The Feminine Side Of God-Gaia

[EllenMaksoud]

So, after seeing a thread on the Judea-Christian idea of the feminine side of God,  the idea of Gaia came to mind so I went off and did some research on the idea. James Lovelock, an Englishman has some really interesting ideas. I agree with him, but feel that the whole system is God driven.

[BCSpace]

The feminine side of God in LDS theology is the fact that the image of God is a heterosexually married couple.  Genesis 5:1-3.

[Stone holm]

So, after seeing a thread on the Judea-Christian idea of the feminine side of God,  the idea of Gaia came to mind so I went off and did some research on the idea. James Lovelock, an Englishman has some really interesting ideas. I agree with him, but feel that the whole system is God driven.

The feminine side of God is Heavenly Mother. There are some teachings which accord with Gaia theory that the Earth is a sentient being, but the notion that Gaia is a deity is foreign to Mormonism.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Maybe it shouldn't be, tho!
 

Gaia = Ge = Earth; see Moses 7:48 "And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?"

 

Compare with Terra Mater, Tellus, etc. We don't even need to really posit a sentient planet, just note that myth is usually drawing from the same ancient worldwide imagery, usually profoundly nature-based. If all humans who have ever existed since the foundation of the earth have the potential to become Gods, as was the plan in the Council in Heaven, then why get squeamish about acknowledging the branch of the family who migrated into Greece and apotheosized a particular woman? Regardless of the historicity of the specifics of the stories found in, say, Hesiod, the point is that most cultures have honored ancestral female Goddesses, because they didn't partake of the monotheism of ontological uniqueness forced upon them by later philosophical arguments and the First Cause God of the Creeds.

 

Go to Scandinavia, Old Europe, Egypt and the rest of Africa, the Middle East, India, Russia, Asia, Oceania, the Americas, practically anywhere, and you find the feminine side of God everywhere in ritual and art and song and story; it's Christianity after the Apostasy based on particular strands of Greek philosophy (not older strands of Greek religion/mythology) that really does away with it officially, and even then folks yearn for representations of femininity, with the continuing emphasis on maternal metaphors for a disembodied God, Wisdom, Sophia, and of course the ever-abhorrent "Mariolatry" which, in my opinion, we should happily take part in ourselves, since we believe Mary had the potential to be apotheosized just as much as anyone!

 

The part to notice here is that men and women and anyone in-between all have that divine potential inside them, because it's the individual mind, the intelligence, that is self-existing and uncreated and co-eternal with God. Let's not get caught up in tribal in-groups and out-groups, usually designated by mere names; we're all part of the same human family, we come from the same root. We all have the potential to become Priests and Priestesses in the order of the cosmological Priesthood, the purpose of which is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of homo sapiens. Since we're all part of the ecosystem as a whole (matter is eternal and uncreated, Gods only shape it; Brigham Young taught that there never was a time when there were no worlds) there's no reason Gods shouldn't exist in an evolutionary context like that proposed by Lovelock. I mean, we know we alter our environment already, and there are plenty of sci-fi proposals to terraform new worlds, so why not? The point is to be good Gods and Goddesses, who uphold the laws of justice by mercy and love unfeigned. That's the point of following Christ, isn't it? To become anointed with the oil [Christ/Chrism/Messiach] of the Olive Tree of Life, the symbol of eternal life. Males with females, with everyone. A peaceful at-one-ment.    

Edited October 24, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Stone holm]

Maybe it shouldn't be, tho!

 

Gaia = Ge = Earth; see Moses 7:48 "And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?"

 

Compare with Terra Mater, Tellus, etc. We don't even need to really posit a sentient planet, just note that myth is usually drawing from the same ancient worldwide imagery, usually profoundly nature-based. If all humans who have ever existed since the foundation of the earth have the potential to become Gods, as was the plan in the Council in Heaven, then why get squeamish about acknowledging the branch of the family who migrated into Greece and apotheosized a particular woman? Regardless of the historicity of the specifics of the stories found in, say, Hesiod, the point is that most cultures have honored ancestral female Goddesses, because they didn't partake of the monotheism of ontological uniqueness forced upon them by later philosophical arguments and the First Cause God of the Creeds.

 

Go to Scandinavia, Old Europe, Egypt and the rest of Africa, the Middle East, India, Russia, Asia, Oceania, the Americas, practically anywhere, and you find the feminine side of God everywhere in ritual and art and song and story; it's Christianity after the Apostasy based on particular strands of Greek philosophy (not older strands of Greek religion/mythology) that really does away with it officially, and even then folks yearn for representations of femininity, with the continuing emphasis on maternal metaphors for a disembodied God, Wisdom, Sophia, and of course the ever-abhorrent "Mariolatry" which, in my opinion, we should happily take part in ourselves, since we believe Mary had the potential to be apotheosized just as much as anyone!

 

The part to notice here is that men and women and anyone in-between all have that divine potential inside them, because it's the individual mind, the intelligence, that is self-existing and uncreated and co-eternal with God. Let's not get caught up in tribal in-groups and out-groups, usually designated by mere names; we're all part of the same human family, we come from the same root. We all have the potential to become Priests and Priestesses in the order of the cosmological Priesthood, the purpose of which is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of homo sapiens. Since we're all part of the ecosystem as a whole (matter is eternal and uncreated, Gods only shape it; Brigham Young taught that there never was a time when there were no worlds) there's no reason Gods shouldn't exist in an evolutionary context like that proposed by Lovelock. I mean, we know we alter our environment already, and there are plenty of sci-fi proposals to terraform new worlds, so why not? The point is to be good Gods and Goddesses, who uphold the laws of justice by mercy and love unfeigned. That's the point of following Christ, isn't it? To become anointed with the oil [Christ/Chrism/Messiach] of the Olive Tree of Life, the symbol of eternal life. Males with females, with everyone. A peaceful at-one-ment.

All well and interesting, and I have no problem with greater discussion of Heavenly Mother or Priestesses for that matter both of which are consistent with Mormonism, but the idea of an immaterial god apotheosised or not and nature worship are foreign to and always will be foreign to that religious system we refer to as Mormonism. The idea of the Earth being a sentient system is not contrary to our beliefs, but it is not God.

[EllenMaksoud]

The feminine side of God is Heavenly Mother. There are some teachings which accord with Gaia theory that the Earth is a sentient being, but the notion that Gaia is a deity is foreign to Mormonism.

I did not intend to say that Gaia is a God. That she has intelligence and listens to God, I am open to.

[halconero]

Last week in my Early Christian Writings class we discussed the Gospel of Thomas. There's multiple passages in it that discuss salvation being predicated upon removing gender differences. My teacher said that while many early gnostics and some people today interpret that as meaning that salvation was dependent on salvation, that such an argument was not wholly satisfactory to anyone involved in the field of History of Religion (as opposed to theology).

He went on to explain that Genesis appears to contain two creation counts when it comes to man. In the first (Genesis 1) he creates man "in his own image" which was male and female. In the second (Genesis 2) it appears as though he makes man (adam) first and then eve from his rib.

He said that this was interpreted by some gnostics and many scholars today as meaning that God first created an androgynous being "Man" in the image of an androgynous God. When "Man" became dissatisfied with being alone He/She looked for a companion, and being thoroughly disappointed with his choices, God in his anger separated this being into two sexes. The goal then, for many people, and as it appears in Thomas, is the return to the original state.

I was curious and asked him about the whole implication of Elohim in Genesis. I told him that I understood the word to be a plural form of God. I told him that I understood that when used with singular verbs, and adjectives, that the plurality might suggest a plurality of attributes and goodness.

He got quite uncomfortable, and said, "Well, yes. That's true. Many take the view point that Elohim, the term used in Genesis when referring to the creation of Man in God's image, is just a singular noun with plural expressions of God's deity, as you say. I, and many others in my profession, aren't wholly comfortable with this. We all have to understand that early Judaism was not so strictly monotheistic as it was portrayed. We cannot discount the possibility that the early Hebrews believed in a pantheon of Gods, or even that God himself had a consort, and that these created mankind. It changes the meaning in Thomas and other scriptures to make it sound that the goal isn't androgyny, but a unity of the sexes in a divine way."

An interesting anecdote, but one that shows that among the ancient studies of religion, even Judaism, the idea of God having a feminine consort is not unknown.

Edited October 25, 2013 by halconero

[Stone holm]

Last week in my Early Christian Writings class we discussed the Gospel of Thomas. There's multiple passages in it that discuss salvation being predicated upon removing gender differences. My teacher said that while many early gnostics and some people today interpret that as meaning that salvation was dependent on salvation, that such an argument was not wholly satisfactory to anyone involved in the field of History of Religion (as opposed to theology).

 

He went on to explain that Genesis appears to contain two creation counts when it comes to man. In the first (Genesis 1) he creates man "in his own image" which was male and female. In the second (Genesis 2) it appears as though he makes man (adam) first and then eve from his rib.

 

He said that this was interpreted by some gnostics and many scholars today as meaning that God first created an androgynous being "Man" in the image of an androgynous God. When "Man" became dissatisfied with being alone He/She looked for a companion, and being thoroughly disappointed with his choices, God in his anger separated this being into two sexes. The goal then, for many people, and as it appears in Luke, is the return to the original state.

 

I was curious and asked him about the whole implication of Elohim in Genesis. I told him that I understood the word to be a plural form of God. I told him that I understood that when used with singular verbs, and adjectives, and that the plurality might suggest a plurality of attributes and goodness. 

 

He got quite uncomfortable, and said, "Well, yes. That's true. Many take the view point that Elohim, the term used in Genesis when referring to the creation of Man in God's image, is just a singular noun with plural expressions of God's deity, as you say. I, and many others in my profession, aren't whole comfortable with this. We all have to understand that early Judaism was not so strictly monotheistic as it was portrayed. We cannot discount the possibility that the early Hebrews believed in a pantheon of Gods, or even that God himself had a consort, and that these created mankind. It changes the meaning in Thomas and other scriptures to make it sound that the goal isn't androgyny, but a unity of the sexes in a divine way."

 

An interesting anecdote, but one that shows that among the ancient studies of religion, even Judaism, the idea of God having a feminine consort is not unknown.

Some branches of Judaism believed that Adam and Eve were initially physically conjoined and were separated. I, however, am speaking of Mormon teachings. They include the concept of the planet as a sentient being as a possibility, but do not give it god status. I also suspect that much more was taught of Heavenly Mother in early Christianity before Augustine Romanized and purged Christianity of much of the early teachings and the importance of Mary Magdalene.

[halconero]

Some branches of Judaism believed that Adam and Eve were initially physically conjoined and were separated. I, however, am speaking of Mormon teachings. They include the concept of the planet as a sentient being as a possibility, but do not give it god status. I also suspect that much more was taught of Heavenly Mother in early Christianity before Augustine Romanized and purged Christianity of much of the early teachings and the importance of Mary Magdalene.

I know...I just said that.

I know you're talking about Mormon doctrine. I brought up historical fact and debate that doesn't preclude, but instead brings up the possibility of verifying such doctrine.

[Stone holm]

I know...I just said that.

I know you're talking about Mormon doctrine. I brought up historical fact and debate that doesn't preclude, but instead brings up the possibility of verifying such doctrine.

 

The two modern scientists who enlivened the Gaia theory, Lovelock and Margulis, were actually looking for an economical way to detect life as we know it on other planets.  However, they apparently fell into disfavor with NASA because using their method did not require much if any space travel, manned or unmanned, because it could be determined by the existence or non-existence of certain gases, etc.  Originally, Lovelock was pretty strong about the sentient nature of Gaia -- but the Scientific community reacted badly to that so he sort of backed off.  The idea of the Earth as an ecological system rather than just a rock with plants and animals is actually pretty old both religiously and scientifically.  The implication of Lovelock and Margulis' work is that Gaia might eventually "decide" that humans were a life threatening parasitic disease and decide to purge us from the planet.  One gets echoes of that type of thinking in some of the religious metaphors mentioned in this thread, and in some environmental thinking.  "Deep Ecology" explores the possibility that elimination of any form of life may have severe unknown adverse consequences -- not sure that I would go to preserving polio or small pox, but I have some sympathy for the notion.  Joseph Smith displayed reluctance about the gratuitous elimination of rattlesnakes.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Besides meeting Heavenly Father, I can't wait to also meet our Heavenly Mother.

[JLHPROF]

Besides meeting Heavenly Father, I can't wait to also meet our Heavenly Mother.

 

Eliza R. Snow, our second Relief Society President and wife of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young wrote in "O My Father" that both Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father would have to approve us to dwell with them...(so as my Mother told me those men who treat their wives badly, well, they may have to stand before their Heavenly Mother and explain themselves).

[EllenMaksoud]

Eliza R. Snow, our second Relief Society President and wife of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young wrote in "O My Father" that both Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father would have to approve us to dwell with them...(so as my Mother told me those men who treat their wives badly, well, they may have to stand before their Heavenly Mother and explain themselves).

There are lots of religions, including some branches of Christianity, and Islam, and to an extent Mormonism that are misogynistic. I think the day will come, perhaps not in this life, when women get paid the same as men, men do not attack women, and the jobs on are not tacitly divided by gender.

 

I operated a track hoe once on a job where men were forbidden to operate the equipment because women were less likey to damage the equipment and the surrounding area.  I've also seen men do as good or better at cooking than women, especially in a large cooking establishment.

 

I am just aching for Genesis 3:16 to go away.  6000 years of punishment is enough.

[Stone holm]

There are lots of religions, including some branches of Christianity, and Islam, and to an extent Mormonism that are misogynistic. I think the day will come, perhaps not in this life, when women get paid the same as men, men do not attack women, and the jobs on are not tacitly divided by gender.

 

I operated a track hoe once on a job where men were forbidden to operate the equipment because women were less likey to damage the equipment and the surrounding area.  I've also seen men do as good or better at cooking than women, especially in a large cooking establishment.

 

I am just aching for Genesis 3:16 to go away.  6000 years of punishment is enough.

Oh my, there goes the declaration on families...barefoot and pregnant cleaning house and cooking in the kitchen, the path to heaven don't cha know...gender stereotyping is a critical doctrine that survival of society as we know it is dependent upon....lol

[EllenMaksoud]

Oh my, there goes the declaration on families...barefoot and pregnant cleaning house and cooking in the kitchen, the path to heaven don't cha know...gender stereotyping is a critical doctrine that survival of society as we know it is dependent upon....lol

Yes, well I am not rigid feminist, and it is much more pleasant for me to change diapers and scrub toilet than to put new clutch in the truck, but I can do if pressed to it. And, when the man is watching sports, it would make me happy if he had the TV in the garage so others can carry on a normal life.  It is sometimes comical to watch antics of people who watch sports when they get so emotional and yell, jump up and down. At least these days there is no one screaming at me to get them another beer.

[Stone holm]

Yes, well I am not rigid feminist, and it is much more pleasant for me to change diapers and scrub toilet than to put new clutch in the truck, but I can do if pressed to it. And, when the man is watching sports, it would make me happy if he had the TV in the garage so others can carry on a normal life.  It is sometimes comical to watch antics of people who watch sports when they get so emotional and yell, jump up and down. At least these days there is no one screaming at me to get them another beer.

Would it have been different in a different tone of voice requesting a different beverage? We have a Sister from the Stake extolling Sisters work in Primary.

[EllenMaksoud]

Would it have been different in a different tone of voice requesting a different beverage? We have a Sister from the Stake extolling Sisters work in Primary.

It is at times entertaining to watch others doing something that they enjoy.

[Stone holm]

It is at times entertaining to watch others doing something that they enjoy.

Spectator to spectator sports, is that kind of like watching someone else blog?