Touchy subject about God.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Not to get too blunt... but artificial insemination isn't used to avoid natural means...it's used when natural means don't work.

A perfect being and an immortal being could not be together physically, at least without a transfiguration. So, therefore, natural means could not work in that situation, requiring then other means.

I think all of the points made are good but what precludes any discussion about law etc. is the fact that we could not stand the presence of God without a transfiguration. And I believe there is nothing that we could take from a perfect realm into this realm without it being degraded into an immortal and corrupted state. The two worlds just don't mix. That's why corrupted material is cast out of Eden. That's why there are many cleansing steps needed to even be in God's house.

If God has the power of transfiguration then there is no need for sexual relations. It's like hand delivering a letter when you can send an email. It seems really backwards and unnecessary to consider such an act when one thinks of God's power already demonstrated in so many ways.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Seminarysnoozer

[Steve]

What people use it for is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we have the technology to do things that people in earlier times would think miraculous, so, God, who is greater than us, can cause a virgin to be conceived with His own Child, to our great astonishment.

Mary was a virgin when she bore the Son of God, plain and simple.

Regards,

Vanhin

Men and women were created with all the natural "technology" needed to conceive..it's called artificial insemination because it's just that...artificial. Nothing wrong with the natural way.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon hordak. I hope you are doing well today! :)

Who's the worlds wealthiest man?William Henry "Bill" Gates III

Who's the worlds most powerful man?Silvio Berlusconi

Prime Minister of Italy (debatable)

But reading this would you assume God can't be richer or more powerful? No I'm sure you would realize man means just that. Man

I can honestly say that no man(or women) told me i should marry my wife. (in fact many thought the opposite) Yet i can assure you i was told it was the right thing to do.

Heavenly Father is a man. He is actually the epitome of Man. It could be argued that we, imperfect mortals, are not Man. He is the Man of Holiness. If we want to be a true Man then we must become like God.

Regards,

Finrock

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Steve. It is a pleasure to meet you. I hope all is well with you today! :)

Men and women were created with all the natural "technology" needed to conceive..it's called artificial insemination because it's just that...artificial. Nothing wrong with the natural way.

I think the point that Vanhin is making is not that God used artificial insemination to impregnate Mary, rather that if mere imperfect mortals are able to impregnate a woman without her having intercourse, then surely God, the greatest of all, should have no problem causing Mary to become pregnant while she remains a virgin. If she had sexual relations with Heavenly Father, she could not be a virgin. Mormon doctrine is that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. This lays to rest any idea that Heavenly Father had intercourse with Mary.

Regards,

Finrock

[Traveler]

My father told me something recently that I thought was just hear say. Out west he said there are people who are paid to be seminary teachers in schools. He said this particular person was also the teacher of his class in church. This person told him that Christ was conceived in the same manner in which everyone else is made. In other words God the Father and Marry made Christ the same way everyone else does. He said that is why he is called his only begotten son. I asked my brother about this and he said he had never heard that in the church and he didn't believe it. Has anyone else heard this or do you know if it is true or just hear say? If it is true can you provide a reference?

I have read through most of the posts on this thread. There is one question outstanding in my mind.

Why is this a touchy subject? Why is there any thought that sexual reproduction is contrary to the “will” of G-d? or in other words – I would really like to know why it even suggested that the G-d did not or would not sire Jesus? Why is sexual reproduction held in such “low” esteem? I would really like to know what other means of creating life other than sexual reproduction is thought of as being “more acceptable” to G-d?

Something else – Mary is identified in scripture as a virgin. It is most interesting that most people involved in religion want to apply modern concepts to ancient explanations. Anciently virgin did not mean what it means today (no sex). Anciently it meant someone pure that has been given to the service of G-d. In non-Biblical texts at the time of Jesus indicate that Mary was given in infancy to the priests of the temple to raise. As a temple priestess Mary qualified as a virgin according to ancient understanding of things. Many scholars point to this as the reason of the close relationship the Mary had with Elisabeth.

My thoughts

The Traveler

[marts1]

I agree with most of that T.

[mnn727]

Good point about sex, much of the Christian world still believes sex is "dirty" or sinful

However about this

Something else – Mary is identified in scripture as a virgin. It is most interesting that most people involved in religion want to apply modern concepts to ancient explanations. Anciently virgin did not mean what it means today (no sex). Anciently it meant someone pure that has been given to the service of G-d.

If all we had was a biblical record, I would say you nailed it, but we have the BoM translated in 1830, by which time the word 'virgin' did not mean 'someone given in the service of God' so God (using J.S. to translate) would have used something besides 'virgin' if that is what was meant.

Edited February 18, 2010 by mnn727

[Traveler]

Good point about sex, much of the Christian world still believes sex is "dirty" or sinful

However about this

If all we had was a biblical record, I would say you nailed it, but we have the BoM translated in 1830, by which time the word 'virgin' did not mean 'someone given in the service of God' so God (using J.S. to translate) would have used something besides 'virgin' if that is what was meant.

Assuming I am correct - what would you suggest would be a more operate translation of religious text? I would also submit that it is a relatively recent (since 1830) etiology of the term and concept of virgin to apply all understanding of such only to sexual activity.

The Traveler

[Mute]

I have read through most of the posts on this thread. There is one question outstanding in my mind.

Why is this a touchy subject? Why is there any thought that sexual reproduction is contrary to the “will” of G-d? or in other words – I would really like to know why it even suggested that the G-d did not or would not sire Jesus? Why is sexual reproduction held in such “low” esteem? I would really like to know what other means of creating life other than sexual reproduction is thought of as being “more acceptable” to G-d?

Something else – Mary is identified in scripture as a virgin. It is most interesting that most people involved in religion want to apply modern concepts to ancient explanations. Anciently virgin did not mean what it means today (no sex). Anciently it meant someone pure that has been given to the service of G-d. In non-Biblical texts at the time of Jesus indicate that Mary was given in infancy to the priests of the temple to raise. As a temple priestess Mary qualified as a virgin according to ancient understanding of things. Many scholars point to this as the reason of the close relationship the Mary had with Elisabeth.

My thoughts

The Traveler

The reason I said it was a touchy subject was because I didn't want someone to think I was bashing the LDS faith by asking it. But it is a subject which I'm sure many people would find uncomfortable. There is a certain stigma attached to anything sexual that it is bad, wrong, unclean and sinful. Not everyone thinks that way but a lot of people do. Sex in general was always just a taboo thing and never discussed. There are still a good number of people that feel this way.

[MarginOfError]

I really have no problem with the idea of God having sex. In fact, I would first in line to revolt if heavenly being couldn't have sex. Who wants to be celibate for eternity?

What I do take issue with is the simplistic interpretation that the only way God could or would cause Mary to conceive is through sexual intercourse. I also take issue with trying to promote this as a teaching of the Church when, in fact, the evidence in the scriptures points to the contrary interpretation.

When you consider the scriptures in their entirety, it just doesn't add up to conception by sexual intercourse.

Luke 1

Alma 7

Matthew 13

Galatians 1

[marts1]

I don't think all of the gospel laws have been revealed to the world at this time. This thread could pertain to one of those laws.

[MarginOfError]

I don't think all of the gospel laws have been revealed to the world at this time. This thread could pertain to one of those laws.

I'm going to have to ask you to clarify, because I haven't the slightest idea as to what this statement refers.

[marts1]

Might find it in the same catagory as not having all scripture.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I have read through most of the posts on this thread. There is one question outstanding in my mind.

Why is this a touchy subject? Why is there any thought that sexual reproduction is contrary to the “will” of G-d? or in other words – I would really like to know why it even suggested that the G-d did not or would not sire Jesus? Why is sexual reproduction held in such “low” esteem? I would really like to know what other means of creating life other than sexual reproduction is thought of as being “more acceptable” to G-d?

Something else – Mary is identified in scripture as a virgin. It is most interesting that most people involved in religion want to apply modern concepts to ancient explanations. Anciently virgin did not mean what it means today (no sex). Anciently it meant someone pure that has been given to the service of G-d. In non-Biblical texts at the time of Jesus indicate that Mary was given in infancy to the priests of the temple to raise. As a temple priestess Mary qualified as a virgin according to ancient understanding of things. Many scholars point to this as the reason of the close relationship the Mary had with Elisabeth.

My thoughts

The Traveler

I don't think there is anything 'wrong' with it, in fact it is a blessing and a wonderful thing ... I know, I have 4 children. However, I don't think it is wise to try to bring God down to our methods when there may be Godly ways that we don't know about. I think assuming that God's 'nature' is the same as our 'nature' is a dangerous assumption because we learn that the natural man is an enemy to God. And, there are many people in this world that justify certain actions because they call it natural or 'God made me this way.' .... "the reason I sleep around is because God made me this way" etc.

There are many things that we do in similitude of the way God does them, but that does not mean that God does it exactly like we do. When Adam or Moses was asked to sacrifice animals in similitude to God's sacrifice, God did not sacrifice an animal. Likewise, when we participate in procreation it doesn't necessarily mean that God does it exactly like we do. We are able to procreate to learn the value of it and have experiences that bind a man and woman together and allow them to take on the associated responsibilities. That is the main reason for sexual reproduction. It is not to learn the mechanics of the act. We don't have to assume that God's nature is our nature because in reality there are very few things that are similar in terms of practical applications, as far as we know. Most things we do here are only in similitude to God's way or simply a way to borrow or participate in his power. I'm sure the loaned version is different than the actual version.

I don't see this as a touchy subject other than the nature of God is always a very opinionated thing. My opinion is that we have to realize we know very little about God's nature. As for me, I would never assume He does things exactly as it is done on a corrupted non-celestial sphere. Even saying that, there is a lot that we can learn from participating in this commandment and responsibility, to multiply. In my mind, the most valuable thing about it isn't the act of sex.

Just to expand the horizon a little ... hopefully not side track too much ... but if Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are truly one in every way there is no need to mix DNA or whatever other kind of information it may be in the form of. Where here, survival in this corrupted world requires genetic diversity. ... it's a different system than God's world.

[MarginOfError]

Might find it in the same catagory as not having all scripture.

Well so much for clarification.

[marts1]

Well so much for clarification.

I could use some of that patience.

[mnn727]

Assuming I am correct - what would you suggest would be a more operate translation of religious text?

The Traveler

If He meant 'consecrated to God' I would have to assume he would have said 'consecrated to God'. Why toy around with a word that would cause much confusion of the issue?

[Guest DiandreNaegle]

It's not true. Nobody (including your bishop) gets paid to do church services. We are the ONLY church who does not pay it's servers.

My father told me something recently that I thought was just hear say. Out west he said there are people who are paid to be seminary teachers in schools. He said this particular person was also the teacher of his class in church. This person told him that Christ was conceived in the same manner in which everyone else is made. In other words God the Father and Marry made Christ the same way everyone else does. He said that is why he is called his only begotten son. I asked my brother about this and he said he had never heard that in the church and he didn't believe it. Has anyone else heard this or do you know if it is true or just hear say? If it is true can you provide a reference?

Edited February 18, 2010 by john doe
fixed quote function

[marts1]

I don't think that was referring to seminary taught in the church.

[Justice]

The "official" doctrine as outline in the scriptures, which is our official source of doctrine, is that Mary was a virgin when she both conceived and bore the Son of God, and that Jesus Christ was the literal offspring of God the Father both spiritually and physically. With our ability to artificially inseminate, it doesn't surprise me that God, the creator of all things, can accomplish such feats.

Yes, but why would He do something artificially that humans are built and made for?

Why are we resurrected (restored to our physical bodies) if there isn't some required use for them? Why are we male and female if there isn't some required use?

I know these questions have not been answered, and it is perfectly fitting that the Church does not take an official stance, but we have the right to ponder and pray and receive our own personal revelation. We each can do that.

Does that fact that Mary was a virgin mean it positively did not happen? Not necessarily. We have seen things happen "not normally" when there was no other way. It's possible when a child is made from a perfected, glorified parent, for a good and noble purpose, that "virgin" is not just the physical condition we understand it as. Maybe God's definition includes more.

I think it's very important for us to keep our minds open to anything. No matter how small of a chance we see this as being, it's possible this is what really did happen. We need to be careful to not condemn actions we do not understand through our limited, finite, often wrong understandings and perceptions.

I'm not saying it did or it didn't, I'm just saying we need to be careful what we condemn.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Justice

[Justice]

People who are employed as teachers or administrators through the Church Educational System (CES) frequently are paid.

[john doe]

It's not true. Nobody (including your bishop) gets paid to do church services. We are the ONLY church who does not pay it's servers.

The church does have paid employees, including seminary teachers who teach full-time in released-time seminary during school hours. Early-morning seminary teachers are not paid though.

[pam]

It's not true. Nobody (including your bishop) gets paid to do church services. We are the ONLY church who does not pay it's servers.

Actually it is true that there are many seminary teachers that get paid to be seminary teachers. They are hired by the Church Educational System. Those that teach in the Jr and Sr High schools in Utah and some other states that provide seminary in schools do get paid. That is their job to teach seminary all day long in the schools.

[Mute]

It's not true. Nobody (including your bishop) gets paid to do church services. We are the ONLY church who does not pay it's servers.

Oh I already knew about the seminary teachers. I was just trying to tell who it was that told him the belief. Sorry if there was any confusion.

[pam]

No problem Mute..And some of us were only trying to clear up that there are people that are paid within the church as well.