Bruce R. Mcconkie Believed The Adam-god Theory!

[bluebell]

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

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Ah-ha. I hadn't read that post.

No, i don't agree with his use of the word 'never' either.

[consiglieri]

So, how about when Obiwan said I am "off in neverland"?

Wait.

Don't answer that!

[Cold Steel]

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.

Yes, but then he's simply guilty of making the term "virgin" esoteric and having it apply in this way only to the LDS faith.

Apostles, who are special witnesses of Christ, are not allowed to do that.

The First Presidency told him directly they did not want him to write Mormon Doctrine, but he did it anyway and caused some hard feelings among the authorities of the church. That he was later chosen to become one of the Twelve indicates to me that revelation guides the church. In the business world, one does not buck higher management and expect a promotion. Still, he was chosen. It did not give him the authority to foist his own personal opinions on everyone, however, and no other prophet or apostle has applied such a bizarre meaning to the word "virgin" as far as I can tell. I respect the man and give him credit for the enormous research he did that have added to our standard works, but not the right to rewrite the dictionary.

Christians have many esoteric terms such as "eternal life" not simply meaning "immortality," and "eternal damnation" not meaning everlasting damnation, but let's draw the line unless we're told otherwise.

As they say, "A virgin is a virgin, unless she's from Schenectady!"

[LDSMusic483]

Yes, but then he's simply guilty of making the term "virgin" esoteric and having it apply in this way only to the LDS faith.

Apostles, who are special witnesses of Christ, are not allowed to do that.

The First Presidency told him directly they did not want him to write Mormon Doctrine, but he did it anyway and caused some hard feelings among the authorities of the church. That he was later chosen to become one of the Twelve indicates to me that revelation guides the church. In the business world, one does not buck higher management and expect a promotion. Still, he was chosen. It did not give him the authority to foist his own personal opinions on everyone, however, and no other prophet or apostle has applied such a bizarre meaning to the word "virgin" as far as I can tell. I respect the man and give him credit for the enormous research he did that have added to our standard works, but not the right to rewrite the dictionary.

Christians have many esoteric terms such as "eternal life" not simply meaning "immortality," and "eternal damnation" not meaning everlasting damnation, but let's draw the line unless we're told otherwise.

As they say, "A virgin is a virgin, unless she's from Schenectady!"

I thought the entire point of this thread was trying to point out that BRM believed something that BY taught that tied into the AGT. Did BY not believe Mary was a virgin? If he did, then BRM was certainly not the first to hold this definition of virgin.

[Log]

Yes, but then he's simply guilty of making the term "virgin" esoteric and having it apply in this way only to the LDS faith.

Apostles, who are special witnesses of Christ, are not allowed to do that.

But don't they do exactly this anyways, every time they speak of Christ as "the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh", in light of Luke 3:38, Moses 6:22, and these verses?

[Bsix]

This time next week is my 32nd anniversary of my baptism as a Latter Day Saint. I joined the Church as an adult.

In my entire time as a Latter Day Saint, I have never heard a single Mormon claim, suggest, or hint in any manner that God had sex with Mary...never.

It has not been preached in Conference during my 32 years. It has not included in any Gospel lesson manual, FHE manual, video, slideshow, or other official LDS medium.

In my 32 years in the Church the notion that God had sex with Mary has never been preached over the pulpit, in a fireside, in a conference talk, or other preached setting.

I have never heard the concept suggested or taught in any leadership meeting or setting.

Never in my years at BYU has the concept been tauth or hinted at.

I have never heard the concept taught or hinted at at the temple.

I have never been any person-to-person discussion in which someone expressed an opinion that God had sex with Mary.

The ONLY times I have heard that Mormons believe that God had sex with Mary is from antiMormons...and the extremely rare discussion board poster who claims to be a Mormon.

Not that my credentials are all that impressive or authorative...but I have been the Gospel Doctrine teacher for five seperate wards, I am a high priest, have served a full time mission, been the Ward clerk, Ward Mission Leader, and in five EQ Presidencies (three as the president) I have also served on the High Council. (I'm not suggesting that I am highly qualified to speak on the subject...just that as a Mormon I have been around a lot of settings in which to have heard of this teaching.)

To be perfectly honest, I think that the vast majority of Mormons are completely unaware of the God/Mary/sex controversy. In fact, I believe that most Mormons who are left to interpret the few statements made by Church leaders on the physical and literal sonship of Jesus Christ to the Father would understand them to describe a nonsexual miracle of the literal nature of Jesus' relationship with the Father.

I think that "never" is a pretty close description of how often or how many Latter Day Saints believe that Bruce R. McConkie, Brigham Young, et al were speaking in code that God had sex with Mary.

With no disrespect to Consig...but I think he is a member of a very, very miniscule doctrinal minority within the LDS Church.

And, all the best!

Six

[Obiwan]

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

I was stating "LDS" in the hugely general sense have never believed this....

I've already stated in a previous post (which you seemed to already refer to in a previous post) that only FRINGE NUT LDS have ever believed this.

Certainly not 99.9% of the Church.

[Obiwan]

With no disrespect to Consig...but I think he is a member of a very, very miniscule doctrinal minority within the LDS Church.

Exactly..... I think either consig is on the verge of apostacy, or he's simply one of those fringe nuts.

Never in my life have I heard it from all my years in the Church living in over 50 areas and likely a 100 wards of it.

I never heard it until I read an anti-mormon book. And I never heard it from any supposed LDS like consig until the internet.

I also read all the prophets statements prior and after anti-mormon exposure, and I've NEVER interpreted their words to mean "sex", nor some "loose" interpretation of "virgin".

Consig, with all due respect, your simply confused.... And it doesn't do well that you promote something so clearly false while anybody is watching, if you really still believe in the Church. You simply can't entertain the idea that given everything else you just might be interpreting their words wrong. It's clear these men never believed this. And you trying to "strain" such an interpretation from some of their words is simply foolishness of the naive.

[Bsix]

Exactly..... I think either consig is on the verge of apostacy, or he's simply one of those fringe nuts.

I think that suggestion is way over the top...and personal. I can't speak to Consig's true identity or real affiliation with the Church. However, I have always had the impression that he is a member of the Church in good standing, a Gospel Doctrine teacher in his home ward, and a very pleasant and nice poster.

He has just beome a minion of Satan on this one particular doctrine.

For the record, I have no doubt that there are a few temple recommend holding faithful Mormons who believe that God had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus Christ. While it is an obscure notion...and not a doctrine...believing in it does not make one an apostate or a fringe nut.

As always...all the best!

Six

[Log]

Consig is a lawyer - and you know what Joseph Smith said about lawyers.

I discovered in this debate, much warmth displayed, too much zeal for mastery, too much of that enthusiasm that characterizes a lawyer at the bar, who is determined to defend his cause, right or wrong. I therefore availed myself of this favorable opportunity to drop a few words upon this subject, by way of advice, that they might improve their minds and cultivate their powers of intellect in a proper manner, that they might not incur the displeasure of heaven; that they should handle sacred things very sacredly, and with due deference to the opinions of others, and with an eye single to the glory of God.

(Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976, pp. 176-177).

[Bsix]

I also think that to some extent, how you see (interpret) the words of BRM, BY, et al on this may depend on how you were first presented with an explanation of the various quotes on the subject.

If the first context is that of a sexual one...then you are almost programmed to see it that way. Without the set up, it is most likely that you will not derive a sexual inference. A good example is that of an optical illusion. It is all in how you look at it.

What do you see?

In fact, how antiMormons present the God/Mary/Sex concept demonstrates that the context has to be suggested in order for an uninitiated person to get the sexual context. As a classic example, read the Bill McKeever explanation of the interpretation.

Redefining the Virgin Birth: Mormonism's Teaching Concerning the Natural Conception of Jesus

In this article, McKeever provides pretty much every reference on the subject that is available in all of Mormonisms 150+ year history and hundreds of thousands of talks, maunals, magazines, etc. He can't find a single offical reference that comes right out and says it. So...he has to set the context in the mind of the reader before sharing the actual quotations.

Regards,

Six

[structurecop]

In my entire time as a Latter Day Saint, I have never heard a single Mormon claim, suggest, or hint in any manner that God had sex with Mary...never.

I have... Winter of 2002/2003, Gospel Essentials class, Ward Mission Leader, Eagle, Idaho *th Ward. And although that is the first time it comes to mind, what he said was not surprising to me at all at the time.

[LDSMusic483]

In defense of Sig...(I'll repent later )...I do not believe he necessarily believes all of this he likes to spew off. He just likes to cause friction among us MA&D posters by enforcing leaders words to the fullest and most direct sense of what they say. He being a BRM closet hater...well...not so much closet...loves to point out issues when BRM was either blatantly wrong or contradicted himself. That is the purpose of this thread. I think Sig likes to muse about these things, but doesn't believe all the things he throws out there as interpretations of BY's and BRM's words. Of course, if he would just SAY that to begin with, he'd make life much easier on himself.

[Bsix]

I have... Winter of 2002/2003, Gospel Essentials class, Ward Mission Leader, Eagle, Idaho *th Ward. And although that is the first time it comes to mind, what he said was not surprising to me at all at the time.

Please help me understand. Once in your Church experience, a single teacher in a single class taught that God had sex with Mary. If I understand correctly, this is one instance out of what has to be thousands...tens of thousands...of lessons, talks, conferences, firesides, etc. that seem never to have touched on the subject. Is that correct?

I also have another curiosity question. What exactly did the instructor say? Gospel Essentials class does not exactly strike me as the forum for declaring that Jesus had sex with Mary. I am most interested in the context with which the comment was made. Did he declare sex, or did he use the subjective terms that we have all heard and are discussing here.

If he actually said that God and Mary had intercourse...then he seems to have strayed way off the lesson materials. In fact, the only discussion regarding the physical nature of Jesus' conception between Mary and the Father in the Gospel Principles manual (that's the Gospel Essentials lesson manual) is as follows:

He Was the Only Begotten of the Father

The story of the birth and life of the Savior is found in the New Testament in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. From their accounts we learn that Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary. She was engaged to marry Joseph when an angel of the Lord appeared to her. The angel told her that she was to be the mother of the Son of God. She asked him how this was possible (see Luke 1:34). He told her, â??The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of Godâ? (Luke 1:35). Thus, God the Father became the literal father of Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal father. That is why he is called the Only Begotten Son. From his mother he inherited mortality and was subject to hunger, thirst, fatigue, pain, and death. He inherited divine powers from his Father. No one could take the Saviorâ??s life from him unless He willed it. He had power to lay it down and power to take up his body again after dying. (See John 10:17â??18.)

Discussion

â?¢ Read Luke 1:34â??35. Why was Jesus Christ known as the Only Begotten of the Father?

â?¢ What did he inherit from his Father?

â?¢ What did he inherit from his mother?

I'm not sure that most folks would suppose an act of sex from that quote.

Regards,

Six

[emeliza]

It appears at one time or another BRM believed that it was possible that Mary and HF had intercourse and that he alluded to this. However it does not appear to be something the Church teaches on a whole or anymore.

However I think it is incorrect to say it was never taught by someone somewhere.

I know it is hard to believe, but the 'anti's' get their information somewhere. Generally it isn't stuff that we teach in Church, but instead something that is heard somewhere at some time. We all have stuff like that happen to us. I believe with the Mary thing that it was more widespread. I would suggest asking older family members who grew up in the Church about it. Of course not all of them will have ever heard it, but some will have.

[structurecop]

Please help me understand. Once in your Church experience, a single teacher in a single class taught that God had sex with Mary. If I understand correctly, this is one instance out of what has to be thousands...tens of thousands...of lessons, talks, conferences, firesides, etc. that seem never to have touched on the subject. Is that correct?

I also have another curiosity question. What exactly did the instructor say? Gospel Essentials class does not exactly strike me as the forum for declaring that Jesus had sex with Mary. I am most interested in the context with which the comment was made. Did he declare sex, or did he use the subjective terms that we have all heard and are discussing here.

If he actually said that God and Mary had intercourse...then he seems to have strayed way off the lesson materials. In fact, the only discussion regarding the physical nature of Jesus' conception between Mary and the Father in the Gospel Principles manual (that's the Gospel Essentials lesson manual) is as follows:

I'm not sure that most folks would suppose an act of sex from that quote.

Regards,

Six

Your post implied that such a thing (God and Mary intercourse) is totally foreign to LDS understanding and that it is never discussed. I provided an example where such a thing did happen, and although I can't recall earlier discussion of the topic, when he said it I was not surprised nor opposed to the possibility. So somehow I must have been exposed to this concept, through osmosis or something.

To answer your second question, he was teaching about the conception of Jesus Christ, and said, "And doesn't it make sense that there was some kind of... contact there." He made a hand gesture which made it clear to what he was referring.

[consiglieri]

To answer your second question, he was teaching about the conception of Jesus Christ, and said, "And doesn't it make sense that there was some kind of... contact there." He made a hand gesture which made it clear to what he was referring.

I am getting ready to run to court right now, and will be back to respond later today.

In the meantime, I can only imagine what kind of hand gesture was used . . .

Was it both hands?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "fringe nut")

[structurecop]

I am getting ready to run to court right now, and will be back to respond later today.

In the meantime, I can only imagine what kind of hand gesture was used . . .

Was it both hands?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "fringe nut")

It was one hand flat, palm up, with the other hand, palm down, over it, making circular motions around each other.

[consiglieri]

It was one hand flat, palm up, with the other hand, palm down, over it, making circular motions around each other.

A "circular motion"?

So that's what I've been doing wrong all these years.

[consiglieri]

With no disrespect to Consig...but I think he is a member of a very, very miniscule doctrinal minority within the LDS Church.

I prefer to think of it as the "inner circle."

(Maybe that explains the "circular motions"?)

[emeliza]

I prefer to think of it as the "inner circle."

(Maybe that explains the "circular motions"?)

I am so glad I wasn't drinking still when I opened this thread.

[consiglieri]

Consig, with all due respect, your simply confused.... And it doesn't do well that you promote something so clearly false while anybody is watching, if you really still believe in the Church. You simply can't entertain the idea that given everything else you just might be interpreting their words wrong. It's clear these men never believed this. And you trying to "strain" such an interpretation from some of their words is simply foolishness of the naive.

Who, precisely, is watching while I promote something so clearly false?

Why should it make any difference whether I "still believe in the Church"?

Actually, I can entertain the idea that I might be interpeting their words "wrong." (Did you see Lehi's recent thread about grammatical errors on the board?)

I think it far from clear that "these men never believed this." In fact, it looks for all the world like they did.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "foolishness of the naive")

[emeliza]

This might already be in the thread Consig, but I realize you think BRM thought this way. The question I have is do you believe this is doctrine or true? Or do you believe that how the Church is currently teaching it (virgin no intercourse even with an immortal) is true?

[consiglieri]

I think that suggestion is way over the top...and personal. I can't speak to Consig's true identity or real affiliation with the Church. However, I have always had the impression that he is a member of the Church in good standing, a Gospel Doctrine teacher in his home ward, and a very pleasant and nice poster.

Thanks for standing up for me, Bsix!

It will serve you well at the Second Coming.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "making notes and taking down names")

[consiglieri]

This might already be in the thread Consig, but I realize you think BRM thought this way. The question I have is do you believe this is doctrine or true? Or do you believe that how the Church is currently teaching it (virgin no intercourse even with an immortal) is true?

I used to believe this was true, because it is what I was taught, and what was reaffirmed by prominent leaders in the Church.

Although I have no reason to think that they changed their minds about the subject, I have come to realize that this is a teaching that is not supported by the scriptures, and I no longer believe it is necessarily true.

This teaching also led to the additional speculation about how Mary was sealed to God for eternity but only married to Joseph until death did they part.

But I have found it ironic that this teaching had its genesis in the Adam-God Theory.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri