Heavenly Mother

[Darren10]

Jesus is one in Being with the Father, not one Being with the Father.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one being, correct? Formulating them as such permits trinitariants to claim that there is only one numeric God and thus worship monotheistically. I do appreciate the distinctuishing correction you made to my post. Jesus is on *in Being* with the Father,. But f God the Being is incorpeal / immaterial than how does one person who is of His Being who has a corporeal / material body allow God to remain immaterial and incorporeal? It's sounding at this point that Jesus is independent from the Being God in the trinitarian formula despite the fact that I know full well that is not what you are trying to argue.

Let us assume for argument's sake that God the Father has a physical body. It would not have been that physical body that created the universe -- it would have been his will through his mind that would have had to work through the entire universe. The traditional understanding of God's mind is that it is immaterial.

I don't know. My understanding is that it is God's body, His "corpus", which is immaterial, not just His mind. Afterall, are not our thoughts more or less "immaterial" despite being able to scientifically explain how thoughts are triggered in the brain?

God created the universe through Jesus before Jesus had become incarnate.

I 100% agree.

Jesus was God before becoming incarnate

I totally agree with the addendum that He was also with "the God" as per the Greek verson of John 1:1.

but his mind was already able to participate in creation with his Father.

Didn't God create all that is be speaking it not merely thinking it?

The terms being or substance do not have anything to do with anything physical. That is why I can say the Father could have a body without doing damage to the Trinity. The Trinity is looking at spiritual reality, not physical reality.

So you can accept the one Being God as a material Being so long as His mind is immaterial?

Edited January 7, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

After reviewing this thread I am reminded that I often hear Mormons argue against immaterial substance, but I wonder if the substance of their argument has any material.

That's kinda funny and clever.

[Darren10]

God crates and loves because he chooses to.

does He sell love after crating them?

Just kidding. I'm the master of grammatical errors so I'm just having some fun.

He didn't have to create humans to worship him.

That I agree. He created us out of love so that we can progress spiritually to be more like Him.

[Bart Burk]

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one being, correct? Formulating them as such permits trinitariants to claim that there is only one numeric God and thus worship monotheistically. I do appreciate the distinctuishing correction you made to my post. Jesus is on *in Being* with the Father,. But f God the Being is incorpeal / immaterial than how does one person who is of His Being who has a corporeal / material body allow God to remain immaterial and incorporeal? It's sounding at this point that Jesus is independent from the Being God in the trinitarian formula despite the fact that I know full well that is not what you are trying to argue.

I don't know. My understanding is that it is God's body, His "corpus" which is immaterial, not just His mind. Afterall, are not our thoughts more or less "immaterial" despite being able to scientifically explain how thoughts are triggered in the brain?

I 100% agree.

I totally agree with the addendum that He was also with "the God" as per the Greek verson of John 1:1.

Didn't God create all that is be speaking it not merely thinking it?

So you can accept the one Being God as a material Being so long as His mind is immaterial?

I don't understand what you are asking. God is pure mind. God exists in three distinct persons who are all pure mind. I can understand how they are three -- their unity goes beyond my understanding because I haven't experienced it. When the Mormon scriptures say that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one Eternal God, I think it is hard to get around the words that are written down. If I were still a Mormon I would be forced to accept God's oneness in faith, but I would also have to make it clear that Jesus is just as eternally God as the Father and that the Holy Spirit are just as eternally God as the Father and the Son. When Catholics speak of substance they are not talking about a physical reality -- Joseph Smith's claim that Christians have created a monster God is ridiculous since we are not talking about some big blob of three physical persons coming together in the sky into one Being.

Now if, as Mormons claim, God exists as a body somewhere in the universe it doesn't change the fact of his spiritual Being as the Father within the Godhead. Jesus' body did not change the fact that he is still the eternal God. When we are discussing God, we are going beyond physical characteristics and looking at them spiritually. A small speck in the universe could not have created the universe with his physical body. It would have taken the mind of God willing the world into existence for that to happen. If you want to insist on saying he spoke it into existence then the thought that caused him to speak it into existence would have originated in his mind and through the mind of Jesus. Their minds are distinct, but they are of the same substance where we understand substanceir substance is the same. Look at Webster's first two definitions of substance:

http://www.merriam-w...onary/substance

1

a

:

essential nature

:

essence

b

:

a fundamental or characteristic part or quality

c

Christian Science

:

god

1b

2

a

:

ultimate reality that underlies all outward manifestations and change

b

:

practical importance

:

meaning

,

usefulness

<the…bill—which will be without

substance

in the sense that it will authorize nothing more than a set of ideas — Richard Reeves>

Edited January 7, 2013 by Bart Burk

[volgadon]

1 John 4:7-9

"Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. God's love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world that we might live through him.

It is important to understand FIRST that GOD IS LOVE and then God loves. Remember, God crates and loves because he chooses to. He didn't have to create humans to worship him.

So why did he do it? Because he loves, or even better, is love.

[Damien the Leper]

So why did he do it? Because he loves, or even better, is love.

That, I believe, could be one reason. Beyond that we simply don't know. God is not subject to our finite attributes. He is infinite and eternal because He is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

[Tacenda]

This current thread of logic is to me something I want to run from. If I think too long, then I'm asking about God's father, and his father...when does it end? Then I'm back to no Hf and pure evolution.

[Bart Burk]

This current thread of logic is to me something I want to run from. If I think too long, then I'm asking about God's father, and his father...when does it end? Then I'm back to no Hf and pure evolution.

Mormons don't have to believe that God had a Father. There has to be a head God of all the gods. When I still had faith in the Book of Mormon, I resolved to settle for the definition of God the Book of Mormon proffers. If I had felt at the time that I could live happily within the church with that belief alone, I would likely have stayed in the LDS Church. I think it makes much more sense to look upon the Trinity as the One God. And if one has to believe in Heavenly Mother, Mary is the best candidate in my opinion. I would have been happy to believe that our eternal increase simply involved our continuing to create physical bodies for spirits God created. I've known women who don't like the idea of being pregnant all of the time, but I expect that if such is the case pregnancy in the eternities would not be encumbered by the physical difficulties and pain women have on this side of heaven.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Bart Burk

[Darren10]

I don't understand what you are asking. God is pure mind. God exists in three distinct persons who are all pure mind.

But in the trinitarian formula are not the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit distict *persons*? How is being a person "mind"? And if they are pure mind how was God incarnated in flesh, bone, and blood? Also, are spirit and Being "mind" as well as ?

If I were still a Mormon I would be forced to accept God's oneness in faith

Mormons are hardly the only ones expected to believe on faith. But Mormonism is one religion which actively encourages the individual to surpass faith and to "konw" for him or herself God's eternal truths.

When Catholics speak of substance they are not talking about a physical reality

So how does that square with Jesus being God incarnate, dying, resurrecting, and never discarding His physical body?

-- Joseph Smith's claim that Christians have created a monster God is ridiculous since we are not talking about some big blob of three physical persons coming together in the sky into one Being.

Joseph Smith clarifies so much regarding the nature of God and man, the nature of God's Son and the entire Godhead.

So, if you're not talking about "three persons coming together...into one Being" are you not claiming monotheism?

Now if, as Mormons claim, God exists as a body somewhere in the universe it doesn't change the fact of his spiritual Being as the Father within the Godhead.

I emphatically agree and so so witout negating the need for God to Have His physical yet exalted body in order to be God. But, even wth said body He is still essentially, as are wee, a spiritual being.

A small speck in the universe could not have created the universe with his physical body.

Sure it can. if the small speck is omnipotent, than absolutely He / "it" can create the universe.

It would have taken the mind of God willing the world into existence for that to happen. If you want to insist on saying he spoke it into existence then the thought that caused him to speak it into existence would have originated in his mind and through the mind of Jesus.

that makes sense but the scriptures clearly teach a physical act to ctreate all things and now it seems that you are arguinig the creation from a non-physical act. Am I understanding that correctly?

Their minds are distinct, but they are of the same substance where we understand substanceir substance is the same. Look at Webster's first two definitions of substance:

http://www.merriam-w...onary/substance

1

a

:

essential nature

:

essence

b

:

a fundamental or characteristic part or quality

c

Christian Science

:

god

1b

2

a

:

ultimate reality that underlies all outward manifestations and change

b

:

practical importance

:

meaning

,

usefulness

<the…bill—which will be without

substance

in the sense that it will authorize nothing more than a set of ideas — Richard Reeves>

OK, I thin kwe can eliminate physical being from defining "substance". My main point of trinitarianism getting tricky is that how can God be spitirual / immaterial yet Jesus Christ physical / material. I think your position is essentially that depsite Jesus having a body, or the Father perhaps having a body that the quality ofthe two remains equal. Is that correct?

[Darren10]

Beyond that we simply don't know. God is not subject to our finite attributes.

I agree with this to a point. God most deifintely glorifies in our righteousness and praise towards Him.

[Bart Burk]

But in the trinitarian formula are not the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit distict *persons*? How is being a person "mind"? And if they are pure mind how was God incarnated in flesh, bone, and blood? Also, are spirit and Being "mind" as well as ?

Mormons are hardly the only ones expected to believe on faith. But Mormonism is one religion which actively encourages the individual to surpass faith and to "konw" for him or herself God's eternal truths.

So how does that square with Jesus being God incarnate, dying, resurrecting, and never discarding His physical body?

Joseph Smith clarifies so much regarding the nature of God and man, the nature of God's Son and the entire Godhead.

So, if you're not talking about "three persons coming together...into one Being" are you not claiming monotheism?

I emphatically agree and so so witout negating the need for God to Have His physical yet exalted body in order to be God. But, even wth said body He is still essentially, as are wee, a spiritual being.

Sure it can. if the small speck is omnipotent, than absolutely He / "it" can create the universe.

that makes sense but the scriptures clearly teach a physical act to ctreate all things and now it seems that you are arguinig the creation from a non-physical act. Am I understanding that correctly?

OK, I thin kwe can eliminate physical being from defining "substance". My main point of trinitarianism getting tricky is that how can God be spitirual / immaterial yet Jesus Christ physical / material. I think your position is essentially that depsite Jesus having a body, or the Father perhaps having a body that the quality ofthe two remains equal. Is that correct?

Their ultimate reality never changes even though their outward appearances might. That ultimate reality is always the same for all of the members of the Godhead and that is how it can be claimed they are of the same substance.

[Darren10]

This current thread of logic is to me something I want to run from. If I think too long, then I'm asking about God's father, and his father...when does it end? Then I'm back to no Hf and pure evolution.

Bart Burk is exactly correct: there is no obligation to believe the Father had a father who had a father, etc. Adding to that I'd say to focus your energies on how to serve him through His Son. While I am perfectly fine if the Father hasa Father, I really don't know and I really do not think about it a whole lot. In fact, I simply think of the Father of the beginning and end of all there is and all there is is and will be through His Son. That, I think, should be the focus of your worship; nothing speculative, only doctrinal.

[Darren10]

Their ultimate reality never changes even though their outward appearances might. That ultimate reality is always the same for all of the members of the Godhead and that is how it can be claimed they are of the same substance.

Well, I still cannot consolodate the idea that God is immaterial but Jesus was clearly and still is physical and yet He is one in Being with the immaterial God but I'm perfectly willing to stop the dialogue at this point. I really do appreciate your time and patience. I don't think you wanted to get into this in the first place and that makes me appreciate your responses that much more.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Darren10

[Bart Burk]

Well, I still cannot consolodate the idea that God is immaterial but Jesus was clearly and still is physical and yet He is one in Being with the immaterial God but I'm perfectly willing to stop the dialogue at this point. I really do appreciate your time and patience. I don't think you wanted to get into this in the first place and that makes me appreciate your responses that much more.

My main point in all of this is Mormons don't have to back down when some orthodox Christian calls them non-Christian. The Trinity doctrine should not cause a great problem for Mormons as long as they are willing to toss out the idea that God the Father had a Father. The fact that Joseph Smith saw the Father in material form is not as unorthodox as the non-Mormons want to make it.

[Darren10]

I've known women who don't like the idea of being pregnant all of the time, but I expect that if such is the case pregnancy in the eternities would not be encumbered by the physical difficulties and pain women have on this side of heaven.

LoL, ain't that the truth. After our fifth child, Mrs. Darren and i went ot the doctor to help make sure we don't get pregnant again, well so *she* doesn't get pregnant again. So, in the eternities it'll be interesting to tell her, "OK, dear, we only have a few hundred billion more babies to go. You can do it ,sweatheart, I know you can."

[Damien the Leper]

I agree with this to a point. God most deifintely glorifies in our righteousness and praise towards Him.

Or according to John Piper, a Reformed pastor, "God is most glorified as we are Calvinified in Him."

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Just My Opinion:

I don't think God physically created every particle of the universe. It never says so in the scriptures, only that the Heavens and Earth were "created" through social organization. In the King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith taught that God Himself could not create Himself; in the D&C we are explicitly told that the Savior is like us ... "just" a "mere" human, and of course there is overwhelming evidence that humans -- big-brained primates -- evolved.

The important thing to keep in mind is the uncreated nature of Intelligence. This is the spot that takes the absolutely huge leap of faith, since we currently have no empirical way to measure or isolate whatever an "Intelligence" is. We've been taught that it is some form of material -- the fundamental part of ourselves really does exist and there is no Cartesian mind-body dualism -- but it's too fine to see with our present eyes/microscopes/particle-accelerators.

But this leads to the idea that I don't think there is any such thing as "nothing". To even speak of "nothing" is a linguistic absurdity. There is always going to be some form of necessary existence, because it's impossible for "nothing" to exist in the first place. "In the beginning", then, has to be referring to the "beginning" of this particular section of time, this particular calendar, this particular part of God's economy ["house-order"]. Not the "beginning" of reality itself.

God is "in all things" and "through all things" and "descends below all things" (etc.) "in that he comprehended all things" [emphasis added]. God is not physically "present" within the inner workings of a planet or a solar system, though I think He lives on a planet in a solar system just like we do; similarly, the idea that God "dwells" in anyone's heart is an old sectarian notion, and false. (This is why I'm befuddled at the attempts made by folks like Blake Ostler to push for "indwelling" or whatever.)

The Gods "comprehended the light" of Truth. They understood it "deeply" enough for it be useful. They're not literally "deep" in a physical something. Gods are not literally "in" the Sun and Moon, etc., they are "in" them in that they comprehend them, they understand them and the processes by which they were "made" [through immense geological time and accretion disks and ... etc.]. Note that humans do the same thing. Once we comprehend our natural environment that we are born into, we can use natural rhythms for our own purposes, like Creating a calendar by watching the stars to monitor the times and seasons.

It's just Pragmatism expressed through Metaphor.

We're "filled" with the Spirit -- the Wind -- when we hear the words of God - ie, when someone speaks and teaches us in a class, our minds process the wind made by their lips and mouth and breath into language and we communicate with each other. The scriptures containing the words of God "reveal" things to us; we have personal revelations too. That's not magic metaphysics, it's just ... what primates do. Grooming behavior and studying things out in our little biological minds and chattering with the rest of the baboon troop.

On the one hand, we're not "literally" telepathically connected to each other; on the other hand, we primates can write down words in a book and "literally" talk "mind-to-mind" to other Intelligences who live twenty generations from now. I don't think God is physically present in our minds; we're individuals. But God's influence is felt throughout the universe wherever He visits because His Word is carried on and reactualized in rituals that recreate sacred myth [which is not a pejorative, and does not necessarily imply fiction, except in the sense that all history/causal assertions are useful fictions].

"All things" in the Bible is hyperbole; it is usually constrained by additional qualifiers that mean, essentially, "pertaining to". "All things" -- "that he had done", "that I have said unto you", "which I have commanded thee", "that belong to it [the Tabernacle of Testimony]."

This is the principle of relativity, not Alexandrian absolutes. "All things", yes -- but within a particular sphere, a particular frame of reference.

Deuteronomy 4:7 says "the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon Him for" [emphasis added]. What do we call upon God for? Intelligence, the Light of Truth, a Meaning. The Meaning we learn is to take on His name -- Anointed One -- as our own and save others and do whatever we can to further eternal life and joy. If we learn from the way that God adopts all humanity [black and white, bond and free, male and female] as spirit children, we can do the same so that our "seed" -- note the metaphor -- is more than the sands of the seashore. Not all of us are doctors/Healers, so sometimes we have to rely on others with more wisdom and experience and power than we have ourselves; that's where the Godhead comes into play.

We're not different in kind, we're simply different in knowledge. Since all Intelligences are uncreated, at a basic level we have no "parents"; yet we're given biological bodies that we receive from other Intelligences who "create" them for us in successive organic generations. God is not our literal Father, and yet we think of Him as we would a good Father, who has adopted us so that we become Sons and Daughters through a Covenant.

This is why I simply do not agree with the reticence to include an adopted Mother as well, since including a representative female deity equal to -- and in partnership with -- the traditional male would help to heal many inequalities in this world. We can become an adopted Son or Daughter of Asherah just as easily as we can become an adopted Son or Daughter of God the Father, since they're both part of the same parental unit. We don't need to hypothesize millions of heavenly mothers, or that God the Father is literally married to Mary; Christ was made into the Son of the Father. He was justified by the Spirit of Lady Wisdom. That sounds like Adoption to me. What's important is that Mormonism restores the idea that females have just as much potential to be Divine as males.

But this also means there is simply no contradiction between Gods and Evolution. Gods can plant seeds and "create" Gardens and Zions and Organize preexisting chaotic matter, and we know this because Gods are Humans and humans plant seeds and "create" Gardens and Organize the chaotic given quantity of matter into houses and nuclear power plants and airplanes. These miracles [Latin miraculum "object of wonder"] do not break the laws of nature; they're natural miracles, natural wonders. And they don't contradict "mindless" evolution; indeed, it is evolution that equips Gods with brains [and therefore the possibility of creating Purposes] in the first place.

This is why the latent authoritarianism inherent in the fear that not every aspect of existence is part of God's predetermined predestined Plan is so deeply unworkable. Like Brigham Young taught, we are revelators to each other. There is no outside "meaning" to life; and if you take the modern revelations to Joseph Smith to their logical conclusion, I think it's inescapable that Mormons are crypto-existentialists (though because we've been so conditioned by philosophies of men designed to defend the post-apostasy view of God that died long ago, many of us would cringe at that terminology despite the obvious implications of our unique scriptures).

Just because humans/Intelligences/Gods are "merely" a part of nature doesn't mean that the fact that we make our own meanings is somehow illegitimate; we are real, our minds are real, and so whatever meanings we create for ourselves are quite real as well. Gods are Intelligences like we are; God found Himself in the midst of other individuals, just like we all do. Intelligences are not "created", they -- we -- are simply a given quantity. This is exactly the point where the traditional Uncaused Cause of the philosophers breaks down, because the minute you posit one Uncaused Cause, the "necessity" for a single God as Omnipotent Omniscient Omnipresent First Domino becomes meaningless. If it's possible to have one, why not many? (Anyway, words like Omniscient and Omnipresent aren't in the scriptures in the first place, in which case it becomes a little odd to try to defend them as necessary attributes of God.)

What Gods -- humans -- can "create" is a Plan, a Template of Meaning. A Temple! The Creation Drama is not a literal organization of the physical planet from nothing, it's a liturgy designed (and repurposed many times) for very specific didactic purposes. The plural Elohim, the Divine Council -- us! -- is represented in a single person: Christ is a representative of the Father, and (in my view) the Spirit of Lady Wisdom. Because we elected them for their wisdom, they legitimize Him as a Governor, our Teacher of Righteousness. The One made of Many, who we are supposed to emulate as a Template, a Way. The social function of invoking God is to keep the Many in mind and reconcile them in an At-One-Ment. The Word -- the Teaching -- is the Bread divided among thousands; the Bread and the Wine are the Body and the Blood of the One; the Body is the Temple, and the Temple is the Template and Tabernacle of the individual Spirit united with all others in an Infinite At-One-Ment, a Reconciliation.

Insofar as we are individual Intelligences, we are not "literally" "one"; but we can become "one" in purpose by taking part in an overarching Plan/Vision that we reveal to each other. The best Plan/Purpose/Vision I can think of is for every single intelligence that exists to live forever as a family and be filled with joy.

Edited January 7, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[BlueDreams]

Valentinus,

I don’t have as much time. School/work is now in, so it’s back to work for me. But I found your statement interesting because of the way it was set up it indicates the distinction you see between humanity and God. I, personally feel that the distinction given is unnecessary (not that we are not different, heaven knows that) but that the distinctions described as flaws are not. I prefer the idea of humanity is rough as opposed to flawed. Flaw infers something permanently defective, in my mind. While rough just means it hasn’t met its final state and ultimate potential.

So to me the thought that the question would be reversed (“what doesn’t make humanity flawed), indicates a level of separation that I don’t necessarily ascribe to. I find the idea interesting.

But to answer your question, it seems that humans are governed or allow themselves to be governed by their emotions. We think in three dimensional terms. We oppress. We are limited by the temporal flesh and bone in our bodies.

Warning the following is jumbled with a bunch of random thoughts that may or may not directly apply to the above quote. These last few pages in general have me thinking about mind and body and God and man and the distinctions that we place on them:

It’s already been mentioned about love, (though other feelings attributed to God include, anger, sorrow, compassion, judgment, etc). I would state having limitations does not necessarily indicate flaw, but simply limitation. For example is a baby flawed because its mobility and size is limited from birth? No. It is designed that way specifically for a purpose. Just as a baby’s jerky movements are not perfect, our emotions are not perfect but they are not flawed either. They are there purposely to help us to grow and gain greater understanding of God who, as an omnipotent being, should have the power to feel; to have emotions….or we have something that He does not.

I also have a problem with the lack of understanding as to why God would create humanity beyond the fact that he chose to. Not on whether he could or couldn’t choose to…that’s not the problem for me; it’s what happens to meaning. I feel it divorces purpose and meaning from God’s choice. It could be stated that he does have a purpose and we just don’t understand it (His ways are not our ways, type of thing). The problem with that is that His purpose for us would alienate humanity from what it is we should be striving for and becoming. What is it that God desires us to become is kinda important. Why we’re here and where we’re going is definitely important. I believe God chose to make us, but I believe His choices are meaningful and it is the meaning that brings significance and power to His actions and our existence.

It is important to understand FIRST that GOD IS LOVE and then God loves. Remember, God crates and loves because he chooses to. He didn't have to create humans to worship him.

Also, I don’t think there is anything to indicate some form a sequential nature to God’s love. If God is love there is not “then God Loves” after. It’s him and it is. It’s like saying I am alive and then I live. It makes no sense, I’m consistently alive no matter what I do (well….as long as I’m still doing something, like breathing ). Likewise no matter what God does it is consistent/inseparable with who He is. It cannot be sequenced out. The only thing sequential in the verses, to me is our interaction with love.

Other random thoughts:

What I like about LDS teachings because the doctrine has a potential to do away with a mind-body dualism that I see in this thread. Not necessarily that they are in discord with each other, but also that there need be any separation between the two at all. The body is not flawed but limited in its current state. There is a necessity to having it and there is a purpose to what is physical. The only “flaw” is that the oneness of body and spirit that God has we don’t….yet. That the form is resurrected, that we rise again perfected tells me that the body is not simply ok or an optional piece that it would be ok to conceptualize God with or without, but that it is a necessary part of perfection/wholeness. If it is necessary for Christ to have died and rise again so that we may have that full hope in Him, then to me there is something extremely precious and meaningful and eternal about the body. After all, his physical resurrection was an essential part of the atonement. So the ultimate form, IMHO, taking on an LDS perspective is that of wholeness where the arbitrary distinction between spirit and body are completely lost and inseparably connected.

The distinction in how we view material/spirit could also be the reason why there’s difficulty understanding what exactly is meant by substance and god and pure mind and what not. For me at least, it’s all one.

With luv,

BD

[Darren10]

Or according to John Piper, a Reformed pastor, "God is most glorified as we are Calvinified in Him."

I can go with that!!!

[Cold Steel]

Has Heavenly Mother become a taboo topic in Mormonism? Why do we talk about her so little? Will we ever know anything more about her, or will we have to wait until we reach the other side of the veil?

I know I'm getting into this discussion a bit late, but yes, the concept of a Heavenly Mother has become a bit taboo? Why? Because it sounds a bit strange to non-LDS and because we know so little about her...or them. We're not the ones who dreamed up the familial metaphor, if it is a metaphor as many Christians believe. The sectarians laugh at the concept, but as the Jews and Muslims remind us, the Messiah being the "Son" of God is just as strange and unsettling to them. Why would God need a Son, the Muslims ask?

So we have the Father and the Son, but in a familial metaphor can either exist without a Mother? Literally can either exist without a Mother? It wouldn't be over the top to think that there may be more than one, either. We're made in the IMAGE of God, male and female. If Christians take this literally, then there must be a male image and a female image. On the other hand, if they believe that God occupies all time and space, they have little reason to poke fun at us.

The idea of image is vitally important to this question. If man is in the image of God, then what does God need with hands, feet, ears, head and arms for? After all, our bodies are designed to work in terrestrial environments. So why does God need these body parts? If the image also is symbolic, not literal, then why would Christ look so completely unlike His Father? And if He was everywhere present, why did Jesus, upon His resurrection, forbid Mary to touch Him, informing her that He had not yet ascended to His Father "in" Heaven?

Given all the above, what more do we know about our Mother? What more is there to say? My guess is that this will be one of the questions answered during the Millennium. Until then, I'm content to wait. All I need now is somebody else telling me what to do!

.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Cold Steel

[Calm]

why did Jesus, upon His resurrection, forbid Mary to touch Him, informing her that He had not yet ascended to His Father "in" Heaven?

Just a off topic note...the "touch" is better translated as "cling" so he was telling her not to hold him back more or less.

http://bible.cc/john/20-17.htm

Doesn't change your point at all.

[wolfcall]

quick thought on it. the idea of a deity only being recognized as male is more a monotheistic idea where the woman was not allowed to hold a priesthood. the idea of a deity being paired is more a polytheistic idea where men were very limited for a long time holding priesthood and churches were more owned as a womans duty. to admit an equality is to admit polytheism and would cause issues. to recognize different roles as equals would be just as hard to not fall down the risk of being thought of as polytheistic. to recognize male over female would put alot of risk into the roles and risks in that area. in all honesty i think its considered more taboo on the concept in that little is known and to form a vocal opinion is like walking into a landmine. its more of a ill know when i get there idea then lets all hunt for the wife of god.

[glitterNgold]

Would it bother you if someone said this about Heavenly Father: "I find there is no need to know any more about Heavenly Father other than that he exists and exists as a heavenly parent."

[Sky]

Would it bother you if someone said this about Heavenly Father: "I find there is no need to know any more about Heavenly Father other than that he exists and exists as a heavenly parent."

The problem is that we don't have any scriptural references (that I'm aware of) referring to Heavenly Mother, which is not the case with Heavenly Father.

The leaders of the Church today seem to conform to the Biblical precedent rather than seek out a new revelation about the HM. I guess I'm of the opinion that if we needed to know more about HM, that knowledge would have been revealed to us by now. But I could be wrong.

[glitterNgold]

Sky,

People must first write about God before it is appropriate for you to learn more about her?