LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 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.There is no contradiction or conflict, you simply need to understand the scriptures!Our spirits are the offspring of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother (hence we have Heavenly Parents) our spirits are not created by God they are the offspring of God. Our BODIES are created by God (specifically by Jehovah aka Jesus Christ) in the image of the perfected body of our Father (for men) and our Mother (for women). The plural is not a slip it is put there intentionally, this is revelation there is not mistakes (other than the mistakes of translation and improper recording, which if this was the case the Church would of fixed the typo) when God speaks. Heavenly Mother is a teaching of the Church, her nature is yet to be revealed but she is doctrine of the Church.
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 You will have added a Binity to our GodheadHeavenly Mother is not part of the Godhead, nor ever will! The Godhead is the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, plain and simple. The existence of a Heavenly Mother does not change the Godhead, Heavenly Mother was not involved in the Creation only the Father, Son, and Holt Ghost were, (assisted by our spirits as we are told in the Book of Abraham).
todd520 Posted February 9, 2011 Author Posted February 9, 2011 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!LDS Guy, as a new convert myself, I agree 110% that teachings such as this should not be buried until well after baptism, for new recruits.However, what this thread highlights is that we don't even agree Holy Mother is a revealed teaching of LDS. A confused message is also harmful to investigators.
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 LDS Guy, as a new convert myself, I agree 110% that teachings such as this should not be buried until well after baptism, for new recruits.However, what this thread highlights is that we don't even agree Holy Mother is a revealed teaching of LDS. A confused message is also harmful to investigators.The members may not agree but the Church teaches that we are the offspring of heavenly parents, look at page 9 of the Gospel Principals handbook, look at the Proclamation if you are in doubt. The nature of Heavenly Mother is unknown, and she is rarely mentioned in LDS theology but she is there! Waiting for the time to be revealed in her glorious splendor to he sons and daughters!There is no confusion here, the Church does not take an official stance on heavenly mother because so much in unknown about her nature just like they don't take an official stance on our Heavenly Father's life as a man on another planet under another Heavenly Father.The Church still teaches both of these teachings to it members, though.Heavenly Mother is a revelation and teaching of this Church, but until God reveals more of her nature to us (just like he doesn't reveal much about the nature of the Holy Ghost) the Church does not have a Heavenly Mother doctrine even though it does believe in and teaches of our heavenly mother.
todd520 Posted February 9, 2011 Author Posted February 9, 2011 Heavenly Mother is a teaching of the Church, her nature is yet to be revealed but she is doctrine of the Church.LDSG, please provde me with clear references to this church teaching.I'm expecting something more significant than a single use of plural parents.I'm expecting more than my quote from Hinkely, where he stated it was "logical and reasonable" but he didn't call it a revealed truth.My research indicates there is no record of Joseph teaching or giving revelation on Heavenly Mother. It's also excluded from the topic index on lds.org
Calm 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?Perhaps because LDS doctrine is supposed to be establish through revelation?
Calm Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 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, Don't worry, the GP manual has this:We were not all alike in heaven. We know, for example, that we were sons and daughters of heavenly parents
T-Shirt Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 LDS Guy, as a new convert myself, I agree 110% that teachings such as this should not be buried until well after baptism, for new recruits.However, what this thread highlights is that we don't even agree Holy Mother is a revealed teaching of LDS. A confused message is also harmful to investigators.There are 235 references to "Heavenly Parents" on the Church website. The second lesson in Gospel Principles teaches of Heavenly Parents. I don't understand why some feel that this is not a clear teaching of the Church or is, some how, hidden.BestT-Shirt
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 T-Shirt:I'm fine with it being a teaching. I'm not even arguing against it becoming doctrine someday. (I'd actually like to see it). What I would like to see is more information/revelation, and have that accepted as Scripture before we make the leap to including her in doctrine. I know it probably sounds overly complicated and legalistic. But really it shouldn't be any more complicated than the giving the Priesthood to all worthy male members.
cion Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Perhaps because LDS doctrine is supposed to be establish through revelation?God inspires us to talk to each other. Why not call the things we learn from angels (other people in some cases) revelation? If another person has God in their heart, surely they can inspire us and reveal godly things to us. Right?Let's grab some, I say.
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 T-Shirt:I'm fine with it being a teaching. I'm not even arguing against it becoming doctrine someday. (I'd actually like to see it). What I would like to see is more information/revelation, and have that accepted as Scripture before we make the leap to including her in doctrine. I know it probably sounds overly complicated and legalistic. But really it shouldn't be any more complicated than the giving the Priesthood to all worthy male members.But there are people here saying it isn't a teaching (which I just realized that this is off topic so I will not continue after this post) of the Church when it clearly is. The Church believes we are the offspring of heavenly parents, which means a Father and Mother. There is not doctrine because we have not be revealed to us to set it in stone. It is a teaching of the Church though and any who deny this are fooling themselves.
Jason 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.Correction. God has at least one goddess wife.
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 cion:A more correct understanding would be "Truth is truth wherever we find it". In LDS Theology Revelation comes from God when he wants to give it. While others may have truth and that is always to the good, it is not necessarily the same as Revelation.
Jason Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 That we have a Heavenly Mother is doctrine because the concept is taught in Church publications. We have no canonized revelation concerning her, other than oblique refrences, but that doesn't mean her existence is not doctrine.It is not really an important teaching of the Church, so making it the center of our approach to investigators would be nonsensical. That she is there is doctrine. That she is not an appropriate object of worship or subject of prayer is doctrine. There isn't really anything else revealed at this point.
todd520 Posted February 9, 2011 Author Posted February 9, 2011 There are 235 references to "Heavenly Parents" on the Church website. The second lesson in Gospel Principles teaches of Heavenly Parents. I don't understand why some feel that this is not a clear teaching of the Church or is, some how, hidden.BestT-ShirtT-Shirt, a few things for you- I asked specifically for doctrine on Heavenly Mother, yet there is no depth of content. This does not sound doctrinal?- why are many of the references to heavenly parents in lessons for children?I think the church uses "heavenly parents" because it is Man Language, and very convient/effective for teaching young children. edit: Jason, church publications are made by men (ie. they have errors)These teaching publications are venues to teach existing Doctrine as opposed to revealing new doctrine.So if a teaching manual contradicts scripture, scripture always wins over the more recently published teaching manual
Jason Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 If a teaching is to be adopted by the Church it has to come through the proper channels - through the leadership. We can't just grab things we like from other churches or cultures.
Calm Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 LDSG, please provde me with clear references to this church teaching.Not sure if this one counts or not....Conclusion President Spencer W. Kimball, speaking to Latter-day Saint girls in Mexico City, said:
thesometimesaint Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Jason:I don't believe we should make the leap from an instruction manual to becoming doctrine/Scripture. http://newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine...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
Calm Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 God inspires us to talk to each other. Why not call the things we learn from angels (other people in some cases) revelation? If another person has God in their heart, surely they can inspire us and reveal godly things to us. Right?Let's grab some, I say.Revelation has a specific meaning in regard to establishing LDS doctrine even if it is used more generally for growth of personal understanding:Revelation is communication from God to His children. This guidance comes through various channels according to the needs and circumstances of individuals, families, and the Church as a whole. When the Lord reveals His will to the Church, He speaks through His prophet. Prophets are the only people who can receive revelation for the Church, but they are not the only people who can receive revelation. According to our faithfulness, we can receive revelation to help us with our specific personal needs, responsibilities, and questions and to help us strengthen our testimony.http://lds.org/study/topics/revelation?lang=engI have no problem with talking to others with different beliefs to inform my own faith and belief, I do it all the time and have received some great insights. This is significantly different than the process to be used for establishing doctrine for the Church, however.
Calm Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 T-Shirt, a few things for you- I asked specifically for doctrine on Heavenly Mother, yet there is no depth of content. Yep, depth of content is an issue for me as well. Essentially we have a role named with no detail revealed, just assumed by equating it to the earthly role of motherhood (or rather the idealized version of it).
cion Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Calmoriah,The prophet could talk to people outside of the faith for help with revelation.
Calm Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Calmoriah,The prophet could talk to people outside of the faith for help with revelation.Not sure what you mean here.Joseph Smith studied the Hebrew language and thus the scriptures with a Jew, IIRC. Would be shocked if he didn't ask him for some input on Jewish beliefs. Other prophets have referred to other religious systems' teachings as possessing of good ideas so there is no reason to suppose that our leaders are isolating themselves from other belief systems.I have no problem with the idea that in these studies, a question may arise which has led a prophet or may lead a prophet to seek understanding and the Lord's Will on the matter and then the prophet received revelation for the Church that becomes our doctrine. However, simply choosing to believe another religious system's doctrine and changing or adding to ours because it's logical or appears to be good without seeking out the Lord's Will on the matter would be fundamentally NOT how doctrine is supposed to be established according to the scriptures.
T-Shirt Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 - why are many of the references to heavenly parents in lessons for children?If you go to LDS.org and search for "heavenly parents" you will get 241 references. Of those, only 17 are in publications for children, so I think your concern on this has no validity.T-Shirt
T-Shirt Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Incidentally, I think Genesis 1 and D&C 132 along with a little bit of logic are sufficient to establish scriptural support for a Heavenly Mother, but maybe that's just me. And, as far as depth of content, there are many doctrines of the Church for which we have few details. I don't think that should disqualify something from being doctrine.T-Shirt
todd520 Posted February 10, 2011 Author Posted February 10, 2011 Yep, depth of content is an issue for me as well. Essentially we have a role named with no detail revealed, just assumed by equating it to the earthly role of motherhood (or rather the idealized version of it).I agree with you,Then everyone tries to lean on the use of heavenly parents in teaching manuals (not scripture) to inferr there logically must be a Heavenly Mother.Even Heavenly Parents is not mentioned in scripture (OT, NT, BOM, D&C, POGP), just the bible dictionary, under Spirit definitionI'm fine with the logical deduction. I just wish people would admit that is from whence it came
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.