Crosses on LDS temple

[_Drifting]

God doesn't have "semen" slimball.... He is spirit and matter perfected.
Resurrected bodies don't have BLOOD!!!

So when the Church's doctrine is that Mary conceived Jesus 'naturally'. How can that be done without semen yet still be called 'natural'?

[_subgenius]

it would be liking meeting Jackie Kennedy and wearing a little sniper-rifle pin on one's lapel.

So your comparing JFK to Jesus?

So it's not just the 'Beetles', 'Oasis' and 'Robbie Williams' Who think they are bigger than Jesus.

no, but the sentiment is the same.
No, i was pretty clear about what the comparison was....was it really that hard to follow?
Ok, how about this...Jesus returns and you are proudly displaying the emblem of his betrayal, persecution, and demise upon your lapel...you have a gold encrusted symbol of his suffering glaring him in the face. It would seem that there are way better options to choose that are more sensible.
The cross is fixated on the death, while the rest of us fixate on the Resurrection.

[_Drifting]

The cross is fixated on the death, while the rest of us fixate on the Resurrection.

Mormonism tends to focus on Gethsemane which is where, according to Mormonism, the Atonement happens.

[_subgenius]

So when the Church's doctrine is that Mary conceived Jesus 'naturally'. How can that be done without semen yet still be called 'natural'?

Church Doctrine? Sorry, but as usual you are not aware of what is church doctrine due to your own neglect.
Let me guess...you gonna use an obscure reference from BY and claim that is what the church's doctrine is?, even though the church is clear about what constitutes doctrine and the following:
http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/1-ne ... ang=eng#17

you never cease to amaze with both your willingness to know nothing about what you speak and how accuracy means little to your objective.

[_subgenius]

The cross is fixated on the death, while the rest of us fixate on the Resurrection.

Mormonism tends to focus on Gethsemane which is where, according to Mormonism, the Atonement happens.

[_just me]

So when the Church's doctrine is that Mary conceived Jesus 'naturally'. How can that be done without semen yet still be called 'natural'?

Church Doctrine? Sorry, but as usual you are not aware of what is church doctrine due to your own neglect.
Let me guess...you gonna use an obscure reference from BY and claim that is what the church's doctrine is?, even though the church is clear about what constitutes doctrine and the following:
http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/1-ne ... ang=eng#17

you never cease to amaze with both your willingness to know nothing about what you speak and how accuracy means little to your objective.

In the current manuals Jesus is called the "literal" son of God. How is he the literal son of God?

The spirit of prophecy, however, is far more than just a belief that Jesus lives. It includes an understanding that Jesus is the literal Son of God. Understanding Isaiah

Also, the scripture you linked to has been changed since it was first written. "Son of" was added later.

[_PrickKicker]

So let me see if I'm following you...

Meeting Jackie Kennedy with a rifle pin on my lapel, is the same as meeting Jesus with a cross pin.
Surely I would be meeting JFK himself, or am I meeting Mary Magdelene, instead of Jesus?

You're making no sense and yet I'm the one who's not following?

I suppose Jesus would rather us wear a compass and square on our undies?

[Guest]

[In the current manuals Jesus is called the "literal" son of God. How is he the literal son of God?

first let me say that Drift's implication of "naturally" is not "actually" doctrine.
That being said, the method of consummation is not what defines Jesus as being "literal" son of God. Having sexual relations with a mortal man is far different than being impregnated by an immortal being...agreed?
If Jesus is not the literal son of God what would you have Him be, the allegorical Son? the adopted Son?
I have no objection with the assertions of McConkie on this subject - but while the method may be varied I do not think anyone considers it reasonable that God took Mary on a date, gave her compliments, or even that he slipped her a mickey and then climbed into the back seat with her. Nor does anyone consider that Jesus was a test-tube baby...all valid means of how men may beget a child. I simply mean to point out that the crass characterization that always follows Drift's disingenuous comments on that subject are not always an accurate implication (and Drift's denial of such is simply more of the same, there can be little doubt about what position consistently Drift occupies).
Beyond divine insemination there can nothing more than needless speculation as to the conception of the Child aside form what is clear in the scriptures.

If you notice above, Drifting question how can someone be "impregnated without semen?" - the concpet just escapes Drifting's temporal soaked mind - But it is simple really, because it is not the semen that impregnates, it is the spermatozoa that impregnates (and sperm is mammalian, arguably the only requisite is Actin). We see this occur in modern science in many test tubes in many ways. Just so happens that mortal men need seminal fluid to carry the spermatozoa due to environmental issues and other logistical considerations that are inherent with mortality....to assume all these factors are applicable to God is somewhat naïve. Are we to assume that God needs to wash His hands too?

The argument that God engaged in some sort of sweaty, groaning, fumbling intercourse with Mary is quite ridiculous and forms most often in an immature mind with a cursory knowledge of God and His character.

The spirit of prophecy, however, is far more than just a belief that Jesus lives. It includes an understanding that Jesus is the literal Son of God. Understanding Isaiah

Also, the scripture you linked to has been changed since it was first written. "Son of" was added later.

"Son of" being added later does not invalidate the claim. Often revisions are corrections, but they can also be clarifications. So, the chronology reveals little unless you can speak to the motive of such.

[_Drifting]

[In the current manuals Jesus is called the "literal" son of God. How is he the literal son of God?

first let me say that Drift's implication of "naturally" is not "actually" doctrine.
That being said, the method of consummation is not what defines Jesus as being "literal" son of God. Having sexual relations with a mortal man is far different than being impregnated by an immortal being...agreed?
If Jesus is not the literal son of God what would you have Him be, the allegorical Son? the adopted Son?
I have no objection with the assertions of McConkie on this subject - but while the method may be varied I do not think anyone considers it reasonable that God took Mary on a date, gave her compliments, or even that he slipped her a mickey and then climbed into the back seat with her. Nor does anyone consider that Jesus was a test-tube baby...all valid means of how men may beget a child. I simply mean to point out that the crass characterization that always follows Drift's disingenuous comments on that subject are not always an accurate implication (and Drift's denial of such is simply more of the same, there can be little doubt about what position consistently Drift occupies).
Beyond divine insemination there can nothing more than needless speculation as to the conception of the Child aside form what is clear in the scriptures.

If you notice above, Drifting question how can someone be "impregnated without semen?" - the concpet just escapes Drifting's temporal soaked mind - But it is simple really, because it is not the semen that impregnates, it is the spermatozoa that impregnates (and sperm is mammalian, arguably the only requisite is Actin). We see this occur in modern science in many test tubes in many ways. Just so happens that mortal men need seminal fluid to carry the spermatozoa due to environmental issues and other logistical considerations that are inherent with mortality....to assume all these factors are applicable to God is somewhat naïve. Are we to assume that God needs to wash His hands too?

The argument that God engaged in some sort of sweaty, groaning, fumbling intercourse with Mary is quite ridiculous and forms most often in an immature mind with a cursory knowledge of God and His character.

Subby, you could have just written "oh no He didn't".
You have no alternative to how God might have managed to knock Mary up, other than the natural means men and women use today. The basis of your response is that there must have been some other way that God dunnit other than having sex, because you find that unpalatable.

Well on that basis, it is equally plausible that the immaculate conception was just a version dreamed up by Joseph and Mary to cover for the fact that she was knocked up.

[Guest]

Well on that basis, it is equally plausible that the immaculate conception was just a version dreamed up by Joseph and Mary to cover for the fact that she was knocked up.

The Immaculate Conception is actually how Mary was conceived, not Jesus. I only learned that not very long ago and think it's kinda cool to know.

The reason for the virgin birth (and the Immaculate Conception) is the Original Sin doctrine. It was not acceptable to have Jesus born because of nasty, evil sex. It was then determined that Mary had to be a virgin (her whole life, in fact, some argued). They even had debates about her hymen! Anyway, then it was later determined, after Mary rose in stature in the church, that she could not have been born in sin. She had to be a pure vessel. Therefore, somehow she was able to be conceived and born without the taint of sin. Thus making her and her son the only two people who were perfect.

subgenius most definitely reflects those with a very negative view of sex. It is seen as a necessary evil for the propagation of the species. It is views like this that births concepts and doctrines such as Virgin Birth, Immaculate Conception, Original Sin, celibacy more spiritual than marriage, sex is sin next to murder, body fluids are filthy and women are impure.

This is why the very idea of God having sex is so detestable to him. God can't have body fluids because body fluids are disgusting and dirty and earthy.

It is a fact that many of the old gods were not above raping human women. Who is to say that Elohim isn't that kind of guy?