Bruce R. Mcconkie Believed The Adam-god Theory!

[Lightbearer]

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.

Don't mention it... actually I knew it would probably become your new sig line although if this keeps up I may start charging royalties

As for the horror and shock of some who seem to think that God the Father being Christ's literal father is something contrary to scripture or a new or blasphemous idea I am sort of surprised. I mean why do they think the Jews wanted to stone Stephen or kill the Savior for claiming Him to be the Son of God? I do not doubt the points you made about BRM regarding the literal parentage of Christ, what offends me the most is the subject line of this post, claiming Elder McConkie believed in something that he did not (Adam God) and trying to pit him against Brigham Young. Perhaps Elder McConkie was trying to explain some of the statements attributed to BY and that is how he did it. But that was why I was so outraged, oh and sorry for being so seemingly harsh, I really do apologize, but you sort of "pushed my hot button" and I just sort of blew up, but hey even Paul did the same in his day, at least I didn't call you a "whited wall" as he did the Jewish High Priest... but it does make a heck of a signature line doesn't it?

[SilverKnight]

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.

Why are we suddenly getting cold feet about it?

Consig-

I think your "thesis" isn't that BRM believed the Divine Incest (DI) theory, which he probably did, but that many, perhaps the majority, of past church leaders believed it, but only a few have divulged the secret in cryptic terms.

To this I say:

- Yes, BRM seems to have believed the DI theory. It's no surprise that Joseph Fielding Smith, BRM's father-in-law, believed it. Nor is it any surprise that Joseph F Smith, a practicing polygamist, believed it.

- However once you get past this dogmatic, single ultra-orthodox bloodline of past leaders, you don't find much support for your thesis.

- It is a fringe idea held by the most conservative, least progressive church leaders of 30+ years ago. You're quote mining from a very narrow biased sample. The majority of past church leaders, and none of the current ones, held to the traditional miraculous virgin birth concept.

-Though I don't have the time to dig up sources, I am pretty confident in saying most all prior and current church leaders do not believe in DI: David O McKay clearly didn't, SW Kimball didn't, Gordon B Hinkley didn't, TS Monson doesn't.

Also, even if church leaders do believe in DI, why are we fretting about whether LDS doctrine is incongruent with the historic Christian concept of virgin birth - which is nothing more than borrowed folklore from previous virgin birth myths.

I find the whole debate to be a little incredible. The idea that an omnipotent magical superbeing living in some hidden plane of outer space being must use the same crude biological method of impregnation as terrestrial vertebrates is quite hysterical.

[ERayR]

Why are we all(Catholic, Protestant, EV's and yes some LDS) so repulsed that sex may have been involved in Christs conception. He was to come as a human child, human children are conceived by sex.

I fail to see what difference it makes how he was concieved HE GOT HERE HALELULUA. He was born to a human mother, grew as any other human baby and acomplished his mission. Attoning for the sins of the world. Becoming my Savior and yours.

Can we not just accept the miracle of what he did for us and quit nit picking over details that do not matter.

[SilverKnight]

Why are we all(Catholic, Protestant, EV's and yes some LDS) so repulsed that sex may have been involved in Christs conception. He was to come as a human child, human children are conceived by sex.

Because the idea of Almighty God having penetrative sex (a crude biological act of terrestrial vertebrates) with one of his children is quite horrid.

You may think it's great. But many of us find something viscerally repugnant about the idea.

[ERayR]

Because the idea of Almighty God having penetrative sex (a crude biological act of terrestrial vertebrates) with one of his children is quite horrid.

You may think it's great. But many of us find something viscerally repugnant about the idea.

Something else that God created is repugnant and horrid. It seems to some of you God is making a lot of mistakes. I can only find repugnance in the misuse of sex. When used as God commanded it is the highest form of culmination of the sacrament of marriage or did God make another mistake when he commanded man to leave his parents and cleave unto his wife and to multiply and replenish the earth? A lot of Godly errors? I don't think so.

[kryoung1983]

Maybe I am the weird one but I just am not repulsed by the idea. I have no opinion on the matter. It is irrelevant to my salvation.

[SilverKnight]

Something else that God created is repugnant and horrid. It seems to some of you God is making a lot of mistakes. I can only find repugnance in the misuse of sex. When used as God commanded it is the highest form of culmination of the sacrament of marriage or did God make another mistake when he commanded man to leave his parents and cleave unto his wife and to multiply and replenish the earth? A lot of Godly errors? I don't think so.

Note that God also created: cockroaches, viruses, flesh-eating bacteria, pond scum, malaria, syphilis and defecation.

Sexual coitus is an evolutionary adaptation of terrestrial animals. If you want to call it the highest sacrament of marriage then fine, but its obvious biological purpose is for reproduction.

If God wants to conceive his Only Begotten, I think he would use a bit more advanced technique than what the baboons are doing during mating season in the zoo enclosure.

[ERayR]

Note that God also created: cockroaches, viruses, flesh-eating bacteria, pond scum, malaria, syphilis and defecation.

Sexual coitus is an evolutionary adaptation of terrestrial animals. If you want to call it the highest sacrament of marriage then fine, but it's obvious biological purpose is for reproduction.

If God wants to conceive his Only Begotten, I think he would use a bit more advanced technique than what the baboons are doing during mating season in the zoo enclosure.

I am glad that you are able to tell God what he can do but as for me I will refrainfrom limiting God to my sensibilities.

(Bite my tounge)

[consiglieri]

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?

Well, how about just saying, "Jesus is the Son of God, not the son of the Holy Ghost"?

I note that this, like so many issues that vex Mormons, arises solely because Mormons believe in a plurality of Gods; and that Mormons tend to feel the need to identify exactly which God is referenced in a given text.

This particular issue is made more thorny due to the fact that Mormons have scriptural warrant for applying to Jesus the title of "Only Begotten."

Historically speaking, this title ran into problems with the Mormon idea that everybody is begotten of God in the spirit. Therefore, the title "Only Begotten" as applied to the Savior had to have a more restricted meaning.

It was decided that "Only Begotten" meant "Only Begotten in the flesh," and this has been the customary way of explaining this in LDS circles.

This in spite of the fact that "in the flesh" is an extra-scriptural gloss on the title "Only Begotten."

Therefore, if Jesus is considered to be the "Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh," then the Holy Ghost cannot be the father of Jesus, because God the Father and the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct beings in Mormon thought.

Hence, it was thought necessary to stress the fatherhood of God the Father in contradistinction to the Holy Ghost.

The problem then becomes that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, as tangible as man's. If the Holy Ghost were doing the impregnating, there is no problem with positing a non-physical union.

But God the Father is a different matter altogether, because he is "matter." Therefore, so it is thought, a physical union is necessary because both God the Father and Mary had physical bodies.

At any rate, I thought a little delving into the underpinnings of this doctrine would be helpful.

Maybe not.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Can we not just accept the miracle of what he did for us and quit nit picking over details that do not matter.

I would like to clarify that I am not nitpicking over details of what did or did not happen. That is not the point of the thread.

Although it might be asked in this regard why it is that several church leaders thought it important enough to "nitpick" over the details.

All I am reviewing is what Bruce R. McConkie said happened; and what other church leaders have said in that regard; while noting the irony of Bruce R. McConkie advocating this one aspect of the Adam-God Theory while denouncing the rest.

(I think maybe BRM was a cafeteria Adam-God Theorist!)

Also, the fact that SilverKnight finds this idea repulsive helps buttress the title of the thread (with apologies to LightBearer), that being that Bruce R. McConkie latched onto what many find to be the single most controversial aspect of the Adam-God Theory to advocate.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[thesometimesaint]

consiglieri:

Here is some more references you may be interested in.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/c...y_begotten.html

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/respons...virgin_mary.htm

[bluebell]

Well, how about just saying, "Jesus is the Son of God, not the son of the Holy Ghost"?

The bible says Jesus is the Son of God and yet people were/are STILL believing He is the Son of the Holy Ghost. Obviously, there was/is a disconnect that a simple statement was not getting around, in my opinion.

I note that this, like so many issues that vex Mormons, arises solely because Mormons believe in a plurality of Gods; and that Mormons tend to feel the need to identify exactly which God is referenced in a given text.

First, i think it's important to clarify that these issues vex some mormons. It's not an accurate statement otherwise. I personally am not vexed by the idea that Christ was conceived via a sexual union of some kind, i simply don't think that the quotes you have provided teach such.

I also don't know that i agree that these issues vex some mormons soley because of our belief in a plurality of Gods.

[LDSMusic483]

I would like to clarify that I am not nitpicking over details of what did or did not happen. That is not the point of the thread.

Although it might be asked in this regard why it is that several church leaders thought it important enough to "nitpick" over the details.

All I am reviewing is what Bruce R. McConkie said happened; and what other church leaders have said in that regard; while noting the irony of Bruce R. McConkie advocating this one aspect of the Adam-God Theory while denouncing the rest.

(I think maybe BRM was a cafeteria Adam-God Theorist!)

Also, the fact that SilverKnight finds this idea repulsive helps buttress the title of the thread (with apologies to LightBearer), that being that Bruce R. McConkie latched onto what many find to be the single most controversial aspect of the Adam-God Theory to advocate.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Sig,

Could you do me a favor and find when BY first taught the Adam-God theory, and when he first taught about the nature of the birth of Christ according to his views? Were they at the same time? Did one precede the other? If he taught about the nature of Christs conception before the AGT, then I don't think it is necessarily held that BRM believed any part of the AGT. Even if it was at the same time, I don't think that BYs idea's concerning the conception of Jesus Christ necessarily hinge on the fact that the God he was thinking of was Adam. Those two do not necessarily have to go hand in hand. So if you would...could you please find me the timelines of those teachings and any supporting evidence for your case that shows Brigham Young believing what he did about the conception of Christ based on his Adam God Theory.

Thanks!

[SilverKnight]

Also, the fact that SilverKnight finds this idea repulsive helps buttress the title of the thread (with apologies to LightBearer), that being that Bruce R. McConkie latched onto what many find to be the single most controversial aspect of the Adam-God Theory to advocate.

My incredulity at the idea of God having relations with Mary or anyone else notwithstanding...

I would be interested in some historic info on the concept of the 'Sexual God' and its theological evolution.

There were and are countless historic and modern examples of Sexual Deities including fertility gods and goddesses, phallic gods, gods having all sorts of relations with mortals and each other.

When did Christianity remove sexuality from the god concept? It's obvious they did when you look how far the pendulum has swung the other way.

Now any sex + god = heresy.

God can't have private parts

God hates womens' vaginas

God kills you for masturbating

God loves celibacy in his name

God likes it when you castrate yourself

God cares waaay to much what you do in your bedroom

God hates sex

When did all this happen?

[BCSpace]

Another point......

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

What makes you think that?

That she "knew not a man" before the annunciation and that she didn't know Joseph until after Jesus was born says nothing about how Jesus was conceived.

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.

The reason I can accept it is because I see God using already available natural processes for anything He does rather than just waving His hand.

[Bsix]

For starters, I think that two theological concepts are being mixed together. Adam/God and the nature of Jesus conception.

I do not think that the citations from McConkie in the first post of this thread have anything to do with the usual Adam/God controversy.

I believe that those quotes are related to the nature of Jesus' sonship to God the Father.

On that matter, I have always taken Brigham Young, Bruce R. McConkie, and others to mean that Jesus is the literal, physical Son of the Father. Not a spiritual, trinitarian, metaphoric, symbolic son...but a generational...sequential...progeny as is normal and literal with offspring. I do not believe that these references are making declarations regarding the mechanism...or act...by which Jesus was begotten.

As such, I think it is reasonable to say that Jesus is the literal son of God in the same way that we are the sons of our fathers...without suggesting that a physical union (sex) took place. As such, I find it perfectly plausible to understand Jesus as the physical Son of God, born of a virgin, without God and Mary having sex to conceive Jesus Christ.

In other words...a miracle.

Regards,

Six

[bluebell]

What makes you think that?

That she "knew not a man" before the annunciation and that she didn't know Joseph until after Jesus was born says nothing about how Jesus was conceived.

The reason I can accept it is because I see God using already available natural processes for anything He does rather than just waving His hand.

TSS saint's second link actualy talks about this-that 'miracles' occure through natural laws which just aren't known and are not 'supernatural'.

In that sense, it is possible to conceive a child, through natural means (or in accordance with natural laws) without physical sex being used.

Not that that is evidence of anything, but it is interesting to remember.

[alter idem]

The bible says Jesus is the Son of God and yet people were/are STILL believing He is the Son of the Holy Ghost. Obviously, there was/is a disconnect that a simple statement was not getting around, in my opinion.

You are forgetting what Consig pointed out. This isn't a problem for Trinitarian Christians--only for LDS who believe in three separate beings in the Godhead. We separate them out and so we need to clarify that he was conceived by the power of the HG. Those who believe in the Trinity (most Christians) don't need to clarify because the HG is God also, so this doesn't concern them like it does LDS.

First, i think it's important to clarify that these issues vex some mormons. It's not an accurate statement otherwise. I personally am not vexed by the idea that Christ was conceived via a sexual union of some kind, i simply don't think that the quotes you have provided teach such.

I also don't know that i agree that these issues vex some mormons soley because of our belief in a plurality of Gods.

I think most LDS don't even think about it--which isn't such a bad thing since I'm not sure it's worth all the fuss. I personally do not agree with those who believe it was a physical union (I agree with those who said, He's God--he can do anything! He can certainly impregnate a mortal without using the normal means--leaving the woman still a virgin.

I disagree that the quotes given are not clear. I think they are very clear--The belief in the physical union was also more popular when polygamy was part of the LDS thought.

I also believe Mark Beesley who heard Elder McConkie in person and confirmed what I believe Elder McConkie was implying--so I'm not questioning what was meant. I just disagree with them. I think I have that right, even if I'm not a prophet or an apostle, I can disagree on these esoteric points of belief that are not found in the church canon(the scriptures).

[Cold Steel]

Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father.

This seems to me to be a total non sequitur. What difference does it make if the father is a mortal or immortal? I've never seen "virgin" defined as anyone who's had sexual relations with an immortal being. It's these types of statements that make no sense. It's like saying, "Jesus went into the wilderness because there were no Viking villages he could go to." What would be the sense of that?

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.

Yes, now we know about genetics, we know that a woman can conceive without ever knowing, much less meeting, the father. What determines fatherhood? The seed. Mary, I personally believe, was carried away in the Spirit, was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, and was made pregnant by no physical relationship whatsoever.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I believe she was a real virgin up until the birth of Jesus. Perhaps it would help to know what the term "virgin" means. Does it mean "young woman" as some maintain, or does it mean someone who hasn't had sexual relations (with anyone, mortal or immortal)?

Frankly, I don't believe the answer would ever be a topic for revelation, so until it is answered by revelation, or until someone cobbles up a definition of virgin as someone who only has sexual relations with immortal beings, I respectfully decline to believe it.

[alter idem]

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I believe she was a real virgin up until the birth of Jesus. Perhaps it would help to know what the term "virgin" means. Does it mean "young woman" as some maintain, or does it mean someone who hasn't had sexual relations (with anyone, mortal or immortal)?

I guess I'm old fashioned too, because I like to think Jesus' conception WAS miraculous. If it was by the "normal means" it kind of lessens the "miracle" aspect and it makes the "virgin" designation of his mother more questionable, IMO.

While I agree with some that God uses natural means to do his work--I still think he also uses means that could only be described by us mortals as miracles-I see no reason to change my belief that Jesus' conception was miraculous, in every way.

[bluebell]

You are forgetting what Consig pointed out. This isn't a problem for Trinitarian Christians--only for LDS who believe in three separate beings in the Godhead. We separate them out and so we need to clarify that he was conceived by the power of the HG. Those who believe in the Trinity (most Christians) don't need to clarify because the HG is God also, so this doesn't concern them like it does LDS.

I think most LDS don't even think about it--which isn't such a bad thing since I'm not sure it's worth all the fuss. I personally do not agree with those who believe it was a physical union (I agree with those who said, He's God--he can do anything! He can certainly impregnate a mortal without using the normal means--leaving the woman still a virgin.

I disagree that the quotes given are not clear. I think they are very clear--The belief in the physical union was also more popular when polygamy was part of the LDS thought.

I also believe Mark Beesley who heard Elder McConkie in person and confirmed what I believe Elder McConkie was implying--so I'm not questioning what was meant. I just disagree with them. I think I have that right, even if I'm not a prophet or an apostle, I can disagree on these esoteric points of belief that are not found in the church canon(the scriptures).

I'm in agreement with Bsix and TSS link on the matter. I think the very fact that you and i disagree on the meaning of the quotes in question, is evidence of their ambiguity.

[thesometimesaint]

I've got a pretty liberal definition of miracle. It is just some event that we don't understand. So trying to explain TV to the witch trials at Salem probably wouldn't be the best of ideas. We have everyday examples of people reproducing without the sex act. I consider that a miracle. However God did it I have no clue.

[ERayR]

I guess I'm old fashioned too, because I like to think Jesus' conception WAS miraculous. If it was by the "normal means" it kind of lessens the "miracle" aspect and it makes the "virgin" designation of his mother more questionable, IMO.

While I agree with some that God uses natural means to do his work--I still think he also uses means that could only be described by us mortals as miracles-I see no reason to change my belief that Jesus' conception was miraculous, in every way.

Nor do I but it is a bit pompous for us to limit God because of our conceptulizations of what God would or would not do.

[alter idem]

I'm in agreement with Bsix and TSS link on the matter.

I agreed as well. Not sure what you meant in answer to what I said, but okay.

I think the very fact that you and i disagree on the meaning of the quotes in question, is evidence of their ambiguity.

Just the fact that two people disagree on something, such as the quotes in question, does not actually prove they are "ambiguous". There may be other reasons why two people cannot come to a consensus. But I'll leave it at that.

[erichard]

I think it does not matter what BRM thought when he first wrote MoDoc, he was not an apostle at that time and not speaking by way of revelation.

I think any talk about how Jesus was conceived is just speculation and totally irrelivant to salvation. The BoM says she was a virgin even after Christs birth and the BoM is Doctrine. Why anyone feels the need to go further than that is beyond me.

Hi,

Are you sure McConkie was not an Apostle when he wrote MoDoc (as you call it)? Or should we research it?

I dated BRM's daughter Rebecca once. Her roomates would call it "the Gospel according to St Bruce".

Richard