Heavenly Mother, doctrine or not?

[Calm]

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 definition

I'm fine with the logical deduction. I just wish people would admit that is from whence it came

It is logical to assume that family structure in the eternities is the same as it is in earthly life, that the latter was modeled upon the former. However, I don't know of any scripture specifying this so it is a jump to assume what "heavenly parents" means doctrinally speaking, especially when we don't know how one is spiritually created/organized.

This is the only forum I'm likely to make a point of this though as I think what matters in the principle is that there is an eternal loving relationship we can trust in, exactly what that relationship might extend to I don't really worry about. This relationship is best understood by most by drawing pretty specific parallels between mortality and immortality. I do that in some areas of my understanding, but for some reason I don't seem to feel it is necessary for me in this one. Also I think that the assumption that earth life is modeled after eternal life is correct, but at this point I still see it as an assumption.

[TAO]

Is it doctrine? I think yes.

Should we talk much about it? I think no.

More or less as sacred as the temple, imo.

[LeSellers]

While Hymns may contain doctrine.

I contend that they must contain doctrine, and that their point is to teach it.

I don't see them as a source of doctrine.

I don't recall saying that they were a "source" of doctrine. They are a reflection of doctrine, but of "doctrine", not sentiment.

So I can, and do agree with the overall sentiments of the Hymn without it being doctrine.

There I must disagree. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve choose (and modify) the hymns for their truth value. If one assumes that doctrine is truth (and truth is doctrine), then what we sing is doctrine.

Lehi

[cion]

I don't understand the need to protect heavenly mother by staying silent on this issue however sacred it is. She is a big girl and should be able to handle our inquiry and discussion.

[frankenstein]

I don't understand the need to protect heavenly mother by staying silent on this issue however sacred it is. She is a big girl and should be able to handle our inquiry and discussion.

my opinion is that "keep her sacred" is just a feel good myth. For me the more probable explanation is that we may ALL have different Heavenly mothers. But that does not take into account that Joseph Smith said God never had the power to create mans spirit.

[BCSpace]

I think it starts with Genesis 5:1-3 wherein we see that the image of God is a married couple.

[Vex]

I think it starts with Genesis 5:1-3 wherein we see that the image of God is a married couple.

I answered this pretty early on (and haven't seen any comments/critiques/or objections to it)

[cion]

I answered this pretty early on (and haven't seen any comments/critiques/or objections to it)

http://www.mormondia...__p__1208972225

As I recall, the letters "im" on Elohim mean masculine plural. There is nothing wrong with believing in two or more Heavenly Father partners who act as our parents. I personally don't find resonance in this idea but some people might and more power to them. But really the Elohim of the OT is likely the Canaanite El, who is a masculine ("to be strong") God.

Embracing a Female God might be comforting to some people who have struggled with excessive male dominance and/or abuse in early years. Let's not be afraid of female deities when we know this kind of belief is not going to create destructive behavior in a person. Believing it is okay to stop being responsible for our actions would readily lead to destructive behavior, and this should be avoided. Similarly, not embracing empathy could also lead to destructive behavior. Believing in alternate forms/structures of deity have not been shown to cause destructive behavior.

Peace.

[todd520]

I think it starts with Genesis 5:1-3 wherein we see that the image of God is a married couple.

If anything, this passage implies God is female

- God is singular

- only the female contains the chromosomes to create both Adam and Eve

[Vex]

As I recall, the letters "im" on Elohim mean masculine plural.

So similar to Padres in spanish?

There is nothing wrong with believing in two or more Heavenly Father partners who act as our parents. I personally don't find resonance in this idea but some people might and more power to them. But really the Elohim of the OT is likely the Canaanite El, who is a masculine ("to be strong") God.

Embracing a Female God might be comforting to some people who have struggled with excessive male dominance and/or abuse in early years. Let's not be afraid of female deities when we know this kind of belief is not going to create destructive behavior in a person. Believing it is okay to stop being responsible for our actions would readily lead to destructive behavior, and this should be avoided. Similarly, not embracing empathy could also lead to destructive behavior. Believing in alternate forms/structures of deity have not been shown to cause destructive behavior.

Peace.

[todd520]

So similar to Padres in spanish?

Vex, I'm unclear on the releveance of your original point since none of the LDS leaders were speaking in Hebrew or Spanish.

They work in English and frequently use God in the singular as our creator and occasionally reference the plural with Holy Parents

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Good morning. I don't believe Hymns must contain doctrine. IE; For years the LDS Hymnal contained various American centric songs. Those songs while patriotic inspiring to Americans have nothing to do with Church doctrine.

[Jason]

I don't believe we should make the leap from an instruction manual to becoming doctrine/Scripture.

Of course, but this isn't just a casual statement made by a single leader on a single occasion.

The existence of Heavenly Parents, and a Heavenly Mother specifically appears in many statements by many leaders, over most of the Church's history, and in many manuals. I consider that enough to make it doctrine.

[T-Shirt]

I have always felt that these verses applied to Adam:

Genesis 2:

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

I suppose that one could consider verse 24 an editorial comment directed at all men after Adam, but I think it, logically, applies to Adam as well.

T-Shirt

[thesometimesaint]

Jason:

It takes more than inclusion in a study manual, even adding statements by the Apostles and Prophets to make doctrine. "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

[Jason]

I don't know about you but I have never raised my hand in sustaining the putting a mother in heaven into our doctrine/Scriptures. Now of course that doesn't mean we/I don't believe she exists. But she is not doctrine.

We are merely quibbling over what constitutes "doctrine" here. I would put forth that the existence of heavenly parents and a heavenely mother is consistently taught in official Church publications, and does appear, though only indistinctly, in the scriptures, and is therefore doctrinal.

Have you lifted your hand in sustaining the motion that women cannot hold the priesthood? Where is the scripture stating that women cannot hold the priesthood?

Yet would you argue that it is not doctrinal that only men can hold the priesthood?

[Vex]

Vex, I'm unclear on the releveance of your original point since none of the LDS leaders were speaking in Hebrew or Spanish.

They work in English and frequently use God in the singular as our creator and occasionally reference the plural with Holy Parents

The OP asked for the source. I just skipped the middle man and told you where it is derived from. That does not preclude the Apostles and Prophets from receiving independent revelation concerning the subject, but I was indulging the idea that ancient Israelites understood the connection when someone says 'Parents' or references God in the plural form Elohim.

Since the very first scriptures contain this, it would be reasonable to apply the same now.

[thesometimesaint]

Jason:

That we are.

No question that she is taught in Church publications. But does her placement in Church publications(not Scripture) in and of itself constitute doctrine. According to the Church, no.

I have no problem with women holding the Priesthood(though not doctrinal). Our teachings allows for it, at least at the Lords' direction. So far the Lord has declined. If you've been through the Temple you know of what I speak.

[Jason]

No question that she is taught in Church publications. But does her placement in Church publications(not Scripture) in and of itself constitute doctrine. According to the Church, no.

I think the definition you posted shows that what is consistantly taught in the Church publications is doctrine.

I have no problem with women holding the Priesthood(though not doctrinal). Our teachings allows for it, at least at the Lords' direction. So far the Lord has declined. If you've been through the Temple you know of what I speak.

But you would agree that, outside of the temple at least, not specifically granting the priesthood to women, not ordaining them to priesthood offices, and not allowing them to officiate in a preisthood capacity is doctrinal, correct?

[todd520]

I think the definition you posted shows that what is consistantly taught in the Church publications is doctrine.

But you would agree that, outside of the temple at least, not specifically granting the priesthood to women, not ordaining them to priesthood offices, and not allowing them to officiate in a preisthood capacity is doctrinal, correct?

I think Holy Mother is a fringe belief that is mentioned but never really taught.

The teachings I've seen mention Holy Parents and occasionaly Holy Mother as they pursue teaching another topic.

I have not seen any scripture or teachings that focuses on Holy Mother.

I don't fault people for this belief but they should realize it is not supported by Scripture, just by reason.

[thesometimesaint]

Jason:

I don't find her anywhere in Scripture, and that by definition is the doctrine of the Church. Add her to D&C and that problem disappears.

I can't say that the non-ordination of women is doctrinal. But outside of the Temple ordaining women to any Priesthood Office will get you into hot water REAL fast.

[cion]

Why would it matter whether or not Heavenly Mother is officially spoken/written about by church leaders? If you want to believe in her, then just do it.

[thesometimesaint]

cion:

Her existence is not what is being discussed. It is her status as doctrine.

[Mark Beesley]

I have never heard a "firm teaching" on Mom in Heaven . . .

This is why we do not have revelation -- scriptures -- that refer explicity to Mother in Heaven. This discussion went rather quickly from a reverential discussion of the topic to a flippant, irreverent reference to Mom, as though we could/should consider such a being in such terms, Father in Heaven has witnessed all to clearly how HIs name and the name of His Son have been profaned, blsashpemed, and degraded. His love for His eternal companion is so deep that He is unwilling to subject Her name to similar disregard.

[SkepticTheist]

Ed, while I respect and appreciate your thoughts as an individual

Your approach cannot be applied at the Church level, or for apologectis.

The church should be clear in what they are saying and not saying.

Well, you are right to some degree. But I question fundamentally why it is important for people to worry about what the Church is saying or not saying. That is a philisophical issue, not an apologetic one.

If you are saying that it is important for apologetics sake, perhaps the notion in apologetics that people need to worry so much about the Church's official position on things is a bit flawed. I for one have a different philosophy on apologetics than most.

You are right that it is nice to know what the church's position is, but I think you will not find it. because I think you will find that the church has no official position, only private statements by church authorities that have no doctrinal weight as far as the Church's position goes.

Ed Goble