Farms Review And Mother In Heaven.

[thesometimesaint]

While I'll I agree with us having a MIH. I'd like to see more definitive Scripture on the subject.

[Kevin Christensen]

Thus far, there has been astonishingly little discussion of the substance of Alyson's review. It is, I think, the most impressive and significant piece of LDS scholarship on theme of the Divine Feminine to date, not just reviewing Dever, but adding original insights into some of the artifacts that he brings into evidence. Unlike Allred, she does serious research, and limits personal speculation. Her discussion of the offering stand as not only evidence of worship of the divine feminine in ancient Israel, but of a representation of Ezekiel's vision, and evidence of a doctrine of deification, I found quite breathtaking. I'm also pleased that the best work on this feminist topic has been published via FARMS.

I believe that there are other clues in the canonical texts about God's wife that have been generally undetected. I am thinking specifically of Proverbs 1â??9, which tells of a woman named Wisdom who is portrayed at the creation of the world alongside Yahweh. Most biblical scholarsâ??who, as Dever has shown, rely very little on archaeologyâ??interpret this image as a literary personification or theological device rather than a goddess in her own right, or else they believe she is a foreign deity that has been syncretistically worked into the text. They are reluctant to understand her as a distinctly Hebrew goddess, especially because that would require a rethinking of Israel's monotheism. But I support the few who claim that she is a memory of Asherah. I elsewhere have argued that Proverbs 1â??9 could have a setting in the rituals of Israel's ancient religion. (She has a forthcoming FARMS Occasional Paper on the topic.) Dever's suggestion that Asherah was venerated in templelike places throughout the countryside may open the possibility that the story of the Wisdom Woman has its roots in a belief in Asherah. Again, Asherah was not worshipped as an alternative to Yahweh, but rather alongside him. The author of Proverbs 1â??9 understood Wisdom to be a gift from Yahweh:

While Alyson observes that modern revelation on the topic is tantalyzing but very limited, she does give credit to current researcher and new findings for their contributions:

What Dever's book contributes is a strong case that the ancient Israelites believed that God had a wife. This Woman had an important and powerful place in the everyday lives of the common folk of ancient Israel. She was a creatress, assisting with the fashioning and fertility of the world, her enthusiasm spilling forth as delight, maybe even singing and dancing. Though her clay forms were a daily domestic companion to the women of ancient Israel, she was also closely associated with more sacred spacesâ??family shrines, high places, and temples. She provided nourishment from heaven and guided those who would listen toward the throne of Yahweh. She had an essential role in apotheosis. It is clear that the early Book of Mormon prophets seemed to know and embrace her as well.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[David Waltz]

Finally have some time to check back in on this thread. I am pleasantly surprised by the number of contributions, many of which are quite informative. Sincerely hope that my followings comments are productive additions to what has become a quite interesting thread (IMHO).

Sargon posted:

>>The review is quite interesting. I will point out that while you call it an apologetic piece, Von feldt concludes that the evidence in Dever's book does not prove the existence of a Heavenly Mother.>>

Me: I need to clarify what I actually said. From my first post: â??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 thought I was pretty clear, in that Von Feldtâ??s contributions was â??a reviewâ?, but also â??a bit more than just a review.â? I hope you do not think that I was using the term â??apologeticâ? in a negative sense, for I was not. I found Von Feldtâ??s â??apologeticâ? (i.e. defense) of Daniel Petersonâ??s, Kevin Barneyâ??s and Kevin Christensenâ??s previous contributions (which are explicitly apologetic in nature) to be balanced, insightful and yet respectively reserved.

Dr. Peterson had this to say about Von Feldtâ??s review in his introduction:

Terryl Givens surveys the challenge that new religious movements like Mormonism pose to mainstream religion, and James Faulconer offers a specific example of that challenge with his critique of conventional approaches to theology. So, too, does Alyson Von Feldt's essay on the question of whether God has a wifeâ??a question to which Latter-day Saints emphatically answer Yes..(Page lii.)

Sargon:>>I'm not sure why all other forms of Christianity would be false if a MIH were a true doctrine. As long as they are capable of admitting the possibility that they do not know everything about heaven, it wouldn't make them false. Having less light and knowledge doesn't make one false, just less true.>>

Me: When I speak of â??other forms of Christianityâ? I am referring to denominations/sects and not what individuals may believe. I maintain that if MIH is correct, then all other denominations/sects which I have studied are fundamentally flawed, for their respective doctrines of God/the Godhead and Christology allow no place for a concept of a MIH. For instance, the primary reason why the Catholic Church recently ruled against CoJCoLDS baptism as being valid was due to the MIH doctrine. But, with this said, I shall concede that my assertion MAY be a bit too broad in its scope, while maintaining that if I came to believe that the MIH doctrine is true, I would have to reject much of my current belief system and become a member of the CoJCoLDS.

Hope these clarifications help, more later, the Lord willing.

Grace and peace,

David

[David Waltz]

Hi Kevin,

Seems we put up our last posts at the same time (1:16PM â?? 11:16 AM in WA <grin>), though you beat me to the punch by a few secondsâ?¦

You wrote:

>> Thus far, there has been astonishingly little discussion of the substance of Alyson's review. It is, I think, the most impressive and significant piece of LDS scholarship on theme of the Divine Feminine to date, not just reviewing Dever, but adding original insights into some of the artifacts that he brings into evidence.>>

Me: Agreed, and I tried to point this out in my opening post by saying: â??â?¦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 added a few clarifications in my 1:16PM/11:16AM post.

Good to see you show up!

Grace and peace,

David

[Olavarria]

I think we have to be super careful not to abuse, or over use, the "speaking as a man", "his opinion", "measure it by the standard works" loophole. We are not evangelicals, people who limit themselves to what is in the canonical books.

I use the "speaking as a man" thing all the time because sometimes its true. For example, LGT theory vs hemispheric theory, or 'mark of Cain", have absolutly no bearing on the weightier matters of who am I, why am I here, where am I going and Who/What is God.

However, the existance of Heavenly Mother and the truth expressed in the King Follet Discourse(for example) does.

Sometimes I think that we, as a people, are soooo anxious to be called "christian" that we water down, de-emphasize and wave off some of the most profound, beutiful and powerful doctrines that have been revealed to the Prophets. We take these pearls and exchange them for catch phrases like "personal Lord and Savior" and "saved by grace".

Ya, Im a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ.

If Bob Jones, the Southern Baptist Convention or the Vatican doesn't think I am then they can kiss my grits.

If there is only one thing I can say about the so called "fundamentalists", it is that they are not ashamed of who they are. They don't give a rip of what the world thinks about them or their doctrine. I wish we could be the same.

Heavenly Father is married to at least one Woman of equal glory, brilliance,majesty and perfection. To say that He isn't is to say that we are sing apostate hymns(O'My Father) and that the bretheren lack sufficient inspiration to omit that detail form the Proclamation on the Family.

ps. I am not a "fundamentalist", nor will I ever be. The so-called "8 hour meeting" is a crock.

[thesometimesaint]

Her Amun:

"If Bob Jones, the Southern Baptist Convention or the Vatican doesn't think I am then they can kiss my grits."

Agreed.

[Lightbearer]

I think we have to be super careful not to abuse, or over use, the "speaking as a man", "his opinion", "measure it by the standard works" loophole. We are not evangelicals, people who limit themselves to what is in the canonical books.

I use the "speaking as a man" thing all the time because sometimes its true. For example, LGT theory vs hemispheric theory, or 'mark of Cain", have absolutly no bearing on the weightier matters of who am I, why am I here, where am I going and Who/What is God.

However, the existance of Heavenly Mother and the truth expressed in the King Follet Discourse(for example) does.

Sometimes I think that we, as a people, are soooo anxious to be called "christian" that we water down, de-emphasize and wave off some of the most profound, beutiful and powerful doctrines that have been revealed to the Prophets. We take these pearls and exchange them for catch phrases like "personal Lord and Savior" and "saved by grace".

Ya, Im a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ.

If Bob Jones, the Southern Baptist Convention or the Vatican doesn't think I am then they can kiss my grits.

If there is only one thing I can say about the so called "fundamentalists", it is that they are not ashamed of who they are. They don't give a rip of what the world thinks about them or their doctrine. I wish we could be the same.

Heavenly Father is married to at least one Woman of equal glory, brilliance,majesty and perfection. To say that He isn't is to say that we are sing apostate hymns(O'My Father) and that the bretheren lack sufficient inspiration to omit that detail form the Proclamation on the Family.

ps. I am not a "fundamentalist", nor will I ever be. The so-called "8 hour meeting" is a crock.

Well said!

[Ron Beron]

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.

Are you referring to this?...

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole 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. This doctrine resides in the four "standard works" of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

This is the full article presented by the church..

SALT LAKE CITY 4 May 2007 Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole 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. This doctrine resides in the four â??standard worksâ? of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
  
• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Churchâ??s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.
  

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: â??The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.â?

• Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, â??We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.â?
  
• Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, â??By their fruits ye shall know them.â?
  
• Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.
  
• Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology.
  

Journalists, academics and laymen alike are encouraged to pursue their inquiries into the Church by recognizing the broad and complex context within which its doctrines have been declared, in a spirit of reason and good will.

<!-- var APP_ROOT = "/ldsnewsroom/"; //-->

[BCSpace]

Are you referring to this?...

Yes indeed. After all, I did provide the link.

Edit: You'll notice that the FP and Q12 are not conselling together to estblish doctrine that is proclaimed in the canon, rather they are counselling together to "establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications". A common misunderstanding by those who erroneously think doctrine is found only in canon.

[Ron Beron]

Yes indeed. After all, I did provide the link.

Sorry, I didn't see the link. I do, however, have a slight disagreement with the assumption that not all doctrine needs to be canonized. I think there is "unofficial" doctrine that bounces around the church, but unless it is "officially" sanctioned as canon, i.e. chosen, voted on and sustained, it is not doctrine. I will agree, though, that the concept of a MIH is a good doctrine and is well founded in ancient scripture as well as modern thought. It is, none the less, still an undefined doctrine of the church and for that reason we should accept such a doctrine for our private worship and less for public address.

[BCSpace]

Sorry, I didn't see the link.

I apologize if you had to search for it on your own.

I do, however, have a slight disagreement with the assumption that not all doctrine needs to be canonized.

To clarify, all canon is doctrine. Not all doctrine is canon.

I think there is "unofficial" doctrine that bounces around the church, but unless it is "officially" sanctioned as canon, i.e. chosen, voted on and sustained, it is not doctrine.

That is contradictory to the above news release. Another clarification that may help: Doctrine is the interpretation of scripture. Therefore, the exact term "Mother in Heaven" need not be found in canon in order to be the official doctrine of the Church.

An analog from other churches: The term 'Trinity' is not found in the Bible. Yet it is official doctrine.

I will agree, though, that the concept of a MIH is a good doctrine and is well founded in ancient scripture as well as modern thought. It is, none the less, still an undefined doctrine of the church and for that reason we should accept such a doctrine for our private worship and less for public address.

It is strange that you would think the Church would publish and teach in it's lesson manuals doctrine that is somehow not doctrine or not official doctrine as well as not believe the Church's own statements about what is and is not doctrine.

The fact remains; MIH is official LDS doctrine.

[Ron Beron]

BC writes,

I apologize if you had to search for it on your own.

No problem...

To clarify, all canon is doctrine. Not all doctrine is canon.

We both agree.

That is contradictory to the above news release. Another clarification that may help: Doctrine is the interpretation of scripture. Therefore, the exact term "Mother in Heaven" need not be found in canon in order to be the official doctrine of the Church.

Apparently not since it is not there, although, I think there is ample evidences of a Heavenly Mother in OT literature.

An analog from other churches: The term 'Trinity' is not found in the Bible. Yet it is official doctrine.

Having been a Catholic for 19 years I would have to disagree. The RCC believes it is found in the Bible although not spelled out specifically.

It is strange that you would think the Church would publish and teach in it's lesson manuals doctrine that is somehow not doctrine or not official doctrine as well as not believe the Church's own statements about what is and is not doctrine.

The actual wording that would imply such a belief is found in the proclamation which states, "Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents". It does not explicitly state, "mother in heaven". I have my thoughts as to why this is not expressly stated, but it is sufficient to state that "heavenly parents", is more appropriate than singling them out.

The fact remains; MIH is official LDS doctrine.

I might be picky, but Heavenly Parents is doctrine. Singling them apart is not. I think that present a dangerous and schismatic view.

[BCSpace]

That is contradictory to the above news release. Another clarification that may help: Doctrine is the interpretation of scripture. Therefore, the exact term "Mother in Heaven" need not be found in canon in order to be the official doctrine of the Church.

Apparently not since it is not there, although, I think there is ample evidences of a Heavenly Mother in OT literature.

So do I. I like Genesis 5:1-3.

An analog from other churches: The term 'Trinity' is not found in the Bible. Yet it is official doctrine.

Having been a Catholic for 19 years I would have to disagree. The RCC believes it is found in the Bible although not spelled out specifically.

That's exactly what I mean. The term (or word) 'trinity', is not in the Bible. However, it is the official doctrine of the RCC and many other churches.

The actual wording that would imply such a belief is found in the proclamation which states, "Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents". It does not explicitly state, "mother in heaven".

So you want to be vague about what that means just in case our heavenly parents are not really humans turned Gods?

It doesn't need to be expressly stated for it to be doctrine though it is in several places such as the hymn "O My Father", preisthood lessons on the origin of man, and articles such as this....

Jesus did not think only of himself, but caught the greater view of true love which the Father holds. Jesus thought not only of his own interests, but also of others and what he could do for them. Jesus knew the Fatherâ??s plan of salvation was vital for the growth and development of mankind. He unselfishly offered to give his own future mortal life as a Savior for us. Thereby, we might all return to the presence of our Heavenly Father and Mother. We could return to them with perfected, resurrected bodies having gained greater light and knowledge through experiences received during mortality so that during the eternities we can continue to become more like our Father and Mother in Heaven.

Theodore M. Burton, â??A Marriage to Last through Eternity,â? Ensign, Jun 1987, 12

And primary lessons such as this.....

Explain that we all lived in heaven with Heavenly Father before we came to this earth. We are his children. That is why we call him Heavenly Father. We also lived with our heavenly mother and all the rest of Heavenly Fatherâ??s children. Everyone who has been born on the earth is a child of Heavenly Father. We do not remember living with Heavenly Father, but we know we are his children because we read it in the scriptures.

â??Lesson 3: I Am a Child of God,â? Primary 2: Choose the Right A, 11

After all, that we are the literal sons and daughters of a Heavenly Father and Mother and that we can become Gods like them is express and official LDS doctrine.

Shall I go on with the quotes?

The fact remains; MIH is official LDS doctrine.

I might be picky, but Heavenly Parents is doctrine. Singling them apart is not. I think that present a dangerous and schismatic view.

Oh, it's quite the opposite as hopefully you now can see. By your own logic, the Church itself teaches and advocates a dangerous and schismatic doctrine.

[rpn]

I think that when we return to Heaven, we will learn that the reason we have lots of discussion about Our Heavenly Father in the scriptures, but none about our Heavenly Mother is that not all of us have the SAME heavenly mother.

[Ron Beron]

'BCSpace' writes

So you want to be vague about what that means just in case our heavenly parents are not really humans turned Gods?

I am 100% certain they are not human. To be such would indicate that they would have been Homo Sapien

from this planet. Having been flesh and blood, yes, but not human flesh and blood.

It doesn't need to be expressly stated for it to be doctrine though it is in several places such as the hymn "O My Father", preisthood lessons on the origin of man, and articles such as this....

I think there are differing levels of doctrine. Certainly there are the great tradtions of doctrine as found in our scriptural canon and lesser traditions of doctrine as found in our beliefs in a Heavenly Mother all the way down to the legends of the Three Nephites. While I see nothing to indicate expressly we have a canonical belief in a MIH I do support the thesis we have a canonical/doctrinal belief in Heavenly parents.

After all, that we are the literal sons and daughters of a Heavenly Father and Mother and that we can become Gods like them is express and official LDS doctrine.

I think that you are being overly simplistic in this. It is not only LDS doctrine, but early Christian doctrine as well. We become like God in that we are perfected like Him. What this fully entails is not revealed yet.

Shall I go on with the quotes?

The quotes you have given, while informational, are not necessarily canon/doctrine, yet they present beliefs in our church. Only those things that are scriptural and proclamations, etc., are doctrinal.

Oh, it's quite the opposite as hopefully you now can see. By your own logic, the Church itself teaches and advocates a dangerous and schismatic doctrine.

You miss my point; we do not specifically worship a mother in heaven because we get into the polytheistic problems of pre-exilic Israel. We worship a Heavenly Father NOT a Heavenly Mother. To do otherwise is dangerous and schismatic.

I think that when we return to Heaven, we will learn that the reason we have lots of discussion about Our Heavenly Father in the scriptures, but none about our Heavenly Mother is that not all of us have the SAME heavenly mother.

Now, this is new! How do you come across this bit?

[BCSpace]

So you want to be vague about what that means just in case our heavenly parents are not really humans turned Gods?

I am 100% certain they are not human. To be such would indicate that they would have been Homo Sapien from this planet. Having been flesh and blood, yes, but not human flesh and blood.

That is also basic LDS doctrine (Gospel Principles chapter 47)

It doesn't need to be expressly stated for it to be doctrine though it is in several places such as the hymn "O My Father", preisthood lessons on the origin of man, and articles such as this....

I think there are differing levels of doctrine.

Obfuscation. Doctrine is doctrine.

After all, that we are the literal sons and daughters of a Heavenly Father and Mother and that we can become Gods like them is express and official LDS doctrine.

I think that you are being overly simplistic in this. It is not only LDS doctrine, but early Christian doctrine as well.

A stunning admission.

Shall I go on with the quotes?

The quotes you have given, while informational, are not necessarily canon/doctrine,

They are all official doctrine according to the LDS Church's own statements. Those statements expressly separate doctrine from having to be canon.

Oh, it's quite the opposite as hopefully you now can see. By your own logic, the Church itself teaches and advocates a dangerous and schismatic doctrine.

You miss my point; we do not specifically worship a mother in heaven because we get into the polytheistic problems of pre-exilic Israel. We worship a Heavenly Father NOT a Heavenly Mother. To do otherwise is dangerous and schismatic.

That was not the point in the first place which was that MIH is LDS doctrine. Now you say it is doctrine, contrary to your previous posts and you are also now changing the subject as if it were the original point.

[CQUIRK]

I think that when we return to Heaven, we will learn that the reason we have lots of discussion about Our Heavenly Father in the scriptures, but none about our Heavenly Mother is that not all of us have the SAME heavenly mother.

Like I was saying...

I am thinking specifically of Proverbs 1â??9, which tells of a woman named Wisdom who is portrayed at the creation of the world alongside Yahweh.

What specific verses?

[Darth_Bill]

BCSpace.

How does common consent work within this view of doctrine? Is my consent to them holding the office also consent to be bound by the proclamations? I would think so but our canonization process is more explicit. I mean, for something to be in the canon we explicitly state that we consider it the mind and will of the Lord while proclamations are a bit more indirect.

Also, I remember reading a talk by Heber C Kimball about our role in the afterlife. I think we attribute too much directly to HF. He proposed that "heavenly parents" will be us. I have always noticed that things are couched in a way to allow for this method of proxy. He is our literal Heavenly Father, but it could mean several generations removed.

Also, I'm not to convinced that "spirit children" and their coming about by sexual means is very firmly established. What exactly has been revealed about it other than vague references to "heavenly parents"? How far should we take our speculation? While I can believe that sexual relations will exist in the afterlife, am I bound to think that it will result in whatever spirit children are? I am the father of three adopted children and my views might be a little bit different than others.

And I am willing to throw all this under the bus pending further light and knowledge.

[Kevin Christensen]

Hi Kevin,

Seems we put up our last posts at the same time (1:16PM â?? 11:16 AM in WA <grin>), though you beat me to the punch by a few secondsâ?¦

You wrote:

>> Thus far, there has been astonishingly little discussion of the substance of Alyson's review. It is, I think, the most impressive and significant piece of LDS scholarship on theme of the Divine Feminine to date, not just reviewing Dever, but adding original insights into some of the artifacts that he brings into evidence.>>

Me: Agreed, and I tried to point this out in my opening post by saying: â??â?¦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 added a few clarifications in my 1:16PM/11:16AM post.

Good to see you show up!

Grace and peace,

David

Hi David. Nice to see you around as well. Though still a bit surprising to still see so little discussion of the actual content of Alyson's important paper, and Dever's book. Dever makes the case that Biblical archeology, while partial and random, is still less likely to have been edited. Going back to the texts with the archeology in mind helps us read the texts better. It bring context.

Plus, just reading with new possibilities in mind, approaching the text with a prepared mind, able to see possibilities, rather than bound by doctrinaire preconceptions. I've also read Alyson's paper on Wisdom teaching in the Book of Mormon, and am anxious to see the Occasional paper come out. Though apparently most of the editing resources at FARMS are aimed at One Eternal Round, that when it appears remains an utter mystery.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[roman]

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

I take your response as a tacit acknowledgment that there is no scriptural basis for the doctrine of MIH. Am I right?

-Smac

Yes you are! You are right as rain. There is absolutly no scriptural backing for a mother in Heaven.

This is an out and out false teaching-doctrine-or what ever catagory you want to put it in, put forth my mormons!

[CQUIRK]

Yes you are! You are right as rain. There is absolutly no scriptural backing for a mother in Heaven.

This is an out and out false teaching-doctrine-or what ever catagory you want to put it in, put forth my mormons!

Put forth "my" Mormons?

[roman]

Put forth "my" Mormons?

Ah It was to be by not my.

Oh well it doesn't change the truth about God-------he has NO wife--------He is esposed to the church and the marraige supper is already planned.

I have my invataion---------------do you?

[CQUIRK]

Ah It was to be by not my.

Oh well it doesn't change the truth about God-------he has NO wife--------He is esposed to the church and the marraige supper is already planned.

I have my invataion---------------do you?

Mine's VIP and backstage, I don't know about yours however.

[BCSpace]

How does common consent work within this view of doctrine? Is my consent to them holding the office also consent to be bound by the proclamations? I would think so but our canonization process is more explicit. I mean, for something to be in the canon we explicitly state that we consider it the mind and will of the Lord while proclamations are a bit more indirect.

You may indeed choose to believe all or part or non of LDS doctrine. But you have no say whatsoever, by the Church's own definition of doctrine, what is or is not doctrine.

Also, I remember reading a talk by Heber C Kimball about our role in the afterlife. I think we attribute too much directly to HF. He proposed that "heavenly parents" will be us. I have always noticed that things are couched in a way to allow for this method of proxy. He is our literal Heavenly Father, but it could mean several generations removed.

The Church itself has already declared MIH as doctrine as per the references I have already given. It certainly doesn't limit how many Mothers there actually were no who may become such in the future.

Also, I'm not to convinced that "spirit children" and their coming about by sexual means is very firmly established.

I have no problem with that concept, or anything else that might by hypothesized or (more importantly) revealed. But Spirit procreation is not the issue we are debating. MIH is and simply having an MIH doctrine does not imply or preclude spirit children being born by sexual means.

And I am willing to throw all this under the bus pending further light and knowledge.

The Church has revealed that we have a Mother in Heaven and teaches it for doctrine. Simple as that.

Yes you are! You are right as rain. There is absolutly no scriptural backing for a mother in Heaven.

Genesis 5:1-3 shows that the image of God is a married couple.

[roman]

Genesis 5:1-3-----shows God a married couple?

No ligetimate Biblical scholar even remotly suggest such a thing. BC Space that is just bad bad interpertation and even worse application of scripture.

When you apply Biblical analysis as you do ---you look and sound and shoots all your arguments out of the water---------you're