Excellent Sl Tribune Article Re Mother In Heaven

[smac97]

Here: http://www.sltrib.co...on-lds.html.csp

It's by Peggy Fletcher Stack, and I think it perhaps the finest article I have ever read from her. Well-sourced, well-balanced, well-written. Respectful, but still willing to present probing, somewhat uncomfortable issues. Well done, Peggy!

I am quite comfortable with the doctrinal concept of Heavenly Mother. It makes sense to me. It appeals to me. But the aspects of discussion of this issue that put me a bit on edge are

A) conjecture about Her that is tinted to bolster certain contemporary disgruntlements from some self-styled "feminists" (e.g., Mother in Heaven is doctrinal, ergo women should have the priesthood);

B) advocacy that She should be prayed to (in contravention of scriptural commandments);

C) use of this concept as a basis for disparaging Church leaders as misogynistic (because of the counsel from the Brethren that we not pray to Her); and

D) the use of this concept to disparage motherhood.

As to this last point, check out this excerpt from the article:

BYU-Idaho historian Andrea Radke-Moss raises questions about Heavenly Mother’s role.

"Is she truly a goddess and a priestess who enjoys priesthood power through the creation of worlds and spirits?" Radke-Moss asks. "Or is she like what women are expected to be on Earth — a submissive helpmeet to God the Father ... — [or] a spiritual birthing/nurturing machine?"

Holy cow. There is no good faith basis for such an offensive characterization of Church teachings about women. If an LDS man described women, or the role of women, in this way, he would be raked across the coals. But Radke-Moss gets away with it because . . . I don't know why.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 10, 2013 by smac97

[Tacenda]

The majority of non LDS Christians don't believe in a Mother in Heaven, so maybe the church doesn't like that teaching out there. I think there are some pretty powerful angels in heaven who are women and look after us, but not too sure about a mother. Though I know alot of the FMH group like to say there is. It's not biblical I don't believe nor is it BoM belief. But if polygamy is a doctrine, it stands to reason that we believe she is there.

[Calm]

This comment below with its portrayal of fathers as being absent from their kids' life as some sort of norm made me cringe as well:

"We say that gender roles are eternal, but then we see our heavenly parents fulfilling roles that are pretty much inverted from what we expect of earthly parents: God the Father is ‘home with the kids’ but the Mother has no relationship with her kids. That’s pretty odd."

Also this one:

"I couldn’t fathom how I would ever rebuild my life and dreams with only the ‘help’ of a male deity who couldn’t understand many aspects of my experience,"

While I totally understand the feeling that a man who can't physically experience what a woman experiences isn't going to be able to fully comprehend how a woman feels, I believe the whole basis of the Atonement is built on the doctrine that Christ did experience everything that man or woman could go through (in some way I don't understand but trust in) and thus he is able to understand us fully, even better than we understand ourselves.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Interesting that a later comment by another woman actually stresses this:

LDS teachings provide assurance, she says, that "God — my Heavenly Father — and Christ ‘get’ me; that the frailty and brokenness of our most tender and vulnerable earthly relationships, our families, can be ameliorated in part through God’s love."

However following it up with this comment:

Mormons, Owen adds, don’t have enough information to know how Heavenly Mother would handle those differences.

leads me to believe that she has missed a fundamental point as well. LDS doctrine teaches that we will become one with the Father and the Son, teaches as in the scripture above that we will know as we are known...if so, how can the Mother not "get" us as much as the Father and Son do? Would she not be one with both and thus connected to whatever allows them to understand us so perfectly?

Overall one of the more thought provoking and well covered articles I've seen on theological concepts. Good find, Smac.

PS: I greatly appreciate that for once, Janice Allred's actual doctrine was explained as opposed to just stating that she taught about our Mother in Heaven or that she suggested we pray to her. She went much, much further than that.

Edited May 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

But if polygamy is a doctrine, it stands to reason that we believe she is there.

Polygamy or eternal marriage? I am not following your reasoning that it is plural marriage that is evidence of a Heavenly Mother, it would seem to me that the doctrine of eternal marriage and exaltation requiring such provides the doctrinal foundation of a logical conclusion that there is Heavenly Mother.

PS: feel free to clarify in your post so you don't have to waste one answering me.

Edited May 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

This comment below with its portrayal of fathers as being absent from their kids' life as some sort of norm made me cringe as well:

Also this one:

While I totally understand the feeling that a man who can't physically experience what a woman experiences isn't going to be able to fully comprehend how a woman feels, I believe the whole basis of the Atonement is built on the doctrine that Christ did experience everything that man or woman could go through (in some way I don't understand but trust in) and thus he is able to understand us fully, even better than we understand ourselves.

Very well reasoned and stated.

I think we run into problems whenever we thoughtlessly impute mortal limitations to divine beings.

[Gillebre]

It is my belief that for the very reasons Smac indicated that we will not be given more information on Her than we already have.

It is stunning how many can easily disregard the counsel of Jesus Christ about who we should pray to. If there's one thing in the scriptures that ought to be extremely clear cut, as well as black and white, it should be that we only pray to our Heavenly Father in the name of His Son. That's it. Period.

Or so it would be, ideally.

Why must it be as difficult as some make it out to be? :/

[Calm]

It is stunning how many can easily disregard the counsel of Jesus Christ about who we should pray to. If there's one thing in the scriptures that ought to be extremely clear cut, as well as black and white, it should be that we only pray to our Heavenly Father in the name of His Son. That's it. Period.

While I don't disagree with you, I feel the need to point out that this doesn't stop Church leaders nor God himself from telling us more about Christ and in fact urging us to get to know him as well as we can.

[Gillebre]

That's something which took me quite a while to understand. How to have a relationship with the Savior, including accessing His grace, while not praying to Him.

It was difficult, at first, and in the past I didn't think I'd really have much of a relationship with Him because of prayers being sent to the Father. I was dead wrong. haha.

edit: While I am strict about to whom I pray, I do find myself having conversations with both Heavenly Father and the Savior that aren't prayers in the formal sense.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Gillebre

[Damien the Leper]

I'm of the opinion that we don't know much about her because the Father doesn't think we are ready to understand the full capacity of her divinity or position. I'm not overly concerned with the issue any more. The church may never be ready, in this temporal setting, to completely comprehend the fullness of who and what the Father and Mother are.

[Garden Girl]

That's something which took me quite a while to understand. How to have a relationship with the Savior, including accessing His grace, while not praying to Him.

It was difficult, at first, and in the past I didn't think I'd really have much of a relationship with Him because of prayers being sent to the Father. I was dead wrong. haha.

edit: While I am strict about to whom I pray, I do find myself having conversations with both Heavenly Father and the Savior that aren't prayers in the formal sense.

Many times in my prayers my language will include something like.... and through thee my Father to the Savior...

that seems to help me feel closer to the Savior in my prayers and in my daily walk.

GG

[Tacenda]

Polygamy or eternal marriage? I am not following your reasoning that it is plural marriage that is evidence of a Heavenly Mother, it would seem to me that the doctrine of eternal marriage and exaltation requiring such provides the doctrinal foundation of a logical conclusion that there is Heavenly Mother.

PS: feel free to clarify in your post so you don't have to waste one answering me.

Ok but you will probably disagree. When I think of a Mother in Heaven that makes me think she is married to God, and according to some earlier LDS prophets than she'd need to be living a polygamist lifestyle. To me Eternal marriage is fine and all but in order for you to be in the stature of a Goddess than you'd have to live a polygamous life in the hereafter. That's just the way it is according to earlier prophets. Eternal marriage without creating worlds, still holds, in fact that's how I hope my marriage will be. I think you know which quotes I'm talking about that the prophets mentioned. There is one that has no one entering the highest kingdom unless they're living in a polygamist relationship.

ETA:

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses 11:269) Brigham Young

Cal, I'm short on posts so I'll answer with the ETA response. I think the analogy of only believing the current prophet, is not a good one. Should we not believe JS now that he's dead or Pres. Hinckley since he's gone? Should we not take everything Thomas S. Monson says seriously because he will one day pass on?

Edited May 10, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

There is one that has no one entering the highest kingdom unless they're living in a polygamist relationship.

If it is the one by Brigham Young, he also stated elsewhere that one only had to accept the principle, but did not have to live it him/herself if not called to...and one would still be eligible for exaltation.

Plus eternal marriage has always been equated with the highest level of the CK whether monogamous or plural, so I don't see where you are getting the idea that there is eternal marriage at some lower level and then plural marriage at the highest. Could you explain this please.

I am now curious as to why you give more weight to earlier prophets than you do the more recent ones in this regard? Is there some reason you feel they would be more spiritually in tune in regard to what is needed for exaltation for us who are living now?

Edited May 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

There is one that has no one entering the highest kingdom unless they're living in a polygamist relationship.

That's a commonly misunderstood and mistaken concept, and the earlier Presidents of the Church didn't teach that. We should be able to accept the fact that some men will have more than one wife while all of them live together in a righteous marriage, but it's a mistake to think all men will have more than one wife in heaven. Some will, and some won't. All that matters and all that is necessary to receive a fulness of joy is for both a man and a woman to have a spouse otherwise they won't be able to create their own children.