Crosses on LDS temple

[_PrickKicker]

a natural conception can occur without copulation. Fertilization can occur without semen, on spermatozoa is required.
The dedication and fixation on Heavenly Father having a penis and testicles is understandable from your position, absurd and unnecessary, but understandable........however, if you do not stop you will go blind.

Sorry but you should have read it better.

Ldsfaqs has stated that the conception was natural shortly followed by him stating that it was not natural. I'm just trying to establish which statement he is prepared to stand by.

Can you show me where I mentioned God's genitalia?

I think he is accusing you of being me?

[_subgenius]

Sorry but you should have read it better.

nope, i read it just fine.

Ldsfaqs has stated that the conception was natural shortly followed by him stating that it was not natural. I'm just trying to establish which statement he is prepared to stand by.

what Ldsfaqs was doing was responding to your rather slippery use of the term "natural". So, your claim is rather disingenuous. For example, Ldsfaqs consider natural conception as being possible with or without copulation....you have asserted and implied that natural conception is by copulation only (for example: "So when the Church's doctrine is that Mary conceived Jesus 'naturally'. How can that be done without semen yet still be called 'natural'?)
Your use, and obsession with, semen supports this conclusion - however, semen is not required for a natural conception...only spermatozoa. Semen is unique to mortal animals, there is no reason to consider that immortal beings would have the ability, or need, to produce semen.

Can you show me where I mentioned God's genitalia?

I never said you mentioned God's genitalia...just that you were obsessed with them.
The only consistent mentioning by you is about His semen, the inference seems reasonable.

[_subgenius]

I think he is accusing you of being me?

it is becoming difficult to distinguish between you two

[_PrickKicker]

love it.

[_Drifting]

Sorry but you should have read it better.

nope, i read it just fine.

Ldsfaqs has stated that the conception was natural shortly followed by him stating that it was not natural. I'm just trying to establish which statement he is prepared to stand by.

what Ldsfaqs was doing was responding to your rather slippery use of the term "natural". So, your claim is rather disingenuous. For example, Ldsfaqs consider natural conception as being possible with or without copulation....you have asserted and implied that natural conception is by copulation only (for example: "So when the Church's doctrine is that Mary conceived Jesus 'naturally'. How can that be done without semen yet still be called 'natural'?)
Your use, and obsession with, semen supports this conclusion - however, semen is not required for a natural conception...only spermatozoa. Semen is unique to mortal animals, there is no reason to consider that immortal beings would have the ability, or need, to produce semen.

Can you show me where I mentioned God's genitalia?

I never said you mentioned God's genitalia...just that you were obsessed with them.
The only consistent mentioning by you is about His semen, the inference seems reasonable.

Sorry subby but ldsfaqs and I weren't discussing copulation.
He stated that the conception was natural he then stated that the conception was not natural. You haven't answered which one is accurate.

[_ludwigm]

I think he is accusing you of being me?

it is becoming difficult to distinguish between you two

[?img]http://www.funny-games.biz/images/pictures/689-ugly-twins.jpg[?/img]

AND I AM WHO IS BANNED TO USE THE [IMG] FEATURE

[_schreech]

Sorry subby but ldsfaqs and I weren't discussing copulation.
He stated that the conception was natural he then stated that the conception was not natural. You haven't answered which one is accurate.

You are putting way too much effort into this...the simple answer is: