Bruce R. Mcconkie Believed The Adam-god Theory!

[kamenraider]

Revelation 14:3-4

3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

Waitaminute, the sealing of the 144,000 of whom Joseph Smith stated "the selection of persons to form that number had already commenced," [History of the Church, 6:196] was only for virgins? And the 17 men that had been thus selected up to that point were married men? What?!?! Was John trying to redefine the word "virgin"?

edit: Just thought I'd say to those who find the idea of God and Mary having sex objectionable, that you probably also find the idea of your parents having sex objectionable, however you're living proof that they did!

I heard this taught in a singles ward priesthood meeting one time, and a big argument erupted. I can't really remember which side I was on, but I don't think I believed the God/Mary/sex idea back then.

[bluebell]

Waitaminute, the sealing of the 144,000 of whom Joseph Smith stated "the selection of persons to form that number had already commenced," [History of the Church, 6:196] was only for virgins? And the 17 men that had been thus selected up to that point were married men? What?!?! Was John trying to redefine the word "virgin"?

edit: Just thought I'd say to those who find the idea of God and Mary having sex objectionable, that you probably also find the idea of your parents having sex objectionable, however you're living proof that they did!

I heard this taught in a singles ward priesthood meeting one time, and a big argument erupted. I can't really remember which side I was on, but I don't think I believed the God/Mary/sex idea back then.

First, since i'm not sure we know what word John used, we probably couldn't blame anything on him personally.

Second, this idea that 'virgin' can mean something other than someone who has never had sex does not stem from LDS thought, nor is it anyone redefining the word.

According to strong's concordance-the greek word used here (and 13 other times in the New Testament) for 'virgin' (parthenos) has multiple valid meanings.

They are:

a virgin

a marriageable maiden

a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man

one's marriageable daughter

a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity

one who has never had intercourse with women

I think most are aware of that, but it's always good to be clear.

[alter idem]

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

I'm not sure it had it's "genesis" in Adam/God and this is why. This comment above--about whether Mary was sealed for only time to Joseph sparked a memory and so I went searching. Found this by Orson Pratt--Adam/God Theory's main critic, no less.

"God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. Hence, the Father saith concerning him, 'Thou are my Son, this day have I begotten thee.' We are informed in the first chapter of Luke, that Mary was chosen by the Father as a choice virgin, through whom He begat Jesus. The angel said unto the Virgin Mary, '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 God.' After the power of the Highest had overshadowed Mary, and she had by that means conceived, she related the circumstance to her cousin Elizabeth in the following words: 'He that is Mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His name.' It seems from this relation that the Holy Ghost accompanied 'the Highest' when He overshadowed the Virgin Mary and begat Jesus; and from this circumstance some have supposed that the body of Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost without the instrumentality of the immediate presence of the Father. There is no doubt that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary to sanctify her, and make her holy, and prepare her to endure the glorious presence of "the Highest', that when 'He' should 'overshadow' her she might conceive, being filled with the Holy Ghost; hence the angel said, as recorded in Matthew, 'That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost;' that is, the Holy Ghost gave her strength to abide in the presence of the Father without being consumed, but it was the personage of the Father who begat the body of Jesus; and for this reason Jesus is called 'the Only Begotten of the Father;' that is, the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the Father. There were millions of sons and daughters who he begat before the foundation of this world, but they were spirits, and not bodies of flesh and bones; whereas, both the spirit and body of Jesus were begotten by the Father---the spirit having been begotten in heaven many ages before the tabernacle was begotten upon the earth.

"The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father; we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully. It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with Mary, who was already espoused to Joseph; for such a heinous crime would have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of Moses. But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for His own conduct. It was also lawful in Him, after having thus dealt with Mary, to give her to Joseph her espoused husband. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in the mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity.

"As God the Father begat the fleshly body of Jesus, so He, before the world began, begat his spirit. As the body required an earthly Mother, so his spirit required a heavenly Mother. As God associated in the capacity of a husband with the earthly mother, so likewise he associated in the same capacity with the heavenly one; earthly things being in the likeness of heavenly things; and that which is temporal being in the likeness of that which is eternal; or, in other words, the laws of generation upon the earth are after the order of the laws of generation in heaven" (The Seer, pp. 158-9; cf. B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, vol 2, p. 270)

I know "The Seer" is not "accepted" in our day, but it was in earlier days in the church. If you read this, you can see that Orson Pratt is saying it was a physical union--if it wasn't a physical union, there is no need to emphasize the correctness of their "union". Similarly to BRM, Orson Pratt believed this aspect of Adam/God, though he rejected the rest.

It has fallen out of favor and as a church, we don't discuss the "mysteries" that were discussed in earlier times. I believe that is why many LDS members would have no clue this was ever a topic of members or even a possible belief. But I suspect early members most likely accepted it if their leaders were teaching it.

edited because I forgot to bold the part about sealing

[consiglieri]

I heard this taught in a singles ward priesthood meeting one time, and a big argument erupted. I can't really remember which side I was on, but I don't think I believed the God/Mary/sex idea back then.

Thanks, kamenrader, for putting your name in the hat of members who have, in fact, been exposed to this teaching at some point during the church career.

Funny quote about John and the "virgins," too!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[alter idem]

Here's a quote that's pretty clear. This is from Melvin J. Ballard;

"One of the great questions that I have referred to that the world is concerned about, and is in confusion over, is as to whether or not his was a virgin birth, a birth wherein divine power interceded. Joseph Smith made it perfectly clear that Jesus Christ told the absolute truth, as did those who testify concerning him, the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, wherein he is declared to be the very Son of God. And if God the Eternal Father is not the real Father of Jesus Christ, then are we in confusion; then is he not in reality the Son of God. But we declare that he is the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh.

"Mary told the story most beautifully when she said that an angel of the Lord came to her and told her that she had found favor in the sight of God, and had come to be worthy of the fulfilment of the promises heretofore made, to become the virgin mother of the Redeemer of the world. She afterwards, referring to the event, said: 'God hath done wonderful things unto me.' 'And the Holy Ghost came upon her,' is the story, 'and she came into the presence of the highest.' No man or woman can live in mortality and survive the presence of the Highest except by the sustaining power of the Holy Ghost. So it came upon her to prepare her for admittance into the divine presence, and the power of the Highest, who is the Father, was present, and overshadowed her, and the holy Child that was born of her was called the Son of God.

Men who deny this, or who think that it degrades our Father, have no true conception of the sacredness of the most marvelous power with which God has endowed mortal men---the power of creation. Even though that power may be abused and may become a mere harp of pleasure to the wicked, nevertheless it is the most sacred and holy and divine function with which God has endowed man. Made holy, it is retained by the Father of us all, and in his exercise of that great and marvelous creative power and function, he did not debase himself, degrade himself, nor debauch his daughter. Thus Christ became the literal Son of a divine Father, and no one else was worthy to be his father." (Sermons and Missionary Services of Melvin J. Ballard, p. 167)

I think it'd be hard to deny he is advocating a physical union. I'd say, Consig, that this was indeed an accepted belief of earlier leaders. I think we are all free to accept it or reject it--but there's no denying they taught it and believed it, though some members in their day may have rejected it, they still taught it.

[consiglieri]

Here's a quote that's pretty clear. This is from Melvin J. Ballard;

I think it'd be hard to deny he is advocating a physical union. I'd say, Consig, that this was indeed an accepted belief of earlier leaders. I think we are all free to accept it or reject it--but there's no denying they taught it and believed it, though some members in their day may have rejected it, they still taught it.

Great quotes from both Orson Pratt and Melvin Ballard. Thank you!

I agree with your conclusion so aptly worded above, but think there may be one or two naysayers remaining who will yet refuse to admit that these words mean what they say.

I would be interested in knowing if any are willing to revise their views in this regard.

Anyone?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Senator]

Great quotes from both Orson Pratt and Melvin Ballard. Thank you!

I agree with your conclusion so aptly worded above, but think there may be one or two naysayers remaining who will yet refuse to admit that these words mean what they say.

I would be interested in knowing if any are willing to revise their views in this regard.

Anyone?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Nope. Councilor, I think you may rest your case.

Congratulations....I think.

[tana]

I would think that God and Mary would need to be sealed together then for this to not be....adultry

[alter idem]

I would think that God and Mary would need to be sealed together then for this to not be....adultry

It seems Orson Pratt is saying, God had a right to "overshadow" the Virgin Mary--because she was one of his creations---therefore it was not adultery. However, he also suggests that God the Father and Mary were husband and wife in the pre-mortal existence and he had a right to give her to Joseph for time and yet retain her for eternity--thus implying a pre-mortal sealing, IMO.

This is a part of the quote I gave a couple of posts above on this subject;

Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father; we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully. It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with Mary, who was already espoused to Joseph; for such a heinous crime would have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of Moses. But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for His own conduct. It was also lawful in Him, after having thus dealt with Mary, to give her to Joseph her espoused husband. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in the mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity.

[tana]

Sorry, I missed that....Thank you.

[kamenraider]

I would think that God and Mary would need to be sealed together then for this to not be....adultry

Apparently Joseph Smith said they were sealed:

27 Dec, 1886 - Sarah M. Granger Kimball, counselor in Relief Society General Presidency teaches from the pulpit that "her brother Lafayette Granger and the late Bishop George Miller in conversation once with the prophet Joseph Smith were told by him that when Mary the mother of Jesus was on her way to the hill country she was met by God the Father and the Angel Gabriel and the latter performed the marriage between Father (God) and Mary."

--The Mormon Hierararchy: Extensions of Power by D. Michael Quinn, Salt Lake City: Signature 1997, Pg. 786.

[LDSMusic483]

Apparently Joseph Smith said they were sealed:

Maybe I'm just missing something...but that makes it sound as though it was after conception. I don't think she would have been so afraid if it had happened before conception. Wasn't the point of those idea's that they were sealed when conception took place?

[alter idem]

Maybe I'm just missing something...but that makes it sound as though it was after conception. I don't think she would have been so afraid if it had happened before conception. Wasn't the point of those idea's that they were sealed when conception took place?

One problem with the quote cited is that it is not a first hand account. She's telling something that was told to her by someone else. I take quotes such as this, with a big grain of salt.

I believe the natural assumption would be that if a sealing was needed (as this source implies) it would have been before conception--and IF this quote implies otherwise, I seriously question if the information was related accurately. Especially because I believe that Orson Pratt, Brigham Young and the others got their ideas from what they heard Joseph say--and clearly, this third hand account tells us Joseph probably said something about a sealing--but the details, we can't be sure of.

[kamenraider]

Maybe I'm just missing something...but that makes it sound as though it was after conception. I don't think she would have been so afraid if it had happened before conception. Wasn't the point of those idea's that they were sealed when conception took place?

Nope. From Luke Chap. 1:

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, 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 God.

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;

[Obiwan]

I'm not sure it had it's "genesis" in Adam/God and this is why. This comment above--about whether Mary was sealed for only time to Joseph sparked a memory and so I went searching. Found this by Orson Pratt--Adam/God Theory's main critic, no less.

I know "The Seer" is not "accepted" in our day, but it was in earlier days in the church. If you read this, you can see that Orson Pratt is saying it was a physical union--if it wasn't a physical union, there is no need to emphasize the correctness of their "union". Similarly to BRM, Orson Pratt believed this aspect of Adam/God, though he rejected the rest.

It has fallen out of favor and as a church, we don't discuss the "mysteries" that were discussed in earlier times. I believe that is why many LDS members would have no clue this was ever a topic of members or even a possible belief. But I suspect early members most likely accepted it if their leaders were teaching it.

edited because I forgot to bold the part about sealing

As I've said over and over...... No matter what anti's (or clearly some mormons) use to make the claim that various leaders words mean "sex", I still do not see it, plain and simple. I DO clearly see how people "could" be seeing it, but to me they clearly aren't seeing "enough" or accurately.

The Father "overshadowing" Mary still in no way has to mean "sex". "Power" when it comes to the God's is not SEXUAL in nature.

By God's POWER is how the conception occured. That doesn't mean "sex" too me.

And by the way.... I've read MRM and a likely a 1000 other "versions" of anti-mormon claims that this is what LDS leaders have said, so I've read ALL the various quotes that exist likely more than a 1000 times each. Still, I see a perversion of their words, clearly used to fit a particular "template", not that that is what they are actually meaning. Christ's conception easily could have occured by an immortal higher plain God without "sex" being involved. Just to give an example, I can easily see it. The Holy Ghost comes upon Mary and then the Father "binds" his being with Mary and then Christ is concieved.

Sorry people.... But, there was no HUMPING!!! or insertion needing to be involved with an all powerful God. Which is what sex is folks.

You should all be ashamed.... Your understanding and use of such in word is EXACTLY why anti's find it all so "blasphemous".

[tana]

I have a couple of issues that I would raise as to the idea that God/Elohim and Mary were sealed together.....

First, if Mary is a created spirit child of Elohim and another wife and in essence one of "our" sisters, then it seems odd that Elohim would take a wife from one of his children, and a spirit who hadn't been through the cycle of mortality and redemption yet....

And...If Mary is a sister of Elohim and contemporary of his and went through mortality and exaltation with him on another planet earlier, and is now in essence a "God" herself, it seems odd that she would now be going through a second mortality....with a perhaps, differant body?

[kamenraider]

As I've said over and over...... No matter what anti's (or clearly some mormons) use to make the claim that various leaders words mean "sex", I still do not see it, plain and simple. I DO clearly see how people "could" be seeing it, but to me they clearly aren't seeing "enough" or accurately.

The Father "overshadowing" Mary still in no way has to mean "sex". "Power" when it comes to the God's is not SEXUAL in nature.

By God's POWER is how the conception occured. That doesn't mean "sex" too me.

And by the way.... I've read MRM and a likely a 1000 other "versions" of anti-mormon claims that this is what LDS leaders have said, so I've read ALL the various quotes that exist likely more than a 1000 times each. Still, I see a perversion of their words, clearly used to fit a particular "template", not that that is what they are actually meaning. Christ's conception easily could have occured by an immortal higher plain God without "sex" being involved. Just to give an example, I can easily see it. The Holy Ghost comes upon Mary and then the Father "binds" his being with Mary and then Christ is concieved.

Sorry people.... But, there was no HUMPING!!! or insertion needing to be involved with an all powerful God. Which is what sex is folks.

You should all be ashamed.... Your understanding and use of such in word is EXACTLY why anti's find it all so "blasphemous".

Is procreation (a.k.a. "HUMPING") a "POWER"?

Is it sacred -- even divine?

Is there any evidence that men and women, exalted or otherwise, can reproduce without s-e-x via the Holy Ghost?

[erichard]

... Your understanding and use of such in word is EXACTLY why anti's find it all so "blasphemous".

Hi Obiwan,

My thinking is that those who accept the creedal Bible understanding --lock, stock and barrel-- will definitely find such an idea blasphemous. In fact, they find the idea that Jesus was married just as blasphemous.

But those who accept the restoration revelations and teachings are no longer under the creedal fables.

Read what President Young, the close student of the Prophet Joseph, taught.

Thus you may continue and trace the human family back to Adam and Eve, and ask, are we of the same species with Adam and Eve? Yes, every person acknowledges this; this comes within the scope of our understanding.

But when we arrive at that point, a veil is dropped, and our knowledge is cut off. Were it not so, you could trace back your history to the Father of our spirits in the eternal world.

He is a being of the same species as ourselves; He lives as we do, except the difference that we are earthly, and He is heavenly.

He has been earthly, and is of precisely the same species of being that we are. Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or His Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species---of one family---and Jesus Christ is also of our species.

February 8, 1857 (JD 4:217-219)

The creeds would find this also blasphemous.

If we are truly of the same species as the finite beings united in the "One Infinite God", and they have lived in the flesh as mortals, why would Restorationists find it strange and blasphemous if they still have sexuality?

Richard

[Bernard Gui]

If we are truly of the same species as the finite beings united in the "One Infinite God", and they have lived in the flesh as mortals, why would Restorationists find it strange and blasphemous if they still have sexuality?

Absolutely! "Do those parts" fall off in the resurrection or become non-functional?

IMO the hang up here is based on some notion that the procreative

act is nasty, nasty, nasty, and that it can only be done by nasty people. Hence

the opprobrious "Divine Incest," all the references to nasty gods, and the winking

and nodding about what "physical" means.

Bernard

[consiglieri]

Sorry people.... But, there was no HUMPING!!! or insertion needing to be involved with an all powerful God. Which is what sex is folks.

You should all be ashamed.... Your understanding and use of such in word is EXACTLY why anti's find it all so "blasphemous".

You do realize Elder Melvin Ballard was speaking of you when he said:

Men who deny this, or who think that it degrades our Father, have no true conception of the sacredness of the most marvelous power with which God has endowed mortal men---the power of creation.

You are raising denial to an art form.

Ashamedly yours,

--Consiglieri

[Log]

Is procreation (a.k.a. "HUMPING") a "POWER"? Is it sacred -- even divine?Is there any evidence that men and women, exalted or otherwise, can reproduce without s-e-x via the Holy Ghost?

Even non-lawyers can benefit from Joseph Smith's teachings!

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, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 Vols. 2:317-18)

But it appears some lawyers will not...

You do realize Elder Melvin Ballard was speaking of you when he said:You are raising denial to an art form.Ashamedly yours,--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Hello!

Obi said it first!

[Log]

As I seem to recall, you were the OP!

[consiglieri]

As I seem to recall, you were the OP!

HUMPING, man!

I'm talking about the word, "HUMPING!"

Obi said HUMPING first!

[alter idem]

As I've said over and over...... No matter what anti's (or clearly some mormons) use to make the claim that various leaders words mean "sex", I still do not see it, plain and simple. I DO clearly see how people "could" be seeing it, but to me they clearly aren't seeing "enough" or accurately.

The Father "overshadowing" Mary still in no way has to mean "sex". "Power" when it comes to the God's is not SEXUAL in nature.

By God's POWER is how the conception occured. That doesn't mean "sex" too me.

Let's get one thing straight. I am not advocating this position. I'm one of those who believes a physical union was not necessary. But I refuse to ignore the clear sayings of these earlier leaders. Melvin J. Ballard was not even subtle. If you can't tell what he's talking about you are blatantly ignoring his meaning. He even was addressing people just like you, and Consig. pointed it out and I will second it;

Melvin J. Ballard: Men who deny this, or who think that it degrades our Father, have no true conception of the sacredness of the most marvelous power with which God has endowed mortal men---the power of creation.

He's talking to those like you who crudely refer to it as "humping", Obiwan. I may not think the sexual union was necessary, but I refuse to look at it as something too degrading for God to be involved in, as you are implying. Personally, I'll stick to my opinion that it was a miraculous conception but if I get to the other side and find out it involved a physical union, I won't be disgusted; hopefully, I'll be accepting.

And by the way.... I've read MRM and a likely a 1000 other "versions" of anti-mormon claims that this is what LDS leaders have said, so I've read ALL the various quotes that exist likely more than a 1000 times each. Still, I see a perversion of their words, clearly used to fit a particular "template", not that that is what they are actually meaning. Christ's conception easily could have occured by an immortal higher plain God without "sex" being involved. Just to give an example, I can easily see it. The Holy Ghost comes upon Mary and then the Father "binds" his being with Mary and then Christ is concieved.

Sorry people.... But, there was no HUMPING!!! or insertion needing to be involved with an all powerful God. Which is what sex is folks.

You should all be ashamed.... Your understanding and use of such in word is EXACTLY why anti's find it all so "blasphemous".

You are the only one using vulgar terms that I can see. With the countless examples of statements from these early leaders, I don't see how you can't SEE what they are talking about. While some are subtle, others are very clear. Taken together, they confirm these men believed it was a physical union. If you think that's blasphemous, you'll have to take it up with them on the other side. IMO, this is just another example of the divide between our modern sensitivities and way of thinking and the early leaders and their way of thinking. Once again, this was their opinion and belief and sometimes they preached it. People were free to reject or accept it. You and I are FREE to reject their belief, but I do not believe we are being honest if we deny they held it.