Bruce R. Mcconkie Believed The Adam-god Theory!

[Log]

HUMPING, man!

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

Obi said HUMPING first!

I find it hard to believe - in fact, literally incredible - that you (or kamenraider, or AI) don't get what has offended Obi - that you guys are preaching that God had physical sex with Mary.

Your citation of MJB is also out of context.

So, let me repeat Joseph Smith:

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)

Not everything that is true, is useful.

Let him with ears to hear, hear.

[alter idem]

I find it hard to believe - in fact, literally incredible - that you (or kamenraider, or AI) don't get what has offended Obi - that you guys are preaching that God had physical sex with Mary.

Your citation of MJB is also out of context.

No, it's not out of context. I'm not sure why you would make this statement.

I "get" what has offended Obiwan, but I also believe he's misplacing his "offense" on to those on the board who are providing the references. I'm not "preaching" anything--as I already said, I don't agree with their position--but just because I disagree, I won't insist it wasn't their belief, because the quotes speak for themselves.

Obiwan strongly denied that this concept was ever taught, and just what's been provided on this thread supports the claim that it was--and there's more evidence as well, but I think the point has been made sufficiently.

Not everything that is true, is useful.

Let him with ears to hear, hear.

So, we are to ignore "truth" because it's not useful? Maybe, but I don't think that means we should promote falsehoods in order to protect us from truth. One reason I come to this board is because I want to know truth--and to me, it doesn't have to be useful to be valuable.

Controversial topics like this may be one of the reasons why this board is not for everyone.

[Log]

[Extended reply deleted. If you hear not Joseph, neither the living prophets, my words will do nothing.]

[blackstrap]

those who are having so much fun with the virgin birth might want to step back and deal with the immaculate conception.

It seems that the ark of the covenant has been found and a sample of Christ's blood taken and analyzed.Apparently it has only 24 chromosomes,23 from Mary and 1- the Y chromosome - from God ( see anchorstone.com) .The fringes are really flying!

Obiwan,you have now crossed the line. I will never think of the Hymn " Onward Christian Soldiers " in the same way again.

[CMZ]

<sarcasm>One thing I am sure of after reading through this thread is that if SilverKnight says sex is just some crude thing that baboons engage in and when humans engage in it it can't mean anything more to them than what it means to the baboons then that idea must be true.</sarcasm>

I have a theory, which is still only a theory but ample evidence has been supplied for it here in this thread, that everyone thinks sex is bad and that it could never be anything but bad. People act like that on this board all the time.

In my reading of the Journal of Discourses I recently came across this quote:

"Before I sit down let me say, my friends, that those in this community who have married more wives than one have done so from pure motives. But some people cannot comprehend that. This generation is so corrupt and so licentious that some cannot understand how a man can marry one wife from pure motives."

- Charles W. Penrose, JD 22:96

President Penrose was so right about that. It's hard for people, in and out of the Church, to see that sexual relations can be a pure thing. Even members of this board have been infected with this type of thinking. Notice the anti-polygamy brigade here who are sure polygamy could never be lived by a man with pure motives, or if a few men did it a long time ago it certainly couldn't be done now or in the future. But forget polygamy; people like SilverKnight and others are sure sex, even monogamous sex, could never rise above that of a crude, animalistic act. This type of thinking colors our thoughts about related issues and negatively affects our actions in many different ways.

I'm not even addressing the virgin birth issue here directly. President Packer came to my mission and when asked about it he replied, "The subject is too sacred. Drop it." Dragging it out for discussion in an Internet forum may not be a wise course. Nobody's going to score brownie points by bantering/arguing about it. I will say, as a general statement, that we don't need to force the Gospel to fit modern day politically correct sensibilities.

[kamenraider]

those who are having so much fun with the virgin birth might want to step back and deal with the immaculate conception.

It seems that the ark of the covenant has been found and a sample of Christ's blood taken and analyzed.Apparently it has only 24 chromosomes,23 from Mary and 1- the Y chromosome - from God ( see anchorstone.com) .The fringes are really flying!

Obiwan,you have now crossed the line. I will never think of the Hymn " Onward Christian Soldiers " in the same way again.

I'll tell you why I think that Ron Wyatt was full of baloney about that -- if Jesus had 23 chromosomes from Mary, that would mean that his physical characteristics would be determined entirely by Mary's chromosomes. Yet Jesus is the "express image" (see Hebrews 1:3, John 14:7-9) of His Father's person:

The express image of his person. What more need be said? God the Eternal Father is the Father; the Son of God is the Son. A father is a father, and a son is a son. The Father begets; the Son is begotten; they are Parent and Child; Sire and Son look alike, so much so that they are the express image of each other's persons. The substance composing the body of one is identical in appearance to that composing the body of the other. What could be plainer? . . . Begotten. Begotten means begotten; it means Christ's mortal body was procreated by an Eternal Sire; it means God is the Father of Christ, 'after the manner of the flesh.'

--Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 3:138-141.

[blackstrap]

What does one need to "clone" something?? Can someone knowledgeable in the field inform me ?

I take the Wyatt works with a large grain of salt but he does make some very interesting claims about Golgotha etc. Too bad he died without further enlightening us. His surviving organization has tribalized somewhat.

[ERMD]

Consig:

How do you think the Lord's conception was effected?

[consiglieri]

[Extended reply deleted. If you hear not Joseph, neither the living prophets, my words will do nothing.]

Which words am I not hearing?

It seems I am the one hearing their words. Others are busy doing everything they can to not hear them, including sticking fingers in ears and loudly singing silly songs.

Did you post some of their words saying that God did not have physical relations with Mary?

Maybe I missed them . . .

[consiglieri]

Consig:

How do you think the Lord's conception was effected?

I would say that alter idem is my alter ego on this issue.

It is not something I even have an opinion on.

What is more interesting to me is the fact that it was taught by LDS Church leaders as recently as President Benson's 1983 pamphlet, referenced above.

It is becoming more interesting as I realize there are LDS who deny this has ever been taught.

I think we can learn a great deal from it, however, if only to see how traditions have a way of insinuating themselves even into the restored gospel.

Step One--The initial phase of this teaching was as a response to what others believed. So often, this is how traditions begin. It was perceived that other Christians taught the Holy Ghost conceived Jesus and, since Mormons believed the Holy Ghost and the Father to be separate and distinct beings, the LDS response to this was to claim that the Holy Ghost was NOT the father of Jesus, but it was God the Father; and to proclaim it vehemently.

Step Two--If the Holy Ghost had been the father of Jesus, it would have to have been accomplished by some means other than physical relations. But if it is the Father who is the father of Jesus, and because Mormons believe the Father to have a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's, it came to be understood that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary.

Step Three--This was augmented by the fact that Mormons believe in sexual relations in heaven. Seeing themselves as being married for eternity as a necessary part of procreating as the gods, they naturally saw Heavenly Father as procreating to form the spirit children for this earth.

Step Four--Because they could already envision Heavenly Father as procreating spirit children, I think it was a small step for Mormons to envision Heavenly Father as using the same process to create the physical body of Jesus Christ.

Step Five--This understanding was circumscribed by the fact that nobody at the time knew of any other way for procreation to occur. In other words, if Brigham Young had lived in a day when in vitro fertilization was known, he likely would not have been so adamant that the conception of Jesus was accomplished by physical relations. In an age that knows of in vitro fertilization, it is easy to say that if man can artificially inseminate a "virgin," why could not God?

Step Six--Because the physical relation theory had gained traction, it was deemed necessary to have it accomplished in a way that neither God nor Mary were violating other commandments, such as the Law of Chastity; hence it was taught that God was sealed to Mary, but married for time only to Joseph.

Step Seven--These teachings, because not directly espoused in scripture, and because they dealt with matters beyond the knowledge of the average member, came to be enshrouded with an aura of "sacredness," which equated to "secrecy." (See Boyd K. Packer's comment above.)

Step Eight--Because these teachings were not thought to be sacred, they came to be spoken of in an oblique manner, such that those who already understood the "truth" would understand what was being taught, whereas those who did not understand the "truth" would not be able to comprehend it. (See Obiwan's comments above.)

This is an excellent example of what Joseph Smith taught; that if you start right, it is an easy matter to stay right; but that if you start wrong, it is a hard matter to get right again.

My experience has been that a sure sign of an incorrect doctrine is usually the necessity of creating other "doctrines" to explain it; and usually the doctrines continue to get more and more unusual the further they get from the initial wrong "doctrine."

The teaching that God was sealed to Mary for time and eternity seems to fit the bill in this regard.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[alter idem]

I would say that alter idem is my alter ego on this issue.

It is not something I even have an opinion on.

I agree with you; after all this discussion and even the reading I've done, I'm not swayed for or against this belief. I'm not as shocked by the suggestion as I was the first time I heard it--but I haven't felt that in our day of modern scientific techniques, they were able to make their case for actual physical relations. As you said, early leaders didn't know about in-vitro fertilization or any of the treatments and techniques we have today.

To me, what's important is the point they were trying to make. They wanted to make certain that members understood that Jesus Christ is the LITERAL begotten son of God. Second, they were trying to refute the incorrect notion that the Holy Ghost was his father.

So, I get the point, I understand what was important for me to comprehend--and that's what we need to take away from their comments.

I'm sorry if the discussion upset some posters, especially if it caused anyone discomfort in regards to their faith. But for me personally, I'm glad you brought this up. It has been a positive, enlightening experience for me. I think I have a better understanding of this and more gratitude for the early leaders--especially because they had what they felt was an important "message" which they meant to convey, and it got through to me. It strengthened my faith in Jesus Christ and in the love God the Father has for us, his children.

I also think you did a nice job of summing it up. Thank you.

[consiglieri]

I think the truth of the restored gospel will stand up to scrutiny.

We do not have to deny what is, nor do we have to come up with creative arguments to explain away that which surely exists.

I continue to believe, as alter idem has so eloquently expressed, that it is the truth that will set us free.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Obiwan]

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

You are raising denial to an art form.

Ashamedly yours,

--Consiglieri

Not at all.... And that's what anti's say about MOST mormons who deny this. So, why do you want to take their tack?

Further, I fully agree with Ballard's statement. Thing is, is I don't take your perversion of our leaders words as being what they are saying.

You all see "sex", I see power and fatherhood.

Sorry, but your in denial.

I'm not going to deny that maybe someone in Church leadership has believed this, but the thing is is we don't know. It's like the Adam/God theory, people have to strain his few mentions out of context ignoring all his other statements on the subject matter to believe the anti version of Adam/God. Your doing likewise in my view here.

The fact of the matter is, is almost NO LDS see their words the "way" your seeing them.

I've been combating anti-mormons on this issue for years, it's one of my most hated of their claims, and almost no LDS have in interpreted their words your way, but anti's do. How long have you studied this?

[consiglieri]

The fact of the matter is, is almost NO LDS see their words the "way" your seeing them.

I've been combating anti-mormons on this issue for years, it's one of my most hated of their claims, and almost no LDS have in interpreted their words your way, but anti's do. How long have you studied this?

It appears that, at least so far as this thread is concerned, there are actually more Mormons who understand this to be the teaching of LDS leaders and/or who have encountered this teaching while members of the Mormon Church. I have provisionally identified the following. Can you come up with more posters on this thread who see it your way?

1. SilverKnight

2. Alter idem

3. Thinking

4. Senator

5. Mark Beesley

6. BC Space (provisionally)

7. The Monk (the Monk, the Monk)

8. Structurecop

9. emeliza

10. kamenraider

11. consiglieri

I think this understanding is more prevalent than you might suppose.

And just because anti-Mormons hold the same opinion does not make them incorrect.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[kamenraider]

I would say that alter idem is my alter ego on this issue.

It is not something I even have an opinion on.

Your last two sentences below seem to suggest otherwise.

Step Six--Because the physical relation theory had gained traction, it was deemed necessary to have it accomplished in a way that neither God nor Mary were violating other commandments, such as the Law of Chastity; hence it was taught that God was sealed to Mary, but married for time only to Joseph.

...

My experience has been that a sure sign of an incorrect doctrine is usually the necessity of creating other "doctrines" to explain it; and usually the doctrines continue to get more and more unusual the further they get from the initial wrong "doctrine."

The teaching that God was sealed to Mary for time and eternity seems to fit the bill in this regard.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

How does this explain Joseph Smith having taught that God was sealed to Mary before Brigham ever taught that the Holy Ghost was not the father of Jesus?

[consiglieri]

How does this explain Joseph Smith having taught that God was sealed to Mary before Brigham ever taught that the Holy Ghost was not the father of Jesus?

The evidence you produced in this regard is not persuasive to me.

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.

I believe it was not an unprecedent occurrence for LDS to "remember" things taught by Joseph Smith at a much later date in order to support new doctrines and practices within the Church.

I place in this category Oliver Huntington's infamous "moon-men" quote.

Here we have a Relief Society counselor in 1886, 44-years after Joseph Smith's death, relating something that Joseph Smith allegedly said to somebody else "in conversation." At best, she is relating what her brother, Lafayette Granger, allegedly told her.

Making this more problematic is that, by 1886, Brigham Young had long-since introduced this teaching, and what would be more natural than to produce "support" for this doctrine by placing it in the mouth of Joseph Smith? (I believe this may give us insight into the production of the New Testament, as well.)

While I do not reject the possibility that such a conversation did occur, the fact that there are no writings of Joseph Smith, nor any contemporaneously recorded utterances of Joseph Smith, on this issue causes me to be highly skeptical of its ever having been said.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Obiwan]

It appears that, at least so far as this thread is concerned, there are actually more Mormons who understand this to be the teaching of LDS leaders and/or who have encountered this teaching while members of the Mormon Church. I have provisionally identified the following. Can you come up with more posters on this thread who see it your way?

1. SilverKnight

2. Alter idem

3. Thinking

4. Senator

5. Mark Beesley

6. BC Space (provisionally)

7. The Monk (the Monk, the Monk)

8. Structurecop

9. emeliza

10. kamenraider

11. consiglieri

I think this understanding is more prevalent than you might suppose.

And just because anti-Mormons hold the same opinion does not make them incorrect.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I will admit that I'm VERY SURPRISED the "number" of LDS who seem to support this and have posted in this thread, because it goes against my experience of other LDS who aren't familiar with the issue but especially in this case those who are for the last 20 years.

My response would be simply two fold either or or combination of both.

1. This is simply a twilight zone moment in which the LDS ideological fringe have posted in this thread (note I see that several actually are), and thus we don't really have a good representation.

2. Some simply aren't as well read into these LDS leaders words and the anti's claims therefrom, so they are doing as anti's do by doing a "cursury" reading of the words.

3. Some of your list are simply stating "possible", not really knowing either way.

Anyway, I'll take my experience of reading all the past LDS statements on this subject more than a 1000 times, and my experience all over the web and the church any day over what's contained in this thread or any other's you may create.

I've found anyway that the web seems to bring out both the best and the worst in all respects and from all sides of an issue, not alway's the "average mainstream".

So, you can feel like you have your buddy's on this if you want, but, I've been on this subject for about 20 years regularily, even weekly since the web, so...... Take what you will.

Also, I don't think sex is "dirty" either, so don't try to take that cop-out with the "reason" why I don't see your view.

[consiglieri]

None is so blind as he who will not see.

--Daredevil's favorite quote

[Obiwan]

None is so blind as he who will not see.

--Daredevil's favorite quote

Aren't you precious.... Like I've never seen anti's or liberals use that before. Really, is that the best you can do?

I ask you again, how much and how long have you actually dealt with this particular issue, studying it over and over?

Again, it's easy to see how you can see what you see, I can see it too if I remain "blind" to the whole subject and nuances thereof, but that doesn't mean they are actually saying "sex" when you look deeper. It's exactly the same with the supposed "Adam/God". People are not understanding the context and meaning of his words, so they take a "literal" interpretation of them, ignoring everything else on the subject, what he taught and especially what he likely was meaning.

[consiglieri]

You act as if you have studied this matter ("over and over") to a greater extent than anybody else on this board who agrees with me, and that by dint thereof, you are in a position to tell us the "true" meaning of all these statements; a "true"meaning which, by the way, ignores the plain implication of the words.

You acted (originally) as if I were the only one to hold such a "fringe nut" view, but upon discovering the large number of LDS posters on this thread alone who agreed with me, you discovered you were wrong, and are scrambling to look for ways to explain that away . . . the same way you scramble to look for ways to avoid the obvious implications of the LDS teachings under discussion.

You act as if this is a wilfull misunderstanding of innocuous teachings of some LDS leaders which has been foisted upon the Church by critics, when in actuality it is a teaching that originated within the LDS Church. In other words, the concept didn't come from the outside in, but from the inside out.

You make the same mistake with statements of Brigham Young regarding Adam-God; being so agenda driven in your reading that you will do anything necessary to avoid the plain meaning of the words.

My suggestion is that this is not solid ground on which to make a stand.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Senator]

I've been on this subject for about 20 years regularily, even weekly since the web, so......

Obi,

You gotta get a new hobby, man!

[consiglieri]

Don't you have a vote you need to be tending to, Senator?

[Senator]

Don't you have a vote you need to be tending to, Senator?

Just taking time out for a stiff drink. It puts me in the proper(and typical) state of mind for such votes.

[Obiwan]

You act as if you have studied this matter ("over and over") to a greater extent than anybody else on this board who agrees with me, and that by dint thereof, you are in a position to tell us the "true" meaning of all these statements; a "true"meaning which, by the way, ignores the plain implication of the words.

You acted (originally) as if I were the only one to hold such a "fringe nut" view, but upon discovering the large number of LDS posters on this thread alone who agreed with me, you discovered you were wrong, and are scrambling to look for ways to explain that away . . . the same way you scramble to look for ways to avoid the obvious implications of the LDS teachings under discussion.

You act as if this is a wilfull misunderstanding of innocuous teachings of some LDS leaders which has been foisted upon the Church by critics, when in actuality it is a teaching that originated within the LDS Church. In other words, the concept didn't come from the outside in, but from the inside out.

You make the same mistake with statements of Brigham Young regarding Adam-God; being so agenda driven in your reading that you will do anything necessary to avoid the plain meaning of the words.

My suggestion is that this is not solid ground on which to make a stand.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consig.... Clearly we aren't going to agree. But, I can only be truthful to you here. I've participated in likely well over 2000 internet discussions on this subject alone, not to mention what has occured outside of that medium. Yes, there has been the "rare" online LDS who believe their words the way you and other's on this thread has, but I can tell you right now, LDS as a general rule simply do not come even close to interpreting their words like some in this thread has. You can feel proud and superior that this one thread validates your view, but you wrong in it, pure and simple. At least 99.9% of the Church who has ever studied this issue simply do not take your view.

Clearly, all the stars have aligned for you, and that's unfortunate. It's also quite telling that you support the anti version of Adam/God. Very very unfortunate. Do you also consider Joseph a Pedofile or having uttered "false prophecy's"? Cause, those issues also have their "drive by" proponents.

Anyway, good luck....

[consiglieri]

The only thing I would hope is that you might not be so fast and loose in the future with a 99.9% figure that actually bears no resemblance to reality. This thread demonstrates the true figure would be less than 50% who hold your view.

(Either that, or I have a lot of sock-puppets!)

Or that, perhaps, you would not broadcast that Mormons who disagree with you do so only because they have not studied the issue sufficiently.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri