Mopologetic Brigham Worship, Incest, and the Plan of Salvation

[Doctor Scratch]

Greetings, Friends and Colleagues.

Just the other day, I made a realization, thanks in part to a thread launched by our esteemed Dean, Dr. Robbers. In the course of thinking about his typically trenchant remarks, could not help but be reminded of an old FAIRboard thread in which Dr. Peterson attempted to make sense of Brigham Young's comments about the conception of Jesus:

The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers

This, of course, represents quite a departure from more typically Christian understandings of the "immaculate conception." In fact, this is the total opposite of that: "Brother Brigham" is saying, in effect, that God had physical sex with Mary--a point that he reiterated elsewhere: "The Father came down in his bodily tabernacle and begot Jesus." And while FAIR argues that this is all nullified by a 1969 letter from Harold B. Lee, other sources would seem to indicate that the doctrine was taught over and over again by multiple authoritative sources.

It may very well be worth exploring the teaching in fuller detail, especially given the massive push for "Brigham Worship" that the Mopologists are currently engaged in. From 6 Days in August, to conference presentations, to interviews and documentaries, there appears to be a wholesale resuscitation effort underway on the part of the Interpreter Foundation and its leadership--their stated aim is to "raise a voice" for Brother Brigham.

But this comes with some very clear--and very disquieting--baggage. Sure, the notion of God the Father floating down from Kolob in order to bang Mary is disturbing all by itself. But bear in mind that (A) the birth of Jesus is 100% necessary for the Plan of Salvation (no godhood, no CK, and no "worlds without end" if there is no Jesus), and (B) Mormonism also teaches that all of us are God's children. So, following that logic, Brigham Young was explicitly teaching that God the Father actually had incestuous sex with Mary, thus resulting in Jesus's birth. The entire LDS Plan of Salvation is predicated upon an act of incest. And the Mopologists are currently venerating the man who taught this unsettling doctrine.

It is entirely fitting that the Mopologists would do this, and I predict that they will not lift a finger to address this highly problematic issue. Instead, my assumption is that they will completely ignore the disturbing aspects of "Brother Brigham's" fundamental teachings, and they will instead press forward with their highly scrubbed, whitewashed version of the prophet's character.

[drumdude]

Not only was it incest, Mary is traditionally believed to be a young girl in her early teenage years. Mormon God would be on a sex offender registry today.

Joseph Smith was just doing as Mormon God had done, apparently. Yuck.

[Moksha]

As Dr. Peterson pointed out, when Mary moaned, "Oh God, oh God!!!" it was highly appropriate and could be considered a form of worship.

She may have been slightly disappointed if it was that "in the twinkling of an eye" type of stuff.

Good Mormon speculation makes for bawdy tales.

[Doctor Scratch]

Not only was it incest, Mary is traditionally believed to be a young girl in her early teenage years. Mormon God would be on a sex offender registry today.

Joseph Smith was just doing as Mormon God had done, apparently. Yuck.

It also would mean that Jesus is both Mary's son *AND* her brother. It reminds me a bit of the big plot reveal from the classic 1974 movie, Chinatown, starring Jack Nicholson as a Los Angeles-based private eye. The villain from the film, Noah Cross, portrayed memorably by John Huston, seems vaguely GA-esque.



You see Mr. Peterson, most Mopologists never have to face the fact that given the right time and place, they're capable of ANYTHING!

[Doctor Scratch]

It's interesting to note how deceptive the FAIR entry is. It says, "some members of the Church may have speculated concerning the conception of Jesus." Uh, yeah: "members" like Brigham Young? They are completely stampeding over declarations that were made by God's representative on earth! And BY is not the only high-ranking Church leader to have commented on this issue.

Sorry, FAIR Mormon, but your leadership teaches you that you can only get your Eternal Salvation thanks to incest.

[Chap]

This, of course, represents quite a departure from more typically Christian understandings of the "immaculate conception." In fact, this is the total opposite of that: "Brother Brigham" is saying, in effect, that God had physical sex with Mary--a point that he reiterated elsewhere: "The Father came down in his bodily tabernacle and begot Jesus." And while FAIR argues that this is all nullified by a 1969 letter from Harold B. Lee, other sources would seem to indicate that the doctrine was taught over and over again by multiple authoritative sources.

Please let us not confuse, as is so often done,

(a) The immaculate conception of Mary as thought of by Roman Catholics, meaning that she was (as the woman destined to bear the son of God) privileged by being born free of the hereditary taint of Adam's sin, and

(b) The virgin birth of Jesus, meaning that Jesus was conceived without his mother having had intercourse with a man.

These are theologically speaking, two quite different things.

[drumdude]

https://mrm.org/re-virgin-birth

“Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, pages 546-47)

2. Later in the same book he writes that Jesus “was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events.” (1966, p. 742) It seems unlikely that McConkie would have viewed non-standard and abnormal ways of insemination in ~1966 as “the normal and natural course of events.”

3. He elsewhere connects this with his particular, reconfigured definition of “virgin.” While you and I agree that “virgin” speaks to the absence of relations / physical union altogether, McConkie seems to have thought of it in terms of the absence of relations with a particular kind of human (a mortal human). See Mormon Doctrine, 1979, pp 546-47; The Promised Messiah: The First Coming of Christ, p. 466; Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, vol. 1, p. 82.

4. McConkie’s remarks are consistent with remarks by other LDS leaders, who argue that “according to the flesh, [Heavenly Father and Mary] have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife.” (“The Seer”, pp. 158-9; cf. B. H. Roberts, “Defense of the Faith and the Saints”, vol 2, p. 270). Apostle Melvin J. Ballard on this same topic argues that the same “creative power and function” that carnal man uses as “a mere harp of pleasure”, God himself was able to use in a righteous way with Mary.

(http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/BegettingofJesusChrist.htm).

A Mormon even came up with this gem of an argument:

“Even if there was actual sex [between God and Mary], if Mary was completely unaware that anything had happened, certainly we’d call her a virgin anyway. You wouldn’t call a date rape victim unchaste.”

It’s all gross and disgusting, just like the sex predator who founded the cult. Fruit of the poisoned tree.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

A Mormon even came up with this gem of an argument:

“Even if there was actual sex [between God and Mary], if Mary was completely unaware that anything had happened, certainly we’d call her a virgin anyway. You wouldn’t call a date rape victim unchaste.”

It’s all gross and disgusting, just like the sex predator who founded the cult. Fruit of the poisoned tree.

Let me guess, William Schryver or DCP?

[Gadianton]

A Mormon even came up with this gem of an argument:

That's false doctrine. Not sure you're ready for this, but here's the true deep doctrine version. Nobody can withstand the presence of the Father without being burnt to a crisp let alone sleep through the encounter. In any account where God the father visits a person directly, the person must first be transfixed by the holy spirit, the holy ghost must physically dwell within the person "overshadowed" such that the person survives the encounter. So that means the HG was "there" when it happened. GTF and Mary were married in the temple first as alluded in the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Phillip. Up to this point is how I heard it from others. I would add one further speculation that this could be an argument that the HG is female. Otherwise?

[drumdude]

A Mormon even came up with this gem of an argument:

That's false doctrine. Not sure you're ready for this, but here's the true deep doctrine version. Nobody can withstand the presence of the Father without being burnt to a crisp let alone sleep through the encounter. In any account where God the father visits a person directly, the person must first be transfixed by the holy spirit, the holy ghost must physically dwell within the person "overshadowed" such that the person survives the encounter. So that means the HG was "there" when it happened. GTF and Mary were married in the temple first as alluded in the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Phillip. Up to this point is how I heard it from others. I would add one further speculation that this could be an argument that the HG is female. Otherwise?

So the Deep Doctrine is that the Holy Ghost is essentially Ghislaine Maxwell, procuring the 13 year old Mary for Jeffrey Elohim. Excuse me while I find the nearest bin to empty my stomach in.

There really is no good way to spin this Mormon belief, is there? Perhaps Interpreter can give it a shot in one of their Thursday or Friday articles.