Where did the Mormon God have sex with Mary?

[huckelberry]

On one level Brigham Young's idea inviting all this unpleasant speculation was just an example of inventing something to be special knowledge. His followers can see the rest of the world as in the dark while they have the inside information.Beyond that it appears to be an extension of the Adam God theory and perhaps some speculation about authority by lineage. Neither of those Brigham Young theories has been maintained. It would make sense to be rid of this piece of confusion about Jesus conception.

Is it necessary to point out that having half a set of special dna does little to explain why Jesus might have authority or why his death is important. In LDS thought I do not see the Father's divinity being a function of special dna. If we have preexisting spirits it is that spirit of Jesus which is or is not divine or possessing special authorization.

Of course Mormons could think of an artificial insemination without goofy images of turkey basters and stimulated ejaculations. That makes more sense than the BY implied image (was it created for shock value?) still I think it would be clearer to find some deeper connection between Jesus and the father than dna.After all the dna is "what man is and god once was". It is something further that make the "man may become" part.

[Doctor Scratch]

Of course Mormons could think of an artificial insemination without goofy images of turkey basters and stimulated ejaculations. That makes more sense than the BY implied image (was it created for shock value?) still I think it would be clearer to find some deeper connection between Jesus and the father than dna.After all the dna is "what man is and god once was". It is something further that make the "man may become" part.

If the Mopologists want to clarify what they meant, I'm all ears. BY's exact language, as I recall, was that God "came down in his bodily tabernacle and begat Jesus." I.e., HF came down in his physical form and did *some*thing to impregnate Mary. I think that most normal people would interpret this as them having actual sex, which on its face is incredibly creepy. I think that the Mopologists at least realize this creepiness and have tried to mitigate it via this ridiculous "artificial insemination" idea. Seriously, how would it work? Would HF just sort of "teleport" his seed into Mary? Is this akin to Larry Niven's famous thesis concerning Superman and Lois Lane, in the troublingly titled essay, "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex"?

At the end of the day, I think that the Mopologetic explanation winds up being way more absurd than Brigham Young's initial speculation, but I guess your mileage may vary.

[Symmachus]

If the Mopologists want to clarify what they meant, I'm all ears. BY's exact language, as I recall, was that God "came down in his bodily tabernacle and begat Jesus." I.e., HF came down in his physical form and did *some*thing to impregnate Mary. I think that most normal people would interpret this as them having actual sex, which on its face is incredibly creepy. I think that the Mopologists at least realize this creepiness and have tried to mitigate it via this ridiculous "artificial insemination" idea. Seriously, how would it work? Would HF just sort of "teleport" his seed into Mary? Is this akin to Larry Niven's famous thesis concerning Superman and Lois Lane, in the troublingly titled essay, "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex"?

At the end of the day, I think that the Mopologetic explanation winds up being way more absurd than Brigham Young's initial speculation, but I guess your mileage may vary.

Well, the Early Modern English text presents some problems, but it is quite clear that there was not intended to be internal ejaculation:

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Upon, not in. So, there was, it seems, at most a kind of coitus interruptus (surely, not some second thoughts?). The most we can say is that, however miraculous it may have been, certainly the conception was maculate.

[Doctor Scratch]

Well, the Early Modern English text presents some problems, but it is quite clear that there was not intended to be internal ejaculation:

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Upon, not in. So, there was, it seems, at most a kind of coitus interruptus (surely, not some second thoughts?). The most we can say is that, however miraculous it may have been, certainly the conception was maculate.

Good points, Symmachus, and I wonder if the text you've highlighted was relevant to the Mopologists' speculation. You have to wonder: did they envision some kind of "squeegee effect" taking place? And what are we to make of the bit about how "the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee"?

[huckelberry]

Of course Mormons could think of an artificial insemination without goofy images of turkey basters and stimulated ejaculations. That makes more sense than the BY implied image (was it created for shock value?) still I think it would be clearer to find some deeper connection between Jesus and the father than dna.After all the dna is "what man is and god once was". It is something further that make the "man may become" part.

If the Mopologists want to clarify what they meant, I'm all ears. BY's exact language, as I recall, was that God "came down in his bodily tabernacle and begat Jesus." I.e., HF came down in his physical form and did *some*thing to impregnate Mary. I think that most normal people would interpret this as them having actual sex, which on its face is incredibly creepy. I think that the Mopologists at least realize this creepiness and have tried to mitigate it via this ridiculous "artificial insemination" idea. Seriously, how would it work? Would HF just sort of "teleport" his seed into Mary? Is this akin to Larry Niven's famous thesis concerning Superman and Lois Lane, in the troublingly titled essay, "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex"?

At the end of the day, I think that the Mopologetic explanation winds up being way more absurd than Brigham Young's initial speculation, but I guess your mileage may vary.

Dr Scratch, on my second reread I think I finally caught what you were looking at. You see the Mopolgetic explanation as a clarification of Brigham Youngs words. His words are pointed enough that simply dancing around them simply creates mush.(and invites the satiric images) I was proposing that Brigham's proposal be put in the trash bin. The Adam God thing which I think is a much more clever idea than this silliness was put away.

[doubtingthomas]

The intention of the person (whoever it was) who wrote the bolded text was clearly to show that Mary consented to her role in God's plan for human salvation, which is how it has always been interpreted. And indeed Mary has been seen in Roman Catholic theology as the 'co-redemptrix" for that reason.



You OK with that now?

Yes.

I just want to point out what someone said

How do you say no to the Prophet of God??

[Philo Sofee]

The intention of the person (whoever it was) who wrote the bolded text was clearly to show that Mary consented to her role in God's plan for human salvation, which is how it has always been interpreted. And indeed Mary has been seen in Roman Catholic theology as the 'co-redemptrix" for that reason.



You OK with that now?

Yes.

I just want to point out what someone said

How do you say no to the Prophet of God??

This last part is rather blase simple. I begin with an "N" and then continue onto the "O".

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

I just want to point out what someone said

How do you say no to the Prophet of God??

This last part is rather blase simple. I begin with an "N" and then continue onto the "O".

Philo, I did not say that in this thread. Thomas is not only quoting me entirely out of context, but I haven't participated at all in this thread. Until now, I hadn't opened this thread. He's making it look like I've responded to things that I've never even read.

Thomas is going around splicing my comments from a different thread elsewhere on the board in order to make it look like I said things I didn't say. It's a real dick move. He reconfigured one quote to make it look like I endorse child rape.

I don't imagine I can force him to keep my name out of his filthy mouth, but I can at least ask that nobody believe his BS. You don't have to take my word for it. You can check my post history.

[Philo Sofee]

I just want to point out what someone said

How do you say no to the Prophet of God??

This last part is rather blase simple. I begin with an "N" and then continue onto the "O".

Philo, I did not say that in this thread. Thomas is not only quoting me entirely out of context, but I haven't participated at all in this thread. Until now, I hadn't opened this thread. He's making it look like I've responded to things that I've never even read.

Thomas is going around splicing my comments from a different thread elsewhere on the board in order to make it look like I said things I didn't say. It's a real dick move. He reconfigured one quote to make it look like I endorse child rape.

I don't imagine I can force him to keep my name out of his filthy mouth, but I can at least ask that nobody believe his B.S.. You don't have to take my word for it. You can check my post history.

Oh, tHanks for the heads up, I was not aware there was a controversy...

[Kishkumen]

Well, the Early Modern English text presents some problems, but it is quite clear that there was not intended to be internal ejaculation:

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Upon, not in. So, there was, it seems, at most a kind of coitus interruptus (surely, not some second thoughts?). The most we can say is that, however miraculous it may have been, certainly the conception was maculate.

This explains so much about Stevie Smoot's theological interests.