Heavenly Mother

[Darren10]

But 3 Nephi 11:27 says "behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one." And if the Spirit of Wisdom = Lady Wisdom = Queen of Heaven, then ...

The Holy Ghost is described as a man in 1 Nephi 11. There is no indication that the Holy Ghost is Heavenly Mother in LDS theology.

[Darren10]

We are commanded to pray only to the Father in the name of His son, Jesus Christ. No prayer that I've ever heard or scripture that I've read addresses the Heavenly Mother, or anybody else. So that should tell you that it's probably not the best idea. But in theory, the Brethren could always get a new revelation on the matter. But I doubt this one would change.

But I think it's awesome that you hold Heavenly Mother in such high regard.

The plain and simple truth confounds the wise, eh?

As for Jeremy's high regards to Heavenly Mother, were it not so blasphemous, I'd agree with you.

[Darren10]

Jeremy;

Others here who work at BYU might know more than me on this but Gail Houston of BYU was fired for saying she communicated with her heavenly parents. BYU stood by their firing saying she contradicted fundamental doctrines of the Church.

[Darren10]

Jeremy;

As President Gordon B. Hinckley observed: 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. However, in light of the instruction we have received from the Lord Himself, I regard it as inappropriate for anyone in the Church to pray to our Mother in Heaven...The fact that we do not pray to our Mother in Heaven in no way belittles or denigrates her...none of us can add to or diminish the glory of her of whom we have no revealed knowledge.^[7]

http://en.fairmormon...Heavenly_Mother

I do need to modify one part of my previous post based on the same link which quotes:

In 1909 the First Presidency, under Joseph F. Smith, wrote that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father [as an] offspring of celestial parentage...all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity...^[5]

So, I guess being created in the image of a Heavenly Mother is less speculative than I had previously supposed.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Darren10

[Damien the Leper]

Shekhihah means "dwelling"/ not exactly a declaration of Heavenly Mother.

In LDS theology, I am 100% correct.

You oversimplify Shekhinah.

LDS theology and interpretation is not the authority concerning Jewish theology and practice.

Go to the recommended reading I gave you.

[onefour1]

Even though it is speculative that there is more than one heavenly mother, it is a reasonable conclusion. With all the people who have and will inhabit this planet and the thought that God the Father has worlds without end, it is a reasonable argument that there may be very well be more than one mother in heaven. This seems to also be bolstered by the doctrine on plural marriage. It may be that we are instructed to only pray unto the father and that we hear little about mother in heaven because it could get really confusing to introduce possibly thousands of other beings as part of the godhead to we mere mortals. Perhaps on mortal telestial spheres, worship is taught to be only through direct male priesthood lines.

[Damien the Leper]

Jeremy;

Others here who work at BYU might know more than me on this but Gail Houston of BYU was fired for saying she communicated with her heavenly parents. BYU stood by their firing saying she contradicted fundamental doctrines of the Church.

Nice to know people can be terminated for personal religious practice. "Do as we say or else..." works in this situation since BYU is a private institution. This is why I recommend secular institutions. Such a statement by faculty wouldn't be given a second glance.

[Darren10]

You oversimplify Shekhinah.

LDS theology and interpretation is not the authority concerning Jewish theology and practice.

Go to the recommended reading I gave you.

I did for Shekhinah: Wikipedia, right? I've no desire right now to go to the other readings you cited.

[Darren10]

Nice to know people can be terminated for personal religious practice. "Do as we say or else..." works in this situation since BYU is a private institution.

For making it public, yes. The Church is the Lord's kingdom, not the Lord's democracy or republic.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Darren10

[Damien the Leper]

I did for Shekhinah: Wikipedia, right? I've no desire right now to go to the other readings you cited.

Then you obviously aren't willing to put in the work to undertand the theology. Fair enough and noted.

[Damien the Leper]

For making it public, yes. The Church is the Lord's kingdom, not the Lord's democracy or republic.

Nice to know you opprove of selected censorship. The LDS chur is the LDS church. No more, no less.

[Darren10]

Then you obviously aren't willing to put in the work to undertand the theology. Fair enough and noted.

LOL. You're funny. I'll restate that according to LDS theology, I'm 100% correct.

[Darren10]

Nice to know you opprove of selected censorship. The LDS chur is the LDS church. No more, no less.

A private institution may censor as it deems fit. Even you noted that. So may a king of a kingdom.

[Darren10]

Vamlentinus;

Could you explain to me the logic behind telling someone to go out, buy some books, read them, and then participate in a dialogue at the same time making no summations to the arguments at hand? I started reading Daniel Petersen's Nephi and his Asherah but don't think I'm going to go out and buy a book just to dialogue with some people online about a topic. Nor should you think that my refusal to do so shows a refusal on my part to learn.

Ridiculous.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Darren10

[Damien the Leper]

LOL. You're funny. I'll restate that according to LDS theology, I'm 100% correct.

I'm not sure all LDS would agree with you.

[Damien the Leper]

A private institution may censor as it deems fit. Even you noted that. So may a king of a kingdom.

There's a lacking of evidence that God censored anything.

[Damien the Leper]

Vamlentinus;

Could you explain to me the logic behind telling someone to go out, buy some books, read them, and then participate in a dialogue at the same time making no summations to the arguments at hand? I started reading Daniel Petersen's Nephi and his Asherah but don't think I'm going to go out and buy a book just to dialogue with some people online about a topic. Nor should you think that my refusal to do so shows a refusal on my part to learn.

Ridiculous.

This is silly. I didn't tell you to go buy anything.

As I stated, the LDS is not the authority on Heavenly Mother theology...especially where Judaism is concerned. If you want good theology on Her then go to the scholars nd authors who have written extensively on the subject. But limiting your position to LDS scripture and "the LDS church says so..." doesn't hold water.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Darren10 ~

It would be helpful if you would read through all the links I posted earlier; all the issues you've raised have been answered elsewhere. Nevertheless, to recap:

If it were necessary to worship Heavenly Mother than we would already know much more than we already do about her. [...] God will not keep her hidden within the veil if her worship were necessary for our salvation. What we have already is what we need.

I disagree. The Articles of Faith say that we will yet learn "many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." If we have yet to learn them, and yet they are "great and important", then how can we say that we already have everything that is "necessary"? The "fulness" -- the Melo, the Soba, the Pleroma -- does not imply that we're done learning; we believe in eternal progression!

If you're right than the brethren of the Church of the Son of God have grossly misled us

That is not a necessary conclusion. We all learn line upon line, and our leaders are explicitly fallible in the D&C. I don't believe they have "grossly misled" us, and I don't think my understanding of scripture implies any such thing.

First, we should examine what we mean by "worship", so that we're not talking past each other. Proskuneo, the usual word for "worship", means to kiss the hand or prostrate oneself, both being tokens of worship. Translate it however we will -- 'homage', 'veneration', 'adoration', 'worship' -- what we're doing is showing someone that we are willing to take part in their worth-ship. The interesting thing is that in the At-One-Ment, Christ teaches that worship will be given to many others:

Revelation 3:9 says: "Behold, I [Christ] will make them so that they come and worship before your feet, and know that I have loved you."

Romans 8:15 says: "Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ."

Revelation 3:21 says: "To him ["Autos" = "himself, herself, themselves, itself"] that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

Philippians 2:2 says "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God [Theos], thought it not robbery to be equal with God [Theos]: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant."

Theos is the general term for Deity, whether speaking of a God or a Goddess. We are to be One in the same way that Christ is One with others in the At-One-Ment. If we are to be of One Mind, heis phroneo, we will not be divided between men and women; there is "neither male nor female" if we are One.

If Christ says that He is sharing His throne with all who overcometh, and that it is not robbery to be equal with any other God, and that there is no male or female when we join His worth-ship, and that through the Pneuma of Huiothesia -- the Spirit of Adoption -- we become the offspring of God, the teknon of Theos ...

... then what is so "blasphemous" about worshipping the (adoptive) Mother alongside the (adoptive) Father, except that it upsets the focus of the past 2,000 years of deeply ingrained cultural patriarchy we've inherited as a Tradition of our Fathers? Joseph Smith taught that we're supposed to learn how to become Gods ourselves; not cruel, tyrannical deities who exercise unrighteous dominion and try to use Priesthood as an authoritarian excuse not to be reasonable, but rather servants to each other, as the Son of Man did.

And if the Spirit of Lady Wisdom is represented in the Anointing Oil from the Tree of Life, and Christ/Messiah means "Anointed One", and we are all anointed when we take part in the At-One-Ment offered when we join the church, then of course the "only name" which offers the Way of Salvation is "Christ". It's all a part of the Covenant of At-One-Ment we make with each other.

While people can and do disagree with my interpretation, I am not "inserting" or "forcing in" any words, I'm simply pointing out a few that aren't "explicitly" clear in the English translation. I'm no scholar, I'm just looking this stuff up in interlinear versions; you don't need Priesthood authority to do an amateur translation. The Ruach, Hokmah, Pneuma, Sophia, etc., are all right there, explicit in the Hebrew and Greek. There are no capital letters in Hebrew (or vowels, for that matter); there is no difference between a "god" and a "God". If one is divine, they all are. Since English uses capitals to denote names and titles, I simply render "wisdom" as "Wisdom" to clarify.

If you read the links I provided earlier, I think you'll get a better idea of my argument (which I don't think you've quite understood), which is that the Spirit/Pneuma/Ruach of Wisdom/Sophia/Hokmah are all titles of the Queen of Heaven/Asherah. From this paradigm, the references to the "Spirit" or to "Wisdom" are in fact "explicit" references to the Mother. Asherah [represented as a stylized Tree], for instance, has been translated as "groves" in Genesis, which obscures Her from view in English. The Deuteronomist scribes have done their best to excise Her; this is hardly an original observation -- see Margaret Barker -- among many others -- who shows that the later tradition of the Shekinah and personification of the City/Church is based on the Woman, not the other way around. Referencing the Topical Guide and Summaries and Footnotes does not address the actual argument; and if anyone was really fired from BYU exclusively for teaching about Heavenly Mother, I'd find that to be pretty ridiculous and reprehensible.

1 Nephi 11 is ambiguous; as McConkie states in Mormon Doctrine, "when we read the account of the appearance of 'the Spirit of the Lord' to Nephi (1 Ne. 11), we are left to our own interpretive powers to determine whether the messenger is the Spirit Christ or the Holy Ghost. Presumptively it is the Spirit Christ ministering to Nephi much as he did to the Brother of Jared." There are a few places in John as well where an ambiguous translation renders the Spirit of Wisdom male, but the overwhelming cultural context calls this interpretation into question, especially because we know there were deliberate attempts to suppress Her worship.

the tree shown to Nephi is NOT Asherah; nor Heavenly mother but a representation of the Son of God. It is of His fruits we are to partake, not of any other, including Heavenly Mother.

This is one interpretation; I don't think it accounts for as much evidence as does Dan Peterson's Nephi and his Asherah (which I'm glad to note you're reading), or Hugh Nibley's section on the Lady in the Garden in his book Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, or his discussion on the Priesthood in One Eternal Round.

Joseph Smith said that he was "going to take exceptions to the present translation of the Bible in relation to these matters. Our latitude and longitude can be determined in the original Hebrew with far greater accuracy than in the English version. There is a grand distinction between the actual meaning of the prophets and the present translation." As 2 Nephi 25:1 says, "Isaiah spake many things which were hard for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews."

Joseph Smith taught that "it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance," and "the things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O man! if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity."

He taught that "Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. […] The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same."

But we still have a ways to go. For instance, there have been many, many changes to the Temple ceremony in the past. Entire storylines have been dropped altogether; new words have been inserted. From what I can see, it's a living system of symbolism tailored to the needs of the current generation; I don't think it should be made into a static unchanging creed that can be used to set up stakes and say "Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further." It's a preparation for bigger things to come, nothing more. Let's not get mystical; Joseph Smith said that "What many people call sin is not sin; I do many things to break down superstition, and I will break it down."

If the Canaanites or Presbyterians or Hindus knew anything we don't, then we should learn from them. Same goes for atheists and secular humanists and scientists and feminist scholars and anyone else. 2 Nephi 29:12 says "behold, I [God] shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

It's not a zero-sum game. Worshipping the Mother will not take anything away from the Father. Acknowledging Priesthood for women would do nothing to threaten a man's Priesthood. A woman can wear pants, and I can wear pants, and no one loses anything except an arbitrary unfair reason to discriminate against each other. Again, as Brother Rudger Clawson said, “it doesn’t take away from our worship of the Eternal Father, to adore our Eternal Mother […] we honor woman when we acknowledge Godhood in her eternal prototype.”

What I think is interesting is the fact that Joseph Smith prayed in what we now consider to be a Sacred Grove of Trees after reading the verse in James 1 which says that "if any of you lack Wisdom [sophia], let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." He Restored the idea of a Heavenly Mother as a consort to the Father God; He Restored the practice of building multiple Temples; he gave us new scriptures in which a family who would have been intimately familiar with Egyptian Wisdom literature as well as the loss of Lady Wisdom from the Temple journeyed to a new land where a Vision of a Tree of Life was associated with the Mother of God in the flesh, implying a Mother of God in the Spirit.

Edited December 29, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[volgadon]

I find Patai's book dated and flawed, but anyone who has read it is leagues ahead in this discussion over anyone who has merely read the wikipedia article on Shekhinah.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I find Patai's book dated and flawed

I'll say amen to that -- same for his 'Hebrew Myths' with Graves. I do think it was fairly seminal and groundbreaking, tho, despite all the psychologizing he did in it.

Edited December 29, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[pogi]

Jeremy,

We are to understand that Christ is only glorified in that he deferred all glory to the Father, the Most High God, with an eye single to His glory, the glory of the Father, The Most High God. Christ clearly taught that we are to do the same.

In the pre-mortal world, Christ said "I will do it, and the glory be thine."

We, like Christ, will receive no glory except we defer all glory to the Father in the name of the Son, with an eye single to His glory.

D&C 88:107 - And then shall the angels be crowned with the glory of his might, and the ^asaints shall be filled with his ^bglory, and receive their ^cinheritance and be made ^dequal with him.

The Mother I am sure plays a significant role in our lives and salvation, but for whatever reason Christ (along with all of the prophets) have taught us through word and example that we are to pray to Father, Abba, and give all glory to Him alone.

Edited December 29, 2012 by pogi

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

See, the way I read passages like that, I think what we're supposed to learn is how in the At-One-Ment we serve others rather than ourselves. The point that's being emphasized, the way I see it, is that the Father and the Son are sharing their glory / pa'ar / kabad / doxazo / whatever with each other, with mutual love as the conduit. The Son glorifies His Father, and the Father "hath glorified his Son Jesus, whom ye delivered up." The "trinity" made of separate individuals -- the Father, Lady Wisdom, and their Child -- becomes a sort of model emphasizing eternal life, renewal. We, as individuals, should look "singly" -- ie, "whole-heartedly" -- to others, not just to a single specific person.

For instance, Luke 11:34 says that "the light [luchnos, the lamp] of the body is the eye [ophthalmos]: therefore when thine eye is single [haplous, simple, whole, fulfilling its office], thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness."

I don't think we're talking about literally physically looking only at God singly here, or we'd be sinning every time we turn our heads away; it's a metaphor. If we see God/Elohim as a plurality, and all Deities as invested with the same title, then we honor the Pater as well as the Mater as well as the Son, as well as each other. In other words, the way to honor God is to love our neighbors; we learn to love others because God loved us first. It's an eternal round, a looping chain, a pay-it-forward sort of thing. So it's not an either-or situation; we can love God singly, and His Wife and Child and all the rest of us.

True Gods who obey the law of justice descend "below" all things and become Servants to all other Uncreated Intelligences; a son looks to his father and mother; parents look to their children; we love our neighbors as ourselves, and we are all Priests and Priestesses and Kings and Queens and Fathers and Mothers and Brothers and Sisters to each other, the At-oned Divine Council, the Elohim. Yeah, it's expressed in archaic language, but what I think it's pointing to is a Zion in which all people are honored because they've learned how to be honorable. It's not a patriarchal monarchy, it's just humanism, trying to be expressed in the language available in deeply patriarchal cultures so it can break free and revolutionize the world.

Like Brigham Young said: "Those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, [...] but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold sceptres of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right."

How can we be "independent" yet serve God? It's not a paradox, it just means we all agree to take part in the Plan of Salvation, doing all we can to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. If my brother has the power to save my life in a certain situation, it doesn't mean I love him more (or less) than my dad or my mom; we're all still part of the same family. Brother Brigham again: "Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care of one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or His Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species."

Humanism.

Edited December 29, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Gosh, I'm long-winded, aren't I.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

This is what 1:25 AM on a Saturday morning looks like, kids. Stay in school and don't do drugs, or you'll end up like this.

[Senator]

Jeremy;

Others here who work at BYU might know more than me on this but Gail Houston of BYU was fired for saying she communicated with her heavenly parents. BYU stood by their firing saying she contradicted fundamental doctrines of the Church.

Wow, I know nothing of the event, but if it happened as simply as you stated, then that would be a shame.