Bruce R. Mcconkie Believed The Adam-god Theory!

[alter idem]

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.

Don't you think "pompous" is a bit strong? I'd say it's "human". I think we can't help but "limit God"--we are mortals in a mortal world, hampered by mortal minds--we have little understanding of the realm where God exists and does his work. As long as we are in this world, we(with very few exceptions) are limited in our abilities to comprehend God and his workings.

[alter idem]

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

No, mmn is right. Elder McConkie was a seventy at the time. He was not called to be an apostle till 1972.

[consiglieri]

I found a pretty good quote setting forth the unusual definition of "virgin" that must be employed for this to "make sense":

(NOTE: Some of these quotes are lengthy, so I have bold-faced what seem to me the salient parts.)

Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p.465 - p.466

For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an Immortal Being.

Immediately thereafter, Bruce R. McConkie puts an interesting twist on Nephi's vision in which he is shown "the condescension of God."

Now, most LDS, myself included, would see that as a reference to Jesus coming to earth to be born in mortality.

Bruce R. McConkie sees it as referring to God the Father and his coming in person to Mary in order to conceive Jesus through personal contact:

"Knowest Thou the Condescension of God?"

Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p.466

Nearly six hundred years before Mary was with child of God, by the power of the Holy Ghost, Nephi saw in vision what would transpire in time's meridian. "I beheld the city of Nazareth," he says, "and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white." Clearly the vision was intended to show the high and holy place of Mary. She was foreordained. There is only one Mary, even as there is only one Christ. We may suppose that she was more highly endowed spiritually than any of her mortal sisters, but with it all, she was a mortal, not a God. Her mission was to bring the Son of God into the world, not to redeem mankind, not to intercede for them. She was destined to be a mother, not a mediator; hers was the blessed privilege, being mortal, to bring into the world Him by whom immortality should come. And blessed is she forever!

Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p.466 - p.467

Asked by an angel what he saw, Nephi said: "A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins." Then, from the lips of the heavenly being came this question of eternal import: "Knowest thou the condescension of God?" And since even the greatest of prophets do not know all thingsâ??their knowledge, as with the rest of us, coming line upon line and precept upon preceptâ??Nephi responded: "I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things." Thereupon the angel answered his own question by saying: "Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh."

Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p.467

The angelic answer is perfect. The great God, the Eternal Elohim, the Father of us all, the Supreme Being, the Maker and Upholder and Preserver of all things, the Creator of the sidereal heavens, the One whose might and omnipotence we can scarcely glimpse and cannot begin to comprehend, this Holy Being to whom we, by comparison, are as the dust of the earth, this Almighty Personage, in his love, mercy, and grace condescended to step down from his Almighty throne, to step down to a lesser and benighted state, as it were, and become the Father of a Son "after the manner of the flesh."

Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p.467

"And it came to pass that I beheld," Nephi writes, "that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!" This then is the condescension of Godâ??that a God should beget a man; that an Immortal Parent should father a mortal Son; that the Creator of all things from the beginning should step down from his high state of exaltation and be, for a moment, like one of the creatures of his creating.

Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p.467

Later the angelic ministrant bade Nephi to look and behold the condescension of God, meaning this time that of the Son, and Nephi did so seeing the persecutions and trials of the Redeemer of the world as he, in condescension, ministered among his fellow mortals. (1 Ne. 11:13-36.)

Bruce R. McConkie then goes on (and on) in his suggestive prose to indicate his belief that Jesus was born of a physical union between God and Mary:

Messiah Is the Only Begotten

Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p.467 - p.468

We have spoken plainly of our Lord's conception in the womb of Mary; in reality the plain assertions are found in the revealed word, and we have but certified that the words mean what they say and cannot be spiritualized away. And as it is with reference to our Lord's mother, so it is as pertaining to his Father. The scriptures say that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son. The problem is that the intellectually led ministry and laity of the day assume, as Satan leads them to do, that a name-title of this sort is simply figurative and does not have the same literal meaning as when the words are spoken in ordinary conversation. Perhaps again the best service we can render, on the issue here involved, is somehow to get the message across that words mean what they say, and that if Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father, it means just that.

Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p.468

Some words scarcely need definition. They are on every tongue and are spoken by every voice. The very existence of intelligent beings presupposes and requires their constant use. Two such words are father and son. Their meaning is known to all, and to define them is but to repeat them. Thus: A son is a son is a son, and a father is a father is a father. I am the son of my father and the father of my sons. They are my sons because they were begotten by me, were conceived by their mother, and came forth from her womb to breathe the breath of mortal life, to dwell for a time and a season among other mortal men.

Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p.468 - p.469

And so it is with the Eternal Father and the mortal birth of the Eternal Son. The Father is a Father is a Father; he is not a spirit essence or nothingness to which the name Father is figuratively applied. And the Son is a Son is a Son; he is not some transient emanation from a divine essence, but a literal, living offspring of an actual Father. God is the Father; Christ is the Son. The one begat the other. Mary provided the womb from which the Spirit Jehovah came forth, tabernacled in clay, as all men are, to dwell among his fellow spirits whose births were brought to pass in like manner. There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord's coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple. Christ was born of Mary. He is the Son of Godâ??the Only Begotten of the Father.

These are points upon which we need not elaborate.

I would hope this satisfies even the most skeptical as to what Bruce R. McConkie was teaching.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Cold Steel]

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.

Yes, Mary wanted to know how she would become pregnant when she knew "no man." I suspect that if the conception was done in the regular way, there would still not be a great deal of mystery over how she became pregnant. She was, after all, a mortal being, corrupted as we all are. Just as when Jesus healed the blind man (born blind), he wasn't whisked away where he had surgery performed on him. It just happened. As the head of the guard said in I CLAUDIUS, after Caligula had proclaimed himself divine: "...but that is the nature of miracles, to be unique." It was as much a warning as it was explanation. Those who disbelieved would do well to keep quiet.

We have a bit more freedom now, thankfully, but we can all accept that miracles are unique. That's what makes them what they are.

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

I was a good friend of Sarah, another daughter, but the last thing she wanted was to talk about her father. That's why we got along so well. Still, the resemblance was frightening at times. Always wondered what became of her....

[Bsix]

"The great God, the Eternal Elohim...condescended to step down from his Almighty throne, to step down to a lesser and benighted state, as it were, and become the Father of a Son "after the manner of the flesh."

Please help me understand. Exactly "condescention" and "manner of the flesh" is being referred to by McConkie in that statement? Is that a condescention that the eternal, omnipotent Father has a mortal Son? Or did he condescend by having sex with a mortal? Is the "manner of the flesh" the creation of a flesh and bone child...or having sex with a mortal?

Upon what basis does one determine if McConkie means the physicality of Jesus' being...or that of a physical sexual act to conceive him? I'm not sure how anyone can claim with certainty what McConkie had in mind.

"This then is the condescension of Godâ??that a God should beget a man; that an Immortal Parent should father a mortal Son; that the Creator of all things from the beginning should step down from his high state of exaltation and be, for a moment, like one of the creatures of his creating."

I would honestly say, that unless McConkie explicitly states otherwise, the "condescension of God" is the act of having a mortal son...not the act of sex. To assume otherwise seems to require sort of mind-reading, fill-in-the-blanks projection of what McConkie (and others thought).

Regards,

Six

[consiglieri]

Please help me understand. Exactly "condescention" and "manner of the flesh" is being referred to by McConkie in that statement? Is that a condescention that the eternal, omnipotent Father has a mortal Son? Or did he condescend by having sex with a mortal? Is the "manner of the flesh" the creation of a flesh and bone child...or having sex with a mortal?

Upon what basis does one determine if McConkie means the physicality of Jesus' being...or that of a physical sexual act to conceive him? I'm not sure how anyone can claim with certainty what McConkie had in mind.

I would honestly say, that unless McConkie explicitly states otherwise, the "condescension of God" is the act of having a mortal son...not the act of sex. To assume otherwise seems to require sort of mind-reading, fill-in-the-blanks projection of what McConkie (and others thought).

Regards,

Six

But that is the beauty of it . . . to say something without saying it. Mormon Church leaders have been doing this for years, especially on this issue.

Another example, lest you think I am making it up, is for an apostle to intone, "I know that Jesus lives."

The emphasis on "know" is to evoke in the mind of the Mormon listener that this person has actually seen Jesus Christ. The apostle didn't say he did, but that is the idea intended.

The subject under consideration, though, is nowhere near as subtle.

Bruce R. McConkie says that the "condescension of God" revealed to Nephi is that God the Father came to earth, and became for one brief (and presumably sublime) moment in time, like the creatures he created.

Why? Because he was going to "sire" Jesus and he had to be really close to Mary to do it.

Why? Well, that's where you are supposed to fill in the blanks.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Cold Steel]

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.

No one has said anything about the sexual concept.

What is being discussed here is prophecy and what can be gleaned from it.

In the days of Brigham Young, virtually nothing was known about genetics. Thus one could rightly suppose that if the Holy Ghost caused Mary to become pregnant, then he would become the father. Now we know that a woman can become pregnant without ever meeting the father, something that would have disgusted President Young, who also believed that a man should make bread from his own wheat. (Confronted with the notion of buying bread, he laughed and replied something to the effect of, "Next, you'll be paying someone to chew it up for you!")

Since it's very likely, nay, extremely likely, that the Lord never made this a topic of revelation, then we are simply debating the term "virgin." Simply saying that an "immortal" can make all the difference does not follow. And Elder McConkie makes his remark without backing it up at all. Had prophecy not used the term "virgin" and said it would be a "miraculous birth," okay, it might be worth discussing. But the scriptures specifically said Mary would be a virgin and that means no sex...period.

Now if I turn out to be wrong, so be it, but it won't be because I overlooked a passage of scripture.

[LDSMusic483]

Why? Well, that's where the you are supposed to fill in the blanks.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

He gave her a y-chromosome pill.

[consiglieri]

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?

You are right that it does appear to be a non sequitur unless you grant the assumption that Bruce R. McConkie is proceeding from an unusual definition of "virgin."

If we see that Bruce R. McConkie is defining a "virgin" as a woman who has never had sexual relations with a mortal man, but could still remain a virgin if she had relations with an immortal man, then the sentence in question makes absolute sense.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[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!

Although I cannot claim to come up with the ultimate and very first mention of the Adam-God Theory by Brigham Young, his most famous discourse on that subject was in 1852, five-years after arriving in the Salt Lake Valley.

Significantly, Brigham Young does bring up in this context the physical procreation of Jesus' body as part and parcel of his overall Adam-God Theory.

Obviously, if we are so inclined, we can separate out the procreative process of Jesus' birth from the Adam-God Theory in order to say that Bruce R. McConkie believed none of it.

On the other hand, it appears from the following quote that Brigham Young saw them as intertwined concepts constituting his overarching doctrine of Adam-God.

(Bold-faced by Consiglieri)

Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.50 - p.51, Brigham Young, April 9, 1852

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken--HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, and thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone. I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming "great is the mystery of godliness," and tell nothing.

It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, "it is an immaterial substance!" What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.

I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon this subject, when I replied, to this idea--"if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, to be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties."

In light of this, perhaps there is a basis for the claim of the title of this thread that Bruce R. McConkie did, in fact, believe part of the Adam-God Theory.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Bsix]

But that is the beauty of it . . . to say something without saying it. Mormon Church leaders have been doing this for years, especially on this issue.

Another example, lest you think I am making it up, is for an apostle to intone, "I know that Jesus lives."

The emphasis on "know" is to evoke in the mind of the Mormon listener that this person has actually seen Jesus Christ. The apostle didn't say he did, but that is the idea intended.

The subject under consideration, though, is nowhere near as subtle.

Bruce R. McConkie says that the "condescension of God" revealed to Nephi is that God the Father came to earth, and became for one brief (and presumably sublime) moment in time, like the creatures he created.

Why? Because he was going to "sire" Jesus and he had to be really close to Mary to do it.

Why? Well, that's where you are supposed to fill in the blanks.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I would suggest that on a subject that is exploited so sensationally by antiMormon propagandists, that "filling in the blanks" is hardly a sure or fair way to determing LDS doctrine.

For example, I am a literalist. I do not assume that an apostle has actually seen Jesus Christ when he claims to "know" that Jesus lives. Until someone declares that they have actually seen the resurrected LORD and/or touched the wounds of his crucifiction...I assume nothing...I do not fill in assumptions.

As such, I tend to reject speculative attempts to declare the metaphors regarding the sonship of Jesus Christ to have any meaning that is not clearly stated, nor declared to be doctrine, not present in the scriptures, nor sustained as revelation by the Church.

And, all the best to you!

Six

[Obiwan]

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

We aren't getting "cold feet", it's simply LDS have never understood their words to mean this way.

Your ADDING to their words an interpretation never intended. We believe their words as they are, that Christ is the literal son of the Father.

Let me give you another clue about your intellectual flaw. If Mary was a "Virgin", then should couldn't have even had "sex" with God either as your stating. He would be taking her virginity. So, stop this crap.

[skenderbeg]

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'm not as up to date on the context/timing/completeness of the Adam-God theory C, could you provide the reference where Brigham taught that Adam, specifically, was the physical father of Jesus?

Thanks,

Skenderbeg

[Obiwan]

I found a pretty good quote setting forth the unusual definition of "virgin" that must be employed for this to "make sense":

(NOTE: Some of these quotes are lengthy, so I have bold-faced what seem to me the salient parts.)

Immediately thereafter, Bruce R. McConkie puts an interesting twist on Nephi's vision in which he is shown "the condescension of God."

Now, most LDS, myself included, would see that as a reference to Jesus coming to earth to be born in mortality.

Bruce R. McConkie sees it as referring to God the Father and his coming in person to Mary in order to conceive Jesus through personal contact:

Bruce R. McConkie then goes on (and on) in his suggestive prose to indicate his belief that Jesus was born of a physical union between God and Mary:

I would hope this satisfies even the most skeptical as to what Bruce R. McConkie was teaching.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

No, it does not.... Your still perverting his words.

In fact his very first sentense makes clear you are. He states:

We have spoken plainly of our Lord's conception in the womb of Mary; in reality the plain assertions are found in the revealed word, and we have but certified that the words mean what they say and cannot be spiritualized away.

Your focusing on the last part while ignoring the first part. He specifically states the "conception occured in the womb".

He doesn't state there was copulation/sex before hand. We also know very well that christ's conception wasn't "spiritual". That's another thing your forgeting. These statements are meant to combat the belief out there that it was the Holy Ghost who fathered the Christ, and also to make clear LDS teaching that the Christ is the "literal" son of the Father. They aren't trying to teach there that there was "sex" involved. The scripture that the "process" occured through the administration of the Holy Ghost as stated in scripture STILL has never been debunked by basically any LDS leader, so you off in neverland. I'm sorry. But you are becoming an anti in your comprehension skills. I'm worried about you.

[consiglieri]

I'm not as up to date on the context/timing/completeness of the Adam-God theory C, could you provide the reference where Brigham taught that Adam, specifically, was the physical father of Jesus?

Thanks,

Skenderbeg

No problemo.

Just check out the quote in post number 85 above.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

We aren't getting "cold feet", it's simply LDS have never understood their words to mean this way.Your ADDING to their words an interpretation never intended.

"LDS have never understood their words to mean this way"?

You have got to be kidding me.

I have been a Mormon for over 30-years and it has been my experience that LDS have only understood their words to mean this way.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Let me give you another clue about your intellectual flaw. If Mary was a "Virgin", then should couldn't have even had "sex" with God either as your stating. He would be taking her virginity. So, stop this crap.

I am afraid you will have to take up that "intellectual flaw" with Elder McConkie, as he is the one who defined "virgin" in such a way as to allow for physical relations with a man . . . so long as it was an immortal man.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LDSMusic483]

No problemo.

Just check out the quote in post number 85 above.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Sig,

You are requiring us to assume too much. He never said "Adam is the Father of Jesus." He only says it was the same person who was in the garden of eden which could have been the Father which Adam worshipped.

[LDSMusic483]

I am afraid you will have to take up that "intellectual flaw" with Elder McConkie, as he is the one who defined "virgin" in such a way as to allow for physical relations with a man . . . so long as it was an immortal man.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Once again Sig, show me where Bruce said "God had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus." You are requiring that the words of Prophets and apostles must mean exactly as they are written without a thought for other meanings or understandings. You argument may be persuasive to some, but until you can find it spelled out exactly as you theorize them to mean, it will always be as a strainer trying to hold water. Ever leaking.

[consiglieri]

You are requiring us to assume too much. He never said "Adam is the Father of Jesus." He only says it was the same person who was in the garden of eden which could have been the Father which Adam worshipped.

You do understand, of course, that this is the typical Mormon dodge.

Once again Sig, show me where Bruce said "God had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus." You are requiring that the words of Prophets and apostles must mean exactly as they are written without a thought for other meanings or understandings. You argument may be persuasive to some, but until you can find it spelled out exactly as you theorize them to mean, it will always be as a strainer trying to hold water. Ever leaking.

Bruce R. McConkie would be so pleased.

[bluebell]

"LDS have never understood their words to mean this way"?

You have got to be kidding me.

I have been a Mormon for over 30-years and it has been my experience that LDS have only understood their words to mean this way.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Honestly, i've been a member for a bit over 20 years (an adult for at least 10 of them) and the first time i ever heard that LDS believe God had a physical sexual union with Mary is when i came to this board three years ago. I don't even remember hearing it while i was serving a mission.

While i'm positive that my experience is not the same for everyone, it does show that the use of 'only' (if i'm understanding your use of it correctly) is too broad a brush to use with this topic.

[consiglieri]

Honestly, i've been a member for a bit over 20 years (an adult for at least 10 of them) and the first time i ever heard that LDS believe God had a physical sexual union with Mary is when i came to this board three years ago. I don't even remember hearing it while i was serving a mission.

While i'm positive that my experience is not the same for everyone, it does show that the use of 'only' (if i'm understanding your use of it correctly) is too broad a brush to use with this topic.

How do you feel about the word "never" proposed by Obiwan?

[bluebell]

How do you feel about the word "never" proposed by Obiwan?

Where he says that you are making an interpretation that was never intended? Is that the use of 'never' that you are asking me about? (i hadn't really read obiwan's post so i had to go back up and look).

I guess it all boils down to whether or not BRM meant the quotes in the way you are interpreting them. If he did mean them that way, then 'never' is obviously incorrect. If he didn't, then 'never' would be the truth.

Isn't the whole discussion about that very issue-what BRM meant when he said certain things?

[consiglieri]

Actually, it was this particular use of the word "never" I was wondering about.

We aren't getting "cold feet", it's simply LDS have never understood their words to mean this way.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[SilverKnight]

"LDS have never understood their words to mean this way"?

You have got to be kidding me.

I have been a Mormon for over 30-years and it has been my experience that LDS have only understood their words to mean this way.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Sig-

You make a pretty good, but not absolute, case that BRM believed in the sexual conception of Jesus.

Now what?

BRM was out in left field with his rather close-minded dogmatic father-in-law and well, Brigham Young.

BRM was outspoken (and likely wrong) on a great many topics.

David O McKay basically told him he was wrong.

[consiglieri]

Sig-

You make a pretty good, but not absolute, case that BRM believed in the sexual conception of Jesus.

Now what?

BRM was out in left field with his rather close-minded dogmatic father-in-law and well, Brigham Young.

BRM was outspoken (and likely wrong) on a great many topics.

David O McKay basically told him he was wrong.

The interesting thing about this (for me) is that Bruce R. McConkie, a staunch defender of conservative Mormonism, and an outspoken critic of the Adam-God Theory, nevertheless believed and taught the most controversial element of the Adam-God Theory, and something that would likely not be considered "conservative."

I doubt Elder McConkie was wrong on a great many topics, but certainly on some, and it would not be a cause for comment except that he so castigated (and frequently damned) those who did not agree with him on every point.

Why do you think David O. McKay told Elder McConkie he was wrong? I have no indication that Elder McConkie ever changed his mind about this issue. In fact, it shows up in his New Witness for the Articles of Faith which was published posthumously.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri