thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 cion:I doubt you find many LDS that agree to that.
WalkerW Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 See David L. Paulsen, "Are Christians Mormon? Reassessing Joseph Smith's Theology in his Bicentennial," BYU Studies 45:1 (2006): starting on pg. 96.
cion Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 You have to admit, the idea of a Heavenly Mother seems very logical given the theological fabric in which it is situated.
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 LDS Guy,I accept the Family Proclamation for what it was intended, as a clear statement on LDS beliefs about families here on earth.We find it rude when anti-mormons pull quotes out of context or try inferr a major piece of doctrine from a turn of phrase. In that vein, claiming LDS have a doctrine on Holy Mother because the Proclomation used parents (plural) is doing what we criticize in others.If it was a statement then why was it presented to the General Authorities to be accepted by unanimous decision as the will of God and sustained by the membership as the will of God? A statement is just that, when the Church supported the prop 8 amendment that was a clear statement of LDS beliefs about families here on earth. It was not accepted as the will of God by unanimous decision of the GA's nor was it sustained in General Conference by the membership of the Church. I agree you have to right to accept the Proclamation as scripture or not, but you can not accept it as scripture and argue against a heavenly mother.
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Just because it says "Parents" doesn't mean there is a Heavenly Mother.Well what do you believe parents mean?Are you implying that we have two heavenly fathers instead?
cion Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Well what do you believe parents mean?Are you implying that we have two heavenly fathers instead?Well, I have no idea. Nobody has really cleared it up. Your guess is as good as mine.
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Well, I have no idea. Nobody has really cleared it up. Your guess is as good as mine.Well I doubt that given the Church's stance on same sex marriage we believe in two heavenly fathers, so the only logical conclusion for a Mormon is a heavenly father and mother. Unless the parents is not the plural of parent.
cion Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Well I doubt that given the Church's stance on same sex marriage we believe in two heavenly fathers, so the only logical conclusion for a Mormon is a heavenly father and mother. Unless the parents is not the plural of parent.We can surmise and wonder and guess at it for the rest of our life but we will never know for sure. We really can't be sure until a prophet of God clears it up for us.
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 cion:I doubt many LDS would argue over if we have a Heavenly Mother. What debate there is is over whether it is doctrine or not. I myself would love to see more Scripture added to clarify/explain her, before being accepted as doctrine. But that is just a personal wish of mine.
cion Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 cion:I doubt many LDS would argue over if we have a Heavenly Mother. What debate there is is over whether it is doctrine or not. I myself would love to see more Scripture added to clarify/explain her, before being accepted as doctrine. But that is just a personal wish of mine.Gotcha. I wonder how much value we humans put on this aspect of the nature of God. It appears little value has been placed on it historically. We might look at Hindus as an good example. They would have some good insight into what it is like to spiritually embrace female deities. If they found value in it, well maybe Mr. Bednar could go have a talk with them?
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 cion:While I(we) encourage everyone to be as knowledgeable as they can about their own and other religions. We are under explicit commandment to pray only to The Father. In fact you will find yourself in hot water with the Church if you actively teach members to pray to Heavenly Mother, or any other deity(female or male).
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 We can surmise and wonder and guess at it for the rest of our life but we will never know for sure. We really can't be sure until a prophet of God clears it up for us.How didn't the Proclamation clear this up? Heavenly parents seems pretty clear to me, and I think we all agree the God is not gay, so he has a wife not a husband. This means there is a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.
cion Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 cion:While I(we) encourage everyone to be as knowledgeable as they can about their own and other religions. We are under explicit commandment to pray only to The Father. In fact you will find yourself in hot water with the Church if you actively teach members to pray to Heavenly Mother, or any other deity(female or male).I am well aware of that and don't plan to teach anyone to pray to HM - though I bet some people might find it fulfilling and rewarding. I've heard of members praying to Jesus, which I think is fine too. Of all the Gods of this Universe, I would bet Jesus would be the most understanding of them all - especially since he repented of his Old Testament horrors.
cion Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 How didn't the Proclamation clear this up? Heavenly parents seems pretty clear to me, and I think we all agree the God is not gay, so he has a wife not a husband. This means there is a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.I'm very sorry to inform you that the Proclamation does not clear this up. It only states Parents but we have no idea what that means. Until a prophet of God officially clarifies this, we will be left to wonder. It's fine to have an opinion. I respect your opinion that it means a Man and Woman God-couple.
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 I doubt many LDS would argue over if we have a Heavenly Mother. What debate there is is over whether it is doctrine or not. I myself would love to see more Scripture added to clarify/explain her, before being accepted as doctrine. But that is just a personal wish of mine.This is a perfectly fine, you are completely right here. There is not detailed explanation of the nature or role of Heavenly Mother, so I do not think the Church expects anyone to accept this as written in stone doctrine. I am sure as further things are revealed to the world the nature of Heavenly Mother will change dramatically. Just as the nature of the Godhead and the afterlife did with the revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith!What I am against is people acting like this isn't a legitimate teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ. Heavenly Mother is implied in the creation story and is professed by the modern prophets as one of our heavenly parents. To act like this is not a teaching of our Church is ammunition for the Anti-Mormons to place doubt in new converts testimony and can cause apostasy. We need to embrace and preach what we know is truth even though we do not understand the how and why just yet!
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 I'm very sorry to inform you that the Proclamation does not clear this up. It only states Parents but we have no idea what that means. Until a prophet of God officially clarifies this, we will be left to wonder. It's fine to have an opinion. I respect your opinion that it means a Man and Woman God-couple.No it does not mean a God couple, it means we have a supreme God who has a wife his goddess and councilor, just as I have a wife who is my councilor and is treated like a goddess : ) LOLGod is still supreme, he has a goddess wife, just like eternally married couples can become gods and goddesses and have there own planets and spirit children.
todd520 Posted February 9, 2011 Author Posted February 9, 2011 If it was a statement then why was it presented to the General Authorities to be accepted by unanimous decision as the will of God and sustained by the membership as the will of God? A statement is just that, when the Church supported the prop 8 amendment that was a clear statement of LDS beliefs about families here on earth. It was not accepted as the will of God by unanimous decision of the GA's nor was it sustained in General Conference by the membership of the Church. I agree you have to right to accept the Proclamation as scripture or not, but you can not accept it as scripture and argue against a heavenly mother.I fear you completely missed my point, so I'll elaborate.The Proclamation is clearly Church Doctrine and very explicit in the points it is making - that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God If the proclamation also intended to articulate that we have a heavenly mother, it was not explicit and in fact contradicts itself "... are created in the image of God (singular). Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents (plural) " The proclamation has many opportunities to expand on the concept of Holy Mother but repeatedly refers to the singular God as our creator. With only one use of parents (plural) I feel you go far out of context to justify doctrine on Heavenly Mother from this piece. If you feel the term God includes Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, you are creating significant doctrine out of nothing. You will have added a Binity to our GodheadIn my OP, I quoted President Hinckley stating he thought it a logical and reasonable assumption, not a revealed truth. Maybe this is how the plural slipped into the text.
cion Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 No it does not mean a God couple, it means we have a supreme God who has a wife his goddess and councilor, just as I have a wife who is my councilor and is treated like a goddess : ) LOLGod is still supreme, he has a goddess wife, just like eternally married couples can become gods and goddesses and have there own planets and spirit children.I appreciate your opinion that God has a wife. I personally think it is a very interesting idea but I don't see how that has been clarified in LDS doctrine.
Obiwan Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 The scriptures DO mention a Heavenly Mother, thus it is doctrine and revelation. What it doesn't necessarily do is "directly" state such, but it is certainly directly implied, and the clear implication starts at Genesis itself, where male and female is created after the image of God.It's a similar thing from the Bible only how we know that the Father also has a body and was once a mortal himself. The Bible doesn't directly say these things, but it does directly imply them. As one example, it is implied from Christ's own words when he said "he did nothing he hadn't seen his Father do". There is no other implication or understanding that can be had from this other than the fact that the Father Himself was once mortal as Christ was. Otherwise, why would Christ even say it out of the blue like that? Christ was clearly trying to say without directly saying it that man and the Gods, be it He and the Father are the same.
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 LDS Guy 1986:I'm fine with learning more. Lord knows I need it. But I'm a stickler for what is doctrine, and what, while it may be true, is not doctrine. I was never a formal Missionary for the Church. Being a very new member, and Vietnam got in the way. But I have have had many wonderful experiences as a informal missionary since that time. I believe that trying to add a Mother in Heaven while teaching the basics as the Missionaries do would be a distraction, and would too easily get into discussions of polytheism vs Henotheism vs Monolatry. To me getting people to read and believe the LDS Scriptures, the Prophets from Joseph Smith to Thomas S. Monson would be of much higher priority.
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Obiwan:As you say it is implied. What I would like to see is added Scripture that says point blank that: We believe in God the Father, and in God the Mother. Plus a lot more explanation as to the role our Mother in Heaven has. We are inching closer with The Proclamation of the Family, but what is not in the Proclamation is what I want to know. When all that happens I'll more than gladly raise my hand in sustaining it as doctrine.
todd520 Posted February 9, 2011 Author Posted February 9, 2011 The scriptures DO mention a Heavenly Mother, thus it is doctrine and revelation. What it doesn't necessarily do is "directly" state such, but it is certainly directly implied, and the clear implication starts at Genesis itself, where male and female is created after the image of God.It's a similar thing from the Bible only how we know that the Father also has a body and was once a mortal himself. The Bible doesn't directly say these things, but it does directly imply them. As one example, it is implied from Christ's own words when he said "he did nothing he hadn't seen his Father do". There is no other implication or understanding that can be had from this other than the fact that the Father Himself was once mortal as Christ was. Otherwise, why would Christ even say it out of the blue like that? Christ was clearly trying to say without directly saying it that man and the Gods, be it He and the Father are the same.Obi, i think the best you can find is an inferred Holy Mother and never an explicit teaching. One must also consider that the Hebrews spoke of scripture using "Man Language" which means that some complex things are dumbed down so they can be understood by mere mortals, a bit like how a parent explains complex things to the very young.. Since understanding God in his fullness and Glory is beyond most mortals, it makes sense to use terms we are familiar with. I believe Heavenly Mother often surfaces under this guise. I think if you read the King Follett Discourse again, you will see that God was reveled to have Flesh and Bone but not as mere mortal like you and me. Joseph compared his time on earth to that of Jesus. And Jesus was never a mere mortal like me.Also, notice the in the KFD, Joesph is very clear and explicit it his revelation of new doctrine, that God was of flesh and bone. If he truly knew God had a spouse, why wasn't he also this explicit in communicating the revelation? If the church explicitly believed in Holy Mother, she would be in our Articles of Faith
cion Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 There are some beautiful non-LDS doctrines out there that speak deeply about female deity. Why not just walk over there and grab some?
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 LDS Guy 1986:I'm fine with learning more. Lord knows I need it. But I'm a stickler for what is doctrine, and what, while it may be true, is not doctrine. I was never a formal Missionary for the Church. Being a very new member, and Vietnam got in the way. But I have have had many wonderful experiences as a informal missionary since that time. I believe that trying to add a Mother in Heaven while teaching the basics as the Missionaries do would be a distraction, and would too easily get into discussions of polytheism vs Henotheism vs Monolatry. To me getting people to read and believe the LDS Scriptures, the Prophets from Joseph Smith to Thomas S. Monson would be of much higher priority.I wasn't trying to say that it needs to be a missionary discussion! I was saying that it should be something touched upon by the new member lessons or the gospel principals class. The last thing that will build a testimony is for the ward to keep important teachings like this form a new member, As will all things we follow the wise council of Paul and give the Milk before we give the meat!Only a foolish missionary would try use heavenly mother with an investigator!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.