Farms Review And Mother In Heaven.

[BCSpace]

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."

No, to put words in the mouth of the Church about what it says regarding it's own doctrine as you have done is to retreat into error.

First, I am not obligated to believe she exists

True.

because there is no revealed doctrine as to her existence.

False as this has already been shown as well as not being a necessaru factor as to what the Church considers as doctrine.

All we have are broad inferences and cherished-but-extra-canonical quotes.

False again.

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.

So you believe contrary to the Church and teach others to do the same only because you dislike me?

[Mark Beesley]

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

My comment that should follow this one is self-evident, so I won't even bother.

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.

Tolerrance come with age. Of course, some folks may have to live to be twenty-seven thousand years old . . .

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

. . . . . .

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

Well, I think the reason you disagree with me is because you are whoremonger and an infidel!!!

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.

How about this: We have a scripturally inferred doctrine based on the revelation that God is our Father?

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.

You better bring a bigger gun . . .

Have a nice evening.

[katherine the great]

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.

Well, Jesus pretty specifically calls God His Father.

[CQUIRK]

I believe in the M(s)IH theory.

That we have many mothers in heaven- i.e God is a polygamist.

.....I'm being serious.

I think that the reason why the scriptures are silent on a Heavenly Mother because there is more then one HM and that God won't just reveal it to us because it both may contredict what God was saying about other gods (idols) before him and somewhat denote his image as the supreme being. IMO.

Yes we do have more then just one heavenly mother, perhaps so many that we cannot count them all, that's probably why God doesn't want us praying to a heavenly mother. And the reason why God had polygamy as a principle to be practiced sacredly at times is, well, because he may have wanted the faithfull to do in marriage what he himself does in Heaven.

-That's just my personal opinion.

But yes I think there is more then one heavenly mother in heaven, because I honestly think if there was only one HM, then she would already be mentioned in the scriptures (Bible or BOM).

BTW, is there anybody else here that supports the idea of plural HM's in Heaven? Or does anybody have any talks or statements by prophets or general authorities that backs my idea of there being more then one Heavenly Mother?

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

I believe gender plays a role, but I also believe you go too far with this comment.

[CQUIRK]

Well any other statement besides this-

"...Due to the belief among some Latter-day Saints that plural marriage is a true principle that is practiced in heaven, some members of the LDS Church consider that there are two or more Mothers in Heaven."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavenly_Moth...r_Day_Saints%29

-I'm one of those Saints BTW.

[BCSpace]

BTW, is there anybody else here that supports the idea of plural HM's in Heaven?

I can handle it though I don't know for sure. In disagreement with you, I maintain the official MIH doctrine is supported in scripture though not needed to be so to support the official LDS doctrine on the subject.

[BCSpace]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavenly_Moth...r_Day_Saints%29

-I'm one of those Saints BTW.

Interesting you should bring up that link as it says....

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not formally acknowledge the existence of a Heavenly Mother until 1909, in a statement on evolution by the First Presidency marking the 50th anniversary of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species.[16] The Church also later acknowledged the theology in the 1995 statement The Family: A Proclamation to the World, where the Church officially stated that each person is a "spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents". Other references to Heavenly Mother can be found in Latter-day Saint speeches and literature.[17]

What does the 1909 FP statement say?.......

The Father of Jesus is our Father also. Jesus Himself taught this truth,

when He instructed His disciples how to pray: "Our Father which art in heaven,"

etc. Jesus, however, is the first born among all the sons of God-the first begotten

in the spirit, and the only begotten in the flesh. He is our elder brother, and we,

like Him, are in the image of God. All men and women are in the similitude of the

universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity.

IMPROVEMENT ERA.

Vol. XIII. NOVEMBER, 1909. No. 1.

Editor's Table.

____

The Origin of Man.

BY THE FIRST PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH.

Once again, the Church is proven correct regarding statements about itself.

[mocnarf]

Well, Jesus pretty specifically calls God His Father.

True, but was that just a figure of speech? IE: People address the Catholic priest as "Father", even though he is not their father and if he keeps his covenents, will never be a father is biological terms. So, again it may be that a masculin term was used by those who translated the Bible. He could very well have actually said "Creator".

[katherine the great]

True, but was that just a figure of speech? IE: People address the Catholic priest as "Father", even though he is not their father and if he keeps his covenents, will never be a father is biological terms. So, again it may be that a masculin term was used by those who translated the Bible. He could very well have actually said "Creator".

I'm not familiar enough with the Greek or Latin to know. I do believe though that Jesus called God "Abba!" and I'm pretty sure that is the Aramaic word for Daddy--an affectionate reference to one's physical father, and intimate father.

[peeps]

<snip>

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?

<snip>

Maybe that statement was "merely his private opinion," and not binding.

Just sayin'.

[Buckeye]

But yes I think there is more then one heavenly mother in heaven, because I honestly think if there was only one HM, then she would already be mentioned in the scriptures (Bible or BOM).

BTW, is there anybody else here that supports the idea of plural HM's in Heaven? Or does anybody have any talks or statements by prophets or general authorities that backs my idea of there being more then one Heavenly Mother?

I don't have a problem with it. And if true, it would help explain why more is not said about her (them). But there are also many other legitimate theories. One of my favorites is that, as with all principles, the higher truths are held back because greater condemnation comes with the rejection of greater truth. God has revealed himself and we see how quickly man "tramples him underfoot". It may be that God would be less patient with man trampling MIH underfoot. I know this was the case in my house. Disrespect dad = dad is not happy. Disrespect mom = WWIII.

[jadams_4242]

I finally got around to cracking open the last issue of The FARMS Review (19.1). After reading Dr. Petersonâ??s intro, I went to Von Feldtâ??s review of Deverâ??s Did God Have A Wife? [ http://www.farmsresearch.com/display.php?t...view&id=639 ]. I had read this book shortly after it was published, and was looking forward to what Von Feldt had to say. IMHO, a very interesting reviewâ??a review which is in essence, a bit more than just a review, but also an apologetic for the LDS doctrine of â??Mother in heavenâ?.

I have argued in the past that MIH is not an â??officialâ? LDS doctrine, and that a faithful Mormon does not have to believe this doctrine in order to receive a â??temple recommendâ??. Some MADB (then FAIR) posters agreed with me on this, others did not. However, after reading through Von Feldtâ??s contribution, I am now asking myself this question: Do any Mormons with temple recommends deny the MIH doctrine? To my knowledge, I am not aware of any (with the possible exception of one, who may be in the process of affirming it).

Now, I shall postulate that the MIH doctrine is quite â??black-and-whiteâ??â??there is either a MIH or there is not. I would also postulate that the MIH doctrine (whether true or false) carries huge implications for so many other aspects of theology as a whole such that if true, this would mean that virtually ALL other forms of â??modernâ? Christianity are false; but if there is no MIH, it would then mean that a doctrine cherished by the vast majority of temple Mormons (ALL?) is in error, casting suspicions on many other â??uniqueâ?? LDS doctrines.

Looking forward to your thoughts and comments on this issue.

Grace and peace,

David

Although i do not know of any official doctrine on this issue, but it would only make sense if we beleive in heavenly father, then why not a mother? We know that God one way or the other is our father, does that mean he litteraly procreated us us physically, We dont really think so but maybe it was? If he did it physically or spiritually, it still nonthe less happened, so why is it so hard to accept a mother as well? its not out of reality and normal conception, for one and not the other.

[smac97]

Interesting you should bring up that link as it says....

What does the 1909 FP statement say?.......

Once again, the Church is proven correct regarding statements about itself.

Hmm. I wonder if I should eat crow.

Let me think on it.

Thanks for the information.

-Smac

[Stargazer]

Hmm. I wonder if I should eat crow.

Let me think on it.

Thanks for the information.

-Smac

Not having participated in this exchange, but having watched the tennis ball get whacked back and forth over and over again with neither side giving ground (though I thought smac was starting to look a bit ragged there), it now looks like the match may have come to a well-fought-out conclusion.

And the crowd goes wild!

[Ron Beron]

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.

Apparently the framers of the OT couldn't justify a belief in only a Fatherly figure in heaven since they introduced many facets of God as being somewhat feminine. I probably have stated this ad nauseum, but the scriptures are replete with God's feminine attributes as being specified by the "wisdom/hokhma" character which is personified in Proverbs, etc. I have a very difficult time seeing God as only male since that is primarily a term best suited for physical earth bound males. God, as a glorified being, is beyond either male or female. Rather, I think that "He" exhibits qualities that are the quintessence of both "male" and "female".

[BCSpace]

Rather, I think that "He" exhibits qualities that are the quintessence of both "male" and "female".

You Devil!

[ed2276]

Kerry Shirts has a podcast on this entitled : Reviewing Dever's Mother Goddess in Ancient Israel.

It is found here : http://www.backyardprofessor.com/the_backy...asts/index.html

[consiglieri]

Hmm. I wonder if I should eat crow.

Let me think on it.

Thanks for the information.

-Smac

Don't give up so fast.

I've got your back, smac.

Why should we feel bound by the word "mother" in a statement addressing biological evolution?

Can anybody say "dicta"?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[aspire]

If we believe what we are taught in the temple than there is no doubt that there is a roll for MIH doctrine. If it was otherwise than why are we sealed as we are? What point is our eternal progression? Is not the purpose of all this to become as our Father in heaven? Or does that mean males only? How do women fit into the progression to become as our Heavenly Father? The doctrine of MIH is important to the salvation of ever man and woman. For no other reason because I am a woman and not a man. How do I become like a man is God is only male? If what we take upon us in the temple is true there is no question that God can not be God without Her. If this is not so where does it leave us?

[BCSpace]

Hmm. I wonder if I should eat crow.

Let me think on it.

Thanks for the information.

-Smac

Don't give up so fast.

I've got your back, smac.

Why should we feel bound by the word "mother" in a statement addressing biological evolution?

Indeed why when the Church teaches MIH as officially as doctrine in current publications.

[alter idem]

Interesting exchange. I think I'll continue to believe in a Mother in Heaven and feel no discomfort in teaching it in Sunday School class, but recognize that it's not clearly spelled out in the standard works, but it is supported by the 1909 FP statement and it has popular support among members.

However, when the Proclamation to the Family is added to the Doctrine and Covenants (which I'm certain it will be) then the official doctrine of "Heavenly Parents" will be canonized. And since LDS believe "Heavenly Parents" can only mean a male and female, the Mother in Heaven doctrine will have the official church sanctioned stamp.

[BCSpace]

Interesting exchange. I think I'll continue to believe in a Mother in Heaven and feel no discomfort in teaching it in Sunday School class, but recognize that it's not clearly spelled out in the standard works, but it is supported by the 1909 FP statement and it has popular support among members.

Such is also published in modern official publications of the Church. Popular support has nothing to do with it.

However, when the Proclamation to the Family is added to the Doctrine and Covenants (which I'm certain it will be) then the official doctrine of "Heavenly Parents" will be canonized. And since LDS believe "Heavenly Parents" can only mean a male and female, the Mother in Heaven doctrine will have the official church sanctioned stamp.

A nice sentiment, but it too contradicts what the Church itself says about what constitutes doctrine, even as recently as this year. Canonization is not a requirement for doctrine.

[alter idem]

Such is also published in modern official publications of the Church. Popular support has nothing to do with it.

A nice sentiment, but it too contradicts what the Church itself says about what constitutes doctrine, even as recently as this year. Canonization is not a requirement for doctrine.

BC, I agree. I don't have a problem with some things being accepted as doctrine, even if they aren't in the standard works, but on this board, there are some who insist that unless it's in the standard works, it's not canon.

I guess what we need is a statement from the FP that we can site that will say that doctrine doesn't have to be found only in the standard works. Can you find something to that effect?

[BCSpace]

BC, I agree. I don't have a problem with some things being accepted as doctrine, even if they aren't in the standard works, but on this board, there are some who insist that unless it's in the standard works, it's not canon.

And I would agree with that sentiment. What is in question is what is doctrine, not canon.

I guess what we need is a statement from the FP that we can site that will say that doctrine doesn't have to be found only in the standard works. Can you find something to that effect?

Anyone with access to the CHI book 2, or who has been to a Teacher's Prep class, or who has been a missionary knows what doctrine is in the same way I do (unless they were sleep walking through the meetings). Perhaps there IS something to the notion that there is a difference between internet Mormons and chapel Mormons.

However, there is also this recent statement from the Church....

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