Bruce R. Mcconkie Believed The Adam-god Theory!

[Thinking]

BRM's opinion was not shared by other members of the quorum, nor the First Presidency, who had this to say about it:

The First Presidency held a meeting. We decided that Bruce R. McConkieâ??s book, â??Mormon Doctrineâ?? recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has receive such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition.

CFR (not because I don't believe you, but because I want to know).

[bluebell]

Hi, everybody!

I'm back from lunch, and it looks like the responses are falling out along well established lines.

The first thing I would like to establish is whether we can agree that Bruce R. McConkie did in fact teach that Jesus was literally begotten by a physical (read, "sexual") union between God and Mary.

It seems clear he is saying precisely that. He uses what became regarded as LDS "inside-the-circle-speak" for sexual relations; i.e., "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers."

That's his quote, not mine.

Does anybody here dispute the plain meaning of his words?

I dispute it.

I believe that BRM was simply stating that God is the literal Son of God the Father and not the Holy Ghost (as some people believe/d) and was not teaching HOW that was accomplished.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

One of the most strident denouncers of Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory was Bruce R. McConkie.

Interestingly, it was Brigham Young who appears to have first promulgated the idea that Jesus' mortal body was conceived by a physical union of God and Mary. Only when Brigham Young said "God," he meant "Adam."

In an ironic twist, Bruce R. McConkie holds onto that teaching of Brigham Young, but applies it to "Elohim" instead of "Adam"

And before anybody says CFR, here we go!

And here:

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

So, what do we do with this statement?

Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin...Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false (Mormon Doctrine, 822).

(I have some ideas, but want your reactions)

[Thinking]

Does anybody here dispute the plain meaning of his words?

If I were still TBM, I would probably say something like, "If doctors can impregnate a woman using science without the necessity of the sex act, couldn't God, who is a greater scientist than any human being, also impregnate Mary without sex? Is God any less the father if sex wasn't involved?"

I do, however, believe that BRM believed that sex was involved, otherwise he wouldn't have danced around the issue.

[Lightbearer]

One of the most strident denouncers of Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory was Bruce R. McConkie.

Interestingly, it was Brigham Young who appears to have first promulgated the idea that Jesus' mortal body was conceived by a physical union of God and Mary. Only when Brigham Young said "God," he meant "Adam."

In an ironic twist, Bruce R. McConkie holds onto that teaching of Brigham Young, but applies it to "Elohim" instead of "Adam"

And before anybody says CFR, here we go!

And here:

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think you do not know what you are talking about. Elder McConkie did not teach the Adam-God theory, in fact he constantly stated that it was a damnable heresy, which it is. He did state, as you quote that God the Eternal Father (that is Elohim NOT Michael) was the literal father of the Lord Jesus Christ. I have no problem with this teaching, as for trying to describe the means of how Elohim or our Heavenly Father (who has an immortal body of flesh and bones) is the literal Father of Christ is a delicate problem, but I will tell you the truth, there is nothing "inherently evil" in the sexual act, so if He is the literal father in the same sense that my earthly father is literally my father, I have no problem with that. I dealt with this so-called "shocking" thought years ago. Some things I do not understand how they could be done, but I know that whatever God does is right... if He sends in the floods upon the entire world or rains down fire on Sodom, or if He commands plural marriage or to kill a drunken Laban or to destroy a city of men, women, and children it is right and not for us to question God. So please try not to put words into Elder McConkie's mouth like some damned Anti-Mormon troll! But trying to say he taught something (Adam God theory) that we all know that he clearly did not, is totally contemptible! And I am getting a little tired of your trying to pass yourself off as a faithful LDS when obviously you are not. SO CFR on where BRM ever said he believed the Adam God theory! The quotes you give do not cut it, I am very familiar with them and he was not teaching that Adam or Michael was the Father of Jesus Christ, but that our Heavenly Father was, that is the only possible way Jesus could have had the ability to have life in himself.

[Senator]

The first thing I would like to establish is whether we can agree that Bruce R. McConkie did in fact teach that Jesus was literally begotten by a physical (read, "sexual") union between God and Mary.

It seems clear he is saying precisely that. He uses what became regarded as LDS "inside-the-circle-speak" for sexual relations; i.e., "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers."

What if we just replaced the word "sexual" with "reproductive". I know this is merely dancing with terms, but it does help strip away some of the carnal connotations associated with human sexuality, which is what we seem to have a problem with.

Frankly, I could care less of the actual process involved. What "virgin" alternatively means to me in regards to this unique relationship, is that Mary was "pure and undefiled", both pre- and postpartum. Any action a Holy being engages in is a holy action, and the mortal involved is the recipient of a holy action. I realize this may not hold any contextual water.

For what its worth.

[SilverKnight]

CFR (not because I don't believe you, but because I want to know).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/books/040511mcconkie.html

[LDSMusic483]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/books/040511mcconkie.html

So what happened, because he obviously printed more editions.

[Mark Beesley]

While I was serving my mission in Germany in 1974, Elder McConkie visited the mission and we had a mission conference with him. At that time, he preached on the diving sonship of the Savior, and I think most elders came away believing that Elder McConkie had told us that the conception of Christ was accomplished through a physical, sexual union. Some elders were aghast, and others (like me) were undisturbed. We were young, impressionable, and would soak up anything that came from an apostle.

Today, my view is this: Unless someone is claiming to have witnessed the conception of Christ by way of a vision, I don't think they can proclaim how that conception occurred. And since I'm pretty darn sure than no one has witnessed the event, any statement regarding how that conception took place is purely opinion, and ought to be qualified as such. Unfortunately, that does not always happen. To the extent I understood Elder McConkie correctly in 1974, in 2008 I am of the opinion that he was wrong.

[EVOLVING]

The first thing I would like to establish is whether we can agree that Bruce R. McConkie did in fact teach that Jesus was literally begotten by a physical (read, "sexual") union between God and Mary.

It seems clear he is saying precisely that. He uses what became regarded as LDS "inside-the-circle-speak" for sexual relations; i.e., "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers."

Is it possible that Bruce R was simply trying to teach a complex sacred principle using a metaphor? I think that form of teaching has happened a time or two in the past.. How many people really believe there was actually a individual man named "Adam", along with an individual "Eve" started the entire human population in 4004 BCE?? -- Are we not all Adam?, I would go as far as theorizing we are all Eve as well...

~evolving

[BCSpace]

So let's see if we can come to some consensus on what it is BRM is actually saying before we take it from there. OK?

Unless you have him actually saying it was a sexual process, then you can't pin it down to that. You can pin it down to DNA as in Jesus has his Father's and mother's DNA. It's LDS doctrine because we emphasize even our Primary children that The Father is literally Jesus' father in the exact same sense their own fathers are their fathers.

However, "begotten" is a pretty clear term in the scriptures. So I lean strongly towards a sexual union and see no problem whatsoever if that turned out to be the case.

[The_Monk]

McConkie equivocates semantically about "virgin."

He was certainly not the first one with the idea of sexual union. It goes back at least to Orson Pratt, and probably earlier.

[LDSMusic483]

Elder McConkie was probably working with the knowledge he had available. Test tube babies didn't show up until the late 70's. He may have just received a revelation that said that Christ was born as all men are and just assumed the natural manner of that. I agree, it doesn't necessarily mean relations. BRM was working with the light and knowledge that was in the world, and I agree that I doubt he had a vision of how Jesus' conception happened.

[Obiwan]

I dispute it.

I believe that BRM was simply stating that God is the literal Son of God the Father and not the Holy Ghost (as some people believe/d) and was not teaching HOW that was accomplished.

EXACTLY.....

What the heck is with the comprehension skills going on here.... Are some turning anti on us?

Even IF we assume the words "are" to be interpreted that way, it's the same issue with Brigham Young etc., everything else they wrote on the subject contradicts THIS interpretation of his words.

LDS have alway's believed the Son was "in the flesh" the literal son of the Father.

That's all McConkie is saying.... This is not brain surgery.

Thinking that this was some secret "code" for SEX is simply wishful thinking. Sorry, but your seriously wrong here. The same way anti's are wrong in how they do the same with Brigham's words on the subject. I'm not saying there's never been a mormon too believe this, even maybe some higher ones. But, we are talking maybe one in a million. NO LDS BELIVES THIS and never has, including McConkie.

Further, the word is "Begotten"..... Last time I checked the dictionary from any time period it never meant "sex".

be

[Obiwan]

Another point......

Mary clearly new very well that she did not have SEX with anyone.....!!!

So what is wrong with you people? Just think about what your actually saying. It makes no sense whatsoever according to the scriptures AND Church traditional views on this, your looking WAY beyond the mark.

[TAK]

1. BRM is discreetly saying he believes God had sex with Mary.

2. BRM's opinion was not shared by other members of the quorum, nor the First Presidency, who had this to say about it:

I am not sure that is quite true.

I wont bother you w/ a CFR but its doubtful that BRM varied an inch in beliefs from that of Joseph Fielding Smith, his father in Law and future Church leader. Elder Peterson found errors - over a 1000, in the first edition but on this topic - to my knowlege was not identified as one of them.

BTW, the second edition was allowed to be published after mentoring by the Qof12. To say it does not reflect Mormon doctrines / teachings is specious. But that is off topic...

[consiglieri]

I confess surprise over the number of Mormons who think Bruce R. McConkie was teaching something other than that Jesus was begotten by means of a physical union between God and Mary. I do not know how it could be more plainly stated than, "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers."

I am similarly surprised by the view that this is a "fringe" idea held almost exclusively by Bruce R. McConkie (and Brigham Young). I went home and did a little research last night, and bring you the following quotes from three gentlemen whose names you may have heard: (1) Joseph F. Smith; (2) James E. Talmage; and, (3) Ezra Taft Benson.

1. Joseph F. Smith, Latter-Day Saints Follow Teachings of the Savior, Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, Vol. 2, p.557-58

And who was Jesus, the Christ? He was both God and man. Can we accept it? Can we comprehend it? It is very simple to those who will permit themselves to comprehend it. It is very plain if men will comprehend, firstly, the fact, that God is the Father of man, spiritually, and that God is the Father of Jesus Christ, both temporally and spiritually, and that Jesus Christ is nothing more nor less than the Son of God, begotten of His Father, as absolutely, and as truly as any child was begotten of his earthly father. You don't need to mince the matter. How could we be like God if we were not begotten in His image and in His likeness? Then this holy man, Jesus Christ, had God for His Father, and He had for His mother the virgin, Mary, who never knew mortal man until after the time that Christ was born. He had this human mother for His mother, and thus were joined together in Him, forever, God and man, and thus is explained to the human family the connection existing between God and man, his children, his off-spring in the earth.

NOTE: Here, Joseph F. Smith indicates his belief that Mary was a virgin in that she "never knew mortal man until after the time that Christ was born." Why the use of the word "mortal" in that sentence? Because he is working with the definition that a "virgin" is one who has not known a mortal, but may have known an immortal; the same definition used by Bruce R. McConkie.

2. James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Ch.7, p.81

His message delivered, Gabriel departed, leaving the chosen Virgin of Nazareth to ponder over her wondrous experience. Mary's promised Son was to be "The Only Begotten" of the Father in the flesh; so it had been both positively and abundantly predicted. True, the event was unprecedented; true also it has never been paralleled; but that the virgin birth would be unique was as truly essential to the fulfillment of prophecy as that it should occur at all. That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the "Son of the Highest." In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity, declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate -- after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and Spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents -- one immortal and glorified -- God, the other human -- woman.

3. President Ezra Taft Benson Benson, Come Unto Christ. Salt Lake City, 1983, p. 4

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was fathered by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father!"

It appears difficult to dispute that the teaching God and Mary had a physical relationship to beget Jesus has been held among the leadership of the LDS Church for over a hundred years now.

Why are we suddenly getting cold feet about it?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I think you do not know what you are talking about. Elder McConkie did not teach the Adam-God theory, in fact he constantly stated that it was a damnable heresy, which it is. He did state, as you quote that God the Eternal Father (that is Elohim NOT Michael) was the literal father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Let me try to be more clear, then:

1. Brigham Young taught that God had sex with Mary to beget Jesus. (I am aware of no teaching to this effect prior to Brigham Young.)

2. This teaching became incorporated into what is commonly referred to as the Adam-God Theory, primarily because Brigham Young conceived of the God who came to Mary as being Adam.

3. Elder McConkie condemned the Adam-God Theory as a "damnable heresy."

4. Elder McConkie taught that God had sex with Mary to beget Jesus. (He just substituted Elohim for Adam.)

The pereceptive reader will notice a similarity between numbers 1 and 4.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for, "Doesn't know what he's talking about")

P.S. Thanks for the new signature line.

[consiglieri]

While I was serving my mission in Germany in 1974, Elder McConkie visited the mission and we had a mission conference with him. At that time, he preached on the diving sonship of the Savior, and I think most elders came away believing that Elder McConkie had told us that the conception of Christ was accomplished through a physical, sexual union. Some elders were aghast, and others (like me) were undisturbed. We were young, impressionable, and would soak up anything that came from an apostle.

Thank you for giving the an excellent description of how this doctrine has been taught by leaders of the Church for over 100-years. The word "sex" is not mentioned, but words are carefully chosen and used to convey the unmistakeable impression that this is what is being taught. I have just given three examples of how this is done by other Church leaders.

This is either because those teaching the concept wish to speak of it in a delicate manner or in order to maintain plausible deniability. (Or a little of both.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I wont bother you w/ a CFR but its doubtful that BRM varied an inch in beliefs from that of Joseph Fielding Smith, his father in Law and future Church leader. Elder Peterson found errors - over a 1000, in the first edition but on this topic - to my knowlege was not identified as one of them.

BTW, the second edition was allowed to be published after mentoring by the Qof12. To say it does not reflect Mormon doctrines / teachings is specious. But that is off topic...

I think you are correct that Bruce R. McConkie did not vary an inch from Joseph Fielding Smith, who did not vary an inch from Joseph F. Smith.

As you will note, I have provided a quote from Joseph F. Smith showing he taught the same thing.

And to clear up the confusion about Mormon Doctrine, the quotes I have given are from the revised edition, after it was vetted by Spencer W. Kimball on behalf of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles. Hence, Bruce R. McConkie's statements in this regard that survived the vetting process represent more than his lone opinion.

I want to emphasize this point because it seems some are thinking the quotes I gave in the OP are from the first edition and were deleted in subsequent editions. This is not the case.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[kryoung1983]

I have no problem with how Jesus Christ was sired. Though I do wonder where you are going with this thread? What is the point you are trying to make?

[consiglieri]

I have no problem with how Jesus Christ was sired. Though I do wonder where you are going with this thread? What is the point you are trying to make?

The point has become pointing out that Bruce R. McConkie did, in fact, teach this.

The point has then become showing that other Church leaders taught the same.

These are, admittedly, secondary and tertiary to the original post, which was to point out the irony of Bruce R. McConkie's advocating one part of the Adam-God Theory while publicly condemning it as a whole and calling heretics those who believed it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[TAK]

I think you are correct that Bruce R. McConkie did not vary an inch from Joseph Fielding Smith, who did not vary an inch from Joseph F. Smith.

As you will note, I have provided a quote from Joseph F. Smith showing he taught the same thing.

And to clear up the confusion about Mormon Doctrine, the quotes I have given are from the revised edition, after it was vetted by Spencer W. Kimball on behalf of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles. Hence, Bruce R. McConkie's statements in this regard that survived the vetting process represent more than his lone opinion.

I want to emphasize this point because it seems some are thinking the quotes I gave in the OP are from the first edition and were deleted in subsequent editions. This is not the case.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Another point, on Mormon Doctrine, I think if you compare it to the much earlier Doctrines of Salvation, Vols. 1-3: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith, you will find a similarity between the two with the latter referring to the prior.

[consiglieri]

Another point, on Mormon Doctrine, I think if you compare it to the much earlier Doctrines of Salvation, Vols. 1-3: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith, you will find a similarity between the two with the latter referring to the prior.

Certainly you are correct in this, and are no doubt aware that Doctrines of Salvation is an editing and organizing of the teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith by his son-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie.

After the correlation process was instituted in the early 20th century, all writings by General Authorities came to resemble each other rather closely.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[bluebell]

I confess surprise over the number of Mormons who think Bruce R. McConkie was teaching something other than that Jesus was begotten by means of a physical union between God and Mary. I do not know how it could be more plainly stated than, "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers."

I am similarly surprised by the view that this is a "fringe" idea held almost exclusively by Bruce R. McConkie (and Brigham Young). I went home and did a little research last night, and bring you the following quotes from three gentlemen whose names you may have heard: (1) Joseph F. Smith; (2) James E. Talmage; and, (3) Ezra Taft Benson.

1. Joseph F. Smith, Latter-Day Saints Follow Teachings of the Savior, Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, Vol. 2, p.557-58

NOTE: Here, Joseph F. Smith indicates his belief that Mary was a virgin in that she "never knew mortal man until after the time that Christ was born." Why the use of the word "mortal" in that sentence? Because he is working with the definition that a "virgin" is one who has not known a mortal, but may have known an immortal; the same definition used by Bruce R. McConkie.

2. James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Ch.7, p.81

3. President Ezra Taft Benson Benson, Come Unto Christ. Salt Lake City, 1983, p. 4

It appears difficult to dispute that the teaching God and Mary had a physical relationship to beget Jesus has been held among the leadership of the LDS Church for over a hundred years now.

Why are we suddenly getting cold feet about it?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Speaking only for myself, i honestly see nothing in those quotes that implies the most accurate understanding is of physical sex between mary and God the Father. Talmage's quote especially, to me, speaks against a physical act of sex, as he specifically says that it was accomplished in accordance with a higher manifestations of the natural law. Physical sex would not, in my understanding, be a 'higher manifestation' of the sexual act normally used to create children today, so it seems forced to imply that's what Talmage was speaking of.

When i read these quotes, i think of the goals of the speakers, to interpret what they are saying. Doing that, i feel comfortable in my understanding of them. After all, if one wanted to take down the false doctrine that Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Ghost (which was and is still a belief among some CHristians) how else would one do so other than to say over and over again that God the Father is literally the Father of Jesus Christ in the same sense that children are literally the sons and daughters of two parents in the mortal world?

In other words, if one was trying to teach that Jesus Christ shared the DNA of both Mary and God the Father (not the Holy Ghost), just like mortal children share the DNA of each of their parents, how would you teach that Consig? What words would you use? How would you teach who Christ's Father was, to people who were confused about that point?

I think i would use the same type of language that has been used by others on this topic. Actually, i don't know that it would be possible TO teach that concept without using those words.