Institute For Religious Research Study Guide Challenge Redux

[Loran Blood]

OK, let's take up Rob's challenge with Chapter 2, Our Heavenly Family.

If a heavenly mother exists, why do the Scriptures never mention her?

One of the most interesting and unusual teachings of the LDS Church is that all human beings, as Gospel Principles puts it, are “literally the sons and daughters” of “heavenly parents.” If Heavenly Father is the literal father of our spirits—procreating us as spirit beings like an earthly father procreates his children—it would follow logically that we also have a “heavenly mother.” This Mother in heaven, of course, would be God’s wife. Belief in a heavenly mother, while not emphasized, is part of LDS doctrine, as the reference to “heavenly parents” in Gospel Principles illustrates. A statement by the First Presidency in 1909 entitled “The Origin of Man” affirmed this belief as official LDS doctrine: “All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity.”

"Not only do the LDS scriptures never mention a heavenly mother, but they also say some things that point to the conclusion that we do not have literal heavenly parents. "

Let's stop right here and make a few observations. As others have pointed out, Rob approaches LDS doctrines strictly from the internal perspective of modern evangelical Protestantism, and so tends to hold LDS doctrine accountable to his own perspective. This is all well and good, but as Rob has asked for a critique of his Gospel Principles study guide for its fair treatment of LDS teachings, it has to be pointed out that, to me at least, it appears that Rob tends to confuse his own criticisms of LDS doctrines with any initial interpretation of them for his readers, at which point he has alread filtered them through his own prism.

For example, already we see, embedded in the above statements, assumptions about the restored gospel as understood by its own members that do not appear to understand well what the gospel is, from the perspective of its own teachings, how it develops when restored, and the relationship of the living oracles of the Church to recorded teachings (scripture). It is, after all, of little consequence to contemporary Latter day Saints that none of the four standard works mention Heavenly Mother. This would be, and is a central concern for evangelicals within the context of a belief in a closed canon and sola scriptura, but not for LDS.

Rob, in other words, seems to be asking his main audience (other evangelical Christians) why LDS scriptures do not contain any clear reference to Heavenly Mother when he should be asking, not only in this but in other cases as well, whether it matters to LDS at all, who believe in both modern prophets and continuing revelation and an open, developing canon, whether any specific doctrine or principle is mentioned explicitly in the scriptures. We see this blind area again below:

Oddly, though, neither the Bible nor the other scriptures of the LDS Church ever mentions a heavenly mother.

Again, this is odd only from within a traditional sectarian Christian religious worldview, but not from within the LDS worldview, in which the "canon" is always in process of development and addition and is never a static, closed system, and within which there are multiple sources of divine communication of the mind and will of the Lord (the scriptures (past revelation), the General Authorities (contemporary revelation for the church), and personal, direct revelation (contemporary personal revelation for the individual concerning personal matters as well as the truth and veracity of the things stated in the scriptures and by the living oracles)).

The term “heavenly parents” also never appears in any of the scriptures.

Irrelevant to the Latter day Saint if it has been taught by legitimate Priesthood authority anywhere and confirmed by the witness of the Holy Spirit.

This complete absence of any reference to a heavenly or divine Mother contrasts with the hundreds of references to God the Father in the Bible (especially the New Testament) as well as in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants.

Here, Rob's knowledge of the deeper nuances of LDS doctrine and philosopohcy appears thin. As is well known among engaged members, some teachings are unvieled only in part, and sometimes only as a simple assertion of the existence of something or some state of affairs that "ties in" in a coherent and beautiful way with the other doctrines of the gospel. As Margaret Barker has shown, there does (pre-Josiah reform) appear to have been some idea of the wife of God among ancient Israelites prior to the Babylonian captivity but later washed out by the Deuteronomist redactors. But even if this case was overwhelming (and it may be), the gospel as understood by Latter day Saints is clear that we worship, and are concerned specifically with only God, the Grand Council as a unifed body and with the worship of the Father, individually, in the name of Jesus Christ. Heavenly Mother creates yet another great conceptual and personal continuity between us and the idea of the literal Fatherhood of God and all this implies, but Heavenly Mother is not directly visible or present in gospel teaching (unless you include the Hymn of the Pearl, a very early (and authentic, in my view) Christian document that does mention her a couple of times in clear terms).

So long as a legitimate living prophet teaches, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, that this person exists, then for the Latter day Saint, this is as much a truth, and when written down, as much scripture, as anything in the four standard works.

Not only do the LDS scriptures never mention a heavenly mother, but they also say some things that point to the conclusion that we do not have literal heavenly parents. For example, the Book of Mormon refers ten times to Adam and Eve as “our first parents” (1 Nephi 5:11; 2 Nephi 2:15; 9:9; Mosiah 16:3; Alma 12:21, 26; 42:2, 7; Helaman 6:26; Ether 8:25). Since it never qualifies this description in any way (for example, by calling them “our first parents on earth”), the natural way to take these words is that Adam and Eve were literally our very first parents.

This is a fallacy of reasoning that asserts that because a certain term was used to describe Adam and Eve, the same term (parents) is precluded from applying in any other context to any other personages. Jesus is the Son of God, but the scriptures claim that the righteous Saints are all "sons" of God. If we can all be "sons" of God and at the same time be sons of our mortal fathers, then nothing precludes these same sons from having parents in different senses as well, or, in an LDS context, the parents of our mortal bodes (Adam and Eve), and, not so much the first, but the ultimate parents of our spirits - the core living, sentient beings that inhabit and give life to the mortal frame.

What makes the lack of any reference to a heavenly mother in Scripture so puzzling is that this would seem to be a very important thing to know.

Again, we know it from its revealing and teaching to inspired individuals in the early years of the Restoration. The scriptures are not required for such advancement of gospel knowledge on an incremental basis, "line upon line."

The reason for this puzzling state of affairs is that LDS belief in a heavenly mother comes not from divine revelation but from later LDS leaders reasoning that she must exist. The LDS hymn “O My Father” makes this very point:

“In the heav’ns are parents single?

No, the thought makes reason stare!

Truth is reason; truth eternal

Tells me I’ve a mother there.”

This assumes that Eliza Snow, in phrasing the text of the hymn as an inference from preexisting gospel principles, did not pen them through the power of revelation. Notice, indeed, that the presence of reasoning is only a peripheral presence in the verses as written. "Truth is reason." she states, and "truth eternal tells me," Reason, for Sister Snow, is here not the means of doctrinal discovery, but an avid and coexistent partner that is identified with truth, but only once divine truth, which cannot be understood except by revelation, is fully grasped. Eternal truth tells her, and reason unfolds as truth reveals itself. How does Bowman know that, for Snow, eternal truth "telling her" this was not a symbolic/poetic way of saying that this "telling" was the Spirit witnessing its truth?

What the Bible does say supports the traditional Christian view that our existence begins here on earth. Consider the description of how God made the first man, Adam: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). Notice that Genesis does not say that God placed an already existing individual spirit being into the physical body, but that he “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” This statement at least seems to be saying that this is how Adam came into being.

One must ask Rob what the motif of God "breathing the breath of life" into Adam means, and how this symbolism precludes a preexistence. At the very best, one can say that this verse tells us something, in symbolic form of how Adam's body came to life, or became animate, but this tells us nothing regarding the ultimate origin of Adam himself (the "I" or self that Adam is as a sentient individual consciousness).

Again, the concept of restoration and dispensation are ideas unknown in sectarian Christianity, and hence, Rob must rely on the argument that, if the Bible (the sole, closed and static source of Christian religious knowledge) doesn't mention something, its therefore either untrue or irrelevant.

The earlier passage about God creating human beings “in his image” (Genesis 1:26-27) raises an interesting problem for the idea that people existed in heaven as God’s literal offspring. Remember that the LDS Church’s teaching is that God the Father has a physical body of flesh and bones. If being “in God’s image” meant that we have a human body much like his (although his is better), one would think we would get that body when he and the heavenly mother procreated us as their literal offspring. That is, if God is a physical being and produces literal offspring, one would expect that offspring to be physical beings. Yet the LDS view is that our heavenly parents produced us as their offspring in heaven as spirits and then God made physical bodies for Adam and Eve. Do earthly parents have to construct bodies for their offspring? No, because earthly parents with physical bodies produce offspring that also have physical bodies. So then, why did God need to make physical bodies for his literal offspring?

This is typical of traditional evangelical Protestant counter-cult argument, which attempts to show that if Mormonism does not contain a clear, logically connected body of inferential or deductive arguments and connections between all of its core doctrines, this is evidence that the teachings of "Mormonism" are false, as if the Biblical narrative of Christian origins, the divine claims of Christ and his Apostles, and the fundamental metaphysical claims of Christianity (from the Trinity to the necessity of God becoming mortal and dying of the cross to the resurrection of the flesh to the existence of evil etc.) were in any sense themselves anything but the testaments of witnesses to divine events and recipients of divinely provided understanding. We don't have any idea, as a church, in the sense of established doctrine, how our spirit bodies were generated, or how exalted beings with physical bodies could produce offspring composed of pure spirit. Its the Celestial Kingdom. Its different. What does Rob really want LDS to say here?

If one has received a divine witness that this is the truth of the matter, however, the nuances of the phenomena are hardly important, any more than when I receive a witness that the body can be resurrected from the grave and come forth in whole and complete form, I don't need a scientific or philosophical explanation of the process, or a theory of how it could possible happen.

The New Testament explicitly denies that all human beings are God’s children. Jesus taught that those who rejected him were not God’s children, and even said that the devil was their father (John 8:42-44).

This conflates what may be symbolic or allegorical meaning with what in another context may be quite literal. Rob gives no reason to think that these verses even speak to the issue posed by LDS teaching here.

The apostle John explained that “the children of God” were those who were “born of God” through their faith in Christ and had turned away from a life of sin, while “the children of the devil” were those committed to a life of sin (John 1:12-13; 1 John 3:1-10; 5:1-2). The apostle Paul makes the same point when he says that we who believe in Christ and have the Spirit dwelling in us receive “adoption as sons” (Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26-4:7). Thus, people are not by nature God’s children.

No, spiritually, we are not God's children until born again, but this, again, given just the biblical texts used, cannot logically lead to the conclusion Rob asserts these verses necessitate. Indeed, it is yet again not clear that these verses are in any way even relevant, simply because they use the same term (sons) as the LDS doctrine of the literal fatherhood of God, to the issue at hand. If Paul believed, in other words, in the literal fatherhood of God, these verses would give no indication of that belief, one way or the other.

Rather, we are all God’s creatures, and we can become God’s sons and daughters through adoption and the spiritual rebirth that comes through faith in Christ.

Hebrews 12:9 [ According to the Bible, only one human being existed in heaven before his physical life on earth: Jesus Christ.

Except all of those "sons of God" who shouted with joy as the heavens and the earth were created. Job nowhere says angels, or "creatures," but uses the term "sons."

What about These Verses?

There are a few verses in the Bible sometimes thought to imply that human beings existed as spirits in heaven. We will look briefly at three of these verses.

God told Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee” (Jeremiah 1:5). Since God knows everything and everyone from an eternal perspective, though, this verse does not prove that Jeremiah existed before his mother’s womb.

Rob, however, is now "adding to" the word of God, as the Bible nowhere, using his own logic, mentions this concept of God "knowing" all the humans who would ever live as a divine mental image or awareness. This is an extrapolation Rob must make to make the Biblical text comport with traditional evangelical Protestant theology, It isn't even what one could call "exegesis.

That is because this verse does not say that Jeremiah knew God or had done anything before his earthly conception and birth. Rather, it tells us something about what God knew and did before our birth, not something about anything we knew or did. Other verses sometimes cited to prove our preexistence fall into this same category: they tell us about what God did for us before creation (for example, Ephesians 1:4).

This is an indication of what happens when the most conservative, parsimonious meaning of a text is wrenched out of shape to conform to a preexisting (no pun intended) template and which do not correspond to anything actually present in the text. Rob's interpretation of Jeremiah 1:5 isn't impossible to believe, but the verse in question will actually bear either his or an LDS reading without contradiction.

Hebrews 12:9 refers to God as “the Father of the spirits,” but says nothing about when these “spirits” started to exist.

If God is the Father of our "spirits," what does this immediately suggest to the mind, at first glance, independent of the imposition of preconceived notions of what is permissible or allowed in our understanding of spiritual things?

Traditionally, Christians believe that a human being has both a spirit (on the “inside”) and a physical body (on the “outside”). By “the spirits” Hebrews may be referring to the departed spirits of the righteous who are with God now awaiting the resurrection (see Hebrews 12:23).

"May be?" I thought the Bible was self interpreting (this has long been a traditional counter-cult argument)? As it may be, the verse itself appears to use the class "spirits," in the sense of a universal class and that class in totality, not a specific portion of it. No delimitation or conditions are attached to it.

We know that “Father of the spirits” does not mean that God literally procreated our spirits, because immediately before this verse it says, “It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons. But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons” (Hebrews 12:7-.

This requires mind reading of the apostle Paul as to what he really meant and, in any case, it is just as likely that Paul could have been using the concept of the literal fatherhood of God to drive home the contrast between mortal fathers and the greater obedience owed to God, our spiritual Father and a perfect, exalted being to whom we are ultimately accountable. Rob is simply speculating here, and for all its worth, its not really refuting or laying any kind of heavy hand on LDS truth claims.

Well, I'll leave it here for the sake of brevity. Its getting pretty long

Edited February 7, 2012 by Loran Blood

[wenglund]

Once man confines God to the limited box of the Bible, man has then set the bounds for their own understanding, and thus deny themselves no small degree of transcendent and deifying enlightenment that God may wish for them to have--the notion of a heavenly mother being one of the least.

They have the agency to do so, but it puzzles me that they would.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Loran Blood]

Note, I changed one poorly worded paragraph above:

"May be?" I thought the Bible was self interpreting (this has long been a traditional counter-cult argument)? As it may be, the verse itself appears to use the class "spirits," in the sense of a universal class and that class in totality, not a specific portion of it. No delimitation or conditions are attached to it.

I had said that the verse in question contained the definiate article "the," but that, of course, is not the case. Paul's statement here, as translated, does seem to indicate the intention of naming a universal class (spirits) and not subclasses, as Rob asserts, and I added that unthinkingly. My argument here still stands, however.

[Rob Bowman]

Loran,

Thanks for your comments on the article. It is likely to be tomorrow at the earliest that I can reply, as I will want to address your critique point by point. Thanks again.

[Rob Bowman]

Loran,

Except where it seems necessary to quote part of my article, I will assume we all have that in front of us, as well as chapter 2 of Gospel Principles. In this post, I will only cover your comments on the section dealing with the Heavenly Mother. After quoting my opening remarks about the doctrine of the Heavenly Mother, you comment:

Let's stop right here and make a few observations. As others have pointed out, Rob approaches LDS doctrines strictly from the internal perspective of modern evangelical Protestantism, and so tends to hold LDS doctrine accountable to his own perspective. This is all well and good, but as Rob has asked for a critique of his Gospel Principles study guide for its fair treatment of LDS teachings, it has to be pointed out that, to me at least, it appears that Rob tends to confuse his own criticisms of LDS doctrines with any initial interpretation of them for his readers, at which point he has alread filtered them through his own prism.

For example, already we see, embedded in the above statements, assumptions about the restored gospel as understood by its own members that do not appear to understand well what the gospel is, from the perspective of its own teachings, how it develops when restored, and the relationship of the living oracles of the Church to recorded teachings (scripture). It is, after all, of little consequence to contemporary Latter day Saints that none of the four standard works mention Heavenly Mother. This would be, and is a central concern for evangelicals within the context of a belief in a closed canon and sola scriptura, but not for LDS.

Rob, in other words, seems to be asking his main audience (other evangelical Christians) why LDS scriptures do not contain any clear reference to Heavenly Mother when he should be asking, not only in this but in other cases as well, whether it matters to LDS at all, who believe in both modern prophets and continuing revelation and an open, developing canon, whether any specific doctrine or principle is mentioned explicitly in the scriptures.

First of all, Loran, the LDS scriptures not only “do not contain any clear reference to Heavenly Mother,” they do not contain any reference to her at all. Let’s put that fact on the table so that we are dealing with the full reality.

Second, the LDS “open, developing canon” is irrelevant, because Heavenly Mother is not mentioned in any of the standard works, i.e., she is not mentioned even in the LDS open, developing, expanding canon. Now, if you mean to use the term canon to include statements not in the standard works, please make that clear. The standard usage of the term is in reference to the writings viewed by a particular religion as scripture.

Third, while it may not matter to many Mormons that its expanded canon never mentions Heavenly Mother, it is a peculiar omission, as I point out in the article. Does this prove, from the LDS point of view, that she doesn’t exist? No, and I didn’t claim otherwise. But the omission is strange. It is also strange that Joseph Smith never mentioned her in any of his other many sermons and speeches. The only claimed reference by Joseph to Heavenly Mother comes in a touching story that Susa Young Gates reported in a book published in 1911 that her aunt Zina D. Young told her. The first known reference to Heavenly Mother comes from a hymn composed in 1845, the year after Joseph Smith’s death, by Eliza R. Snow. Occasionally, Mormons have acknowledged in some way that the omission is at least a little troubling. Bill Hamblin, in a book review, once commented, “Unfortunately, for whatever reason, scripture provides little or no information on this subject.” Hamblin’s “little or no” should have been a simple “no,” but at least he admits that the lack of information in scripture is unfortunate. And it is, if the doctrine is true.

The omission of any reference to Heavenly Mother in the standard works does not prove, for a Mormon, that she doesn’t exist. In the context of my article, the omission is not mentioned as such a proof. It is mentioned as prelude to the positive reasons to reject the doctrine.

Regarding my observation that the omission is odd, you comment:

Again, this is odd only from within a traditional sectarian Christian religious worldview, but not from within the LDS worldview, in which the "canon" is always in process of development and addition and is never a static, closed system, and within which there are multiple sources of divine communication of the mind and will of the Lord (the scriptures (past revelation), the General Authorities (contemporary revelation for the church), and personal, direct revelation (contemporary personal revelation for the individual concerning personal matters as well as the truth and veracity of the things stated in the scriptures and by the living oracles)).

The openness of the canon in LDS thought is irrelevant, as explained above, since despite its openness no reference to Heavenly Mother has yet been added to the LDS canon in the 167 years since Eliza Snow first articulated the idea. Personal revelation is also irrelevant because the issue is the idea of a Heavenly Mother as a church doctrine, not as a personal belief. Thus, the doctrine’s authority as church doctrine rests on its promulgation by the LDS Church under the direction of the General Authorities. Does that work for Mormons? Yes, and I never said otherwise. But that fact does not remove the oddity of the lack of any mention of the idea in the large corpus of the LDS standard works.

In my article, I had stated:

“This complete absence of any reference to a heavenly or divine Mother contrasts with the hundreds of references to God the Father in the Bible (especially the New Testament) as well as in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants.”

You commented:

Here, Rob's knowledge of the deeper nuances of LDS doctrine and philosopohcy appears thin. As is well known among engaged members, some teachings are unvieled only in part, and sometimes only as a simple assertion of the existence of something or some state of affairs that "ties in" in a coherent and beautiful way with the other doctrines of the gospel.

I’m afraid you are creating an illusion of me as ignorant of such claims by sheer speculation. Nothing I said in the article implies that Mormons don’t try to explain away the lack of scriptural support for this doctrine in the ways you suggest. The case that I present against the idea has an inner coherence and evidential strength even if Mormons like you can think of ways to rationalize the problems away. If you’re going to critique my argument, you need to follow the argument as a whole, rather than chop it up to make individual statements in my article into unrelated sound bites that you can then criticize for failing to be single knock-out punches, which I don’t claim any one of them to be.

You wrote:

As Margaret Barker has shown, there does (pre-Josiah reform) appear to have been some idea of the wife of God among ancient Israelites prior to the Babylonian captivity but later washed out by the Deuteronomist redactors.

This won’t be of any real help, as you seem to realize, since you drop it as quickly as you mention it. Those ancient Israelites who believed in a “consort” for God thought of her as a consort of Yahweh, and they worshiped her—and on both points Mormonism must firmly distance itself from them. There are all sorts of problems with Barker’s revisionist theories, but this isn’t the place to start hashing out those issues. I will simply say this: the Book of Mormon seems to have had the idea “washed out” as well, if the supposed authors of the Book of Mormon ever had any idea of her existence. This is why, as you probably know, Mormon apologists got so excited when Dan Peterson claimed to find a vestige of the idea in Nephi’s vision. And that is the very best anyone has been able to do to try to find some trace of the idea in the Book of Mormon. Presumably we cannot blame Deuteronomist redactors for the lack of any direct reference to Heavenly Mother in the Book of Mormon. Nor will such an explanation account for the lack of any such mention in the Book of Abraham or the Book of Moses or the rest of the JST. So that particular explanation for the lack of reference to Heavenly Mother in the Bible is not at all helpful.

You wrote:

But even if this case was overwhelming (and it may be), the gospel as understood by Latter day Saints is clear that we worship, and are concerned specifically with only God, the Grand Council as a unifed body and with the worship of the Father, individually, in the name of Jesus Christ. Heavenly Mother creates yet another great conceptual and personal continuity between us and the idea of the literal Fatherhood of God and all this implies, but Heavenly Mother is not directly visible or present in gospel teaching (unless you include the Hymn of the Pearl, a very early (and authentic, in my view) Christian document that does mention her a couple of times in clear terms).

You have been wondering aloud if I understand how my objections to the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother sound to informed Mormons. Well, I must wonder if you understand how your comments about its absence from scripture sound to non-Mormons. It doesn’t matter…but maybe she was mentioned in Israelite scriptures before they were doctored…and it looks like she is mentioned in a Gnostic text that didn’t make it into the New Testament…. These sorts of rationalizations may work for intellectual Mormons, but from an outsider’s perspective they seem rather desperate. Apparently, God in your religion has absolutely no control over what makes it into scripture and what doesn’t. He completely lost control of the Old Testament, the canon of the New Testament is missing a lot of good stuff and what remains is suspect in both transmission and translation, for some reason the Book of Mormon’s theology sounds a lot more Methodist than Mormon, and then there’s the Joseph Smith papyri…. And the reality is that these problems are not just of evangelical imagination, but have bothered and do bother many sincere people in the LDS religion.

You wrote:

So long as a legitimate living prophet teaches, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, that this person exists, then for the Latter day Saint, this is as much a truth, and when written down, as much scripture, as anything in the four standard works.

Again, I understand this full well. However, in the Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide, I am candid about the perspective from which I approach the subject:

“Finally, a person who knows God listens to and accepts the teachings of Jesus’ apostles in the Bible. John, speaking of himself as an apostle, wrote this: ‘We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error’ (1 John 4:6). It is vital that we put all religious claims to this test. Anyone who claims to know God and speak for him must show that his teachings agree with those of the original apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. This includes men such as the leaders of the LDS Church who claim to be modern-day apostles of Christ. If these men are indeed apostles, we should listen to them and heed them. On the other hand, if their teaching does not agree with the Bible, we must conclude that their teaching is not from God” (“Who Is Our Heavenly Father?”—response to GP 1).

From this perspective, I take a look at Mormon teachings and examine them in the light of the Bible. I also give some reasons apart from the Bible to think that these Mormon teachings do not come from divine revelation. I don’t try to argue that if one accepts Mormon authority claims then one should reject Mormon doctrines! This is what you seem to think I should be doing. You are faulting my critique for not granting Mormon authority claims for the teachings of the expanding LDS canon, living prophets, and general authorities. In later installments of the GPSSG, I actually address those authority claims directly (see especially my articles on GP chapters 9, 10, and 13-17). So if you want to discuss those issues, perhaps we should jump to those articles.

I had written:

“Not only do the LDS scriptures never mention a heavenly mother, but they also say some things that point to the conclusion that we do not have literal heavenly parents. For example, the Book of Mormon refers ten times to Adam and Eve as ‘our first parents’ (1 Nephi 5:11; 2 Nephi 2:15; 9:9; Mosiah 16:3; Alma 12:21, 26; 42:2, 7; Helaman 6:26; Ether 8:25). Since it never qualifies this description in any way (for example, by calling them ‘our first parents on earth’), the natural way to take these words is that Adam and Eve were literally our very first parents.”

You replied:

This is a fallacy of reasoning that asserts that because a certain term was used to describe Adam and Eve, the same term (parents) is precluded from applying in any other context to any other personages.

No. The problem is not merely that the Book of Mormon calls Adam and Eve our parents, but that it calls them our “first parents,” and does so repeatedly without any qualification and without ever speaking of heavenly parents.

You quote me as saying:

“What makes the lack of any reference to a heavenly mother in Scripture so puzzling is that this would seem to be a very important thing to know.”

However, you missed the reason I gave for saying this:

“Imagine you were separated from your parents at birth and then when you were an adult you met some people who knew them. Would it not be odd if they talked repeatedly about your father but never even mentioned your mother?”

This would seem to be a reasonable question, Loran. It is not by itself a decisive proof against the doctrine, but it does contribute to a cumulative-case argument against the doctrine. A cumulative-case argument is the kind of argument one commonly finds in historical and legal reasoning. No one point by itself is necessarily decisive, but together they make a strong case for the conclusion. You’ll find that I use this kind of reasoning a lot.

I had stated, “The reason for this puzzling state of affairs is that LDS belief in a heavenly mother comes not from divine revelation but from later LDS leaders reasoning that she must exist.” In support of this observation I cited two sources: Eliza Snow’s hymn, which twice refers explicitly to “reason” as telling her that she has a Heavenly Mother, and Joseph Fielding Smith’s comment in Answers to Gospel Questions in which he appeals to “reason” and “good common sense” to defend the belief in a Heavenly Mother. You ignored the second citation, which is in one sense by far the more important because it comes from a prophet of the LDS Church. You commented:

This assumes that Eliza Snow, in phrasing the text of the hymn as an inference from preexisting gospel principles, did not pen them through the power of revelation. Notice, indeed, that the presence of reasoning is only a peripheral presence in the verses as written. "Truth is reason." she states, and "truth eternal tells me," Reason, for Sister Snow, is here not the means of doctrinal discovery, but an avid and coexistent partner that is identified with truth, but only once divine truth, which cannot be understood except by revelation, is fully grasped. Eternal truth tells her, and reason unfolds as truth reveals itself. How does Bowman know that, for Snow, eternal truth "telling her" this was not a symbolic/poetic way of saying that this "telling" was the Spirit witnessing its truth?

Reason is not, as you claim, “a peripheral presence in the verses as written.” Reason is explicitly mentioned twice in the short space of the four lines in question:

“In the heav’ns are parents single?

No, the thought makes reason stare!

Truth is reason; truth eternal

Tells me I’ve a mother there.”

The stanza refers to “truth eternal,” the expression you emphasize, only after stating that “truth is reason.” Thus “truth eternal” has just been defined as reason. The preceding line, which you completely ignore, gives as the reason for rejecting the idea of a Heavenly Father without a Heavenly Mother that such an idea is incompatible with reason.

Your question at the end of your paragraph commits the fallacy of appealing to ignorance, which is the fallacy that argues in this way: “How do you know this isn’t so?” For example, how do you know there aren’t aliens in Area 51? How do you know there isn’t a monster in the Loch Ness? Can you prove there aren’t aliens in Area 51 or a monster in the Loch Ness? These appeals to the opponents’ lack of knowledge that would absolutely preclude the possibility being presented are not evidence for that alleged possibility. Just because I can’t prove there are no aliens in Area 51 doesn’t mean we have good reasons to think there are. The burden of proof is not on me to show conclusively that there are no aliens in Area 51. Likewise, the burden of proof is not on me to show that Eliza Snow meant what she said and not what you hypothesize she might have been symbolically, covertly expressing. Simply reading the stanza as it stands, its meaning is quite clearly that she considers the idea of a Heavenly Father without a Heavenly Mother to be unreasonable, and so concludes that Heavenly Mother must exist even though we have no knowledge of her.

Again, I backed up this understanding with the quotation from Joseph Fielding Smith, which you ignored. Such quotations could be multiplied. For example, Gordon B. Hinckley had this to say about belief in Heavenly Mother:

“‘Logic and reason would certainly suggest that if we have a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in Heaven. That doctrine rests well with me…. The fact that we do not pray to our Mother in Heaven in no way belittles or denigrates her.’ That is the end of the quotation from the talk I gave earlier, to which I may add that none of us can add to or diminish the glory of her of whom we have no revealed knowledge” (“Daughters of God,” Ensign, Nov. 1991).

I really think I am on very firm ground indeed in stating this to be the situation with regard to this particular doctrine. It is an inference from what Mormons regard as revealed doctrine. In that it has been affirmed by the LDS Church in an authoritative statement, it is viewed now as “revelation” in a looser sense, but the doctrine quite clearly originated as an inference, not as a supernaturally revealed doctrine. “Latter-day Saints infer from authoritative sources of scripture and modern prophecy that there is a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father” (Elaine Anderson Cannon, “Mother in Heaven,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 961).

(Edited to exclude quotation that distracted DaddyG from the rest of the post.)

Edited February 7, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[KevinG]

More hand waiving dismissal of personal revelation, the words of "the prophetess of Zion, the Declaration on the Family and other important foundational beliefs of the Latter-day Saints just shows ignorance of what every Saint knows.

The Prophet Wilfred Woodruff called Eliza Snows lyrics "a revelation".

The Prophet Joseph F. Smith (in 1909) referred to our "Celestial parentage" and stated "all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity."

Our Proclamation on the Family declared by living Prophets and Apostles states "All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

These very authoritative statements on the matter by persons authorized to reveal doctrine to the Saints puts Elaine Cannons well meaning opinions on the matter to question.

Doctrinally we do not pray to our Mother in Heaven because we are instructed to pray to our Father in Heaven. This does not mean that we do not reverence or believe in a Heavenly Mother.

Culturally we are careful not to be casual with the concept of a Heavenly Mother out of reverence for God and any notion of a heavenly parentage.

I suggest you start your research here: "A Mother There" A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven Author: David Paulsen, Martin Pulido BYU Studies Journal 50:1

It will cost you $2 for the download but it is a small price to pay to get correct information for your website.

Edited February 7, 2012 by DaddyG

[KevinG]

As an aside you are trying to cram the nature of LDS revelation and formation of our understanding of God's eternal truths as we grow into a sola scriptura framework.

You have been told this in many ways by the LDS scholars, pundits and amateurs here but you continue to make that fundamental mistake which skews your research and tints your attempts to characterize LDS teachings in your own writings.

I invite you one more to observe Latter-day Saints in their natural envioronment, attempt to lose your own cultural blinders and perhaps gain a greater understanding of those you claim expertise about.

edited to add some excellent quotes found by Kevin Christianson on another thread... The discussion was about creeds but the principles apply to understanding the evolution of the Saints knowledge of God's truth (note I did not say evolution of God's truth but the Saints understanding of said truth)

Joseph Smith explained the problem with creeds, while pointing out that "all of them contain some truth."

"creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to." (TPJS, 327.)

"The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some particular creed, which deprived its members [of] the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time. (HC 5:215.)

Edited February 7, 2012 by DaddyG

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

As an aside you are trying to cram the nature of LDS revelation and formation of our understanding of God's eternal truths as we grow into a sola scriptura framework.

I don't know why you assert this. I have made it plain that I am doing no such thing. I recognize and discuss the fact that Mormons accept as authoritative revelations that are not included in scriptural writings. That doesn't preclude me from taking a contrary viewpoint.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

Your comments ignore the evidence I presented and the nuanced statement that I made. I acknowledged that Mormons view the belief in a Heavenly Mother as part of revealed doctrine. However, it was pronounced such long after it was first promulgated, and the first statement of this belief explicitly attributes the idea to reason, not to divine revelation.

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

I don't know why you assert this. I have made it plain that I am doing no such thing. I recognize and discuss the fact that Mormons accept as authoritative revelations that are not included in scriptural writings. That doesn't preclude me from taking a contrary viewpoint.

While you continue to assert you are doing no such thing your actual behavior demonstrates clearly that you do "such thing" repeatedly.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

Says you.

Now, where do such bald assertions get us? Nowhere.

Read the articles I cited above in my response to Loran, in which I examine the LDS view of authority, priesthood, scripture, and revelation.

While you continue to assert you are doing no such thing your actual behavior demonstrates clearly that you do "such thing" repeatedly.

[wenglund]

What is the meaning of the tree?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

Your comments ignore the evidence I presented and the nuanced statement that I made. I acknowledged that Mormons view the belief in a Heavenly Mother as part of revealed doctrine. However, it was pronounced such long after it was first promulgated,

It is our very nature and doctrine to learn line upon line, precept by precept. This fundamental concept repeated many times in LDS doctrine is strongly opposed to the idea of a closed cannon, sola scriptura or any other assumption that somehow we should have had all things revealed to us at one time and then cannot add unto them as we learn from and grow closer to a living God.

and the first statement of this belief explicitly attributes the idea to reason, not to divine revelation.

You missed the fact that the first statement was called "revelation" by an LDS Prophet and subsequent LDS Prophets expanded on the idea as revelatory and true.

Please don't pick and choose what statements you want to hear while ignoring a substancial portion of LDS teachings and beliefs. That is what brings observations of poor scholarship.

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

Says you.

Now, where do such bald assertions get us? Nowhere.

Read the articles I cited above in my response to Loran, in which I examine the LDS view of authority, priesthood, scripture, and revelation.

...and left out significant portions of LDS revelation, teachings and thoughts in our current teachings and proclamations while elevating opinions of an LDS writer in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (a reference book expressly stated as non-doctrinal - I know several of the article writers and they feared such misuse of their contributions).

As far as my response to "says you"? I thought I was corresponding with a grown up.

Edited February 7, 2012 by DaddyG

[wenglund]

Is there any reason to think that the designator "first parents" must be interpreted hyper-literally?

Might the designator "Father in Heaven" reasonably inform and modify the scope of our interpretation of the designator "first parents"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LeSellers]

“In the heav’ns are parents single?

No, the thought makes reason stare!

Truth is reason; truth eternal

Tells me I’ve a mother there.”

This is only part of the stanza on which you made a substantial part of your case. The whole thing says:

"I had learned to call thee Father,

Thru thy Spirit from on high,

But, until the key of knowledge

Was restored, I knew not why.

In the heav'ns are parents single?

No, the thought makes reason stare!

Truth is reason; truth eternal

Tells me I've a mother there."

"Reason" is not that on which Sister Snow based her poem. It was the Restoration of the key of knowledge: in other words, revelation.

Further, she said that she got this from Joseph Smith, her husband, long before she wrote "O, My Father".

Poetry does not always use words in exactly the same way we do in prose:. In the phrase "truth is reason", she is not saying that she used reason to deduce that we have a Mother in heaven, but that "truth is reasonable", that is, that logic can confirm the reasonable stance that, given a Father in heaven, it is consistent to accept that we also have a Mother there.

Lehi

Edited February 7, 2012 by LeSellers

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

Where does Eliza Snow say that she got the idea of a Heavenly Mother from Joseph Smith?

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

As far as my response to "says you"? I thought I was corresponding with a grown up.

My point was that all you were doing was asserting your criticism, not showing some specific basis or reason for it. "Says you" was simply a way of making that point.

[LeSellers]

Where does Eliza Snow say that she got the idea of a Heavenly Mother from Joseph Smith?

I'll have to look it up since it's been a decade or more since I read it. Please don't hold your breath.

I am curious, though, as to what you'd do with this information when I get it.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

We would need to take the rest of the Book of Mormon doctrine into consideration to see which understanding of the doctrine of God best fits it as a whole. If the Book of Mormon presented God's status as "Father in heaven" in the context of teaching that he had procreated us in heaven before our earthly mortality, that would be one thing. But it doesn't. And as a matter of fact, Book of Mormon references to God as "Father" often apply that title to Jesus Christ in reference to his status as the creator of all things. So the broadest possible context of Book of Mormon theology would need to be considered in a full-board discussion of this question.

Is there any reason to think that the designator "first parents" must be interpreted hyper-literally?

Might the designator "Father in Heaven" reasonably inform and modify the scope of our interpretation of the designator "first parents"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

My point was that all you were doing was asserting your criticism, not showing some specific basis or reason for it. "Says you" was simply a way of making that point.

Now that we have cleared that up- please address the actual points I made that show you are trying to cram LDS beliefs into an Evangelical framework thus misunderstanding and misrepresenting those beliefs.

To wit:

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is not LDS doctrine but direct quotes from the Prophets and Apostes of the LDS church are. You weighed the opinions of Elaine Cannon more heavily than the teachings of Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith and the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the 12.

An idea in LDS doctrine does not have to be promulgated at the origins of or in the standard works or our religion to eventually become knowledge and doctrine of our church. (your evangelical assumptions color your opinion here quite clearly)

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

I am curious, though, as to what you'd do with this information when I get it.

What are you expecting me to say? I will consider any information you provide and if the evidence warrants I will modify, refine, correct, or retract any previous statements I have made that such information shows to be incorrect or inaccurate.

[KevinG]

I thought we were talking LDS belief not the limited subset of Book of Mormon theology. Stop moving the goal posts.

[KevinG]

Lehi,

You wrote:

What are you expecting me to say? I will consider any information you provide and if the evidence warrants I will modify, refine, correct, or retract any previous statements I have made that such information shows to be incorrect or inaccurate.

Can you point to the places where this has been done based on the information you have received from us? I think you gave us a single example before. Just curious how effective these discussion have been for helping you comprehend LDS belief systems.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

I thought we were talking LDS belief not the limited subset of Book of Mormon theology. Stop moving the goal posts.

Huh?

There is no dispute here as to what is LDS belief. Mormons believe in a Heavenly Mother. My article states that quite accurately. Loran took issue with my argument that Book of Mormon teaching does not fit well with that belief. I am not moving the goal posts.