Selek the Terrible -- and major freak show on MAD

Post by **_Sethbag** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:01 am

SolarPowered:
20th and 21st Century mere mortals are quite able to accomplish the above through artificial insemination, IVF, and I suspect several other processes. I don't doubt that Heavenly Father has the means to accomplish conception without intercourse. (Although, it does seem a bit of a shame to go though all a woman goes through to have a child, without getting to have the fun part first.)

If I read that right, SolarPowered, who is a TBM, just said it's a shame that Mary had to go through all the pain and whatnot of bearing Jesus, but didn't get to enjoy having sex with GOD. Wow, that's quite a thing for a TBM to say.

What would happen if two unmarried LDS (man and woman) went together to a fertility clinic and used the man's sperm to fertilize one of the woman's eggs, and then implanted it into her and she became pregnant? Well, her bishop (and anyone else who learned about it) would go absolutely bonkers and I'm quite sure that church discipline would be called down on them.

I don't really know why the TBMs get so hyper-sensitive about people suggesting that God had sexual intercourse with Mary. It's not like God donating some celestial sperm to a celestial cup and having one of his celestial assistants implant it into her through the power of the Holy Ghost is any different from a theological/moral point of view. By LDS views, really, if it were OK for God to impregnate Mary with his sperm, it would have been OK for him to do it the natural way. We can see that sexuality in and of itself, however, is viewed with such suspicion and such superstition by so many TBMs that the idea of God's celestial sex with Mary is just beyond the pale. And yet they talk about God's DNA being used to impregnate Mary, and that's just fine. This is schizophrenic, if you ask me.

As I move further away from my past belief in LDS theology, I'm starting to find the concept of an Almighty God, the Creator of this Universe and all that in it is, impregnating a young human woman to bear his child to be quite bizarre. It reminds me more like Greek mythology and Zeus' offspring by mortal women.

Post by **_Great Cthulhu** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:02 am

bcspace wrote:I looked at the thread. What doctrine are you talking about? In addition to my Stake calling, I teach the 11 year olds in Primary. In one of the very first lessons it was stressed that God the Father is the literal father of the physical body of Jesus Christ. However, no details are given. The most anyone can say about LDS doctrine is that Jesus Christ has his Father's (God the Father) DNA. As for what the Great Cthulhu seems to believe about LDS doctrine, it seems to be yet another case of FLR (Fortigurn's Lazy Research). Nothing published by Bookcraft or Deseret Publishing is considered a doctrinal work.

Okay, maybe I overreached by calling it "doctrine" which has, I realize, a specialized meaning for Internet Mormons.

There are other legitimate ways for one to "begat" an offspring if all you demand is that DNA be the basis of the relationship. Someone did mention artificial insemination. That could work. ;)

Nevertheless, it is quite interesting that you believe God has human-compatible DNA. I love science fiction and from your avatar I'll bet you do to. This is apparently something we do not share with several posters on that other message board, who resort to violent potty talk and demands to close the thread.

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:04 am

If I read that right, SolarPowered, who is a TBM, just said it's a shame that Mary had to go through all the pain and whatnot of bearing Jesus, but didn't get to enjoy having sex with GOD. Wow, that's quite a thing for a TBM to say.

Since we're dealing in speculation, it is not unreasonable for SolarPowered to come to any conclusion he or she wants in that area. However, by the same token, it is unreasonable also to rule out sexual relations as it is not precluded in any way shape or form (Isaiah 55:8 etc.)

Post by **_Great Cthulhu** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:07 am

Seriously, if God is a homo-sapien, and homo-sapiens are designed by this God to have sexual intercourse for procreation, then why in bloody creation wouldn't God have sex with Mary?

Mormons are able to rationalize the possibility that Joseph Smith had sex with women besides Emma, if that's what the evidence proves. It's a possibility because they believe God could have told Joseph Smith to do it -- and anything God commands is good.

So why again wouldn't God have sex with Mary?

IVF?

Give me a break, people!

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:10 am

Okay, maybe I overreached by calling it "doctrine" which has, I realize, a specialized meaning for Internet Mormons.

There is no such thing as an "internet Mormon". However, I would agree that many Mormons do not understand or know what the Church defines as doctrine.

Someone did mention artificial insemination. That could work. ;)

Sure.

Nevertheless, it is quite interesting that you believe God has human-compatible DNA.

LDS doctrine is that "men are gods and gods are men" (though it is said differently than that). We are all the same species.

I love science fiction and from your avatar I'll bet you do to.

Amen!

This is apparently something we do not share with several posters on that other message board, who resort to violent potty talk and demands to close the thread.

There are those who purport to be TBM who like to water down the doctrine because, imho, they don't really believe it themselves, or (best case scenario) they don't know how to defend it. There are also those who are legitimately squeamish about the topic because of past treatment of it.

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:15 am

Seriously, if God is a homo-sapien, and homo-sapiens are designed by this God to have sexual intercourse for procreation, then why in bloody creation wouldn't God have sex with Mary?

That is why I have no problem with the concept (Isaiah 55:8 etc.). However, it can also be legitimately argued from the law of Chastity pov that it has to be by artificial (miraculous) means. Again, no specifics given.

Mormons are able to rationalize the possibility that Joseph Smith had sex with women besides Emma, if that's what the evidence proves.

Either or. It does not matter to me as either fits within the scope of doctrine. But as you mentioned....."IF".

It's a possibility because they believe God could have told Joseph Smith to do it -- and anything God commands is good.

Sure. God has commanded many things that non Bible believers consider abhorent, such as 'ethnic cleansing'.

Post by **_Sethbag** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:26 am

bcspace wrote:
If I read that right, SolarPowered, who is a TBM, just said it's a shame that Mary had to go through all the pain and whatnot of bearing Jesus, but didn't get to enjoy having sex with GOD. Wow, that's quite a thing for a TBM to say.

Since we're dealing in speculation, it is not unreasonable for SolarPowered to come to any conclusion he or she wants in that area. However, by the same token, it is unreasonable also to rule out sexual relations as it is not precluded in any way shape or form (Isaiah 55:8 etc.)

You miss my point, but then I acknowledge I was somewhat oblique. I thought it was really quite something for SolarPowered to mention enjoyment in the context of God and Mary and their reproduction. Ok, so let's say you speculate that God and Mary did in fact have sexual intercourse. Do you suppose Mary would have enjoyed it? Why, or why not?

Post by **_Great Cthulhu** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:27 am

bcspace wrote:
It's a possibility because they believe God could have told Joseph Smith to do it -- and anything God commands is good.

Sure. God has commanded many things that non Bible believers consider abhorent, such as 'ethnic cleansing'.

So you believe in a god for whom abhorent deeds (your example: ethnic cleansing) can paradoxically be good deeds.

It seems that it would fit in the scope of your doctrine for god to utterly deceive you about his true nature, and this could paradoxially be a righteous and godly deception. Maybe our modern morals of truth and honesty are completely out of joint in the sick cosmic eternity of this god.

Now I expect you to be consistent BCspace... that's something you are good at.

Post by **_Bryan Inks** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:39 am

bcspace wrote:
Someone did mention artificial insemination. That could work. ;)

Sure.

Except that would involve masturbation, which we all know is a sin.

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:43 am

Sure. God has commanded many things that non Bible believers consider abhorent, such as 'ethnic cleansing'.

So you believe in a god for whom abhorent deeds (your example: ethnic cleansing) can paradoxically be good deeds.

No. I believe in a God in which some of His good deeds are considered abhorent by others.

It seems that it would fit in the scope of your doctrine for god to utterly deceive you about his true nature, and this could paradoxially be a righteous and godly deception.

Such does not fit within the scope of our doctrine as God does not lie. However, He is esoteric and that is why many do not understand (such as the fact that God values your spiritual condition over your mortal life) and will never understand unless they put God to the scientific test found in John 7:17.

Maybe our modern morals of truth and honesty are completely out of joint in the sick cosmic eternity of this god.

I think many of our sick modern philosophies are indeed out of sync with God. Could it be that antiMormons' apparent abhorence of the possibility that God had sex with Mary is the result of some overzealous prudishness? It certainly is quite often hypocritical.....lol

Now I expect you to be consistent BCspace... that's something you are good at.

I do try.