Posts
Sons of God Smackdown
Elder Mark E. Petersen, formerly of the Quorum of the Twelve, published a book in 1982 titled Noah and the Flood. In the sixth chapter, "Sons of God," Elder Petersen argued against ancient Jewish and Christian legends of sexual relationships between humans and heavenly beings. Toward the end of the chapter he pivoted and attacked the idea that humans are physically the children of God. Although there is more, I'll just quote the first and last paragraphs.
Certain persons try to use Luke 3:38 to sustain their mistaken point. The King James Version reads: "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:38.) But when the Prophet Joseph revised the scriptures, he changed that and made it read: "And of Enos, and of Seth, and of Adam, who was formed of God, and the first man upon the earth." (JST, Luke 3:45.) This harmonizes with the Genesis doctrine and other references to the origin of Adam....Certain persons? I wonder if he had in mind his junior quorum member, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, who wrote the following in Mormon Doctrine under the heading, "Son of God":
Of course, any who suppose that God had children in the flesh, as suggested by the false worldly theories, would do well to remember that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Only Begotten Son of God, as is repeated so often in the scripture. That alone should settle the matter.
Father Adam, the first man, is also a son of God (Luke 3:38; Moses 6:22, 59), a fact that does not change the great truth that Christ is the Only Begotten in the flesh[*], for Adam's entrance into this world was in immortality. He came here before death had its beginning, with its consequent mortal or flesh-status of existence.This is doubly interesting in light of the fact that Elder Petersen was assigned to thoroughly review Mormon Doctrine when it was first published. (Elder McConkie was a Seventy at the time.) He generated a lengthy list of corrections that played at least a partial role in President David O. McKay's decision that the book should not be further published. (Obviously that decision didn't stick.) I don't know if Elder Petersen's list of corrections exists anywhere, but it sure would be interesting to know if the Mormon Doctrine entry was among them.
It may be that this is mostly coincidence. I think it's more likely that Elder Petersen developed this argument as a polemic against Adam-God, which he addressed in his November 1980 General Conference talk, Adam, the Archangel, rather than as a response to Elder McConkie. But either way the end result is the same: two opposite interpretations of scripture and views on the creation of Adam.
This is all mostly of passing interest. However, there are some people who not only believe Elder McConkie's position, but also seem to think that acceptance of it is a mark of spiritual insight and faithfulness to the plain meaning of scripture. So if you find yourself in disagreement with Elder McConkie on this point, you've got good company in Elder Petersen.
*Fun fact: The phrase 'Only Begotten in the flesh' does not exist in the scriptures.
15 comments:
I really enjoyed this. Thanks. And oh to see that list of proposed corrections! :-)
"there are some people who not only believe Elder McConkie's position..."
=:)
Are you aware of anybody else that tried to make "flesh-status of existence" part of the Mormon vocabulary? I wonder why it didn't catch on.
Thanks for the post. I'll be interested now to see if doctrinal issues play into some alleged conflicts between McConkie and Petersen which I hear will be fleshed out a bit more in the second and expanded edition of Dennis Horne's McConkie bio, forthcoming.
A question about mortal existence versus flesh-status existence was raised by Elder B.H. Roberts in 1930. After researching the question, five members of the Quorum of the Twelve unitedly reported to President Heber J. Grant as follows:
-------------- quote --------------
"As we understand it the term 'first flesh,' does not have reference to Adam as being the first living creature of the creation on the earth, but that he, through the 'fall' became the first 'flesh,' or mortal soul. The term 'flesh' in reference to mortal existence is of common usage. We find it so used in the scriptures. Adam having partaken of the fruit became mortal and subject to death, which was not the condition until that time. We are taught in the Temple as well as in the scriptures that man was the last creation placed upon the earth, before death was introduced. Adam was the first to partake of the change and to become subject to the flesh."
(Review Committee to President Grant, in The Truth, The Way, The Life, 2nd edition, Provo: BYU Studies, 1996, pp.292-293.)
-------------- end quote --------------
The five committee members were George Albert Smith, David O. McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith, Stephen L. Richards, and Melvin J. Ballard. They make a formidable group, particularly since three of the five later served as Prophet and President.
Paul,
Can you clarify your question? I'm not sure I understand.
Gary,
I happen to have a post on that topic waiting for final touch ups.
Jared*, can't wait.
On another point, Bookcraft hired its first editor only after publishing Mormon Doctrine. In the meantime, Mark E. Petersen's career as first copy reader, then news editor, followed by managing editor, and finally editor of the Deseret News, gave him experience finding spelling and grammar errors. We would have to ignore Elder Petersen's professional background in order to speculate that his list of corrections was all doctrinal errors.
Also, Elder Petersen thought the Joseph Smith Translation was "of questionable value." So in fairness, we should accept the likelihood that as many as 170 JST references in Mormon Doctrine were on his lengthy list of corrections. Yet a few years later, more than three times that many quotes from the JST became part of the LDS edition of the Bible and these excerpts are now viewed by most Mormons as scripture.
I suspect Elder Petersen himself, looking down from heaven with hindsight, is happy that his list of corrections was lost.
RE: scripture versus "in the flesh."
I think it depends on how we define scripture.
"The older I get ... the more I realize that the greatest of all scripture which we have in the world today is current scripture. What the mouthpiece of God says to his children is scripture. It is his word and his will and his law made manifest through scripture, and I love it more than all other." (Henry D. Moyle, as quoted by A. Theodore Tuttle in general conference April 1973.)
D&C 68:4 defines scripture and has never been restricted to that which is canonized and added to the Standard Works. What the Prophet says to the Church is scripture. And when his Counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve individually teach the same doctrine, and then when all of them together speak in unison on that the same point of doctrine, publishing it in every conceivable way to the members of the Church, we may be sure that what they have spoken is scripture.
In other words, I think "The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles" is scripture and members of the Church can cite that document as a scriptural source for the doctrine that Christ is the Only Begotten Son "in the flesh."
Gary,
The phrase is also used in The Origin of Man, but not capitalized.
It's not that the phrase is wrong, per se. I was surprised when I learned that it's not in the Standard Works because it's such a popular phrase.
The New Testament says that Jesus was the Only Begotten of the Father, that Jesus was the Word, and that the Word was made flesh. So sure, Jesus was the Only Begotten in the flesh.
I got curious as to whether the phrase is uniquely Mormon, so I did a search in Google books, limited to books published from 1600 to 1890. I did find the phrase in a few non-LDS publications, so we didn't invent it. It must have gotten popular at the turn of the century though, because when I widened the search to 1910 lots of LDS publications popped up.
So I guess to sum up, the phrase is not a Mormon-original, and taken at face value it is uncontroversial because it expresses concepts already in the scriptures. But I'm suspicious of attempts to wring additional meaning out of it (as was Elder Petersen, apparently). In my opinion, the authors of The Origin of Man and The Living Christ probably had the face-value meaning in mind.
Jared*,
I sense it is a comfort to you that McConkie had critics in high places, and that Luke 3:38 can be viewed in different ways. But may I offer three reasons why I think McConkie was correct.
1. Joseph F. Smith, the Prophet who issued "The Origin of Man", taught in other settings that Adam's physical mother was a "woman" and that his physical father was Heavenly Father (click here).
2. A 1980s Priesthood Study Guide, which appears to have been approved for publication by the First Presidency, contains a paragraph that teaches Adam was physically descended from God. The paragraph may or may not be official doctrine, but it was officially taught to the priesthood (click here).
3. The footnote reference in the LDS Bible at Luke 3:38 for the word "son" in the phrase "son of God" is to Moses 6:22 which, like Luke 3:38, is talking about genealogy and says Adam is "the son of God" (click here).
So. Again we disagree. In fact, any member of the Church is at liberty to disagree with the idea that Adam is physically descended from God, but nobody can deny that the idea is in the Standard Works as interpreted by apostles and prophets, or that it has been taught in official Church media. That said, I respect your point of view and continue to enjoy our discussions.
Gary,
Comfort is too strong of a word, and this isn't really about Elder McConkie having a critic. It just so happens that Elder McConkie's book is the single most widely read source of the interpretation. Otherwise, it's pretty hard to find. So now when I have to play G.A. poker, instead of being limited to pointing out how sparse public teaching of the interpretation is, I have an actual card to play from a relatively recent Apostle--who just happens to have also critiqued that widely read source.
Yes, Luke 3:38 can be viewed in different ways. So what about the view in items 1, 2, and 3 above? I'm not asking you to accept that view. I'm just asking you to acknowledge that McConkie didn't invent it and wasn't the only Church leader to promote it. Can we agree on that much?
Gary,
A long time ago I did a post on this topic: Adam and Eve: Obscuring a Plain and Precious Truth? I linked to it in my post above, but you may have overlooked it. If you will read it you will see that we do, in fact, agree on much of the history.
Yes, there's no denying what Joseph F. Smith said and wrote, but it really goes back to Brigham Young with his Adam-God teachings. In fact the letter from President Smith that cites Luke 3:38 was dealing with Adam-God. (With a wink and a smile, I would remind you that private letters are not the source of Church doctrine.)
You brought the priesthood manual to my attention several years ago, for which I thank you.
As for the footnote, Moses 6:22 is also open to interpretation. In my old post I pointed out that there are good reasons from within the Book of Moses to not take it literally. Elder Petersen argued along the same lines. I'll quote just one paragraph from Elder Petersen here:
"It is also well to read Moses 7:1, wherein all believers are designated as the children of God: "And it came to pass that Enoch continued his speech, saying: Behold, our father Adam taught these things, and many have believed and become the sons of God, and many have believed not, and have perished in their sins, and are looking forth with fear, in torment, for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God to be poured out upon them." (Moses 7:1.)"
So anyway,
I'm just asking you to acknowledge that McConkie didn't invent it and wasn't the only Church leader to promote it. Can we agree on that much?
Yes!
.
Jared*,
Regarding everything on which we agree, I say "Yippee!"
Regarding the Adam-God theory, Spencer W. Kimball spoke in general conference as Church President against it, but his warning says nothing one way or the other about Adam's mother and father.
I read your previous article five years ago, and I read it again tonight. It is a good review of earlier teachings that support McConkie's take on Luke 3:38. I think McConkie would appreciate mention of more recent examples also. For example, James E. Talmage said man "is born in the lineage of Deity, not in the posterity of the brute creation." ("The Earth and Man," 1931, p.14.) And Boyd K. Packer echoes that view when he says twice in the same paragraph that "an understanding of the sealing authority cannot admit to ancestral blood lines to beasts." ("The Law and the Light," in The Book of Mormon: Jacob through Words of Mormon, to Learn with Joy, Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1990, p.22.) Neither of these statements breach the wall that exists between the Adam-God theory and teachings about man's physical ancestry.
R. Gary,
D&C 68:4 defines scripture as being a statement when the speaker is "moved upon by the Holy Ghost". That verse doesn't say that everything said by the President of the Church is scripture. So, we're back to the question whether or not GA say things not inspired by the Holy Ghost, i.e. they speak their own opinions.
Post a Comment