Pres. Oaks: "...a Heavenly Mother or Mothers"

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You do realize that @teddyaware pondering is exactly the opposite of the above, as he is positing that Heavenly Father's wives, our Heavenly Mothers, hail from a variety of "racial" backgrounds- right?

I am not sure if God having what looks a lot like a colonialist harem makes this more palatable.

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not sure if God having what looks a lot like a colonialist harem makes this more palatable.

You are the one stuck in that mentality not I.

Patriarchy, horses, and colonialism!!

[CV75]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

He's just tossing ideas around, not making a claim.

Do you believe their is no "racial" diversity in the eternal worlds? We are all just one color, all having the same physical structure and appearance?

Tossing around is innocuous enough, I guess. When we do that, we are not taking ourselves seriously and do not expect others to. It's banter.

I'm not going to toss around my beliefs, but I can discuss them if you can provide context. For example, what is the color of a social construct? The color of a gene? Please name and describe the race gene(s) and how you see them working here and in the the hereafter. I'm OK with any school of scientific thought you espouse for the sake of discussion, but please provide references so I can give your ideas due consideration.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Please name and describe the race gene(s) 

This is an excellent starting point.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You are the one stuck in that mentality not I.

That is the mentality (mixed in with the obsession to categorize that was the Enlightenment, categorizing that often included defining what was more evolved/superior) that created the idea of race, so I am not sure it can be unstuck.

Quote

 

Race as a categorizing term referring to human beings was first used in the English language in the late 16th century. Until the 18th century it had a generalized meaning similar to other classifying terms such as type, sort, or kind. Occasional literature of Shakespeare’s time referred to a “race of saints” or “a race of bishops.” By the 18th century, race was widely used for sorting and ranking the peoples in the English colonies—Europeans who saw themselves as free people, Indigenous Americans who had been conquered, and Africans who were being brought in as enslaved labor—and this usage continues today.

The peoples conquered and enslaved were physically different from western and northern Europeans, but such differences were not the sole cause for the construction of racial categories. The English had a long history of separating themselves from others and treating foreigners, such as the Irish, as alien “others.” By the 17th century their policies and practices in Ireland had led to an image of the Irish as “savages” who were incapable of being civilized. Proposals to conquer the Irish, take over their lands, and use them as forced labor failed largely because of Irish resistance. It was then that many Englishmen turned to the idea of colonizing the New World. Their attitudes toward the Irish set precedents for how they were to treat the Indigenous inhabitants of the New World and, later, Africans.

English literature from those time periods often depict the Scots and Welsh as more primitive, less intellectual, more emotional than Englishman as well, othering to justify oppression.

An interesting discussion on Reddit (some language) on the different view of race and discrimination/prejudice in Europe as opposed to American.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEurope/comments/18yzk0c/comment/kgfu908/

Treatment of the “lower classes”, meaning less economically fortunate, mirrors in some ways treatment of nonwhite “races” in America.

 

Edited July 18, 2025 by Calm

[blackstrap]

I'm just looking forward to having a full head of hair again . 😁

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, blackstrap said:

I'm just looking forward to having a full head of hair again . 😁

Scripture says, "even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame."  If that means all the hairs that have ever fallen out of our heads in our entire lives, then we're going to all look like we have 80's hair.

[JAHS]

42 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Scripture says, "even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame."  If that means all the hairs that have ever fallen out of our heads in our entire lives, then we're going to all look like we have 80's hair.

Or cousin It.

[CV75]

I'm glad that someone summarized President Oaks' message with the few seconds of the most salient points to save us from having to listen to stuff we don't need: https://news-europe.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/president-oaks-encourages-members-in-europe-to-follow-christ-and-seek-unity

I wouldn't judge everyone from Belgium on the basis of the only Belgian I know (Dr. Evil, whose "fahza" hates the Dutch!), but this is low-class and causes me to wonder what kinds of movies they watch.

Edited July 20, 2025 by CV75

[The Nehor]

On 7/18/2025 at 2:05 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

You are the one stuck in that mentality not I.

Patriarchy, horses, and colonialism!!

And wokeness! And bees!

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 7/18/2025 at 11:37 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

You do realize that @teddyaware pondering is exactly the opposite of the above, as he is positing that Heavenly Father's wives, our Heavenly Mothers, hail from a variety of "racial" backgrounds- right?

What I am pointing out is that @teddyaware's position is incoherent. What that means is that while his statement carries this idea implicitly (it is not an explicit claim as you suggest), that position does not make any sense at all. The bigger problem, that I keep pointing out, is that while there is broad recognition in today's society - especially given what we know about DNA and genetics - that race is simply a social construct, what this sort of idea does is to both deny that race is a social construct, and to attempt to make race an eternal characteristic - thus providing fodder for those who want to engage in racist behavior a justification for doing so. However, I don't think that it ever will - because of the fact that the idea is incoherent. That, and the fact that genetic variation in a population is the fundamental basis for evolution. I am not sure how keen people are with the idea that God (and His wives) represent a stage of evolution. I think that this sort of speculation is perhaps meant to provide some sort of correlation between theology and scientific understanding - but to do it as this sort of high level rather than building from some sort of foundation is never going to go well. I think that, at least from a theological perspective, there doesn't seem to be any necessity for God to have DNA. And finally, (and perhaps this is the sort of final caveat), if God has DNA, and this defines his physical nature, and we (as mortal humanity) have developed the technology to modify our DNA, then there is potentially nothing that stops us from changing our DNA and becoming God - that is (to put it back into the context of Genesis) to reach forth our hands and partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life, and live forever.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that, at least from a theological perspective, there doesn't seem to be any necessity for God to have DNA

I haven’t consider this before and I think I agree with you, but would like to know your reasoning for this to make sure I am understanding you.

Edited July 21, 2025 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I haven’t consider this before and I think I agree with you, but would like to know your reasoning for this to make sure I am understanding you.

First, in order to even begin to have this discussion, we have to start with the premise of a corporeal God.

Second, while DNA is responsible for the development and growth of human beings (cell specialization and differentiation), after birth, its major purpose is protein synthesis - that is, once the cells are differentiated (and we are largely done with stem cells), the primary role of DNA is the production of proteins as the mechanism of regulating cell activity. Without protein synthesis, there is no life. However, God, at least theologically, does not require protein synthesis to maintain his immortality. Once God's Celestial body is formed (whatever it is formed out of), He does not require this biological process to maintain that body or to stay alive. This would make DNA completely unnecessary.

But ...

The idea that God has DNA can be connected to the disavowed notion of Adam-God. There is that speech by Brigham Young which included this: "When our Father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world." The mechanism of taking a celestial body and returning it to a mortal state is the eating of the fruit in the Garden. And so Adam and Eve are celestial beings who become mortal, have children, and then return to that celestial state. To see how this theology plays out, you can read Ogden Kraut's book on it.

The issue of God having DNA and the question of DNA and race are distinct issues. But, asserting that God has DNA, and that this DNA that God has (along with the DNA of his wives) is the cause of race is a large can of worms. I suspect Teddy's comment was more of an off-the-cuff sort of thing. But, I think that trying to make race a biological reality, and trying to label the cause of race as part of an eternal nature (much like the Church has done with gender) is incredibly problematic - and I don't think that it can be done without writing racism back into the gospel of Jesus Christ - and so it needs to be responded to.

[filovirus]

A lot of speculation going on here. Some poignant questions:

Does everyone on this Earth have the same Heavenly Mother? Or do some have different?

Which Heavenly Mother is Lucifer from? Does that have any impact on how we see the pre-mortal life?

What about Jesus? Which Heavenly Mother is Jesus from? Does it matter?

[ZealouslyStriving]

15 minutes ago, filovirus said:

A lot of speculation going on here. Some poignant questions:

Does everyone on this Earth have the same Heavenly Mother?

In my opinion, no.

15 minutes ago, filovirus said:

Or do some have different?

In my opinion, yes.

15 minutes ago, filovirus said:

Which Heavenly Mother is Lucifer from?

Wouldn't have a clue.

15 minutes ago, filovirus said:

Does that have any impact on how we see the pre-mortal life?

Not for me.

15 minutes ago, filovirus said:

What about Jesus? Which Heavenly Mother is Jesus from? Does it matter?

I'm guessing from the "Sarah" (head) wife- but I don't know that it makes a difference as long as He was the most faithful, most worthy, most "intelligent" one of all.

[Nofear]

I think the idea of "race" from an eternal perspective rather ludicrous. Our interstellar species spans countless worlds, some in mortal phases. The biology of mortals in each of those worlds will be specifically tailored to the environment of that planet. Height will be correlated to the gravity of it. Skin color will be tailored to the solar spectrum. Different vestigial organs will arise depending on the evolutionary history of the planet. Body hair could be distributed differently. Etc. Etc. Etc. If our Heavenly Parents experienced a mortality phase on a different world (a position I hold), there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that their physiology would in any way be relatable to anything we might identify as a "race" on this earth. The phenotypical traits would likely be completely different.

I will go even further. If I am a member of a celestial society or otherwise possessing exaltation, I will have maximal control over my environment --- that includes my body. If I want to be a different height, I'm sure the power exists to change it. If I want to have eight or ten fingers in by body, or two thumbs per hand, I'm sure I could arrange it. I don't believe the forms of our physical or spiritual bodies will be immutable. Though it sounds heretical, I am quite ok with the idea that when Christ visited peoples in Eastern Asia after his resurrection and he wanted to appear a little more like the population there than as someone with typical middle eastern appearance, he could do so. I'd be ok with that. In the name vein, I'm ok with Christ appearing to Joseph Smith as with the appearance of a Caucasian white person relatable to Joseph's expectations. Or when He visited place(s) in Africa He could have been dark skinned. I believe the technology of a celestial society allows such. The important part is that the Atonement is in no way diminished or otherwise made less real by such a supposition.

[halconero]

21 hours ago, Nofear said:

If our Heavenly Parents experienced a mortality phase on a different world (a position I hold), there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that their physiology would in any way be relatable to anything we might identify as a "race" on this earth.

I don't typically delve into prospective (or in this case, cyclical) speculation, but I lean towards a hypothesis for eternal progression nested within Multiverse theory. Specifically, Max Tegmark's Level IV: Ultimate Ensemble hypothesis. Intelligences are fundamental informational/mathematical structures with no end nor beginning. However, these structures do not have the ability, on their own, to observe their eternal existence. They must observe reality to comprehend their own existence and the existence of others, i.e., experience mortality.

Within this ensembles of possibilities, one must not only exist at the meta-level as a theoretical bundle of information, but exist within a reality to begin to comprehend oneself. Thankfully, loving, caring beings exist at the meta-level who not only have the ability to know themselves and know others, but desire the same for others. They heat or reheat a reality, or eternity, (see the Greene or Steinhard-Turok models of creation), giving form to intelligences. Put another way, they become their parents, giving them the ability to observe their existence.

Yes, the above sounds like crazy talk, but it's simply my attempt at a fun thought experiment that seeks to reconcile seemingly contradictory truth's like the eternal nature of God with a God who experiences mortality, along with Joseph Smith's ideas around a plurality of eternities (this idea began to emerge towards the end of his life and never got fleshed out), or the course of the Lord being one eternal round.

Anyway:

 

[telnetd]

Does this image, showing several ethnicities, reveal multiple heavenly mothers?

Our Heavenly Father’s Plan

We lived in heaven with Heavenly Father before we came to earth. We are His spirit 
children and had spirit bodies. We loved Him, and He loved us.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 354

[teddyaware]

6 hours ago, halconero said:

I don't typically delve into prospective (or in this case, cyclical) speculation, but I lean towards a hypothesis for eternal progression nested within Multiverse theory. Specifically, Max Tegmark's Level IV: Ultimate Ensemble hypothesis. Intelligences are fundamental informational/mathematical structures with no end nor beginning. However, these structures do not have the ability, on their own, to observe their eternal existence. They must observe reality to comprehend their own existence and the existence of others, i.e., experience mortality.

Within this ensembles of possibilities, one must not only exist at the meta-level as a theoretical bundle of information, but exist within a reality to begin to comprehend oneself. Thankfully, loving, caring beings exist at the meta-level who not only have the ability to know themselves and know others, but desire the same for others. They heat or reheat a reality, or eternity, (see the Greene or Steinhard-Turok models of creation), giving form to intelligences. Put another way, they become their parents, giving them the ability to observe their existence.

Yes, the above sounds like crazy talk, but it's simply my attempt at a fun thought experiment that seeks to reconcile seemingly contradictory truth's like the eternal nature of God with a God who experiences mortality, along with Joseph Smith's ideas around a plurality of eternities (this idea began to emerge towards the end of his life and never got fleshed out), or the course of the Lord being one eternal round.

Anyway:

 

Did you factor in the revealed truths found in verse 30 of Doctrine and Covenants 93 when you were swayed toward believing the concept “that intelligences are fundamental informational/mathematical structures with no end nor beginning. However, these structures do not have the ability, on their own, to observe their eternal existence?”

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.  

The Lord appears to be letting us in on a big secret here, to wit that both elemental truth and rudimentary intelligences are independent agents that are able to process thoughts and even make decisions to act based on those independent thoughts! Then to add even further to the intrigue, the Lord reveals that if it weren’t for the ability of elemental truth and rudimentary intelligence to think and act independently nothing could exist! From this I come to the inescapable conclusion that before we were born as spirits, while in the rudimentary state of being uncreated primeval intelligences, we were aware of our existence because we possessed the ability to both think and act.

Edited July 24, 2025 by teddyaware

[Calm]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Does this image, showing several ethnicities, reveal multiple heavenly mothers?

Our Heavenly Father’s Plan

We lived in heaven with Heavenly Father before we came to earth. We are His spirit 
children and had spirit bodies. We loved Him, and He loved us.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 354

No

It’s simply the artist’s attempt to show all are Heavenly Father’s children.  Latter-day Saints do not get our doctrine from artists’ renderings.

Edited July 24, 2025 by Calm

[Nofear]

7 hours ago, halconero said:

I don't typically delve into prospective (or in this case, cyclical) speculation, but I lean towards a hypothesis for eternal progression nested within Multiverse theory. Specifically, Max Tegmark's Level IV: Ultimate Ensemble hypothesis. Intelligences are fundamental informational/mathematical structures with no end nor beginning. However, these structures do not have the ability, on their own, to observe their eternal existence. They must observe reality to comprehend their own existence and the existence of others, i.e., experience mortality.

"... I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief." -- Joseph Smith

It's ok to have crazy ideas. I have more than a few. For my part I am by no means a fan of multiverses (except perhaps separate Hubble spheres). With cyclic models I don't see a way for a physical or spirit body to persist through the transition/convergence point. Everything gets smashed together, destroyed.

But, I do favor an infinite past and I do favor the idea that our fundamental core is self-existent extending into the infinite past. I call such intelligent matter. I would go further than most and suggest intelligent matter is "simple". That is it is indivisible and without constituent parts. It makes no logical sense for me to say something that has divisible parts is self-existent. However, if something is without consituent parts than there really is no mechanism to store or process information. There would be no memory or perception. Every moment would be new. Any behavior of intelligent matter would be indistinguishable from either compeletly deterministic or  random (for agency purposes, I think intelligent matter is indeterministic).

Consequently, to be "intelligent", capable of processing information and having memory and behaving in non-random ways intelligent matter needs to couple with some form of machinery that gives it access to such abilities. We are in the habit of calling those bodies (spirit and physical... more could be said on that). In this framework we are self-existent and as eternal as God is (who, at the core is also self-existent intelligent matter) but did not become "intelligent" until we were coupled to a spirit body --- an unspecified action ("begotten") by our Heavenly Parents. So, while the fundamental core of my identity has always existed, I did not present as a sentient entity until after having a spirit body created for me.

Anyway, lots could be said about this. By no means the most common LDS thought but, for my part, I think it perfectly coherent with orthodox LDS theology. Others undoubtedly will disagree. Enter Joseph's quote above.

 

[halconero]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Did you factor in the revealed truths found in verse 30 of Doctrine and Covenants 93 when you were swayed toward believing the concept “that intelligences are fundamental informational/mathematical structures with no end nor beginning. However, these structures do not have the ability, on their own, to observe their eternal existence?”

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.  

The Lord appears to be letting us in on a big secret here, to wit that both elemental truth and rudimentary intelligence are independent agents that are able to process thoughts and even make decisions to act based on those independent thoughts! Then to add even further to the intrigue the Lord reveals that if it weren’t for the ability of elemental truth and rudimentary intelligence to think and act independently nothing could exist! From this I come to the inescapable conclusion that before we were born as spirits, while in the rudimentary state of being primeval intelligences, we were aware of our existence because we possessed the ability to both think and act.

It's a good question, and the answer is that I go back and forth. It hinges on the definition of "observe," which is a more technical term than just thinking about or watching existence. In particular, it involves:

• Agency: the ability to act.
• Indexical standpoint: being able to ask the question, "of this class of things, which one am I?" 
• Conditioning on evidence: information processing, updating priors, making predictions and acting thereon.
• Phenomenology: the subjective character of experience. For example, what it's like to see the colour red, feel pain, think a thought, etc. 

Based on the extremely limited information we have, we can make a very good argument that as an intelligence, we may experience the first two. It's the latter two that I am less sure about. I think there is a compelling case that our ability to condition our existence on evidence was limited, along with first-person characters of experience, and that it was our organization as children of God that first enabled us to quite literally experience experience, which was further enhanced with our obtaining a body. If that's the case, you can make a compelling argument that mortal experience is actually the first time we've ever been observers of our existence in a complete sense of the word.

That said, I'm not particularly married to any of the above, so I'm happy to be falsified on it. You may very well be correct, and our nature as intelligences prior to becoming children of God qualified as observers in the technical sense. These are what I call campfire/fireplace musings—the sort of thing I think about staring into a fire way past my regular bed time.

[halconero]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

"... I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief." -- Joseph Smith

I love that quote.

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

Consequently, to be "intelligent", capable of processing information and having memory and behaving in non-random ways intelligent matter needs to couple with some form of machinery that gives it access to such abilities. We are in the habit of calling those bodies (spirit and physical... more could be said on that). In this framework we are self-existent and as eternal as God is (who, at the core is also self-existent intelligent matter) but did not become "intelligent" until we were coupled to a spirit body --- an unspecified action ("begotten") by our Heavenly Parents. So, while the fundamental core of my identity has always existed, I did not present as a sentient entity until after having a spirit body created for me.

Tangential, but I've been mulling the bolded portion a lot lately with regards to differences and similarities between Latter-day Saint beliefs and Nicene Christians. I've come around to the notion that the Nicene (or more accurately, Cappadocian) assertion of three hypostases (individuated persons) sharing one homoousia (same essence) is actually not too far off from our own conception of the Godhead. Under the Cappadocian Fathers, ousia functions more like a common nature, or Aristotle's idea of a "secondary substance," while hypostasis is closer to Aristotle's conception of a primary substance, or individuated reality.* An earthly example would be how you and I both share a singular, human nature, but have individuated persons. Of course, the idea of the Trinity goes beyond that, suggesting that the Godhead are not just three individuals of the same species, but indwell/commune in one another in such a way that their natures are nigh-indistinguishable, without them sharing the same individuality.

As a Latter-day Saint, I actually don't object much to the above characterization, and, looking back, somewhat feel as I were fighting against a modalistic strawman.

The true gulf, in my opinion, opens up when referring back to that bolded portion. In many ways, Latter-day Saints assert that not only do Jesus and the Holy Spirit share an homoousia with God, but all of humanity. That said, there may be some wiggle room if we allow for the possibility of our nature/substance/essence to expand beyond a core, self-existent intelligent matter through spiritual and corporal embodiment, in which case homoiousios is probably the more appropriate term. All said, the part I take the greatest issue with in the original Nicene Creed is not its first portion, but parts during the anathemization of Arius which limit eternal progression.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, teddyaware said:

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself…..  

The Lord appears to be letting us in on a big secret here, to wit that both elemental truth and rudimentary intelligences are independent agents that are able to process thoughts and even make decisions to act based on those independent thoughts!

Could we act for ourselves though before God placed us in “that sphere”, whatever that sphere*** may be for us?  
 

My guess of our first experience as actors would be as his spirit children.

***https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Sphere

Quote

Circuit of action, knowledge or influence; compass; province; employment. Every man has his particular sphere of action, in which it should be his ambition to excel. Events of this kind have repeatedly fallen within the sphere of my knowledge. This man treats of matters not within his sphere

 

Edited July 25, 2025 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 7/18/2025 at 12:55 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

It's awesome for old-schoolers because if fellow Saints look at us like we have 2 heads for suggesting such a thing, we can now point to Pres. Oaks leaving open the possibility.

So you are happy you now have ammunition to promote the misogynistic patriarchy from 19th century Mormonism into the eternities as well? 

Edited July 25, 2025 by Teancum