Did Yahweh Procreate Cain with Eve?

[David Bokovoy]

I'm sure this was Mac and he's correct. The literal meaning of Genesis 4:1 is "I have procreated a man with Yahweh." I discuss the matter in my dissertation which discusses the connection between God's sexuality and the divine council, but I don't remember doing so on a message board.

[Doctor Steuss]

Actually you have in a roundabout way - he's a Mormon poster on this board.

Oi vey.

I just visited the thread in question. Do you really think that this is what he personally believes (sans what the text potentially says in its original form)?

I know this must be very confusing, but not everyone in the world practices Bibliolatry. Sometimes they can believe the Bible says something without believing that thing to be the unadulterated truth of all things ever uttered in heaven or on earth. Promise.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually you have in a roundabout way - he's a Mormon poster on this board.

Does unsaid mormon actually beleive it? Or does unsaid mormon, is he looking at what was written down in the hebrew and giving an interpretaion?

[Catherine Aurelia]

The problem with CARMites is that they have no concept of textual criticism or cultural context. Maklelan is an academic who is pursuing his education at Oxford. He has a degree in Hebrew. He reads the text for what it says. The premise of your original post is flawed.

This is all he said. That is it. He didn't mention Mormonism at all. He merely stated what the original language of the text says.

Too bad he didn't say a thing about Mormonism.

This is what he said as well. He never mentions Mormonism.

It has nothing to do with Mormon teaching. He is approaching the text as an academic, not as a Mormon trying to make everything fit Mormonism. If CARMites were pursuing actual scholarship and intellectual honesty, they would follow this pattern. Unfortunately for them, they are more worried with trying to make the Bible fit every aspect of their religious biases and not fit Mormonism.

Maklelan was not teaching Mormon doctrine in his assessment of Gen. 4. Maklelan was reading the text for what it says. All his opponent could say is "This sounds funny" and quote Bill McKeever (who we all know is real scholarly...).

I suggest reading these:

http://maklelan.blog...r-qoneh-as.html

http://maklelan.blog...an-creator.html

I never said that it was official Mormon doctrine he was teaching. However, when a person comes to a Christian site claiming to be a Mormon scholar, what are people to think? I came here to make sure it WASN'T Mormon doctrine - and apparently, those who have responded have declared emphatically that it is not. If I were you, I'd caution all your "scholars" to explain what they mean, especially when they are clearly stating that YHWH had sexual relations with Eve. What if a Christian had come here and said such a thing?

By the way, the Bill McKeever teaching clearly refutes any contention that "elohim" always refers to gods, and can never be used in a metaphorical sense - of course in Psalm 82, the "gods" referred to are wicked and are mortal - obviously not "gods" or "exalted humans" even in a Mormon sense. An appeal to this Psalm to prove polytheism is easily refuted, even by those who don't have all the scholarly qualilfications claimed by some Mormons.

However, this was not the thread I was referring to. The thread dealing with Genesis 4 solely is the point of reference for this thread.

[David Bokovoy]

Oi vey.

I just visited the thread in question (and I kind of feel like I need a shower...). Do you really think that this is what he personally believes (sans what the text potentially says in its original form)?

I know this must be very confusing, but not everyone in the world practices Bibliolatry. Sometimes they can believe the Bible says something without believing that thing to be the unadulterated truth of all things ever uttered in heaven or on earth. Promise.

Mac is one sharp cookie.

[Doctor Steuss]

Mac is one sharp cookie.

I hear that he smells nice too.

[Catherine Aurelia]

Mac is one sharp cookie.

So are many people. However, "sharpness" does not necessarily equate with "truth." The Pharisees, for instance, knew Mosaic law like the backs of their hands. John Spong is one of the most educated clerics in Anglicanism (and they are very educated). Have you read his books - especially those denying the Deity of Christ, and the Existence of a personal God?

So, would you agree then that Cain was fathered biologically by Yahweh (Jesus)?

[thesometimesaint]

NO. LDS Theology is that Cain is the mortal child of Adam and Eve.

[David Bokovoy]

So are many people. However, "sharpness" does not necessarily equate with "truth." The Pharisees, for instance, knew Mosaic law like the backs of their hands. John Spong is one of the most educated clerics in Anglicanism (and they are very educated). Have you read his books - especially those denying the Deity of Christ, and the Existence of God?

So, would you agree then that Cain was fathered biologically by Yahweh (Jesus)?

I haven't read the thread, but Mac knows what he's talking about. All I can say is again, Mac is correct that the passage literally states that Yahweh procreated a child with Eve. This is clearly an intentional play upon traditions in the Bible and the ancient Near East where gods produce offspring sexually with mortal woman. It's just a play on themes, however, for as has been mentioned in this thread, the verse itself identifies Adam as the biological father of Cain.

[Catherine Aurelia]

NO. LDS Theology is that Cain is the mortal child of Adam and Eve.

Of course, I totally agree. Simply pointing out what one Mormon "scholar" declared on a Christian site, and came here to ask if it was Mormon doctrine (or some personal strange belief). I think I have my answer. Have a nice day.

[WalkerW]

Wow. This is my dissertation topic! But I don't remember discussing the issue on a website. It must be Mac, he's a lunatic.

What? The procreative powers of Yahweh?

I want a copy when you decide to finally finish it.

[WalkerW]

Well at least he didn't quote Wikipedia.

True, but I think that is where McKeever gets a lot of his info...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I never said that it was official Mormon doctrine he was teaching. However, when a person comes to a Christian site claiming to be a Mormon scholar, what are people to think? I came here to make sure it WASN'T Mormon doctrine - and apparently, those who have responded have declared emphatically that it is not. If I were you, I'd caution all your "scholars" to explain what they mean, especially when they are clearly stating that YHWH had sexual relations with Eve. What if a Christian had come here and said such a thing?

Would it count if a Christian went to your board and said what he said? You do realise that this is exaclty what happened. You do realise that Mormons are Christians.

[WalkerW]

Of course, I totally agree. Simply pointing out what one Mormon "scholar" declared on a Christian site, and came here to ask if it was Mormon doctrine (or some personal strange belief). I think I have my answer. Have a nice day.

It isn't a "personal strange belief." It is what the text says. I don't recall Maklelan saying he believes Yahweh impregnated Eve.

[WalkerW]

I never said that it was official Mormon doctrine he was teaching.

When did I say anything about "official Mormon doctrine?"

However, when a person comes to a Christian site claiming to be a Mormon scholar, what are people to think?

They need to read more carefully. Maklelan stated many times that he wasn't preaching Mormonism. He was merely approaching what the text says and refuting those who attempt to interpret it based solely on theological biases.

If I were you, I'd caution all your "scholars" to explain what they mean, especially when they are clearly stating that YHWH had sexual relations with Eve.

He did. Many times. I'd caution you to read more carefully and quit being a bible literalist. And Maklelan isn't a "scholar." He is, in fact, a scholar. Something your CARMite friends are not.

By the way, the Bill McKeever teaching clearly refutes any contention that "elohim" always refers to gods, and can never be used in a metaphorical sense - of course in Psalm 82, the "gods" referred to are wicked and are mortal - obviously not "gods" or "exalted humans" even in a Mormon sense.

McKeever's scholarship doesn't amount to much. Makelan addressed this as well. I'm sorry if MRM is your "scholarly" source.

An appeal to this Psalm to prove polytheism is easily refuted, even by those who don't have all the scholarly qualilfications claimed by some Mormons.

No, it isn't. Maklelan provided many sources and reasons which have not been refuted. You and your CARMite friends don't have the first clue what you are talking about.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

By the way, the Bill McKeever teaching clearly refutes any contention that "elohim" always refers to gods, and can never be used in a metaphorical sense - of course in Psalm 82, the "gods" referred to are wicked and are mortal - obviously not "gods" or "exalted humans" even in a Mormon sense. An appeal to this Psalm to prove polytheism is easily refuted, even by those who don't have all the scholarly qualilfications claimed by some Mormons.

However, this was not the thread I was referring to. The thread dealing with Genesis 4 solely is the point of reference for this thread.

I almost missed. Bill McKeever's "teaching" is a joke. He makes some very fatal flaws in his appraoch and Mak demolished his arguements. It was almost laughable.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

He did. Many times. I'd caution you to read more carefully and quit being a bible literalist. And Maklelan isn't a "scholar." He is, in fact, a scholar. Something your CARMite friends are not.

McKeever's scholarship doesn't amount to much. Makelan addressed this as well. I'm sorry if MRM is your "scholarly" source.

No, it isn't. Maklelan provided many sources and reasons which have not been refuted. You and your CARMite friends don't have the first clue what you are talking about.

I see, you beat me to this. Mak did a grear job and I enjoyed his comments.

[Doctor Steuss]

Of course, I totally agree. Simply pointing out what one Mormon "scholar" declared on a Christian site, and came here to ask if it was Mormon doctrine (or some personal strange belief). I think I have my answer. Have a nice day.

Come now, Catherine, now you're just being plain silly.

(Seriously, what's up with putting "scholar" in quotes?)

[Vance]

An appeal to this Psalm to prove polytheism is easily refuted, even by those who don't have all the scholarly qualilfications claimed by some Mormons.

WOW!! Another Anti-Mormon kool-aid drinker.

[Doctor Steuss]

WOW!! Another Anti-Mormon kool-aid drinker.

[Off topic inconsequential personal taste rant]

I'm really not a fan of the use of that phrase as a derision (bolded). I think it

[Calm]

[Off topic inconsequential personal taste rant]

I'm really not a fan of the use of that phrase as a derision (bolded). I think it

[David Bokovoy]

[Off topic inconsequential personal taste rant]

You unpatriotic rotten doctor commie rat!

[jkfrost]

"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."JOD Young (1852, p. 51).

So who was this character?

was Adam the Father of Jesus?

Therein lies one big misunderstanding

The real question is who was in the garden?

I have seen other quotes that would lead someone to misunderstand BY on this.

"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."

(JoD 4:215, Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, February 8, 1857)

His point ??? we are the same species.

[Flyonthewall]

Please don't be too harsh on Catherine, after all, she did attempt to verify whether or not this was actually LDS beleif. Isn't this what we would hope would happen rather than taking it and attributing it to our set of beliefs?

[Daniel Peterson]

On another discussion site, a Mormon has stated that Genesis 4 teaches that Yahweh and Eve had the child, Cain, through procreation. If Mormonism's contention that Jehovah (Yahweh) is Jesus, this would mean that Jesus engaged in sexual procreation with his spirit sister, Eve. This Mormon contends that the Hebrew word "qanah" in the verse denotes sexual procreation, and that the translators know this but have chosen to translate the word another way to avoid what the verse actually says (Yahweh is the biological father of the murderer, Cain).

I would like to know which Mormons here agree with this view and is it an official view of Mormonism? If so, why is it kept secret?

I have absolutely no idea. Evidently it's been kept secret from me, as I've never before heard of any such concept.