Was Jesus "Sired" via Artificial Insemination?

[_KimberlyAnn]

Was Jesus sired by artificial insemination?

The man to ask is Kerry Shirts, The Backyard Professor!

He knows all about God's sperm.

KA

[_mocnarf]

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.

Jason, Ok, I accept your explanation. But then the question becomes was Mary married/sealed to God as one of His wives? Or, was Jesus God's bastard child?

[_ajax18]

Can one still sire without intercourse? I would answer yes, modern biology already does it and has already made advances with creating artificial sperm from stem cells. Does it matter if it was artificial or "natural"? Not at all. I just think it wise to admit our ignorance on the matter.[/quote]

I think Brigham Young could have been aware that there may have already been and would likely be other methods to produce children than sexual ijntercourse. The idea behind this talk was that God works through natural means. Could God have invented a comples artificial insemination project that could have efficiently side stepped all the eithical dilemmas from a new set of ethics that would bother his followers 2,000 years later? Sure he could have. Yet he seems to prefer to do things naturally.

I'm sure people gave the same draconian disapproval of fertility clincis as they once gave stem cell research. Most fertilized egss don't make it in a fertility clinic. Some are left with no other use than to be thrown in a trash can. And yet quietly based on what the CHurch doesn't say just as what it does say we see a new standard. "Fertility clinics are of sufficient importance continue to harvest and use (zygotes) but healing people is not worthy object in using these zygotes. Therefore we should just take the zygotes that arent' used and put them in the transh can. To them this is a higher moral ground that using these discarded zygotes for medical testing and to make medicines.

I just lolve listenig to Church talks. I know they love the truth and to preach the truth. They're not really worried about what other people will think about what they say. They just state the truth, the truth. They have no secrets. They want us all to tknow the truth.. (O and anything else that might meet their objective of getting more recruits and raising more money and building the empier." It's jsut unfortunate by the time they get their empire built they will had to change so many of the corps doctrines you'll wonder if the early members would even recognzie their old Church.

Many in Elders Qrorum group on to say that it would be wrong to heal someone since it reduces the mans suffering and maybe even prolongs his life. Acccording to Mormon Doctrine, the most important thing we do here is suffer, and learn about pain from a hands on apprach. To interfere with that would be frustrating the work of God.

[_ajax18]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but virgin birth was very common claim made at the time that had the increasing how special an individual was.

[_Gadianton]

http://p094.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... =1&stop=20

Unfortunately, we don't have access to "who physically begat the son?"

"Wade: Are you saying that test tube babies are not sired, and have no sire? What about the many children recently concieved via invetero fertilization? Are they not sired, and have no sire?"

[Physics Guy]

http://p094.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm56.showMessageRange?topicID=445.topic&start=1&stop=20

Unfortunately, we don't have access to "who physically begat the son?"

"Wade: Are you saying that test tube babies are not sired, and have no sire? What about the many children recently concieved via invetero fertilization? Are they not sired, and have no sire?"

Gad---

You left out the very provocative follow-up to that quote:

Of course, I don't view the word "sire" so narrowly. What is of significance to me regarding the word is who the conception is a product of and not the specific means of conception. But, to each their own.

(emphasis added)

So, if we continue to follow the logical chain of events so kindly supplied to us by The Good Professor, then I guess this means . . . Well, what? I mean, think about this: "who the conception is a product of".... In the case of artificial insemination, don't we have to give credit to multiple persons?