Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nofear

No Heavenly Mother

Recommended Posts

59 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. :)

This is like one of those "read the whole test carefully first before you start answering any questions" kinds of tests.  So it might have helped if you had put this post before your other post.   Just saying.

But then again, this thread would not have been as silly if you had just done that.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

I’m not sure what you’re saying? I’m making a point that hundreds of religions view deities as male, female, or a combination of both. Thus, to me, it means the doctrine most likely has root in truth. When it’s so wide spread I tend to think that there might be a nugget of truth, which there is.

Edited by SettingDogStar

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

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. 

And I think this post could serve a point. I’ve asked “what if” questions all my life, about everything I’ve learned and do learn, it lets me get a different perspective on things even if I KNOW them to already be truth. 

Edited by SettingDogStar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I’m not sure what you’re saying? I’m making a point that hundreds of religions view deities as male, female, or a combination of both. Thus, to me, it means the doctrine most likely has root in truth. When it’s so wide spread I tend to think that there might be a nugget of truth, which there is.

Millions of people also believe that there is no God.  Does that doctrine have "root in truth" as well?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:
Quote

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?

I’m not sure what you’re saying? I’m making a point that hundreds of religions view deities as male, female, or a combination of both. Thus, to me, it means the doctrine most likely has root in truth. When it’s so wide spread I tend to think that there might be a nugget of truth, which there is.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, and if so I apologize.  What do you mean by "it means the doctrine most likely has root in truth?"  What "doctrine" are you referencing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Millions of people also believe that there is no God.  Does that doctrine have "root in truth" as well?

No, not necessarily. I’m not sure where this is coming from. All I’m saying is that because millions of people believe something I think it’s worth looking into. That’s why I said “most likely has a root in truth” and “I tend to think there might be” 

Patterns should be investigated since I believe God works in patterns.

Edited by SettingDogStar

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, and if so I apologize.  What do you mean by "it means the doctrine most likely has root in truth?"  What "doctrine" are you referencing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

The existence of Male and female Gods, and their pairing in the heavens.

Hundreds of religions have a belief in these types of deities so, to me, it shows a pattern. In this case that shared thread of belief, upon investigation and prayer, is a true doctrine, which is interesting.

Edited by SettingDogStar

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Millions of people also believe that there is no God.  Does that doctrine have "root in truth" as well?

284181c2f15ea6915f1ce42e8261bd44.jpg

Edited by JLHPROF
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

The existence of Male and female Gods, and their pairing in the heavens.

Hundreds of religions have a belief in these types of deities so, to me, it shows a pattern. In this case that shared thread of belief, upon investigation and prayer, is a true doctrine, which is interesting.

Ah.  I did misunderstand.  My apologies.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  I did misunderstand.  My apologies.

Thanks,

-Smac

No worries haha I think I wrote it confusing. Admittedly the view many of these religions have on male and female Gods are far off base from what it’s most likely like. I bet it was doctrine given them ages and ages ago that got greatly distorted when they lost access to a more secure root of information from Heaven.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours 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).

 

Then what shall we do with this official declaration?

Quote

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

Joseph F. Smith

John R. Winder

Anthon H. Lund

First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

November 1909

And this one....

Quote

Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons or daughters of Elohim. So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation.

The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Salt Lake City, Utah, 30 June 1916

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SettingDogStar said:

And I think this post could serve a point. I’ve asked “what if” questions all my life, about everything I’ve learned and do learn, it lets me get a different perspective on things even if I KNOW them to already be truth. 

Fair enough, I was just applying what you suggested to the thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

It’s going to get much, much worse than this. Ten or twenty years from now you’ll look back on the year 2019 as the calm before the storm.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours 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).

Of course "you" can "just say" anything and some people will passively nod their heads, some will passively say, "So what?" and some will shrug, and some show some level of validation for your observation.

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course "you" can "just say" anything and some people will passively nod their heads, some will passively say, "So what?" and some will shrug, and some show some level of validation for your observation.

I suspect most people also would't describe a position they held as “gnashing of teeth”. Indeed, the OP does *not* reflect my personal position, which, by the way, is quite orthodox.

What I do find curious is how few of those who might be tempted to believe such things have spoken up. There are very much those whose worldview would allow the idea of two heavenly fathers. Perhaps they simply hold others might have an exaltation that does not reflect the same condition as that currently held by our Heavenly Parents … that it is hypothetically possible, because sexual intimacy or some such thing trumps all else.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I suspect most people also would't describe a position they held as “gnashing of teeth”. Indeed, the OP does *not* reflect my personal position, which, by the way, is quite orthodox.

What I do find curious is how few of those who might be tempted to believe such things have spoken up. There are very much those whose worldview would allow the idea of two heavenly fathers. Perhaps they simply hold others might have an exaltation that does not reflect the same condition as that currently held by our Heavenly Parents … that it is hypothetically possible, because sexual intimacy or some such thing trumps all else.

What you're coming up against is the idea that it takes both a man and a woman to make a baby.  No women necessary?  No Moms?  What kind of sick idea of a joke are you trying to pull here?!?

Not that I'm angry at you, or something like that. I was just saying.  That is what you are coming up against when you infer or insinuate that no women, including no Mothers, are necessary for making babies.

Edited by Ahab

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

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)

Not sure we know these marriage laws or doctrines very well considering the exotic relationships of the founder of our church.  In 2006, the church flinched at the doctrine that Jesus is married - so we can't have theological singularities on this point and claim to know definitely the laws of marriage in heaven. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I’m not sure what you’re saying? I’m making a point that hundreds of religions view deities as male, female, or a combination of both. Thus, to me, it means the doctrine most likely has root in truth. When it’s so wide spread I tend to think that there might be a nugget of truth, which there is.

Please excuse odd capitalization in this post since I'm dictating it into my telephone

I have studied a lot of religions.

I also maintain that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has incorporated virtually every religious View in its Doctrine in some respect

I believe that is because we are the basic original Doctrine For All Mankind, from which all other human religiosity comes. 

I truly believe in dispensationalism

Ancestor worship for example , has elements in worshipping our heavenly father, and doing work for the Dead.

The General idea of reincarnation has aspects of the idea that God was once a man like us who has been born again into exaltation

In this thread, We are now discussing the importance of the yin and yang, male and female Good and Evil and opposition in all things.

It is as if the unified truth of the ancients was shattered into pieces by apostasies and now each culture has picked up a singular aspect of that truth and bases Worship in it.

We have the concept of deification. We have the concept of polytheism mixed with monotheism depending on one's perspective.

We truly do consistently unify immanence and Transcendence in our Doctrine.

We solved the problem of alleged two Natures of Christ and unify his nature into one nature, which is human nature with a spark of the Divine.

Either all religions have in some sense come together in our faith or something like our faith was the mother of all religions of mankind.

That's one of the reasons I'm here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Not sure we know these marriage laws or doctrines very well considering the exotic relationships of the founder of our church.  In 2006, the church flinched at the doctrine that Jesus is married - so we can't have theological singularities on this point and claim to know definitely the laws of marriage in heaven. 

It's right there in black and white for you to read whenever you decide to get around to it:

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

The whole Church knows that Jesus is a man and that even he is subject to all of the laws of the priesthood if he desires to receive any blessings from them.  

But who really knows.  Maybe he doesn't want to be married or have any children other than by adoption.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Not sure we know these marriage laws or doctrines very well considering the exotic relationships of the founder of our church.  In 2006, the church flinched at the that Jesus is married - so we can't have theological singularities on this point and claim to know definitely the laws of marriage in heaven. 

Perhaps more so that doctrine does not come from speculation. 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

It's right there in black and white for you to read whenever you decide to get around to it:

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

The whole Church knows that Jesus is a man and that even he is subject to all of the laws of the priesthood if he desires to receive any blessings from them.  

But who really knows.  Maybe he doesn't want to be married or have any children other than by adoption.

Jesus is the author of the gospel. He is not subject to it. He condescended to some of the ordinances as an exemplar but it does not mean He must follow all of them. He is different from us.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Please excuse odd capitalization in this post since I'm dictating it into my telephone

I have studied a lot of religions.

I also maintain that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has incorporated virtually every religious View in its Doctrine in some respect

I believe that is because we are the basic original Doctrine For All Mankind, from which all other human religiosity comes. 

I truly believe in dispensationalism

Ancestor worship for example , has elements in worshipping our heavenly father, and doing work for the Dead.

The General idea of reincarnation has aspects of the idea that God was once a man like us who has been born again into exaltation

In this thread, We are now discussing the importance of the yin and yang, male and female Good and Evil and opposition in all things.

It is as if the unified truth of the ancients was shattered into pieces by apostasies and now each culture has picked up a singular aspect of that truth and bases Worship in it.

We have the concept of deification. We have the concept of polytheism mixed with monotheism depending on one's perspective.

We truly do consistently unify immanence and Transcendence in our Doctrine.

We solved the problem of alleged two Natures of Christ and unify his nature into one nature, which is human nature with a spark of the Divine.

Either all religions have in some sense come together in our faith or something like our faith was the mother of all religions of mankind.

That's one of the reasons I'm here.

Totally agree. I think there’s much more truth hiding in other theologies then we know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Jesus is the author of the gospel. He is not subject to it. He condescended to some of the ordinances as an exemplar but it does not mean He must follow all of them. He is different from us.

Heh heh.  You do like to be funny don't you.  And as I'm sure you know when you are serious, nobody authored the gospel and if you're talking about who was the first person to tell us about it that was either our Father or our Mother in heaven.

And we all are to obey his laws if we want to receive any blessings from those laws which those blessings are predicated upon.

Nice job of playing the devil's advocate, though.  You seem like a natural at it.

Edited by Ahab
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Shut your mouth. It is not appropriate to use the logic of thousands of years to rebut the proposal of the last 30 years! 

I am bringing out the wet noodle for your sins; be afraid, be very afraid. 

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Jesus is the author of the gospel. He is not subject to it. He condescended to some of the ordinances as an exemplar but it does not mean He must follow all of them. He is different from us.

Completely disagree with everything you said here.  Christ cannot fulfill all righteousness without obeying all law and the laws preexist Christ as the temple clearly states.

Edited by JLHPROF
  • Like 1

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...