the local fertility clinic. Read the post before you run off into the mud.

Which is precisely the point, Charity. God likely knows a lot more about creation than even people considered to be "LDS prophets" can illuminate. So why should they even speculate in a realm that takes the discussion south?

[_Yoda]

He said God knows more about conception than the local fertility clinic. Read the post before you run off into the mud.

Which is precisely the point, Charity. God likely knows a lot more about creation than even people considered to be "LDS prophets" can illuminate. So why should they even speculate in a realm that takes the discussion south?

Agreed. This also takes us into another realm where it makes it more difficult for those who believe that plural marriage is an eternal principle to "have their cake and eat it too".

If, as a God, or a Goddess, we have a broader understanding of, and capacity for creation, then why would women need to "birth" spirit children in the hereafter? The whole concept of plural marriage being in place to "spread seed" becomes even more ludicrous.

[_the road to hana]

He said God knows more about conception than the local fertility clinic. Read the post before you run off into the mud.

Which is precisely the point, Charity. God likely knows a lot more about creation than even people considered to be "LDS prophets" can illuminate. So why should they even speculate in a realm that takes the discussion south?

Agreed. This also takes us into another realm where it makes it more difficult for those who believe that plural marriage is an eternal principle to "have their cake and eat it too".

If, as a God, or a Goddess, we have a broader understanding of, and capacity for creation, then why would women need to "birth" spirit children in the hereafter? The whole concept of plural marriage being in place to "spread seed" becomes even more ludicrous.

It all goes to the heart of the matter, which is that much of LDS theology since the time of Joseph Smith has been centered on sexuality. Now that the church is trying to mainstream, it's distancing itself somewhat from that. One might inquire why it would be so important to promise men that they would become gods, and have eternal increase, in a setting where polygamy was being practiced.

When Brigham Young made his famous comment about the Holy Ghost not being able to procreate he was doing precisely what Charity, DCP and others are decrying now--suggesting that God cannot accomplish by his own means creation in a way that we might not understand, including using a third person of the Godhead to accomplish that means.

[_Gadianton]

I was taught this as doctrine by my dad who is a full-fledged chapel Mormon and imparted the truth to me as one of the great mysteries of Godliness. I didn't have a problem with it. The stepping back by apologists moves them in the exact direction the church has always criticized Christianity for. Having an abstract, impersonal God. It's true, the all powerful force in the universe could find another way to begat Jesus. But then again, the all powerful force in the universe could do anything. Mormons must not read the bits by C.S. Lewis where he speculates about the pointlessness of having bodies in the resurrection. Why would God, of anyone, need a physical body? Mormons have always pressed the issue of the church being special for teaching this doctrine about the Father's reality as a physical being like us. The Celestial Kingdom as a more perfect extension of this life. The missionary discussions used to even emphasise the importance of "spiritual beings having a phyiscal experience" precisely because in the pre-existence one of the things we lacked was a phyiscal body like the Father's. And we needed to come down and get one, and thereby learn to be more like him.

So we have to learn to use this body to be like him in every way, except there's this one gigantic oddity, the big-daddy bodily misuse that will send the majority of the earth's inhabitants to hell, the one that aids in making more people, and that supposidly, after denied to the point of insanity, becomes the capstone of the proper marriage where it is utilized properly --- and then we come to find that it's not even used up there! They've hi-teched out the need for the "hide the submarine" game.

There is even Mormon speculation that God married Mary in the temple. Not to mention the unearthed "Gospel of Phillip" from the Nag Hammadi Library that Mormons claimed, including Hugh Nibley (implied) teaches the marraige of Jesus and Mary Magdelene in the Temple. It's all quite logical within Mormon beliefs. What, there was no love between Jesus's literal father and literal mother? The apologist account is at complete odds with the Mormon teaching of the Eternal family along with its heavenly archtypes.

[_Trinity]

Personally, I like the theory that the HG descended upon Mary like a big swirly. I bet that would induce orgasm.

[_Jason Bourne]

Well Charity, Brigham Young taught God has sex with Mary, one of his wives, in order to make baby Jesus.

Brigham Young taught some things that were not scriptural. The JD amply demonstrates this. If you want to know what Mormon doctrine is, then your first resource should be the scriptures - not books like MD, or even the JD. Speculation is the cause of misunderstanding. There is nothing in the scriptures which explain or detail how Jesus was conceived. If the leaders had followed the Book of Mormon in the first place (as McConkie later reflected on), the black ban would never have occurred.

Oh Ray I know this and I know the argument. There is so much that especially 19th century leaders of the LDS Church said that we want to put into this category. But when do we ask the questions "Did what they say mean anything? Were they apostles and prophets or not?" Did they believe what they said and did the listeners?" As beastie pointed out, we say the prophet is fallible but, at least for the living prophet, we act like he is infallible.

I understand the argument of the canon being he measuring bar. But just take the topic of this thread. It was taught by many LDS leaders. THe idea even was in an FHE manual. McConkie taught it, JFS taught it, many leader taught it. But now it is tossed on to the junk heap of opinion, speculation and just their opinion. Well if it is so easy to dismiss what they teach then what good is a prophet or apostle? This is why I cannot feel good arguing like you did above, and I used to all the time.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

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....)

ROFL Hahaha. LOL XD. Och I got an eyalash in my eye. This is funny. Wouldn't God just be so amazing as to just make his "seed" go into Mary rather than any thing we understand. I am quite sure technology will continue to increase and there will be new methods of impregnation to come. Are these people going to say ohh that's how God done it everytime something new comes along? If there is the type of God claimed then God would know far greater than us and would have different teqniques to doing things. Maybe there isn't such a thing as a second coming and the second coming is the first coming of Christ only he travelled back in time when time travell had become available and the method was to be born. So Jesus could have travelled back into Mary having remembered all things. But wouldn't want people to know of time travell. After all it is the stronger people that are kept till the last days, Right?

:P

[_ozemc]

You guys and your dirty little minds are disgusting. You will have to answer to Heavenly Father on this. You should be more respectful about things you simply have not a hope of understanding.

Oh c'mon, Charity.

The idea that that God of the universe had to have had physical sex anyway is a little disconcerting.

Couldn't God just think it, and Mary would be pregnant?

I mean, if He could say "Let there be light", and the whole universe filled with light, surely a simple thing as a human pregnancy would be as simple as "You're pregnant."

(OK, ladies, not that I'm saying pregnancy is a simple thing .... I have two kids, and I know from watching their mother it was anything but simple ...)

But, we're talking GOD here.

[_ozemc]

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....)

You think HF would really deliver the goods? He's a busy guy...I'm betting he'd delegate distribution of his "little soldiers" to an Angel or a stork or something.

Hey, Bond---

I recall that BY preached that HF "came down in his bodily tabernacle and begat Jesus." So, if we are to follow DCP's suggestion to its logical conclusion, then I guess we'd have to assume that he "scrubbed up," or "delivered the goods," as you put it.

Puts a whole new spin on the euphemism "choking the bishop".

Oh.my.gosh!

I really should not be drinking coffee when I read this stuff!