Farms Review And Mother In Heaven.

[emeliza]

At the risk of torpedoing the thread, why does the doctrine of Heavenly Mother never get raised by the media? Its as novel a doctrine as eternal progression or baptism for the dead. Yet no one attacks us with it. Could it be that it is socially acceptable? Dare I say, even, progressive? It is really remarkable that JS taught such a doctrine when he was alive. To think that, 50+ years before women had sufferage, we believed they could become goddess. Even more, we taught that no man could reach his full potential without a woman. God, without a wife, is no longer God.

Now thats radical. But somehow the editors of TIME and Newsweek would rather grill the church about blacks and priesthood. How about balancing the coverage?

If they did, they would just make it out that we are supressing HM because we don't have scriptures and don't pray to or worship her.

[Buckeye]

I think President Hinckley's comment is apt:

He doesn't ascribe the doctrine to revelation, but to "logic and reason."

If MIH is doctrinal, point me to the revelation establishing it. Point me to the scripture.

-Smac

Man is created "in the image of God"; "male and female created he them." (You know where they're at). So Either God has both a male and female body, in the same image as our bodies, or else there is a "God" with a male body and "God" with a female body.

[BCSpace]

You obviously don't know the difference between doctrine and scripture.

I do. Doctrine is what is found in and/or based on scripture.

That violates 2 Tim 3:16 and D&C 68:4. Scripture is indeed doctrine, but doctrine is not necessarily scripture. A dictionary would also avail you here as well.

However, there actually is a scripture and that is Genesis 5:1-3. Here the image of God is equated to a married couple.

[smac97]

Would you like those gnats with cream? Or will you just strain at them plain?

Asking for a scriptural basis for a revealed doctrine is straining at gnats?

Really?

Color me fickle, I guess, but I don't subscribe to doctrinal precepts because they are popular. I subscribe to them because they are obtained via revelation.

Consider these comments by Harold B. Lee:

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.

Boy, doesn't that kinda sound like what I asked for? A scriptural basis for the doctrine of MIH?

And what did you call it? Gnat-straining.

Was it gnat-straining when President Lee advocated it?

The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church.

Okay. So please show where where the MIH doctrine has been

1) Presented to us by the President of the Church;

2) Declared "as revelation from God";

3) Accepted by the Council of the Twelve; and

4) Sustained by the body of the Church.

Chapter and verse, please.

Or is that "gnat-straining," too?

And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

Now this last bit is interesting, because the MIH doctrine does not contradict the Standard Works. Rather, the Standard Works are silent on the issue.

I'm surprised to be catching flak from other Latter-day Saints when I ask for a scriptural basis for a belief imputed to us. Anti-Mormons try to pin all sorts of stuff on us, and we routinely tell them that our scriptures are the basis of our doctrines.

Of course, Anti-Mormons like to ascribe weird or distorted beliefs onto us, which is why we are careful about the explanation for delineating doctrine when we deal with such folks. But does that explanation become inapplicable when it comes to a doctrine that we do like, but which are nevertheless not found in the Standard Works??

-Smac

[BCSpace]

Okay. So please show where where the MIH doctrine has been

1) Presented to us by the President of the Church;

2) Declared "as revelation from God";

3) Accepted by the Council of the Twelve; and

4) Sustained by the body of the Church.

Show us where the Church gives these as requirements for doctrine (and how you are not violating D&C 68:4). For the last 3 or 4 decades at least, it has been widely known that anything published by the Church is official doctrine as evidenced in the CHI book 2 and the recent official news release "Approaching Mormon Doctrine"

Of course we gave you a scripture already, which was your original standard, and you won't even believe that.

The fact remains that MIH is official LDS doctrine because (first and foremost) it is published as official LDS doctrine.

[smac97]

That violates 2 Tim 3:16 and D&C 68:4. Scripture is indeed doctrine, but doctrine is not necessarily scripture. A dictionary would also avail you here as well.

So when Joseph Fielding Smith says that "We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every manâ??s doctrine," was he wrong?

When Harold B. Lee said "If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion," was he wrong?

When Harold B. Lee said "The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church," was he wrong?

When Harold B. Lee said "If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, manâ??s own personal opinion...This is the standard by which we measure all truth," was he wrong?

When B.H. Roberts said "The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone," was he wrong?

When B.H. Roberts said "[The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price] have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine," was he wrong?

When Bruce R. McConkie said "[The Standard Works] are the standard of judgement and the measuring rod against which doctrines and views are weighed, and it does not make one particle of difference whose views are involved. The scriptures always take precedence," was he wrong?

(See here for citations for all of the above quotes.)

However, there actually is a scripture and that is Genesis 5:1-3. Here the image of God is equated to a married couple.

Genesis 5:1-3:

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3

[Paul Ray]

... Anti-Mormons like to ascribe weird or distorted beliefs onto us, which is why we are careful about the explanation for delineating doctrine when we deal with such folks. But does that explanation become inapplicable when it comes to a doctrine that we do like, but which are nevertheless not found in the Standard Works??

Hmm... let's find out.

Please give me a reference from the standard works concerning how we should establish doctrine.

... using only the standard works.

[Mark Beesley]

smac,

How come I'm being credited in your last post with a bunch of things I didn't say?

It is straining at gnats to ask for a scriptural basis for the doctrine of Mother in Heaven when I already made it clear that there is a scriptural basis. How many times did Christ refer to Heavenly Father, or Father in Heaven, or some variation thereof? Lots. The fact that Christ used the appellation father is revelation, and scriptural revelation at that, that there is a Mother in Heaven. Struggling with that simple, uncomplicated, transparent truth is straining at gnats.

But the jab was made in good fun, so I trust you won't be spamming me or something.

[Paul Ray]

smac,

How come I'm being credited in your last post with a bunch of things I didn't say?

Just take it as a compliment... even if he is giving you far more credit than you deserve.

I routinely find people who tell me what I believe and I just smile and walk away while waving.

I see no point in continuing to have conversations with people like that because they already know what I think.

[smac97]

Show us where the Church gives these as requirements for doctrine (and how you are not violating D&C 68:4).

Well, we seem to have a chicken-or-the-egg conundrum here. I just quoted President Lee. He was the President of the Church at the time he said it. So are his comments doctrinal?

For the last 3 or 4 decades at least, it has been widely known that anything published by the Church is official doctrine as evidenced in the CHI book 2 and the recent official news release "Approaching Mormon Doctrine"

No such thing has been "widely known."

All that is doctrinal is published by the Church, but that doesn't mean that all that is published by the Church is doctrinal.

Of course we gave you a scripture already, which was your original standard,

Which scripture?

and you won't even believe that.

Certainly I will believe scripture. What I won't believe is anyone's private interpretation of scripture. 2 Peter 1:20 and all that.

So are you setting yourself up as the arbiter of proper interpretation of scripture?

Or is it possible that reasonable minds can disagree?

The fact remains that MIH is official LDS doctrine because (first and foremost) it is published as official LDS doctrine.

It is not so published.

-Smac

[Buckeye]

3 Nephi 10:4 metaphorically compares Christ to a hen gathering her chickens. That does not make Him a Cosmic Chicken, though.

-Smac

Come on, you're a lawyer, right?

The difference is Christ clearly is using a metaphor with the chickens - he said "how often would I have gathered you AS a hen gathereth ...". The Genesis verse does not treat the comparison as a metaphor, but as literal - "in the likeness OF God".

[BCSpace]

That violates 2 Tim 3:16 and D&C 68:4. Scripture is indeed doctrine, but doctrine is not necessarily scripture. A dictionary would also avail you here as well.

So when Joseph Fielding Smith says that "We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every manâ??s doctrine," was he wrong?

An error in correlation. Are you telling me the Church was wrong to put out this statement....?

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

Approaching Mormon Doctrine 5/4/2007

Please give me a reference from the standard works concerning how we should establish doctrine.

... using only the standard works.

Amen Paul, amen.

The only LDS who disagree with the Church's own definitions as to what doctrine is and is not are those who are somehow uncomfortable with it in the first place. Either they don't believe the doctrine in the first place or they had trouble defending the doctrine in the past and retreated into error. In smac's case, I'll bet it was the latter.

[BCSpace]

The fact remains that MIH is official LDS doctrine because (first and foremost) it is published as official LDS doctrine.

It is not so published.

So Gospel Principles is not published officially by the Church? I believe it was Lightbearer who pointed this out to us....

(Gospel Principles Manual P. 11) "We Are Children of Our Heavenly Father- God is not only our ruler and creator; he is also our Heavenly Father. â??All men and women are... literally the sons and daughters of Deity.... Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] bodyâ? (Joseph F. Smith, â??The Origin of Man,â? Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, pp. 78, 80). Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see D&C 93:21), so he is literally our elder brother (see Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 26). Because we are the spiritual children of our heavenly parents, we have inherited the potential to develop their divine qualities. If we choose to do so, we can become perfect, just as they are."

Who are our heavenly parents if not a Father and a Mother?

[Paul Ray]

So Gospel Principles is not published officially by the Church? I believe it was Lightbearer who pointed this out to us....

Who are our heaven parents if not a Father and a Mother?

The Gospel Principles manual is not among the standard works of our Church.

... and I'm not saying it's not true, or that I don't agree with it.

I'm simply saying that I think it is important that we simply teach people our standards.

[smac97]

smac,

How come I'm being credited in your last post with a bunch of things I didn't say?

I said: "If MIH is doctrinal, point me to the revelation establishing it. Point me to the scripture."

You responded by accusing me of straining at gnats.

Did I miss something? Is there some sort of metaphorical reference to "gnats" that I have not grasped?

It is straining at gnats to ask for a scriptural basis for the doctrine of Mother in Heaven when I already made it clear that there is a scriptural basis.

Well, I disagree that "there is a scriptural basis," so your statement to the contrary is not self-evident.

How many times did Christ refer to Heavenly Father, or Father in Heaven, or some variation thereof? Lots. The fact that Christ used the appellation father is revelation, and scriptural revelation at that, that there is a Mother in Heaven.

I don't see it. I see an inference, but no revelation as to the existence of a Mother in Heaven.

Keep in mind that I have already said I am inclined to believe She exists. I just don't think that her existence is a matter of revealed doctrine.

And when I asked for a scriptural basis for Her existence, I was accused of straining at gnats.

Struggling with that simple, uncomplicated, transparent truth is straining at gnats.

What "truth?" That Jesus spoke with His Father in Heaven?

Yes, I accept that. But am I obligated to accept a doctrine based on an inference?

Is that the standard by which we now measure doctrine? Not scripture, but inference of scripture?

And what happens if I do not accept your inference?

-Smac

So Gospel Principles is not published officially by the Church?

Again: All that is doctrinal is published by the Church, but that doesn't mean that all that is published by the Church is doctrinal.

-Smac

[BCSpace]

So Gospel Principles is not published officially by the Church? I believe it was Lightbearer who pointed this out to us....

Who are our heaven parents if not a Father and a Mother?

The Gospel Principles manual is not among the standard works of our Church.

Never said it was. But it is an offcial doctrinal work teaching that MIH is official doctrine.

... and I'm not saying it's not true, or that I don't agree with it.

I'm simply saying that I think it is important that we simply teach people our standards.

The question I would ask, if one does not believe the Church's own statements about what is and is not doctrine, is why would the Church publish this doctrine in it's own lesson manuals, allow it to be preached over the GC pulpit, and include it in one of t's hymns, etc.?

[BCSpace]

So Gospel Principles is not published officially by the Church?

Again: All that is doctrinal is published by the Church, but that doesn't mean that all that is published by the Church is doctrinal.

Only where specifically stated. Therefore MIH is official doctrine.

[smac97]

Only where specifically stated. Therefore MIH is official doctrine.

I disagree. But I see the discussion is turning personal, so I'll withdraw and let you have the last word.

-Smac

[BCSpace]

However, there actually is a scripture and that is Genesis 5:1-3. Here the image of God is equated to a married couple.

Genesis 5:1-3:

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3

[mocnarf]

I find it really hard to believe that ANYBODY can believe that the creator is only male. There either has to be a Heavenly mother or else God must be male and female. The very act of the creation of life (giving birth) is a female function. It's common sense.

Katherine, don't many "Christians" believe that God is gender neutral, that is God has no need to be a sexual being because God did his creation through non sexual means.

[Mark Beesley]

And when I asked for a scriptural basis for Her existence, I was accused of straining at gnats.

What "truth?" That Jesus spoke with His Father in Heaven?

Yes, I accept that. But am I obligated to accept a doctrine based on an inference?

Christ did not only speak of His Father in Heaven. He spoke of Our Father in Heaven.

As for your obligation to accept a doctrine based on an inference, I wholeheartedly agree that you don't need to. The First Article of Faith does not say we believe in God, the Eternal Mother, so for the obvious reason She is not referenced, faith in Her is not a requirement. But that's not really what were talking about, is it.

If this thread has taught us anything, it is that the concept of doctrine is rather fuzzy. I'm ok with that. Are you?

[katherine the great]

Katherine, don't many "Christians" believe that God is gender neutral, that is God has no need to be a sexual being because God did his creation through non sexual means.

I really don't know if there is a general consensus among Christians. I don't think we need to believe that God created man through sexual means though. The scripture says that man was created in God's image and that God created man(kind) male and female.

[Paul Ray]

Never said it was. But it is an offcial doctrinal work teaching that MIH is official doctrine.

Huh?

I think I missed where the Gospel Principles manual states the MIH doctrine is official church doctrine.

Would you please point that out to me, again?

The question I would ask, if one does not believe the Church's own statements about what is and is not doctrine, is why would the Church publish this doctrine in it's own lesson manuals, allow it to be preached over the GC pulpit, and include it in one of it's hymns, etc.?

People are free to teach and believe what they want to teach and believe, even in God's true Church, and nobody will say anything about it as long as what they teach does not go AGAINST what is official Church doctrine for the whole Church.

... and they also can't teach what is official doctrine for the whole Church without the voice of the whole Church.

There is an amazing amount of freedom in this Church, as long as a person doesn't go AGAINST the whole Church or the teachings of the whole Church.

Even the President of the Church can give his personal opinion when he is speaking in General Conference.

[smac97]

Christ did not only speak of His Father in Heaven. He spoke of Our Father in Heaven.

Of course. When I mention my dad, I am not denying that he is also the father of my siblings.

As for your obligation to accept a doctrine based on an inference, I wholeheartedly agree that you don't need to.

Well, your dogmatic compatriot feels otherwise. And the problem with dogmatists is that, in their world, reasonable minds cannot disagree. It's their way or the highway.

In this particular instance, BCSpace has gone so far as to speculate as the reasons for my sin of disagreeing with him:

The only LDS who disagree with the Church's own definitions as to what doctrine is and is not are those who are somehow uncomfortable with it in the first place. Either they don't believe the doctrine in the first place or they had trouble defending the doctrine in the past and retreated into error. In smac's case, I'll bet it was the latter.

There you have it. To disagree with BCSpace is to "retreat into error."

Lovely stuff.

The First Article of Faith does not say we believe in God, the Eternal Mother, so for the obvious reason She is not referenced, faith in Her is not a requirement.

I agree.

And, for the record, I am inclined to believe that She exists. My point is two-fold: First, I am not obligated to believe she exists because there is no revealed doctrine as to her existence. All we have are broad inferences and cherished-but-extra-canonical quotes.

Second, I am staking out this position to protect the members from dogmatists like BCSpace, who presume to instruct the rest of us on what we are obligated to believe.

If this thread has taught us anything, it is that the concept of doctrine is rather fuzzy. I'm ok with that. Are you?

There is more than one application of the term.

But that seems to have fallen by the wayside.

-Smac

[mocnarf]

I really don't know if there is a general consensus among Christians. I don't think we need to believe that God created man through sexual means though. The scripture says that man was created in God's image and that God created man(kind) male and female.

Exactly, in the relm that God lives, gender and procreation may well be irrelavent and that He created initial mortal life forms by methods other than procreation. He may well have used Evolution to being forth the multitude of life forms that we know here are this planet.

It seems to me that humanity and most religions have assigned a gender to God. Where is the scriptures does God state that He is a male? People assume God has gender and that His gender is male. They do this because it is that males are the most powerful in our culture thus if God is all powerful he must be male.

In Mormon theology, however, it seems to me that it would be a theological problem if God was not male and also if their was no MIH. For Mormon's (ISTMT) God has to be male and must have a wife(s) or the whole temple endowment would make no sense.