That's Disgusting!

Newsgroup: alt.religion.mormon
Subject: Re: Did God have sex with Mary?
Date: 11 May 1998 04:15:09 GMT

Actually, we do not believe such a hideous and disgusting thing. It is one of things that the enemies of the church go around telling others. It has great sensationalistic value for them.

Various leaders of the church have made statements concerning
<snipped>
and there are those that will take these statements out of context in an attempt to promote the heinous doctrine that you have mentioned. We do not believe this, we do not teach this, and we consider it to be very offensive, if not downright disgusting, when we hear others saying that we believe it.

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 12:51:27 -0400
From: Matthew L Reed EMBERTS@compuserve.com

The comments I posted to the NG are incomplete and fail to accurately and completely describe my position and beliefs with respect to the God/Mary/Sex theory. What I said is true, but does not describe my feelings towards the writings of the early days of the church which spawned the God/Mary/Sex theory. I question the conclusions that we deny the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. We do not, but we interpret them differently. To post my remarks with your conclusions would make it seem as if I were ignorant of the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I am not, I merely interpret them differently. If you would include this with my original remarks, then you may post them on your web site.

Some people beleive that, based on these writings, JS, BY and others taught that God had sex with mary. I and most LDS do not believe this. We believe, based on these writings, that the conception of Jesus was a natural event, as natural as the conception of any other child. Please note that 'natural'
does not mean 'intercourse'. Mary was impregnated by God the Father, but NOT by physical intercourse. Mary was impregnated just like any other woman is impregnated, that is, by an egg somehow being fertilized, NOT necessarily by intercourse. Today, we have the technology to impregnate a virgin woman. She may become pregnant and bear a child, and still be a virgin. Certainly God can do no less!!

We do not know exactly how this impregnation happened. No one has ever written specifics as to exactly what happened. There are many writings about the event, and some of these writings allude to it being a natural event, etc., but these writings do NOT say God has sex with Mary. This is the interpretation of those who oppose the LDS church and make such claims for their sensationlistic value, not for their thruthfullness and accuracy.

We do not ignore the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others, we merely interpret them differently.

The problem with the old writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others is that 1) Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are not around to ask what they meant, and they are intrepreted differently by different people 2) some of the writings are of questionable authenticity and accuracy 3) some of the writings are second or third hand writings. Note that Brigham Young did not write the Journal of Discourses, it is a volume of second hand and third hand writings.

Take the Adam-God theory for example. Brigham Young made statements about Adam being the only God with whom we had to deal with. There are many who take these and similar statements and use them to support the position that Brigham Young taught that Adam is God the Father. Yet, if anyone takes the time to study Brigham Youngs works in detail, they will find that Brigham Young taught again and again that Adam was NOT God the Father. These few cryptic statements contradict 99.99% of Brigham Youngs teachings.

So what does it mean? Brigham taught many things, and now we find a small part of his teachings seem to contradict the majority of his teachings. We don't know what he meant, Brigham Young is not around to ask, so we can only guess.

And thus it is with many writings of BY, JS and many others. They are not around to explain, the writings are not always first hand and in some cases their authenticity and accuracy may be questionable. And, with few exceptions, they are NOT scritpure. They are sometimes not specific, and are interpreted differently by others.

For this reason, most LDS do not give a high priority to non-scriptural writings of the earlier days of the church The only sure sources of knowledge and direction are 1) The Lord 2)The living prophet 3) The GAs 4) The scriptures and 5) other misc. writings and works.

PS As usual, the above is Matthews ideas, and are not necessarily the views and opinions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Matthew:
Would you mind if I published your comments on my web site at The Absalom Collection ? I have often said that what you wrote is typical of what members of the LDS church say, but I have never actually heard someone say it so clearly. To be fair to you, I should warn you that I will use it as an example of how LDS people deny the teachings
of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

Actually, we do not believe such a hideous and disgusting thing.	Many Mormons, myself included do believe these currently out of favor doctrines. We find that the scriptures support us in our beliefs. We have been taught these doctrines (God-Adam, God has a physical body and used it to impregnate Mary, God was once a Man) for a hundred years in primary, in sacrament meetings, in seminary and institue, and they are a sacred an holy part of our religion. How anyone could call these sacred time honored doctrines to be hideous and disgusting is beyond comprehension.
It is one of things that the enemies of the church go around telling others. It has great sensationalistic value for them.	No offense intended to my Christian friends, but to put it in terms a Mormon can relate to. It has great sensationalistic value for the mainstream Christians, who are so overly influenced by the apostate Christian creeds, which have perverted the understanding that the early church fathers had about how Christ was conceived. It also is troublesome to the converts of the church who come out of these fallen Christian creeds.
Various leaders of the church have made statements concerning the conception of Jesus,	Very clear and detailed statements that leave no room to question what they actually were teaching that God and Mary had physical sex.
and there are those that will take these statements out of context	If it were one isolated statement, one could get away with saying they were taken out of context, but there are so many statements, and they have been taught for so many years, by so many people, that it cannot possibly be a case of misrepresenting Mormon Doctrine. It has only been since about 1970 that the LDS church has been actively seeking to supress this understanding. Guess it would be OK to say that LDS do not believe this but Mormons do.
in an attempt to promote the heinous doctrine that you have mentioned.	What is henious about it? I am truly puzzled!!! How could anyone call such a sacred holy thing henious? Must be overly influenced by victorian protestantism.
We do not believe this,	Many of us do believe it.
we do not teach this,	Many of us do teach it.
and we consider it to be very offensive, if not downright disgusting, when we here others saying that we believe it.	Sorry that you are offended by Mormonism. People should check into it a little more before converting, and changing the Mormon church to be just like their old brand of Christianity. Too bad so many converts have to join us and then immediately go to work turning us into just another Methodist, or Baptist, or Catholic church. <Great big sigh>
There are a lot of lies like this circulating about the LDS. When someone tells you that the LDS believe this or that, be sure to consider the source.	Yea. Don't ask a Mormon convert with an agenda of converting the church into just another Methodist sect...

How LDS Deny the Teachings of Joseph and Brigham