Poll: Is Heavenly Mother Appropriately Referred To As A God?

[Nofear]

Curious about perspectives from some latter-day saints. Admittedly a very skewed sampling, but, meh, why not?

Edited June 18, 2015 by Nofear

[The Nehor]

Probably though I think it is more correct that both Father and Mother together are God.

[JLHPROF]

I think our understanding of the members of the Godhead, especially the insistence on making them static and unchangeable, is part of the issue.

 

Heavenly Mother is definitely a God.

Whether or not she is a member of the "Godhead" depends on the nature of the unity with her husband and the nature of the Godhead priesthood quorum.  There has been nothing revealed on this that I have ever read.

But she is definitely a God is both nature and office.

 

What do I base that on? 

- D&C 132:20 - Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

 

 

Refers to husband and wives.  Both are considered Gods.

[Nevo]

From The Family: A Proclamation to the World:

 

"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God.

Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents..."

 

Unless I'm reading this wrong, "heavenly parents" seems here to stand in parallel to "God."

[tagriffy]

I can't answer this poll. None of the possible answers captures my thought very well.

[Nofear]

Would be happy to hear a phrasing that captures your thoughts.

[tagriffy]

More a combination of options 2 and 3. Yes, it is appropriate to refer to Heavenly Mother as a god. Nothing else has been made specific enough any other statement.

[Brian 2.0]

How about, "Yes, but it's not appropriate to refer to her, so... no."

[tagriffy]

No, I think it is entirely appropriate to refer to her, to pray to her, to worship her, to have a relationship with her. Whether or how she fits into the Godhead is necessarily speculative, which is why none of the answers fit for me.

[Brian 2.0]

No, I think it is entirely appropriate to refer to her, to pray to her, to worship her, to have a relationship with her. Whether or how she fits into the Godhead is necessarily speculative, which is why none of the answers fit for me.

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.[8]

[Rivers]

Wouldn't she be considered a goddess?

Edited June 19, 2015 by Rivers

[tagriffy]

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.[8]

 

When answering a poll asking about my opinion, I answer with my opinion, not anyone else's.

[Rivers]

Its intetesting how other Christians say that a mother in heaven is a heresy while liberal mormons get so upset that we don't talk about her enough.

[Five Solas]

Refers to husband and wives.  Both are considered Gods.

And yet the passage you cited had "gods" in lower-case.  You put it in upper case: "Gods."  That's a very meaningful distinction for any readers who appreciate the Bible.  Why did you substitute upper case for lower, JLHPROF?

[Brian 2.0]

When answering a poll asking about my opinion, I answer with my opinion, not anyone else's.

 

Valid.  And I agree with you by the way... just pointing out that the church doesn't necessarily.  

[bluebell]

And yet the passage you cited had "gods" in lower-case.  You put it in upper case: "Gods."  That's a very meaningful distinction for any readers who appreciate the Bible.  Why did you substitute upper case for lower, JLHPROF?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it's just his personal preference.

 

I myself prefer to use lower case g's when writing about gods, except when speaking about God the Father.  JLH apparently doesn't.  We likely both have very similar beliefs on the subject though.

[Calm]

And yet the passage you cited had "gods" in lower-case.  You put it in upper case: "Gods."  That's a very meaningful distinction for any readers who appreciate the Bible. 

 

 

The original had no capitals or lower case, is it not true?

[why me]

I don't think that we have enough information about heavenly mother to give any answer about this. All answers must be speculation. Of course I realize that in this age of identity politics, such questiions will come up. But some things cannot be known until more information is given. Also, it seems that mormon women and men want equality between the sexes when it comes go our heavenly parents. But there seems to be a reason why the two personages who appeared to Joseph Smith were male in spirit. It would have been wonderful if heavenly mother were there too as the spiritual mother of Joseph Smith and all of us. But she chose not to be there or was told not to appear.

 

I think that the church has not told us much about her. It seems that heavenly father wishes her to be invisible. In the past, the explanation by church members was that heavenly father did not want his imperfect children to show disrespect to her. That made sense to me then and it does now.

[Brian 2.0]

Speculating along the theology of it all.... It is feasible to think that our Heavenly Mother may be of a personality where the role she takes now is her desire and that in other worlds with different Heavenly Parents the Heavenly Mother does have more of a presence in the mortal lives of her spirit children. 

 

I know that my own mother willingly and actively takes a role in our family that other women could look at and think it's "less than" my father.  But it's just the way she wants it.  My wife is not the same way, that's just the way she wants it.

 

I would prefer to think about it in those term rather than a protective Heavenly Father, only because it puts the power and extent of her involvement in her hands.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[why me]

Speculating along the theology of it all.... It is feasible to think that our Heavenly Mother may be of a personality where the role she takes now is her desire and that in other worlds with different Heavenly Parents the Heavenly Mother does have more of a presence in the mortal lives of her spirit children. 

 

I know that my own mother willingly and actively takes a role in our family that other women could look at and think it's "less than" my father.  But it's just the way she wants it.  My wife is not the same way, that's just the way she wants it.

 

I would prefer to think about it in those term rather than a protective Heavenly Father, only because it puts the power and extent of her involvement in her hands.

I think that you make a good point. But it is all speculation. For example, how would mormon feminist take the news that our heavenly mother is completely happy and satisfied taking care of her spiritual children in the heavens rather than to get involved in the affairs of her spiiritual children on earlth. That her role is basically to be our mother in eternity as she was in the prexistence. This kind of logic may not go over well. However, there was a reason why she did not appear with heavenly father and her first born when they appeared to Joseph. It would have been perfectly natural to have our heavenly parents to appear along with their first born, jesus. A complete family.

 

But it is all speculation and the other question is: Should we speculate about her role in the heavens and whether or not she is a god?

[tagriffy]

But it is all speculation and the other question is: Should we speculate about her role in the heavens and whether or not she is a god?

 

Why not? We speculate about everything else in Mormonism!

[mormonnewb]

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.[8]

 

I can't believe that we Mormons won't even own this one because even for a lifelong Baptist, the concept of Heavenly Mother seems so obvious.  How else can you possibly explain Genesis 1:26?

 

 

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

In these passages, it seems clear that God is the collective term for at least two supreme beings ("Let US make man in OUR image").  Protestants would argue that the joint figures here are HF and Christ ("In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" -- John 1, I think).  However, the problem with this interpretation is that it doesn't explain how men and women were creating in the "likeness" of male deities.  It seems that, at the very least, we need at least one male and at least one female deity for this to make sense.

 

From there, I will admit that it gets a little hazy.  The simplest explanation is that the Godhead is a male-female collection of deity that closely resembles our current conception of man and wife.  The fact that this pattern of a man "cleaving to his wife" and "becoming one flesh" is established in the very next chapter of Genesis makes it all neat and tidy (I like neat and tidy).  However, it gets a little more complicated when now that we've introduced eternal polygamy.  How does one man cleave to, say, 36 women and become ONE flesh?  I'm a liberal arts major so my math skills aren't the best, but I don't see anyway to work that out, even with a protractor and a compass.

 

I guess another alternative is that the Godhead is a collection of numerous heavenly beings, both male and female, working in cooperation much like, say, the Q on the Star Trek TNG.  One part of me really likes this idea because it's the conception of exaltation past the current concept of "me and my four and no more."  Now, don't get me wrong.  Even a limited Mormon concept of nuclear family exaltation is superior to the Protestant "every man for himself" conception of salvation.  However, the idea that we achieve salvation as a tribe, church, nation or even species has some powerful implications for being our brother's keepers and caring for "the least of these."

 

Of course, given that we do have living prophets, perhaps they could explain how this works, given that HF's ways are not our ways.  Instead, our prophetic counsel has been ... "Hush!  Heavenly Mother has really sensitive ears!"  Really?  The co-creator of the world and everything that lies in it would get her feelings her hurt by the mockery of the beings she formed with her very own hands?  Yet, the "big strong man God" can easily handle the mockery of Bill Maher on a weekly basis (except for the summer hiatus)?  Does that really make sense to anyone ... Bueller?  Anyone?

 

In our home, our children mention their earthly mother, even to those "swine" outside of the home.  Yet, guess what?  My wife can handle it.  Of course, I can't consider any reason that she would be mocked (because she is gorgeous and I sometimes leave my Internet browser open on this website).  But even if she had a bald head, buck teeth and a goatee, our kids would still be allowed to mention their mother, or as the other kids would call her, "Bucknewb."

 

Seriously, am I the only one who has ever thought that maybe, just maybe, this whole "She Who Shall Not Be Named" thing is just a convenient dodge because this is one truth that has yet to be revealed?  Because if this really is the case, I can't imagine why any dear sister would be striving for exaltation -- so she can have spirit children who will never acknowledge her existence?  On earth, mothers get an entire day every year where they are the focus of attention (and if the husband is smart, it's one day every WEEK).  Yet, for all of eternity, no one will ever pray to or thank their heavenly mothers?  Oh yeah, and she might have to go halfsies or 1/64th-sies on an eternal companion.  Sounds like quite a reward for a righteous life.

Edited June 19, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Nofear]

One partial explanation I toy with is that our view of the Godhead is already a hurdle to overcome for Protestants and Catholics. Explicit and frequent discussion of Heavenly Mother may be more of a stumbling block than most of our fallen world is ready to tolerate at the moment. The other partial explanation is that we, as a culture, tend to be very conservative (read: slow to change/adapt). Since most of our culture/traditions originated with Protestants (e.g. how we performed Sunday worship initially) we as a people may not be as ready as we might suppose either.

[JLHPROF]

And yet the passage you cited had "gods" in lower-case.  You put it in upper case: "Gods."  That's a very meaningful distinction for any readers who appreciate the Bible.  Why did you substitute upper case for lower, JLHPROF?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it's just his personal preference.

 

I myself prefer to use lower case g's when writing about gods, except when speaking about God the Father.  JLH apparently doesn't.  We likely both have very similar beliefs on the subject though.

 

The original had no capitals or lower case, is it not true?

 

While I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that "God" and "god" differentiation may have had significance in the original language of the Bible, I am not remotely convinced that when dictating D&C 132 Joseph Smith intended any differentiation.  Especially when you consider the teachings of the King Follett discourse.

 

I am of the belief that God was once a man and that men (and women) have the potential to become Gods, just as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, and other prophets taught.

I substituted because I was quoting D&C 132, not a Biblical text, and I consider that an insignificant distinction in that text.  Frankly, I would be interested to see a "Gods vs gods" original language breakdown of the original Biblical writings.  I am not convinced that a distinction was always intentional as it was when speaking of the true God vs idols/pagan gods.  I think sometimes, as in the NT, when we are called gods, it is just as correct to write Gods.

[why me]

I can't believe that we Mormons won't even own this one because even for a lifelong Baptist, the concept of Heavenly Mother seems so obvious.  How else can you possibly explain Genesis 1:26?

 

 

In these passages, it seems clear that God is the collective term for at least two supreme beings ("Let US make man in OUR image").  Protestants would argue that the joint figures here are HF and Christ ("In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" -- John 1, I think).  However, the problem with this interpretation is that it doesn't explain how men and women were creating in the "likeness" of male deities.  It seems that, at the very least, we need at least one male and at least one female deity for this to make sense.

 

From there, I will admit that it gets a little hazy.  The simplest explanation is that the Godhead is a male-female collection of deity that closely resembles our current conception of man and wife.  The fact that this pattern of a man "cleaving to his wife" and "becoming one flesh" is established in the very next chapter of Genesis makes it all neat and tidy (I like neat and tidy).  However, it gets a little more complicated when now that we've introduced eternal polygamy.  How does one man cleave to, say, 36 women and become ONE flesh?  I'm a liberal arts major so my math skills aren't the best, but I don't see anyway to work that out, even with a protractor and a compass.

 

I guess another alternative is that the Godhead is a collection of numerous heavenly beings, both male and female, working in cooperation much like, say, the Q on the Star Trek TNG.  One part of me really likes this idea because it's the conception of exaltation past the current concept of "me and my four and no more."  Now, don't get me wrong.  Even a limited Mormon concept of nuclear family exaltation is superior to the Protestant "every man for himself" conception of salvation.  However, the idea that we achieve salvation as a tribe, church, nation or even species has some powerful implications for being our brother's keepers and caring for "the least of these."

 

Of course, given that we do have living prophets, perhaps they could explain how this works, given that HF's ways are not our ways.  Instead, our prophetic counsel has been ... "Hush!  Heavenly Mother has really sensitive ears!"  Really?  The co-creator of the world and everything that lies in it would get her feelings her hurt by the mockery of the beings she formed with her very own hands?  Yet, the "big strong man God" can easily handle the mockery of Bill Maher on a weekly basis (except for the summer hiatus)?  Does that really make sense to anyone ... Bueller?  Anyone?

 

In our home, our children mention their earthly mother, even to those "swine" outside of the home.  Yet, guess what?  My wife can handle it.  Of course, I can't consider any reason that she would be mocked (because she is gorgeous and I sometimes leave my Internet browser open on this website).  But even if she had a bald head, buck teeth and a goatee, our kids would still be allowed to mention their mother, or as the other kids would call her, "Bucknewb."

I believe that you are mistaken about baptists and heavenly mother. Now of course there may be some liberated baptists who believe that god is neither male or female and as such, use she. But this is also true for new age churches. But I don't think that baptists believe in a heavenly mother. Catholics have Mary as the mother of god who can be our mother also in heaven. But she is not a heavenly mother as the mormons understand it.

 

If one believes in the first vision, there is a reason why heavenly mother did not appear with heavenly faith and jesus. Why she didn't appear is not known. But certainly, this would have been the easiest way to make herself known. And she hasn't made herself known in any tangible way. Thus, what you wrote reallywrote about your wife does not apply. The explanation for your quotation from genesis applies to heavenly father and Jesus, who also had a part in the creation of the world.

 

Here is one baptist interpretation:

 

http://www.gibbonbaptist.org/home/grow/blog1/2013/03/can-we-call-god-mother/

Edited June 19, 2015 by why me