Adam God Doctrine

[erichard]

Many non-Mormons who hear about the Adam-God doctrine think it is

horrendous.

Of course, they are usually locked into the "creeds" that were added

to the New Testament a few hundred years after Christ by Greek

philosophers-- in defiance of Revelations 22:18.

These creeds hijacked the New Testament teachings by the power-

seeking new State "Christianity" and made it a crime to believe

differently.

And people were even burned at the stake for rejecting, for instance,

the non-Biblical "Trinity" which made (via a "hypostatic union") the

physical Jesus one with the "real" Jesus: one of three persons in

the infinite, immaterial, uncreated, metaphysical "one God" that

exists outside of time and space --who created the world and everything

out of nothing with "blank check" power.

If a person can throw the creedal teachings out, and just look at the

New Testament, then the Adam-God doctrine is not so horrendous.

The NT teaches in Romans 8:

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are

THE CHILDREN OF GOD:

17 And if children, then heirs; HEIRS OF GOD, and JOINT-HEIRS with

Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also

glorified together.

What could be more clear? Unless the creedal doctrines kick in, no

verses of latter-day revelation say it more straightforwardly than

these verses.

We are the Children of God. Well good grief, what does that mean?

It means we have the capacity to grow up and become like God. Right?

Well, not if God is one immaterial uncreated incomprehensible being as

defined by the creeds.

But throwing the creeds out, these verses clearly foretell that those

who are faithful become Joint heirs with Christ.

Thus as Christ goes forward and makes worlds (as taught in Hebrews

1:2) then those who are Joint heirs with him will ALSO be involved in

creating these worlds.

Which is exactly, as I understand it, what the Adam-God doctrine

teaches:

Adam was faithful to his Savior on a previous earth and became a

Joint Heir with him. Thus Adam gained his resurrection and became

Michael the archangel and was the father of our Spirits, and then

came and fell that his Spirit children could have physical bodies.

If one can believe Romans 8:16-17 without creedal definitions, then

they can believe President Young's Adam-God teachings.

And LDS can also believe if they accept that every earth has its own

Jehovah/Savior and that the Jehovah spoken of in the Temple ceremony

is the Savior of the world where Michael lived as a mortal. Christ is also

Jehovah, because he is the Savior of this earth.

Remember that President Young, who taught the Adam-God

teachings ALSO was the one who prepared the Temple ceremony under

Joseph's direction.

After reading this, is there anyone who believes in Romans 8:16-17 but

who fully rejects the Adam-God teachings of President Young?

Richard

[Flyonthewall]

Many non-Mormons who hear about the Adam-God doctrine think it is

horrendous.

Of course, they are usually locked into the "creeds" that were added

to the New Testament a few hundred years after Christ by Greek

philosophers-- in defiance of Revelations 22:18.

These creeds hijacked the New Testament teachings by the power-

seeking new State "Christianity" and made it a crime to believe

differently.

And people were even burned at the stake for rejecting, for instance,

the non-Biblical "Trinity" which made (via a "hypostatic union") the

physical Jesus one with the "real" Jesus: one of three persons in

the infinite, immaterial, uncreated, metaphysical "one God" that

exists outside of time and space --who created the world and everything

out of nothing with "blank check" power.

If a person can throw the creedal teachings out, and just look at the

New Testament, then the Adam-God doctrine is not so horrendous.

The NT teaches in Romans 8:

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are

THE CHILDREN OF GOD:

17 And if children, then heirs; HEIRS OF GOD, and JOINT-HEIRS with

Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also

glorified together.

What could be more clear? Unless the creedal doctrines kick in, no

verses of latter-day revelation say it more straightforwardly than

these verses.

We are the Children of God. Well good grief, what does that mean?

It means we have the capacity to grow up and become like God. Right?

Well, not if God is one immaterial uncreated incomprehensible being as

defined by the creeds.

But throwing the creeds out, these verses clearly foretell that those

who are faithful become Joint heirs with Christ.

Thus as Christ goes forward and makes worlds (as taught in Hebrews

1:2) then those who are Joint heirs with him will ALSO be involved in

creating these worlds.

Which is exactly, as I understand it, what the Adam-God doctrine

teaches:

Adam was faithful to his Savior on a previous earth and became a

Joint Heir with him. Thus Adam gained his resurrection and became

Michael the archangel and was the father of our Spirits, and then

came and fell that his Spirit children could have physical bodies.

If one can believe Romans 8:16-17 without creedal definitions, then

they can believe President Young's Adam-God teachings.

And LDS can also believe if they accept that every earth has its own

Jehovah/Savior and that the Jehovah spoken of in the Temple ceremony

is the Savior of the world where Michael lived as a mortal. Christ is also

Jehovah, because he is the Savior of this earth.

Remember that President Young, who taught the Adam-God

teachings ALSO was the one who prepared the Temple ceremony under

Joseph's direction.

After reading this, is there anyone who believes in Romans 8:16-17 but

who fully rejects the Adam-God teachings of President Young?

Richard

It sounds like you are saying that Adam was a resurrected being, BEFORE he was put on this earth as a mortal? That would mean that Adam would have had to shed his resurrected, perfected body and put on a mortal, imperfect body to do his duty here...which, IIRC, we only have one mortal probation, and we die once, then receive judgment.

The Adam-God issue was already refuted by the LDS church, but I hold out that perhaps BY had a concept that he just couldn't put the right words to.

[BCSpace]

If a person can throw the creedal teachings out, and just look at the

New Testament, then the Adam-God doctrine is not so horrendous.

Why worry about it at all since Adam-God is not doctrine, nor was it ever taught or believed by BY?

But throwing the creeds out, these verses clearly foretell that those

who are faithful become Joint heirs with Christ.

Not only that, but the NT says we will be changed into the same image as God, we will have the same physical body as God, and the same power and authority as God.

[stn9]

Why worry about it at all since Adam-God is not doctrine, nor was it ever taught or believed by BY?

Wow. Incredible. (Actually, I feign surprise as I know your view on this from an earlier thread. But still, this view is incredible.) I will partially agree with you but say: "Why worry about it at all since Adam-God never was never put to the Church as official doctrine and is not taught by the Brethren today?"

[alter idem]

Many non-Mormons who hear about the Adam-God doctrine think it is

horrendous.

Of course, they are usually locked into the "creeds" that were added

to the New Testament a few hundred years after Christ by Greek

philosophers-- in defiance of Revelations 22:18.

These creeds hijacked the New Testament teachings by the power-

seeking new State "Christianity" and made it a crime to believe

differently.

And people were even burned at the stake for rejecting, for instance,

the non-Biblical "Trinity" which made (via a "hypostatic union") the

physical Jesus one with the "real" Jesus: one of three persons in

the infinite, immaterial, uncreated, metaphysical "one God" that

exists outside of time and space --who created the world and everything

out of nothing with "blank check" power.

If a person can throw the creedal teachings out, and just look at the

New Testament, then the Adam-God doctrine is not so horrendous.

The NT teaches in Romans 8:

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are

THE CHILDREN OF GOD:

17 And if children, then heirs; HEIRS OF GOD, and JOINT-HEIRS with

Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also

glorified together.

What could be more clear? Unless the creedal doctrines kick in, no

verses of latter-day revelation say it more straightforwardly than

these verses.

We are the Children of God. Well good grief, what does that mean?

It means we have the capacity to grow up and become like God. Right?

Well, not if God is one immaterial uncreated incomprehensible being as

defined by the creeds.

But throwing the creeds out, these verses clearly foretell that those

who are faithful become Joint heirs with Christ.

Thus as Christ goes forward and makes worlds (as taught in Hebrews

1:2) then those who are Joint heirs with him will ALSO be involved in

creating these worlds.

Which is exactly, as I understand it, what the Adam-God doctrine

teaches:

Adam was faithful to his Savior on a previous earth and became a

Joint Heir with him. Thus Adam gained his resurrection and became

Michael the archangel and was the father of our Spirits, and then

came and fell that his Spirit children could have physical bodies.

If one can believe Romans 8:16-17 without creedal definitions, then

they can believe President Young's Adam-God teachings.

And LDS can also believe if they accept that every earth has its own

Jehovah/Savior and that the Jehovah spoken of in the Temple ceremony

is the Savior of the world where Michael lived as a mortal. Christ is also

Jehovah, because he is the Savior of this earth.

Remember that President Young, who taught the Adam-God

teachings ALSO was the one who prepared the Temple ceremony under

Joseph's direction.

After reading this, is there anyone who believes in Romans 8:16-17 but

who fully rejects the Adam-God teachings of President Young?

Richard

Well, I believe this, but I have to partially reject Adam/God.

I'm glad you brought up Adam God--I recently wrote a piece on it in my blog.

As an LDS believer, I have no problem with the Romans scripture you cited. Being children of God and Joint heirs--having the chance to be like God are all tenets of our faith, which we have scripture to back up; yet they are only part of the Adam God theory. It's other parts that are the problem.

Brigham Young's belief that a resurrected, immortal being could revert to a mortal is the biggest hurdle, IMO. This is not compatible with LDS beliefs or scripture. I know that some(such as BCSpace and Elden Watson) explain it away by insisting Brigham Young never taught this, but from Orson Pratt's criticisms, I am certain he did.

A question for you. I'm curious if you fully accept Adam/God(which it sounds like you do), how do you reconcile this part of it?

[stn9]

Brigham Young's belief that a resurrected, immortal being could revert to a mortal is the biggest hurdle, IMO. This is not compatible with LDS beliefs or scripture.

I'm curious about the beliefs or scripture you are referring to.

[alter idem]

I'm curious about the beliefs or scripture you are referring to.

Alma 11:45

Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption.

Alma states that when we are resurrected, our bodies and spirits will never be divided from each other. Resurrected beings cannot die.

Therefore, Brigham Young's claim that Adam and Eve were resurrected beings who came to earth, ate of the fruit were subject to the "fall" and produced mortal children is not possible because then they would have reverted to mortality and been subject to death again--which contradicts what Alma is telling us in the BofM.

[kamenraider]

It sounds like you are saying that Adam was a resurrected being, BEFORE he was put on this earth as a mortal? That would mean that Adam would have had to shed his resurrected, perfected body and put on a mortal, imperfect body to do his duty here...which, IIRC, we only have one mortal probation, and we die once, then receive judgment.

The Adam-God issue was already refuted by the LDS church, but I hold out that perhaps BY had a concept that he just couldn't put the right words to.

How many times did Lazarus die?

Maybe BY had a concept that SWK just couldn't put the right thoughts to.

[alter idem]

How many times did Lazarus die?

He wasn't resurrected between deaths, so I don't see how it is relevant.

Maybe BY had a concept that SWK just couldn't put the right thoughts to.

Maybe BY didn't think through the implications of what he was saying.

[kamenraider]

He wasn't resurrected between deaths, so I don't see how it is relevant.

Well, I thought it was relevant because flyonthewall wrote that "we die once". My point is that it's possible to take a scripture very literally based on assumption, and then come to an extremely wrong conclusion as a result. For example, EV's mention how the Bible states that "no man has seen God at any time" and thus rule out the possibility that the First Vision occurred as described by Joseph Smith. If we understand, though, that no natural man has seen God except when transfigured by the Spirit, as stated in the D&C, we can see how the above scripture is not incompatible with the First Vision.

Maybe BY didn't think through the implications of what he was saying.

He does seem to have thought through the implications of saying too much:

Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father and God. That will be a curse to many of the Elders of Israel, because of their folly with regard to it. They yet grovel in darkness, and will. It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of Heaven, yet the world hold it [in] derision. Had I revealed the doctrine of Baptism for the Dead instead of Joseph Smith, there are men around me who would have ridiculed the idea until doomsday, but they are ignorant and stupid like the dumb a$$.

--Brigham Young, October 8, 1861, Brigham Young Papers, Ms/d/1234/Bx 49/fd 8, LDS Church Historical Dept. Archives.

And I will say, as I have said before, if guilt before my God and my brethren rests upon me in the least, it is in this one thing, that I have revealed too much concerning God and his kingdom, and the designs of our Father in heaven. If my skirts are stained in the least with wrong, it is because I have been too free in telling who God is, how he lives, the nature of his providences and designs in creating the world, in bringing the human family on the earth, his designs concerning them, etc. If I had, like Paul, said --- "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant," perhaps it would have been better for the people.

--Brigham Young, May 20, 1860, JD 8:58.

[Markk]

Hi Richard,

Of course, they are usually locked into the "creeds" that were added

to the New Testament a few hundred years after Christ by Greek

philosophers-- in defiance of Revelations 22:18.

Expound on this and show me how Christians are locked into these articles of faith ("creeds"). Can you be a little more specific?

I agree we should just look at the Bible.

You used Romans 8 as a "proof text" shouldn't we take this in context? You forgot the verses qualifying who a child of God is..."

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

We BECOME a child of God through ADOPTION, see John 1:12, Gal.4, Eph 1,1 John 3. How does this verse, in any way, say that Adam is God and Father of mans spirit as BY taught? Do a study on "sonship" and adoption. remember the Bible teaches we are children of wrath.

Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

This in context with..."Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,..."

Anyway , you threw a big blanket out there I believe you need to back up your statements...fair? Show me how past articles of faith some how take away from people seeing AG in the Bible?

Mark

John 1:12

[erichard]

...Brigham Young's belief that a resurrected, immortal being could revert to a mortal is the biggest hurdle, IMO. This is not compatible with LDS beliefs or scripture. I know that some(such as BCSpace and Elden Watson) explain it away by insisting Brigham Young never taught this, but from Orson Pratt's criticisms, I am certain he did.

A question for you. I'm curious if you fully accept Adam/God(which it sounds like you do), how do you reconcile this part of it?

Hi Alter Idem,

I am aware of this seeming contradiction in the concept I presented. I will study again about this matter. And I will ask my friend Bob about it.

You may not know, but I am not LDS. I should be, in my convictions, but I was cast out of the church because of my beliefs. There were no other charges against me besides my beliefs.

I believe in the revelations found in the Second Book of Commandments. These revelations include further understanding of God and of Adam, and the understanding they give is different than any developed by fundamentalists pouring over President Young's teachings. For instance, the 2BC clearly teaches that Adam was NOT the physical father of the Savior. Also, the 2BC identifies who the Holy Ghost is.

I accept the 2BC because of spiritual witnesses, but I cannot always prove all its teachings from previous revelations. It was my study of Adam-God teachings that led me to find the 2BC revelations initially.

Again, as far as your question, I know that Alma teaches that the resurrection unites the body and spirit for ever. It may be, nontheless, that in the case of those who go on to become Adams and Eves on future worlds they are not considered fully resurrected until after they perform their duties on a second mortal earth as Adam and Eve. Possibly the Lord will give us revelation concerning this matter through the 2BC prophet --who is 79 years old and doing quite well. And I admit he is the Bob I was referring to above.

Richard

[erichard]

Why worry about it at all since Adam-God is not doctrine, nor was it ever taught or believed by BY?

....

Hi BCSpace,

I agree with you a lot, and tend to like you. But I believe you are "lost in Space" in this matter.

I simply cannot read the many, many sources where President Young taught these controversial teachings and honestly think he was teaching the same thing as the church teaches today. Yet you are very welcome to believe differently.

Keep smiling,

Richard

[BCSpace]

Why worry about it at all since Adam-God is not doctrine, nor was it ever taught or believed by BY?

Wow. Incredible. (Actually, I feign surprise as I know your view on this from an earlier thread. But still, this view is incredible.) I will partially agree with you but say: "Why worry about it at all since Adam-God never was never put to the Church as official doctrine and is not taught by the Brethren today?"

I came to a conclusion similar to Elden Watson's reasoning while debating the subject with you via PM as I recall. His detailed explaination is one of those featured on Fairwiki.

Why worry about it at all since Adam-God is not doctrine, nor was it ever taught or believed by BY?

Hi BCSpace,

I agree with you a lot, and tend to like you. But I believe you are "lost in Space" in this matter.

No worries. I am not offended when someone disagrees with me. One of the reasons I post here is to see if my opinions/theories can stand the heat.

I simply cannot read the many, many sources where President Young taught these controversial teachings and honestly think he was teaching the same thing as the church teaches today. Yet you are very welcome to believe differently.

I certainly don't think he was teaching the same as the Church teaches today. But I don't agree that he was teaching what is called the Adam-God theory. That theory was created ex nihilo imho.

What BY actually taught was that by partaking of the physical fruits in the Garden, Heavenly Father and Mother were able to beget the Adam and Eve who fell. Thus, Heavenly Father and Mother, became an Adam and Eve (Sr.) to Adam and Eve (Jr.). Therefore, Adam Sr. is our God and Adam Jr. is the one who partook of the forbidden fruit, fell, and begat Kain, Abel, Seth, etc.

This is all explained in the link I provided in this post in the link above. The Church does not teach this (or the Adam-God) theory. I personally don't accept the Adam Sr./Adam Jr. theory or the Adam-God theory as truth. I personally accept evolution as the method of God's creation.

[kamenraider]

In regard to Adam dying, Brigham Young, in his Oct. 8, 1854 General Conference address, said regarding Adam:

"Does not the Bible say he died?" I do not know nor care, but it would be hard I think to find where he died; or where Moses died, though I have no doubt Moses died, and Adam also. How? Just as you and I have to die, and be laid away in the bowels of Mother Earth; that, however, Moses did not see fit to tell us.

He later clarified this as recorded in the L. John Nuttall Journal for Feb. 7, 1877:

Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family, is father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit world, and came in the spirit to Mary and she conceived, for when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came.)

In The Adam-God Maze, Culley K. Christensen comments about this (on pg. 68):

There is no doubt that Adam died--i.e., was changed from

mortality to immortality--as the scriptures indicate. But how

could he die a second time after having been resurrected on a

previous world? Because he held power over death.

As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the

Son power--to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer

is obvious--in a manner to lay down His body and take it up

again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life

as my Father did, and take it up again (T.PJ.S., p. 346).

Thus, Jesus laid down His life just as His Father had done.

Jesus informs us that He could do nothing but what He saw His

Father do. "The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth

the Father do" (John 5.19) When did Jesus see His Father lay

down his life? Certainly not before He (Jesus) was born as a

spirit, which was when [after] Michael died and was resurrected on

another world, for the Savior did not then exist. He (Jesus)

could only have seen His Father (Adam) lay down his life "and

take it up again" on our present world (T.PJ.S., p. 346).

As I've said before about this, I think that the Hebrew word "muwth" translated as "died" could have originally been "muwr" -- "to change or remove".

[erichard]

In regard to Adam dying, Brigham Young, in his Oct. 8, 1854 General Conference address, said regarding Adam:

He later clarified this as recorded in the L. John Nuttall Journal for Feb. 7, 1877:

In The Adam-God Maze, Culley K. Christensen comments about this (on pg. 68):

As I've said before about this, I think that the Hebrew word "muwth" translated as "died" could have originally been "muwr" -- "to change or remove".

Hi Kamenraider,

The Book of Moses, given by revelation in the Mormon faith, also says that Adam "died":

11 And the days of Adam, after he had begotten Seth, were eight hundred years, and he begat many sons and daughters;

12 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

--Moses 6

But the Lord has hid truths until He was ready for them to come forth. So I agree that one cannot reject President Young off hand because of this.

I can look at the Nuttall quote you gave and view it according to my faith:

Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family, is father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit world, and came in the spirit to Mary and she conceived, for when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came.)

In my faith, Jesus was the firstborn Spirit of Michael as this quote says. When Adam died he did go to the Spirit world (and became the Holy Ghost). And as the Holy Ghost he protected Mary from the presence of Jehovah-- so he did "come in the spirit to Mary". (Jesus being physically the "Only Begotten" of Jehovah. Michael had many children in the flesh.) When Adam died he did not lay his body down "in the dust" because it was a resurrected body. The body of Adam was kept hidden, and later taken by Noah on the ark and rehidden after.)

So this quote can be seen in harmony with the 2BC, but it leaves important details out. I believe there are real scriptural problems with President Young's teaching that Adam came and sired Jesus.

Richard

[consiglieri]

So this quote can be seen in harmony with the 2BC, but it leaves important details out. I believe there are real scriptural problems with President Young's teaching that Adam came and sired Jesus.

Richard

Hi, guys!

I don't want to thrash out what has been thrashed out in another thread so recently, so will restrict my comments to something else.

I think we have to draw a distinction between Brigham's teachings regarding Adam-God (for lack of a better phrase) and Brigham's teachings regarding the sireship of Jesus.

While it is true that Brigham taught that Adam came and had physical relations with Mary in order to conceive the mortal body of Jesus, I think this was not part of the Adam-God Theory, but rather a natural outgrowth.

What I mean is this--When Brigham taught about the sireship of Jesus (is "sireship" a word?), he usually did it in the context of teaching another of his favorite doctrines, the example in JD 1:50-51 being a classic. Here Brigham Young was not teaching about Adam-God, but rather about the fact that Jesus was literally the Son of God, the Father (as opposed to being the Son of the Holy Ghost).

In other words, Brigham Young was arguing against the commonly held belief that it was the Holy Spirit who conceived Jesus. He saw this as wrongheaded, because the Father is the one who conceived Jesus, not the Holy Ghost. It was in this context he made his famous comment about how if the Holy Ghost were really the father of Jesus, then the elders would have no end of trouble because all the women they laid hands on to receive the Holy Ghost would be getting pregnant! (And who said Brigham Young had trouble expressing his thoughts!)

In explaining this proposition, he naturally substituted Adam into the equation, because according to Brigham's view of the Godhead, Adam is the father of the spirits of this earth, and the father of Jesus' spirit, as well; hence when Brigham conceived of God the Father siring Jesus, he naturally thought along the lines of Adam having done so.

The point I am trying to make is that I think it a mistake to lump Brigham's teachings about Adam being the literal father of Jesus' body as part and parcel of the Adam-God Theory. This particular concept comes up in a different context, and I think it can be viewed as more an outgrowth of that theory than one of its component parts.

And I often think how interesting it is that so many Mormons can be scandalized by Brigham's teachings about Adam and Mary, and yet have no problem thinking that Elohim as God the Father did the exact same thing (though I think this view is less and less prevalent now than in past years).

Ironically, as far as I can tell, the idea that still has currency in the Church about Jesus being sired through a physical relationship between God the Father and Mary actually has as its source Brigham Young . . . only when he said God the Father, he meant Adam!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[thesometimesaint]

consiglieri:

BY knew the Bible as well as anyone. The Bible has Mary as a virgin and not "Knowing" any man.

[consiglieri]

consiglieri:

BY knew the Bible as well as anyone. The Bible has Mary as a virgin and not "Knowing" any man.

I believe the distinction made by Brigham Young is precisely the one you make . . . Mary did not know any man.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[kamenraider]

Just thought I'd point out that the PofGP wasn't scripture in Brigham Young's day, so I don't think he felt he would need to consider the possibility that Adam-God might be "obviously" contradicted by anything in the Book of Moses since the JST was seen as being a work in progress that was never completely finished by Joseph Smith.

[consiglieri]

consiglieri:

BY knew the Bible as well as anyone.

I would also note that this comment capsulizes an argument I frequently encounter in an attempt to keep the Brigham Bogie in the box; that being that Brigham Young knew the scriptures as well as anyone, with the implicit corrolary that he would not have taught anything in contradiction to the scriptures; which frequently tends to mean that he would never have taught anything in contradiction to the modern, orthodox, correlated LDS interpretation of the scriptures.

But, of course, it was the fact Brigham Young was teaching heterodox ideas that caused the ruckus in his day, as well as down to the present.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[thesometimesaint]

consiglieri:

I have no problems with BY teaching heterodox ideas. We belong to a very heterodox religion. But the idea of a non-virgin birth of Jesus does violence to the Scriptures, and the one of the basic tenants of Christianity.

[consiglieri]

consiglieri:

I have no problems with BY teaching heterodox ideas. We belong to a very heterodox religion. But the idea of a non-virgin birth of Jesus does violence to the Scriptures, and the one of the basic tenants of Christianity.

Yes, it does, unless you define a "virgin" as one who has had sexual relations with a "man."

Interestingly, though a strident opponent of the Adam-God Theory, I think Bruce R. McConkie used this line of reasoning in support of his view that Elohim had sexual relations with Mary.

I myself consider it a bit of a stretch, but there you have it.

Call me crazy . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[thesometimesaint]

consiglieri:

The Bible doesn't seem to be too reticent about sex, or what Mary thought a virgin was.

I'm not willing to redefine the term that far.

I don't know what to make of the Adam-God theory. I suppose that if Adam is a name-title it would make some sense. The modern Prophets are less prone to publicly stating personal speculation than earlier ones. BY most likely just started a line of thought that ultimately lead nowhere. But he is not here to clarify what he actually meant. I just have to wait and ask him myself.

BRM was simply wrong on a few things, but in his opus "Mormon Doctrine", maybe it should be called McConkie Doctrine. He makes no mention of Mary having sexual relations with Elohim. In fact he reaffirms repeatedly that Mary was a virgin.

Crazy helps sometimes.

[consiglieri]

Lest anyone think I am making this up, here is the entry in Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie:

Virgin Birth

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.822 VIRGIN BIRTH

See ANNUNCIATION, BIRTH, CHRIST, IMMACULATE CONCEPTION THEORY, MARY. Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. Mary, his mother, "was carried away in the Spirit" (1 Ne. 11:13-21), was "overshadowed" by the Holy Ghost, and the conception which took place "by the power of the Holy Ghost" resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father. (Alma 7:10; 2 Ne. 17:14; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38.) Christ is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 18-20.) Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false.

And here:

Only Begotten Son

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.546 ONLY BEGOTTEN SON

See BELOVED SON, CHRIST, SON, SON OF GOD. Christ is the Only Begotten (Moses 1:6, 17, 21, 33; 2:1, 26-27; 3:18; 4:1), the Only Begotten Son (Jac. 4:5, 11; Alma 12:33-34; 13:5; D. & C. 20:21; 29:42; 49:5; 76:13, 25; John 1:18; 3:16), the Only Begotten of the Father. (Moses 5:9.) These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.

What do you think?

(I will probably start another thread on this!)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri