Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nofear

No Heavenly Mother

Recommended Posts

Pres. Nelson's talk resulted in a fair bit of fury and gnashing of teeth. What if Pres. Nelson is wrong? What if a male-female partnership is not required for exaltation? If so, it is perfectly possible we don't have one Heavenly Father but two of them. But, imagine the confusion if God tried to explain the concept of Heavenly Father A and Heavenly Father B. Easier just to keep it simple, eh.

And what of the Proclamation of the Family? Well, if the presiding high priest can be wrong about something as major as a basic requirement for exaltation, surely he and the rest of Christ's apostles can be wrong about The Family: A Proclamation to the World (who, according to some of those who hold this view, was written by a lawyer anyway).

 

EDIT TO ADD: This is not my personal view. I believe in our Heavenly Mother and regard her as the equal to her husband in every aspect of perfection.

 

tenor.gif

Edited by Nofear
grammar

Share this post


Link to post

So much for Genesis, Moses, and the entire concept of exaltation being connected to producing children and bringing their immortality to pass.
In fact, why bother with multiplying and replenishing at all.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that hundreds of religions view God as androgynous, especially as the ancient as many of the Hindu religions, leads me to believe that there’s something to it.

Share this post


Link to post

I am surprisingly okay with God/Eloiheim being a composite title for many beings, even multiple male beings but I am also convinced that if it is a composite there are female beings as well and my mom is there.

In any case I believe getting the fundamental facts of exaltation wrong would fall under the prophet leading the church astray which God has promised me will not happen. Getting little things wrong, yeah, that can still happen but this falls under the protected area.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am surprisingly okay with God/Eloiheim being a composite title for many beings, even multiple male beings but I am also convinced that if it is a composite there are female beings as well and my mom is there.

In any case I believe getting the fundamental facts of exaltation wrong would fall under the prophet leading the church astray which God has promised me will not happen. Getting little things wrong, yeah, that can still happen but this falls under the protected area.

I like the idea that it’s a group working together to save us

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Pres. Nelson's talk resulted in a fair bit of fury and gnashing of teeth. What if Pres. Nelson is wrong? What if a male-female partnership is not required for exaltation? If so, it is perfectly possible we don't have one Heavenly Father but two of them. But, imagine the confusion if God tried to explain the concept of Heavenly Father A and Heavenly Father B. Easier just to keep it simple, eh.

And what of the Proclamation of the Family? Well, if the presiding high priest can be wrong about something as major as a basic requirement for exaltation, surely he and the rest of Christ's apostles can be wrong about The Family: A Proclamation to the World (who, according to some of those who hold this view, was written by a lawyer anyway).

 

tenor.gif

Omigosh!

 Or Worse still what if the Catholics are right? ;)

Past due :Time to get our own testimonies.

I vote for Yin Yang myself.

Proving contraries in the Great Dialectic 

Can no one think for themselves anymore?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I like the idea that it’s a group working together to save us

It is an opinion I have but not part of my faith. We are promised we will find out at some point in this dispensation:

"whether there be one God or many gods they shall be manifest" (D&C 121:28)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

The fact that hundreds of religions view God as androgynous, especially as the ancient as many of the Hindu religions, leads me to believe that there’s something to it.

Uh do you know what anointing the Lingam and Yoni is?

Not exactly androgynous

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Pres. Nelson's talk resulted in a fair bit of fury and gnashing of teeth. What if Pres. Nelson is wrong? What if a male-female partnership is not required for exaltation? If so, it is perfectly possible we don't have one Heavenly Father but two of them. But, imagine the confusion if God tried to explain the concept of Heavenly Father A and Heavenly Father B. Easier just to keep it simple, eh.

And what of the Proclamation of the Family? Well, if the presiding high priest can be wrong about something as major as a basic requirement for exaltation, surely he and the rest of Christ's apostles can be wrong about The Family: A Proclamation to the World (who, according to some of those who hold this view, was written by a lawyer anyway).

 

tenor.gif

That's a lot of hypotheticals.  It would mean the rejection of this scripture:

1 In the acelestial glory there are three bheavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the ahighest, a man must enter into this border of the cpriesthood [meaning the dnew and everlasting covenant of emarriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an aincrease.

(D&C 131)

Share this post


Link to post

Just so everyone knows, the OP does not reflect my position. To me, personally, the idea is absurd. I understand how that may not be obvious. Lots of absurd things are said. :)

Edited by Nofear
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Nofear said:

Just so everyone knows, the OP does not reflect my position. To me, personally, the idea is absurd. I understand how that may not be obvious. Lots of absurd things are said. :)

Poe’s Law:

“Without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.”

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Male/Female/Child.  Basic, eternal.

Says a lot that this has become a debate issue and the most ridiculous of theological speculation and wresting of scripture to get there.
It constantly amazes me how much patience God is showing us in these end times.  I really have no idea why he is holding off pulling the trigger on the winding up.
It's not like we're going to get any better at this point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Nofear said:

What if a male-female partnership is not required for exaltation? If so, it is perfectly possible we don't have one Heavenly Father but two of them. But, imagine the confusion if God tried to explain the concept of Heavenly Father A and Heavenly Father B. Easier just to keep it simple, eh.

Huh? So you think that God would be incapable of explaining something that is totally within our ability to understand? 

Also, if you look to nature, you'll see that God is already capable of creating hermaphroditic species. He could have just as easily created us in "his image" if that really were representative of his image, don't you think?

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Poe’s Law:

“Without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.”

True that! Though to be fair, I'm far too arrogant to be concerned overly much with what others think. :D

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Just so everyone knows, the OP does not reflect my position. To me, personally, the idea is absurd. I understand how that may not be obvious. Lots of absurd things are said. :)

K sorry for being dense. Didn't sound like you anyway :)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh do you know what anointing the Lingam and Yoni is?

Not exactly androgynous

I do haha but they have other Gods that are also androgynous and many other splinter groups of the religion do as well. I was mostly speaking as a whole, a large majority of “pagan” religions have male and female deities. Either combined like the hermetics or split like the Mormons.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Huh? So you think that God would be incapable of explaining something that is totally within our ability to understand? 

Also, if you look to nature, you'll see that God is already capable of creating hermaphroditic species. He could have just as easily created us in "his image" if that really were representative of his image, don't you think?

 

That’s what hermetics believed! Adam was created as adrogynous and his “fall” consisted in two events. Splitting into male and female, and then being removed from paradise. Now it’s mankind’s rule to recombine and move back to paradises. Interesting ideology

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Pres. Nelson's talk resulted in a fair bit of fury and gnashing of teeth. What if Pres. Nelson is wrong? What if a male-female partnership is not required for exaltation? If so, it is perfectly possible we don't have one Heavenly Father but two of them. But, imagine the confusion if God tried to explain the concept of Heavenly Father A and Heavenly Father B. Easier just to keep it simple, eh.

And what of the Proclamation of the Family? Well, if the presiding high priest can be wrong about something as major as a basic requirement for exaltation, surely he and the rest of Christ's apostles can be wrong about The Family: A Proclamation to the World (who, according to some of those who hold this view, was written by a lawyer anyway).

 

tenor.gif

You really should try to stop yourself from saying silly things like this.  

The truth is, President Nelson wasn't wrong about what he was saying, and neither were the people who wrote the Proclamation of the Family.

Shake this off now and try to not say anything else as silly as this in your future.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Just so everyone knows, the OP does not reflect my position. To me, personally, the idea is absurd. I understand how that may not be obvious. Lots of absurd things are said. :)

Oh, I see now.  Sometimes you would just rather say something silly because you get some kind of pleasure from saying silly things.  I can relate to that, having done some of that in my past.  The problem with that, though, is that sometimes people will think you are just being silly when you really are not trying to be, on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post

It’s playing “devils advocate”, it’s a line questioning that lets you see the other side and pursue a “what if” scenario. This helps us not just accept everything at face value, and is actually incredibly useful to avoid “brainwashing” or cognitive dissonance. Not to say that this a perfect example, but I liked the line of thinking.

Edited by SettingDogStar

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Pres. Nelson's talk resulted in a fair bit of fury and gnashing of teeth. What if Pres. Nelson is wrong? What if a male-female partnership is not required for exaltation? If so, it is perfectly possible we don't have one Heavenly Father but two of them. But, imagine the confusion if God tried to explain the concept of Heavenly Father A and Heavenly Father B. Easier just to keep it simple, eh.

And what of the Proclamation of the Family? Well, if the presiding high priest can be wrong about something as major as a basic requirement for exaltation, surely he and the rest of Christ's apostles can be wrong about The Family: A Proclamation to the World (who, according to some of those who hold this view, was written by a lawyer anyway).

 

tenor.gif

So, what are you “just saying”? We could “unproductively”, say “what if” to every teaching by every “Prophet”, and every word of “scripture”, but to what end? Do we wish to abandon all belief, and all the benefits of belief, and destroy the entire “Social Structure”, and good that comes from the authority of Scripture, Prophets and Apostles, and everyone establish their own Church, their own doctrine, etc. In short, become what the scriptures warns us against, “becoming those with itching ears, seeking teachers to ourselves” (to paraphrase) and to, “be tossed about by every wind and doctrine”. After all, Fall is coming, but maybe not the season, instead, “the fall of mankind”. “What if”? Both a powerful metaphor, and a harsh reality to live by. What I do know, is that after 44 years of marriage, is this, that “Man and Wife”, is the most powerful foundation for this life, a preparation for the next, irregardless of this particular teaching to which you refer. It is that “foundation”, that has saved my life, and exalted my life already. I have already achieved immortality, be it my own marriage, my parents marrage, or the countless generations that preceded my wife and I. “Just saying”. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

It’s playing “devils advocate”, it’s a line questioning that lets you see the other side and pursue a “what if” scenario. This helps us not just accept everything at face value, and is actually incredibly useful to avoid “brainwashing” or cognitive dissonance. Not to say that this a perfect example, but I liked the line of thinking.

Yeah, I've done that before, but on this issue I would feel pretty silly pretty dang quick if I started in on that line of questioning, even if I was just talking or thinking to myself, just as soon as I thought or said:  What if a male-female partnership is not required for exaltation?

Yeah, like, right, like either a man or a woman is not necessary?  We can just get rid of one sex entirely and go with just one sex all by itself? As if women are not needed at all?  So therefore Mary was not necessary and we could have gotten Jesus without her?  And without any other woman on this earth or even in heaven?  Or maybe by thinking they're not necessary we still might think that having a woman around every now and then might be helpful, even if not necessary?  That men could do all the work but women can help out if they want to and we won't mind too terribly much, even though they're really not necessary and might even cause us to waste some of our time, sometimes, since we could just get by without them.  And that we're just so nice that we allow women to help out, even if they are not necessary?

Nah, yech, bleh, that just sounds way too silly and not even worth putting down in cyber ink, or of thinking about.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

It’s playing “devils advocate”, it’s a line questioning that lets you see the other side and pursue a “what if” scenario. This helps us not just accept everything at face value, and is actually incredibly useful to avoid “brainwashing” or cognitive dissonance. Not to say that this a perfect example, but I liked the line of thinking.

Or the constant “what if”, is a very effective tool for brainwashing. Perpetual, “what if’s”, is a river that runs both ways, and a two edged knife, that needs to be carefully handled. I agree, “what if” questions can and often do lead us to greater understanding, but at some point, they must sevrve a point. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Just so everyone knows, the OP does not reflect my position. To me, personally, the idea is absurd. I understand how that may not be obvious. Lots of absurd things are said. :)

Good to hear. 😅

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SettingDogStar said:

The fact that hundreds of religions view God as androgynous, especially as the ancient as many of the Hindu religions, leads me to believe that there’s something to it.

Unless, of course, further light and knowledge has clarified that "[g]ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

That being so, why would we privilege other religions' perspective on this issue?

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...