Heavenly Mother

[Darren10]

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

They don't have to.

[Darren10]

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.

You said go to the links. I went to one which was a wiki link and the others were to Amazon to buy books. Even if I don't buy the books, the just of my post remains the same.

[pogi]

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.

Unfortunately for me, this is the result of staying in school and not doing drugs. Either way you are doomed!

In response to your above quote from Brigham Young of independent faith. I don't understand it the same as you. He is simply saying that we should not base our faith on trust of another man, rather we should be independently faithful based on personal experience with God.

While a lot of what you say is intriguing, without a personal witness, who should I trust, you (a person I do not know) or the prophets? I feel much safer sticking with the prophets until I can become independently faithful and knowledgeable in this matter. To try to influence others to believe that it is OK to practice contrary to the teachings of the prophets is dangerous for all involved. When uncertainty exists, I stick to the rule "follow the prophets." If, and until, I so desire to pursue enlightenment on the subject through personal revelation, I will offer all glory, honor, sacrifice, and prayer to the Father as taught and demonstrated by all of the holy prophets and the Savior himself, and I would advise all to do likewise or you stand on a shaky foundation of trust in man and fallible human logic. To speculate and theorize is one thing, but to publicly say it is so in contradiction of the prophets is a whole other thing. If you think that you know it is so, perhaps you should keep it personal, or at least invite others to find out for themselves by asking the Father in prayer. I would never teach others to believe contrary to the prophets based on my theory. If I felt that I was certain on the matter, I would still advise them to follow the prophets until they are certain for themselves.

Here are the teachings, and I would advise all to follow these teachings. There is no harm in questioning and seeking personal revelation on the matter, but until you have received certain spiritual confirmation, you will always be safe following the prophets, you don't have the same promise in following Jeremy (as good intentioned as he may be). Again, here are the teachings:

From lds.org:

The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead. He is a personage of spirit, without a body of flesh and bones. He is often referred to as the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, or the Comforter.

D&C 130:22:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit...

Hinckley taught:

I am therefore on this occasion going to take the liberty of rereading that portion of the talk which pertains to a matter over which some few women of the Church appear to be greatly exercised. I give it to all, in this forum, because of the activities of a few who evidently are seeking to lead others in the paths which they are following. I speak of those who advocate the offering of prayers to our Mother in Heaven. I quote from that earlier address:

“This [practice] began in private prayer and is beginning to spread to prayers offered in some of our meetings.

“It was Eliza R. Snow who wrote the words: ‘Truth is reason; truth eternal / Tells me I’ve a mother there.’ (Hymns, 1985, no. 292.)

“It has been said that the Prophet Joseph Smith made no correction to what Sister Snow had written. Therefore, we have a Mother in Heaven. Therefore, [some assume] that we may appropriately pray to her.

“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.

Search as I have, I find nowhere in the standard works an account where Jesus prayed other than to His Father in Heaven or where He instructed the people to pray other than to His Father in Heaven.

“I have looked in vain for any instance where any President of the Church, from Joseph Smith to Ezra Taft Benson, has offered a prayer to ‘our Mother in Heaven.’

“I suppose those … who use this expression and who try to further its use are well-meaning, but they are misguided. 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.

Ensign (November 1991) "Daughters of God" Gordon B. Hinckley.

Edited December 29, 2012 by pogi

[Damien the Leper]

You said go to the links. I went to one which was a wiki link and the others were to Amazon to buy books. Even if I don't buy the books, the just of my post remains the same.

I provided the links as suggested reading. You could just as easily go to your local library and possibly pick any of them up there. Amazon provides information and reviews. In the end, I still didn't tell you to buy anything. That is silly.

[pogi]

So again I ask, where is the harm in praying to a Mother alongside a Father and Son? What do we gain by dividing them in our minds? What purpose does it serve?

The harm comes from living an assumption, based on personal interpretation of obscure passages, when there is not one single evidence of a prophet praying to (or teaching us to pray to) Heavenly Mother. I can offer you hundreds of passages of prayer to the Father, you cannot offer me one single passage of prayer to the Mother. The harm also comes from living contrary to the teachings of modern day prophets as posted above.

I don't need to pray to my Mother in Heaven to enjoy the blessings of eternal knowledge, salvation, and progression. I don't need to pray to her to acknowledge her and hold her in regard in my heart. I don't need to pray to her to feel of her reality and warmth. I don't need to pray to her to live with her again some day. The same is true in my relationship with my brother Jesus. So, when weighing the risks vs. reward, I feel that the risks are far greater than any perceived reward. I will gain all things by keeping my eye single to the glory of the Father and by praying to Him alone. I will loose nothing by doing so, as Christ and my Mother will always be present in my heart.

Edited December 29, 2012 by pogi

[Damien the Leper]

The harm comes from living an assumption, based on personal interpretation of obscure passages, when there is not one single evidence of a prophet praying to (or teaching us to pray to) Heavenly Mother. I can offer you hundreds of passages of prayer to the Father, you cannot offer me one single passage of prayer to the Mother. The harm also comes from living contrary to the teachings of modern day prophets as posted above.

I don't need to pray to my Mother in Heaven to enjoy the blessings of eternal knowledge, salvation, and progression. I don't need to pray to her to acknowledge her and hold her in regard in my heart. I don't need to pray to her to feel of her reality and warmth. I don't need to pray to her to live with her again some day. The same is true in my relationship with my brother Jesus. So, when weighing the risks vs. reward, I feel that the risks are far greater than the reward.

Does this mean you get to selectively employ Carl Sagan's words?

"Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence."

[pogi]

I don't feel that I have an absence of evidence. I have offered evidence that I don't need to pray to her, and that doing so might lead me to live contrary to the teachings of the modern day prophets, you have offered speculation contrary to the counsel of my leaders.

Hinckley:

"I regard it as inappropriate for anyone in the Church to pray to our Mother in Heaven."

“I suppose those … who use this expression and who try to further its use are well-meaning, but they are misguided. The fact that we do not pray to our Mother in Heaven in no way belittles or denigrates her.”

From lds.org:

The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead. He is a personage of spirit, without a body of flesh and bones. He is often referred to as the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, or the Comforter.

D&C 130:22:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit...

Edited December 29, 2012 by pogi

[Damien the Leper]

But you still haven't provided evidence that others have not prayed to her. Quoting Hinckley's opinion does nothing as it is his opinion...no more, no less.

[bluebell]

But you still haven't provided evidence that others have not prayed to her. Quoting Hinckley's opinion does nothing as it is his opinion...no more, no less.

I don't know that Pogi is trying to prove that no one else has ever prayed to her.

It seems that he is trying to prove that no authoritative source suggests or teaches that it is acceptable to pray to her.

[pogi]

But you still haven't provided evidence that others have not prayed to her. Quoting Hinckley's opinion does nothing as it is his opinion...no more, no less.

In the absence of evidence all I can do is trust until I know for myself. I trust Hinckley more than you, or anyone on this forum. I sustained him as my leader, and when he speaks in general conference (even if it is his opinion), I am going to pay attention and consider his counsel of more import and weight, than a theory from some internet person based on Hebrew books and obscure passages of scripture. I feel secure in following the prophets words from conference, you offer me no security (or real benefit in praying to her).

[Damien the Leper]

In the absence of evidence all I can do is trust until I know for myself. I trust Hinckley more than you, or anyone on this forum. I sustained him as my leader, and when he speaks in general conference (even if it is his opinion), I am going to pay attention and consider his counsel of more import and weight, than a theory from some internet person based on Hebrew books and obscure passages of scripture. I feel secure in following the prophets words from conference, you offer me no security (or real benefit in praying to her).

Ok.

[Darren10]

Jeremy #68;

Let me reiterate that I have no problems with your learning of Heavenly Mother / Asherah / Queen of Heaven. As Pogi put in his #71, we are to serve the Father; not the Mother. If we are to serve the Mother, it would have been taught to us plainly, not obscurely in am manner which we should learn only be decripting the scriptures for ourselves. That we as individuals must clarify from millenia of male dominance and despite the fact that the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth our male dominance over women still obfuscates true worship which supposedly should include Heavenly Mother. If in times of old true worship included the Queen of Heaven, than, simply put, the gospel of Jesus Christ is still not restored. That a restitution of all things has not come about for we do NOT worship Heavenly Mother. It's been quite plainly taught by LDS leaders, not to pray to her. The aspect of your post of approaching blesphemy is your complacency to include Heavenly mother in prayer. Jesus did not teach that. Joseph Smith did not teach that. President Hinkley most definitely taught the LDS not do it, and it has never been part of LDS theology or faith. This is not a result of male chauvanism, sir. It's plain and simple doctrine. The before mentioned BYU professor (again, there are others here whom I'm sure knows much more than I about the situation) was fired for sating that she communicated with her Heavenly Mother. Not believing in her, nor admiring her, not connecting her to ancient scripture, but for *communicating* with her.

Suppose you stood at the LDs podium and told the congregation that you include Heavenly Mother in your prayers to the Father. Than the Bishop waits until after you finish your speach, stands up, and says that we are not to pray to our Heavenly Mother and that said practice is not part ofthe LDS church. Would he be incorrect? Is the Bishop simply not showing as high a degree of knowledge as you regarding the Godhead? Isn't this the logical end of your argument?

You say that praying to Heavenly Mother / worshiping Heavenly Mother does not take away from the Father yet clearly you opine that praying only to the Father, as Jesus taught, takes away from Heavenly Mother. That it's pig headed male egotistical gender dominionist who hide her from true worship. While I openly admit male dominance in human history, this is without foundation. Male priesthood holders, present or past, did not hide Heavenly Mother from worship. More simply, she's never been part of Christian worship. Had she been in the past than she would be now as far as I can tell. According to your posts, the only way you can argue that Heavenly Mother should be part of prayer is to force her into scriptural readings. You said, " Since English uses capitals to denote names and titles, I simply render "wisdom" as "Wisdom" to clarify." That's right along the lines of my point. You force "wisdom" to be a title of a being rather than it's simple, straightforward meaning, of "being wise".

I say that the logical end to your scriptural interpretation is that the brethren of the Church have grossly misled us is based on the fact that the LDS Church has used an LDS edition of scriptures heavily footnoted. These footnotes even appear on the official LDS website. While not canonical, it is officially endorsed by the LDS Church and none of which I have seen connect "wisdom" with a Queen of Heaven. Yet you do. So, if you are correct, than the brethren endorse a specific edition of scriptures which do not teach us the correct meaning of the scriptural passages.

As far as the priesthood is concerned (you #72), I find your view correct in that it is to be used to serve others. However, as King Benjamin said, we serve others by worshiping ther Father, not the Mother. Also, one of the uses of the priesthood of God *IS* to put a stop to wrongful interpretations of doctrines. President Kimball (I think it was him) and his denouncing the Adam-god theory comes to mind. furthermore, you absolutely have to have the priesthood to receieve revelation for the Church. You don't, neither do I. Therefore I say whatever revelations needed for salvation will come but not by you or me. Thusfar there is no revelation I am aware of that advocates the need to pray to Heavenly Mother though there has been plenty which tells us to pray to the Father.

[Darren10]

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.

Now *that* is true wisdom!!!

[Darren10]

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

Now *that* is true wisdom!!!

[juliann]

*cue inevitable post by that Orbe-Smith character*

There are all sorts of fun speculations out there. Just gotta do a little digging!

Awesome list of sources.

[blooit]

I hesitated posting earlier because my personal feelings are so full of speculation, but so is the rest of this thread.

I think it is very likely that there are more than one heavenly mothers, perhaps many. Mary, the mother of Jesus, could very well be sealed to Heavenly Father, which would mean at least 2. This could very well explain why we don't teach about her(s).

Just MHO

[Tacenda]

I hesitated posting earlier because my personal feelings are so full of speculation, but so is the rest of this thread.

I think it is very likely that there are more than one heavenly mothers, perhaps many. Mary, the mother of Jesus, could very well be sealed to Heavenly Father, which would mean at least 2. This could very well explain why we don't teach about her(s).

Just MHO

This is where it gets tricky because Mary is a daughter of HF isn't she? Or not. According to other faiths we're adopted children later but aren't spirit children to begin with. So that might be alot easier to take that way. Of course I understand this is your opinion only.

[BlueDreams]

I think it is very likely that there are more than one heavenly mothers, perhaps many. Mary, the mother of Jesus, could very well be sealed to Heavenly Father, which would mean at least 2. This could very well explain why we don't teach about her(s).

.....or she's with Joseph. Seems more logical considering that's the man she was married to.

As for HM....I'm sticking with the idea of 1. And i doubt the number has much to do as to why there's not much taught about Her.

With luv,

BD

[Batgirlsmom]

I'll take it a step further and suggest that we may not all have the same literal father in heaven, except through adoption. <gasp>

I agree - the logic would hold.

After all, we know very, very little about our Heavenly Father - not much more than our Heavenly Mother.

And, we also know that once the status of goddesshood and godhood are attained eternity and living outside of "time" comes into play- rendering the need for multiple wives for reproductive purposes moot (ie you don't need to have lots of wives to populate the eternities when time is in no way an issue - you cannot die and you have all the "time" in eternity to populate it - with one spouse). The concept of eternity renders the entire "polygamy in eternity" argument a dead-end if it is for reproductive purposes. But, I suppose it might make some men feel nice to think they might get more women in the afterlife.

Who knows? Perhaps we actually all share the same Heavenly Mother and have multiple Heavenly Fathers - merely using the term "Heavenly Father" to apply to all of them.

[Batgirlsmom]

It is true that the the scriptures we have inherited were written under overwhelmingly male-dominated cultures whose viewpoints of the Gospel would certainly interpret these truths in a male-dominated worldview. I wonder how much knowledge of our Heavenly Mother has been lost over the many centuries and millenia by evil and conspiring men? I wonder how the world would receive it if a 14 year old young woman had Christ and Heavenly Mother appear to her in a grove tomorrow to tell her that there were important portions of the Gospel that still were not restored? I wonder how men might take it if all the female aspects of the Gospel that had been lost were restored?

[pogi]

I wonder how the world would receive it if a 14 year old young woman had Christ and Heavenly Mother appear to her in a grove tomorrow to tell her that there were important portions of the Gospel that still were not restored? I wonder how men might take it if all the female aspects of the Gospel that had been lost were restored?

The world would probably accept it better now than ever before, though we still have a long way to go.

[Batgirlsmom]

The world would probably accept it better now than ever before, though we still have a long way to go.

I don't know if we would.... I suspect it would not be accepted in the LDS church. For that matter, if a 14-15 year old young man in some obscure ward were to step forward today claiming that Christ and Heavenly Father had appeared to him in the woods behind his house and had told him the church had gone horribly astray how might that go over? lol We don't accept the miraculous as we once did.

[bluebell]

I don't know if we would.... I suspect it would not be accepted in the LDS church. For that matter, if a 14-15 year old young man in some obscure ward were to step forward today claiming that Christ and Heavenly Father had appeared to him in the woods behind his house and had told him the church had gone horribly astray how might that go over? lol We don't accept the miraculous as we once did.

I don't think it would have anything to do with not accepting the miraculous, but it would be about not accepting something that is clearly and completely outside of what is already doctrine concerning how God reveals His word and will to the entire church.

[Batgirlsmom]

I don't think it would have anything to do with not accepting the miraculous, but it would be about not accepting something that is clearly and completely outside of what is already doctrine concerning how God reveals His word and will to the entire church.

How God has revealed his word and will to the entire church to this point. All things are not restored. And, it is hubris to believe we know everything that has yet to be restored and that it will always be revealed or restored in exactly the same manner. Joseph Smith was quite a surprise to the Christian world - and his message was rejected precisely because it didn't come in the "correct" (from his timeperiod all the way back to Christ's timeperiod) manner: Through a well-trained theologian regarded as both wise and knowledgeable.

[pogi]

How God has revealed his word and will to the entire church to this point. All things are not restored. And, it is hubris to believe we know everything that has yet to be restored and that it will always be revealed or restored in exactly the same manner. Joseph Smith was quite a surprise to the Christian world - and his message was rejected precisely because it didn't come in the "correct" (from his timeperiod all the way back to Christ's timeperiod) manner: Through a well-trained theologian regarded as both wise and knowledgeable.

All things necessary for salvation have been resorted and will not be taken from the earth again. The church is here to stay through this last dispensation. There will be no boy sent from God to warn us that we have gone astray. The truths that have been restored will continue to be true. The president of the church will continue to hold all of the keys and receive revelation for the church. God will not give revelation for the church through some boy who does not preside over the church. Anything contrary to this is contrary to God's restored truth.

As far as revealing further truth about the nature of Heavenly Mother, I have no doubt that the church would receive it with joy. I am not sure what "female aspects of the gospel" you are referring to that need to be restored, but I do feel that the church and society as a whole are much more open and accepting to the cause of womanhood and their rights and privileges. The woman's movement has done much to completely shift the paradigm of the sexes in our day. I believe that if revealed through the correct lines, the church would welcome any new revealed truth that furthers our knowledge of the feminine aspects of the gospel. But as far as salvation goes, all necessary principles and ordinances have already been restored.

Edited December 31, 2012 by pogi