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

[longview]

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?

- - -

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?

- - -

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?

- - -

We know from reading the New Testament that Jesus was frequently careful about revealing too much to certain people lest they put themselves into greater condemnation. This is why He spoke in parables and other protective ways. It is NOT that SHE will get Her feelings hurt but to protect many of us from profaning that which is VERY sacred. So that there will not be a greater condemnation fall upon us. How kind and patient Jesus is with us!

[mormonnewb]

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/

Please accept my apologies for writing my post so unclearly. What I should have written was, "Even as a lifelong Baptist, I was easily converted to the Mormon view of a Heavenly Mother."

I agree that the Baptists have no conception of a Heavenly Mother. But for the reasons I stated, I think their explanation of an all-make Godhead doesn't seem to fit the narrative of Genesis 1&2.

By the way, this is why I suspect that we have backed away from our view in recent years. It takes away from the "Christian cred" we seem so eager to earn.

[mormonnewb]

We know from reading the New Testament that Jesus was frequently careful about revealing too much to certain people lest they put themselves into greater condemnation. This is why He spoke in parables and other protective ways. It is NOT that SHE will get Her feelings hurt but to protect many of us from profaning that which is VERY sacred. So that there will not be a greater condemnation fall upon us. How kind and patient Jesus is with us!

Jesus spoke in parables to CONFUSE us? Now, you tell me? I've been traveling the country for a decade telling humorous stories as a way to illustrate important principles. I thought that my "parables" actually made my teaching more effective, but it turns out that I've actually been saving people from greater condemnation. That does explain some of my evaluations. Who knew?

As for Heavenly Mother being VERY sacred: Is she MORE very sacred than HF? What about Jesus Christ, whose name we "brazenly" post all over the Internet and on every copy of the BOM? Is His name not sacred at all?

[JLHPROF]

Jesus spoke in parables to CONFUSE us? Now, you tell me? I've been traveling the country for a decade telling humorous stories as a way to illustrate important principles. I thought that my "parables" actually made my teaching more effective, but it turns out that I've actually been saving people from greater condemnation. That does explain some of my evaluations. Who knew?

As for Heavenly Mother being VERY sacred: Is she MORE very sacred than HF? What about Jesus Christ, whose name we "brazenly" post all over the Internet and on every copy of the BOM? Is His name not sacred at all?

 

That's not what Longview said at all and you know it.

 

And you also know that Christ specifically said that his parables were for those with "ears to hear", not everyone will understand them.  And that he warned against casting pearls before swine.

 

Heavenly Mother may not be more sacred than Heavenly Father, but she is more sacred TO Heavenly Father.  Isn't your wife sacred to you?  Would you want to hear her spoken of with as much disrespect as God is by his children?

[VideoGameJunkie]

You cannot be God without a wife. I believe they work together. And I love both of them dearly.

[mormonnewb]

That's not what Longview said at all and you know it.

And you also know that Christ specifically said that his parables were for those with "ears to hear", not everyone will understand them. And that he warned against casting pearls before swine.

Heavenly Mother may not be more sacred than Heavenly Father, but she is more sacred TO Heavenly Father. Isn't your wife sacred to you? Would you want to hear her spoken of with as much disrespect as God is by his children?

If the choice is between being profaned from time to time or ignored altogether, I'd choose Door #1, Monty! And so would my wife. In fact, if my wife ever met one of my friends and that person remarked, "Newb, I didn't know you were married," then I am in BIG trouble. She would see it as the height of DISRESPECT to not acknowledge her existence (and beauty and intelligence ... and knowledge of my laptop password).

Seriously, the idea that Big Bad Man God must protect the honor of his Frail and Vulnerable Woman God is, at best, chauvanistic. My wife doesn't need me to hide her existence to protect her honor, so I'm pretty sure that Heavenly Mother can protect her own honor.

As for your "pearls before swine" explanation, are we ALL swine? Or is there a certain level of Mormon that can talk about Her? And how many Mormon points must I score before I'm allowed into that club? As I understand, even the most faithful Mormons are not supposed to talk about Her.

I would have thought you would be with me on this one. You're not one to shy away from the quirky aspects of Mormon theology. You're loud and proud about polygamy, Adam-God, etc. This new hush policy in regards to Heavenly Mother is a relatively new thing, as I understand things. She was often mentioned in the past, right? Are we going to cede even more ground to being seen as "normal" by the EVs?

Edited June 19, 2015 by mormonnewb

[JLHPROF]

If the choice is between being profaned from time to time or ignored altogether, I'd choose Door #1, Monty! And so would my wife. In fact, if my wife ever met one of my friends and that person remarked, "Newb, I didn't know you were married," then I am in BIG trouble. She would see it as the height of DISRESPECT to not acknowledge her existence (and beauty and intelligence ... and knowledge of my laptop password).

Seriously, the idea that Big Bad Man God must protect the honor of his Frail and Vulnerable Woman God is, at best, chauvanistic. My wife doesn't need me to hide her existence to protect her honor, so I'm pretty sure that Heavenly Mother can protect her own honor.

As for your "pearls before swine" explanation, are we ALL swine? Or is there a certain level of Mormon that can talk about Her? And how many Mormon points must I score before I'm allowed into that club? As I understand, even the most faithful Mormons are not supposed to talk about Her.

I would have thought you would be with me on this one. You're not one to shy away from the quirky aspects of Mormon theology. You're loud and proud about polygamy, Adam-God, etc. This new hush policy in regards to Heavenly Mother is a relatively new thing, as I understand things. She was often mentioned in the past, right? Are we going to cede even more ground to being seen as "normal" by the EVs?

 

You misunderstand me.  I am not opposed to speaking of Heavenly Mother, inasmuch as we know anything about her to say.

Since as you pointed out I believe in Adam-God I believe Heavenly Mother to be Eve, and as such we do speak of her.

 

And when Adam-God was revealed to us, how well was that accepted?  What about the way the world already speaks of Mother Eve, blaming her for the fall, bringing upon us the curse etc.  Given what has already been said about our Heavenly Mother is it any wonder God doesn't want us to blaspheme her further?

 

So, yeah, God did reveal his wife to us through his prophet Brigham Young, and we promptly dismissed her as unworthy.

Go figure that he won't tell us more.

[mormonnewb]

You misunderstand me. I am not opposed to speaking of Heavenly Mother, inasmuch as we know anything about her to say.

Since as you pointed out I believe in Adam-God I believe Heavenly Mother to be Eve, and as such we do speak of her.

And when Adam-God was revealed to us, how well was that accepted? What about the way the world already speaks of Mother Eve, blaming her for the fall, bringing upon us the curse etc. Given what has already been said about our Heavenly Mother is it any wonder God doesn't want us to blaspheme her further?

So, yeah, God did reveal his wife to us through his prophet Brigham Young, and we promptly dismissed her as unworthy.

Go figure that he won't tell us more.

You know, that is the only cogent argument that I've ever heard for the hush policy. It's one thing to say that we shouldn't talk about Her because we MIGHT defame Her. That seems like a poor reason to not do anything (i.e., people might mock).

On the other hand, the idea that we have been cut off from further knowledge because we misused the information we had been given makes more sense. I withhold information from my children all the time on that basis. For example, I haven't revealed to the youngest boys that the red-clad jolly generous sojourner is not an actual temporal being (I'm trying to not ruin the surprise for some on the board). From past experience, they haven't proven themselves to be sufficiently discreet to trust that they won't spoil the fun for the younger kids at school/church.

Other things I don't share with them because they don't have the ability to completely comprehend. For example, I have not explained the birds and the bees to my 8 yo (or a few posters on this board). They "can't handle the truth!"

I'm not fully persuaded and it still seems like quite a slight to Heavenly Mother, but it certainly is a plausible explanation.

[JLHPROF]

You know, that is the only cogent argument that I've ever heard for the hush policy.

...we have been cut off from further knowledge because we misused the information we had been given makes more sense.

 

Glad I occasionally make sense.

 

The gospel is full of information that is not disclosed until someone is spiritually prepared. (See the temple endowment).

The gospel is likewise full of example of people misusing and mocking the sacred after having it was made available.  (See most never-Mo's/ex-Mo's opinion of the temple endowment/garments).

 

And of course, there are numerous teachings from both Christ and Joseph Smith about not giving information to those who are either unprepared or would misuse it (the "we MIGHT's) and stories of those who have already done so (the "we MISUSED's).

 

As for a "slight" to Heavenly Mother...you are assuming she has a problem with this or that it isn't part of the plan.  I know of no reason to assume that.

[Bernard Gui]

As usual, Alma says it best....

"Now these mysteries are not yet fully made known unto me; therefore I shall forbear."

[longview]

You know, that is the only cogent argument that I've ever heard for the hush policy. It's one thing to say that we shouldn't talk about Her because we MIGHT defame Her. That seems like a poor reason to not do anything (i.e., people might mock).

On the other hand, the idea that we have been cut off from further knowledge because we misused the information we had been given makes more sense.

- - -

Glad I occasionally make sense.

The gospel is full of information that is not disclosed until someone is spiritually prepared. (See the temple endowment).

The gospel is likewise full of example of people misusing and mocking the sacred after having it was made available.  (See most never-Mo's/ex-Mo's opinion of the temple endowment/garments).

And of course, there are numerous teachings from both Christ and Joseph Smith about not giving information to those who are either unprepared or would misuse it (the "we MIGHT's) and stories of those who have already done so (the "we MISUSED's).

As for a "slight" to Heavenly Mother...you are assuming she has a problem with this or that it isn't part of the plan.  I know of no reason to assume that.

The LORD says it best in D&C 60:3

             And it shall come to pass, if they are not more faithful unto me, 

             it shall be taken away, even that which they have.

 

All part of His tender mercies, to protect us from further profanation and greater condemnation.  Even if we were faithful at some point, we will lose our insights when we stray from the path.

Edited June 20, 2015 by longview

[Nofear]

The idea that we have been cut off from knowledge because of our stiff neckedness (Mormon or otherwise) is a good one. This explanation is not contingent on believing in Adam-God concepts.

[JLHPROF]

The idea that we have been cut off from knowledge because of our stiff neckedness (Mormon or otherwise) is a good one. This explanation is not contingent on believing in Adam-God concepts.

 

I could agree with that.

We are good at rejecting revelation and prophetic teachings.

[Nofear]

We are indeed. We are also good at making up new things (e.g. the Kolob theorem). I'm not opposed to speculation at all. We just have to recognize that the establishment of new doctrine is the purview of the office of revelator.

[Five Solas]

..

 

I think sometimes, as in the NT, when we are called gods, it is just as correct to write Gods.

If it's "just as correct"--why do you suppose not a single English translation with a modern type font renders John 10:34 (or Psalms 82:6) "gods" as you would have it - "Gods" with a capital G?  If it really doesn't matter (as bluebell and calmoriah are inclined to argue) seems we should see at least a few examples going your way. 

 

Is everyone wrong but you?

;0)

 

--Erik

[bluebell]

If it's "just as correct"--why do you suppose not a single English translation with a modern type font renders John 10:34 (or Psalms 82:6) "gods" as you would have it - "Gods" with a capital G?  If it really doesn't matter (as bluebell and calmoriah are inclined to argue) seems we should see at least a few examples going your way. 

 

Is everyone wrong but you?

;0)

 

--Erik

 

Probably because all the English translations were translated by people who deny that anyone else can be referred to by that title, other than God.  Therefore, they automatically use grammar rules that match their beliefs on the subject.

 

Or, they could be more of my persuasion in the idea that because God is unique in the respect due Him by us, they don't capitalize any other reference to any other being, even if they fully deserve the title.

 

But if i had to bet i would bet it's pretty much 100% because of my first reason.  

[Calm]

" If it really doesn't matter (as bluebell and calmoriah are inclined to argue)"

That was not my "argument" at all.

If one is concerned about capitalization in scripture, one should be aware of how it came about and not just take the final product as if it was the first pristine version.

Edited June 20, 2015 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

If it's "just as correct"--why do you suppose not a single English translation with a modern type font renders John 10:34 (or Psalms 82:6) "gods" as you would have it - "Gods" with a capital G?  If it really doesn't matter (as bluebell and calmoriah are inclined to argue) seems we should see at least a few examples going your way. 

 

Is everyone wrong but you?

;0)

 

--Erik

 

My point is how does "Gods" differ from "gods" in the original greek, hebrew, or aramaic?  Did the original writers differentiate?  Did they record it that way intentionally?

I don't believe that was Joseph's intent in D&C 132, and I have not studied the original Biblical languages enough to know if the Bible writers intended a difference.

You are assuming because they chose to write "gods" and not "Gods" that they intended a different meaning.  It barely makes a difference in English.  Does it make a difference in greek, hebrew or aramaic?

[tagriffy]

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.

 

I think you are on to something here. OTOH, it seems to me that the culture at large is becoming far more open to the feminine divine. If our culture doesn't wise up, we may well find that we have missed opportunities.

[Tacenda]

If the choice is between being profaned from time to time or ignored altogether, I'd choose Door #1, Monty! And so would my wife. In fact, if my wife ever met one of my friends and that person remarked, "Newb, I didn't know you were married," then I am in BIG trouble. She would see it as the height of DISRESPECT to not acknowledge her existence (and beauty and intelligence ... and knowledge of my laptop password).

Seriously, the idea that Big Bad Man God must protect the honor of his Frail and Vulnerable Woman God is, at best, chauvanistic. My wife doesn't need me to hide her existence to protect her honor, so I'm pretty sure that Heavenly Mother can protect her own honor.

As for your "pearls before swine" explanation, are we ALL swine? Or is there a certain level of Mormon that can talk about Her? And how many Mormon points must I score before I'm allowed into that club? As I understand, even the most faithful Mormons are not supposed to talk about Her.

I would have thought you would be with me on this one. You're not one to shy away from the quirky aspects of Mormon theology. You're loud and proud about polygamy, Adam-God, etc. This new hush policy in regards to Heavenly Mother is a relatively new thing, as I understand things. She was often mentioned in the past, right? Are we going to cede even more ground to being seen as "normal" by the EVs?

+1

[JLHPROF]

+1

 

I love it when we mere mortals assume we know better about things that the Almighty, creator of heaven and earth has chosen to withhold from us.

Surely Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are furious with us for not worshipping her as a full equal with him.

Surely God meant to include a requirement to worship her in one of the revelations but we just weren't in tune enough to accept it.

 

It couldn't possibly be the case that Heavenly Mother isn't supposed to be prayed to or worshipped in the same way as Heavenly Father.  Nor could she or he be perfectly ok with that or have made that pattern part of the plan. /sarcasm

[ed2276]

What about the possibility of Heavenly Mothers?  If God has more than one wife then would it not be likely that many of us are brothers from another  [Heavenly] Mother?

[Nofear]

Some have speculated one earth, one mother. Others don't mind a plurality of half siblings on this earth. Yet other Mormons are quite comfortable with a monogamous father. Whatever the case, she is.

[Five Solas]

My point is how does "Gods" differ from "gods" in the original greek, hebrew, or aramaic?  Did the original writers differentiate?  Did they record it that way intentionally?

I don't believe that was Joseph's intent in D&C 132, and I have not studied the original Biblical languages enough to know if the Bible writers intended a difference.

You are assuming because they chose to write "gods" and not "Gods" that they intended a different meaning.  It barely makes a difference in English.  Does it make a difference in greek, hebrew or aramaic?

I too have never made study of ancient languages (I had to take two year of French in high school--and I still occasionally have nightmares about French exams I haven't studied for).  But English language Bible translators (who presumably have ancient language expertise) are unanimous--so use of lower case "gods" is intended to convey something.  And that something, judging from the rest of Scripture, is that capital G God (there is no reference to "Gods" in the Bible--you need the LDS Book of Abraham for that) refers to the Creator.  The rest, including the little g gods, are part of the Creator's creation.  

 

From my perspective, LDS theology blurs the hard distinction between Creator and creation we find in the Bible (e.g., Romans 1:25).  So it's not hugely surprising LDS adherents would argue "gods" in the Bible could be restated "Gods," consistent with what they find elsewhere in the LDS canon.           

 

Disagree?

 

--Erik

Edited June 21, 2015 by Five Solas

[JLHPROF]

I too have never made study of ancient languages (I had to take two year of French in high school--and I still occasionally have nightmares about French exams I haven't studied for).  But English language Bible translators (who presumably have ancient language expertise) are unanimous--so use of lower case "gods" is intended to convey something.  And that something, judging from the rest of Scripture, is that capital G God (there is no reference to "Gods" in the Bible--you need the LDS Book of Abraham for that) refers to the Creator.  The rest, including the little g gods, are part of the Creator's creation.  

 

From my perspective, LDS theology blurs the hard distinction between Creator and creation we find in the Bible (e.g., Romans 1:25).  So it's not hugely surprising LDS adherents would argue "gods" in the Bible could be restated "Gods," consistent with what they find elsewhere in the LDS canon.           

 

Disagree?

 

--Erik

 

I find nothing worth debating here, although I don't agree that "LDS theology blurs the hard distinction between Creator and creation we find in the Bible (e.g., Romans 1:25)" or that you continue the assumption that a differentiation was intended by writing god vs God.  It maybe intended, but that is still an assumption.

 

And, as always, it is a matter of perspective on reading the scripture, and a different topic for the billionth, yet-to-be-created, Mormons vs Traditional Christian thread.