Margaret Toscano And The Heavenly Mother

[LifeOnaPlate]

James Talmage suggested a cut off of before that in the Great Apostasy. But I don't have my copy here so I will have to look it up later.

john

Here's the book right here, click

Please demonstrate where a definite date was given saying "nothing written after this time period is true because of the apostasy."

Not to be a spoiler, but didn't Paul say that the apostacy was already well underway when HE wrote... and he was, of course, one of the first NT writers? I would find writings after the 1st century to be suspect... with writings after the 2nd century worthy of thorough scrutiny.

But that's just me.

Apostasy is still happening today, as it was then. This has never precluded anyone from writing truth or being inspired.

[Calm]

Now we're talking, thanks Cal!

Have mouse, will google.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's the book right here, click

Please demonstrate where a definite date was given saying "nothing written after this time period is true because of the apostasy."

Apostasy is still happening today, as it was then. This has never precluded anyone from writing truth or being inspired.

Nor does it render invalid a writing from an authorized servant of God expressed under the influence of the Holy Ghost.

Which is why I reiterate: It doesn't matter when John produced his written testimony. It is valid by virtue of the fact that John was/is an apostle of Christ.

Therefore, all this talk of cutoff dates for the Great Apostasy and so forth is irrelevant to the matter of whether The Gospel according to St. John can be regarded as scripture.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Nor does it render invalid a writing from an authorized servant of God expressed under the influence of the Holy Ghost.

Which is why I reiterate: It doesn't matter when John produced his written testimony. It is valid by virtue of the fact that John was/is an apostle of Christ.

Therefore, all this talk of cutoff dates for the Great Apostasy and so forth is irrelevant to the matter of whether The Gospel according to St. John can be regarded as scripture.

So we've effectively dismantled the argument from several perspectives.

[Ihearya]

Unless you consider how relevant that quote is from a LDS standpoint. The Gospel of John is of late composition and dates to aproximately the 90s of the first century. What that means is your quoting a gospel written during "The Great Apostacy". So from a LDS standpoint quoting anything from the Johannine works should be rather dubious. Excluding possibly the Signs Gospel inside of John.

Phaedrus

I have a hard time calling the Gospel of John "Dubious" and I believe that quote is there for a reason, for both his time and ours. If I were to waste my time speculating about a Heavenly Mother, I would forget to pay attention to what's really important. Christ NEVER prayed to his Heavenly Mother. He never mentioned Her. There is no reference about her in doctrine. Why are we speculating something that only a Prophet would reveal to us? If the Prophet has not revealed anything, that means it doesn't pertain to us. People are having a hard time with simple things like a year's supply of food. Why bother about a year's supply of speculations that lead absolutely nowhere?

[aspire]

If Heavenly Mother doesn't matter then nether does the eternal welfare of every female that has ever exists. If you don't care about Her than what is you care for all female spouses sealed in the temple. She matters! To know who/what She is, is to know what I a female can become!

[Scott Lloyd]

If Heavenly Mother doesn't matter then nether does the eternal welfare of every female that has ever exists. If you don't care about Her than what is you care for all female spouses sealed in the temple. She matters! To know who/what She is, is to know what I a female can become!

I think you have misinterpreted what Ihearya is saying. I read him as saying that, for the purposes of this mortal probation, conjecture regarding details of a Mother in heaven does not matter. One can attain salvation and exaltation based on the light and knowledge that has been revealed.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think you have misinterpreted what Ihearya is saying. I read him as saying that, for the purposes of this mortal probation, conjecture regarding details of a Mother in heaven does not matter. One can attain salvation and exaltation based on the light and knowledge that has been revealed.

I thought Ihearya was a female, oops!

Anyway, I wouldn't mind hearing more of the doctrine in the teachings of the Church. I also wish there were more and stronger scriptural women as role models, etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

I thought Ihearya was a female, oops!

(S)he may well be. Oops!

Anyway, I wouldn't mind hearing more of the doctrine in the teachings of the Church.

Nor would I. But, for the moment, I don't feel especially incapacitated spiritually for the lack of more information.

I wonder, though, if we did have such information, if it might tempt some toward heresy; i.e some sort of "special relationship" apart from and transcending that which we should have with God, the Father. As it is, we've seen the same sort of error creep into Mormon consciousness with regard to the Son.

Just a thought.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Would the potential fallout outweigh what might inspire others?

I am not disposed to advocate for it either way, just something I've thought about.

[aspire]

I think you have misinterpreted what Ihearya is saying. I read him as saying that, for the purposes of this mortal probation, conjecture regarding details of a Mother in heaven does not matter. One can attain salvation and exaltation based on the light and knowledge that has been revealed.

I understand that, I really do. Its just that you as a priesthood holder have a little clearer vision of you position in the hereafter if you live up to what you are suppose to. But we as women don't really. If we receive blessings alongside/with our husbands, what does mean? Maybe I'm not understanding. If I am allowed to know my Mother than I know what my potential is. I'm not explaining myself very well. My Father is my exemplar and I am to be like Him, but I am not a him and I will never be a him. To know Her would help to know my potential. To know Them is know what my husband and I are striving to become.

To say to H. Moither is unnessary is to say the samething about earthly mothers.

[aspire]

(S)he may well be. Oops!

Nor would I. But, for the moment, I don't feel especially incapacitated spiritually for the lack of more information.

I wonder, though, if we did have such information, if it might tempt some toward heresy; i.e some sort of "special relationship" apart from and transcending that which we should have with God, the Father. As it is, we've seen the same sort of error creep into Mormon consciousness with regard to the Son.

Just a thought.

Scott- Here is another thought, what if the word God is not what we as humans interpret it to be. Wonder if God (word as a title) is not a single entity, but to become God it is two be insuperable beings male and female. Basically what we are taught in the temple but not shown. Now I will duck behind something because I think I am talking heresy.

[Doctor Steuss]

Scott- Here is another thought, what if the word God is not what we as humans interpret it to be. Wonder if God (word as a title) is not a single entity, but to become God it is two be insuperable beings male and female. Basically what we are taught in the temple but not shown. Now I will duck behind something because I think I am talking heresy.

Elohim

[HanClinto]

I understand that, I really do. Its just that you as a priesthood holder have a little clearer vision of you position in the hereafter if you live up to what you are suppose to. But we as women don't really. If we receive blessings alongside/with our husbands, what does mean? Maybe I'm not understanding. If I am allowed to know my Mother than I know what my potential is. I'm not explaining myself very well. My Father is my exemplar and I am to be like Him, but I am not a him and I will never be a him. To know Her would help to know my potential. To know Them is know what my husband and I are striving to become.

To say to H. Moither is unnessary is to say the samething about earthly mothers.

Good points, Aspire -- I totally see where you're at in this. From my (admittedly non-Mo) perspective, your question seems to be quite reasonable and makes sense to me.

--clint

Scott- Here is another thought, what if the word God is not what we as humans interpret it to be. Wonder if God (word as a title) is not a single entity, but to become God it is two be insuperable beings male and female. Basically what we are taught in the temple but not shown. Now I will duck behind something because I think I am talking heresy.

In addition to what Dr. Steuss brought up about the Mormon interpretation of the plural/singular Elohim, this also seems to go along with the (not universal, but somewhat popular?) Mormon doctrine that one must be married to reach the highest levels of exaltation?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Good points, Aspire -- I totally see where you're at in this. From my (admittedly non-Mo) perspective, your question seems to be quite reasonable and makes sense to me.

What of religions who deny there even is a Mother in Heaven I wonder.

In addition to what Dr. Steuss brought up about the Mormon interpretation of the plural/singular Elohim, this also seems to go along with the (not universal, but somewhat popular?) Mormon doctrine that one must be married to reach the highest levels of exaltation?

Could be, clint.

[aspire]

What of religions who deny there even is a Mother in Heaven I wonder.

Could be, clint.

So are you saying we have to be (PC) politically correct to our Judo-Christian roots, that says there is no Heavenly Mother so we can't recognize Her. On the other hand there are several other religions that believe in heavenly consorts or the Feminine Devine.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott- Here is another thought, what if the word God is not what we as humans interpret it to be. Wonder if God (word as a title) is not a single entity, but to become God it is two be insuperable beings male and female. Basically what we are taught in the temple but not shown. Now I will duck behind something because I think I am talking heresy.

Hmm.... Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I don't see it as particularly heretical. Any more than to say that the Father and Son are in perfect unity. Or that we are to be one with them in the same sense that they are one (see Christ's intercessory prayer in John 17). Properly understood, divine unity is a wonderful concept.

[LifeOnaPlate]

So are you saying we have to be (PC) politically correct to our Judo-Christian roots, that says there is no Heavenly Mother so we can't recognize Her. On the other hand there are several other religions that believe in heavenly consorts or the Feminine Devine.

No, I'm not saying that.

[Ihearya]

I am a male. I never said anything about females spouses not being important. Why jump to a conclusion like this without any basis for it? First, there are no scriptures about a Heavenly Mother. Second, the only reference President Hinckley has made is about "Heavenly parents" which implies there is a Heavenly Mother.

Third, speculation about a Heavenly Mother is futile. It also brings up a whole new set of issues/questions which, for lack of inspiration and revelation, can be offensive and sacrilegious.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I am a male. I never said anything about females spouses not being important. Why jump to a conclusion like this without any basis for it? First, there are no scriptures about a Heavenly Mother. Second, the only reference President Hinckley has made is about "Heavenly parents" which implies there is a Heavenly Mother.

Third, speculation about a Heavenly Mother is futile. It also brings up a whole new set of issues/questions which, for lack of inspiration and revelation, can be offensive and sacrilegious.

Apologies, I always thought you were a woman for some reason.

[Ihearya]

Apologies, I always thought you were a woman for some reason.

That's not good. I thought the sex operation had been successful.

[rpn]

I don't put much stock in anything attributed to Zebedee Coltrin (sp?), particularly in his later years. He was present when Elijah Able was ordained to the priesthood. But in his later years he said that Brother Able had not been so ordained. It took then apostle Joseph F. Smith scouring the archives for Able's ordination certificate to confirm the ordinance.

Whether this was intentional rewriting history or not, his "memories" are untrustworthy.