Crosses on LDS temple

[_subgenius]

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.

i never stated that it was unpalatable, that method would not bother me at all, nor would it impact doctrine in any way...except that it is an unreasonable assumption on your part. There is nothing stated that would lead us to think that method is the method. After all the Book of Mormon reaffirms that Mary was a virgin (1 Nephi 11:13-20; Alma 7:10) and thus that is Doctrine.
McConkie, Benson, or Young never ever said that God had sexual intercourse with Mary. All they ever really say is that Jesus was born naturally, and i don't think anyone disputes that.
I mean this is a fundamental cause for the use of the term "Miracle" yet you would try to assert that it was not miraculous at all.

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.

not really, but given the way you put things together no conclusion is too absurd for you. So, given all that what fuels your bitter heart to even be on this forum? Are you lurking and waiting for a certain poster who is your long lost sister, sworn to one day reunite with you in a glorious whirlwind of cynicism and vitriol?
Or is this some sort of court appointed therapy?

[_subgenius]

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 birth 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?

Given your previous penchant for "added later"...Mary's virginity was added later, many speculate it was "revised" because the Jewish community was portraying her as less than pure and as being just a typical unmarried girl who may have even been promiscuous.
So, her being a "virgin" was "added later".

[_Drifting]

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.

i never stated that it was unpalatable, that method would not bother me at all, nor would it impact doctrine in any way...except that it is an unreasonable assumption on your part. There is nothing stated that would lead us to think that method is the method. After all the Book of Mormon reaffirms that Mary was a virgin (1 Nephi 11:13-20; Alma 7:10) and thus that is Doctrine.
McConkie, Benson, or Young never ever said that God had sexual intercourse with Mary. All they ever really say is that Jesus was born naturally, and i don't think anyone disputes that.
I mean this is a fundamental cause for the use of the term "Miracle" yet you would try to assert that it was not miraculous at all.

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.

not really, but given the way you put things together no conclusion is too absurd for you. So, given all that what fuels your bitter heart to even be on this forum? Are you lurking and waiting for a certain poster who is your long lost sister, sworn to one day reunite with you in a glorious whirlwind of cynicism and vitriol?
Or is this some sort of court appointed therapy?

Do you believe God had physical sexual relations with Mary in order to impregnate her or do you believe it happened in some other unexplained way?
(Also, what century do you think the flood of Noah took place? )

[_just me]

Given your previous penchant for "added later"...Mary's virginity was added later, many speculate it was "revised" because the Jewish community was portraying her as less than pure and as being just a typical unmarried girl who may have even been promiscuous.
So, her being a "virgin" was "added later".

Of course it was. Nobody gave two hoots about where Jesus came from for quite some time.

So, was she a virgin or not? Was Jesus conceived the literal son of God, or not?

The LDS church has taught as doctrine that Jesus is the actual, literal son of god in the same way I am the daughter of my biological father.

PS If the Virgin part was added later how did it get into the Book of Mormon?

[_Drifting]

Given your previous penchant for "added later"...Mary's virginity was added later, many speculate it was "revised" because the Jewish community was portraying her as less than pure and as being just a typical unmarried girl who may have even been promiscuous.
So, her being a "virgin" was "added later".

Of course it was. Nobody gave two hoots about where Jesus came from for quite some time.

So, was she a virgin or not? Was Jesus conceived the literal son of God, or not?

The LDS church has taught as doctrine that Jesus is the actual, literal son of god in the same way I am the daughter of my biological father.

PS If the Virgin part was added later how did it get into the Book of Mormon?

[_just me]

PS If the Virgin part was added later how did it get into the Book of Mormon?

I know. I can't stay in this thread with a straight face now.

[_schreech]

PS If the Virgin part was added later how did it get into the Book of Mormon?

by the way - The answer to your question is "magic". Its hard to have an actual discussion with someone who believes in magic but I applaud your effort JM.

[_PrickKicker]

subgenius: Why have you ignored my questions about God being a man and having a penis and testicles?

[_subgenius]

Of course it was. Nobody gave two hoots about where Jesus came from for quite some time.

The Jewish leaders sure gave a hoot....or even two

So, was she a virgin or not?

The current teaching is that she was, out of necessity she must be mortally a virgin, to consider the contrary has severe and far reaching complications with the Old Testament and New Testament and the Book of Mormon.

Was Jesus conceived the literal son of God, or not?

He was the literal Son, that is without question.

The LDS church has taught as doctrine that Jesus is the actual, literal son of god in the same way I am the daughter of my biological father.

OK. But that does not mean that sexual intercourse was required. The definition of miracle demands understanding of the nature of God...otherwise it is all very useless to you. (it is an interesting concept, and innuendo, to ponder how the mighty and awe inspiring being of God could be diminished to fit into the tiny box of our mortality)

PS If the Virgin part was added later how did it get into the Book of Mormon?

Revelation and Inspiration work not within our chronology, but within the Lords'.

[_subgenius]

:lol: I know. I can't stay in this thread with a straight face now.

then surely my last post wont help