Mother In Heaven Essay

[Paddy]

<p>

Heavenly Mother has been mentioned more than we think. An excellent reminder....

http://www.the-exponent.com/what-i-first-learned-about-heavenly-mother/

• The hymn, “O My Father,” was initially titled, “Invocation, or the Eternal Father and Mother,” suggesting that Eliza herself viewed her words as a prayer to both Heavenly Parents.1
• Eliza’s poem was not the first recorded expression of LDS belief in an Eternal Mother. W.W. Phelps published a hymn ten months before that he had written for the dedication of a Seventies Hall. It was titled, “A Voice From the Prophet: Come to Me.” The relevant lyric says, “Come to me; here’s the myst’ry that man hath not seen; Here’s our Father in heaven, and Mother; the Queen, Here are worlds that have been, and the worlds yet to be, Here’s eternity,–endless; amen; Come to me.”2
• This suggests that the doctrine did not stem with Eliza, but was common knowledge at that time. Eliza explained, “I got my inspiration from the Prophet’s teaching. All that I was required to do was use my Poetical gift and give that Eternal principal in Poetry.”3There is additional evidence that Joseph Smith taught it. When Zina D. Huntington Young’s mother passed away, she asked Joseph, “Will I know my mother as my mother when I get over on the Other Side?” He responded, “Certainly you will. More than that, you will meet and become acquainted with your eternal Mother, the wife of your Father in Heaven.”4 Abraham H. Cannon recorded in his journal that Joseph Smith invited Sidney Rigdon and Zebedee Coltrin to “accompany him into the woods to pray,” where they experienced a succession of four visions–two of which included Heavenly Mother.5
• The earliest recorded expression intimating that Heavenly Mother is too sacred to talk about was written by a 20th Century seminary teacher, named Melvin R. Brooks: “Considering the way man has profaned the name of God, the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, is it any wonder that the name of our Mother in Heaven has been withheld, not to mention the fact that the mention of Her is practically nil in scripture?”6 It has not been repeated by any Church President, Apostle, or other General Authority. (Before sharing this truth, I first asked the sisters to raise their hands if they had ever been taught this well meaning, but incorrect conjecture. Every single woman had.)
• President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “How uplifting, comforting, is this thought, that the Father of Jesus Christ is in very deed our Father—that we are in very deed his offspring, and this is the doctrine of the Bible…And A Mother in Heaven! Latter-day Saints believe that not only have we a Father in heaven, but a mother there. Why not have a mother as well as a Father? Is there any blasphemy in this teaching?”7
• It was extremely common for early leaders to testify of Heavenly Mother. In fact, they would do so as simply and easily as we might stand on Fast Sunday and say, “I know that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ love me.” Whatever they were talking about, they included Her. Talking about the pre-mortal existence? Include Her! Talking about adversity? Include Her! For instance, on one occasion, Apostle, Orson F. Whitney, said, “We are taught that men and women, the sons and daughters of God, who were spirits in his presence, were sent here to take mortal tabernacles and undergo experiences that would in due time exalt them to the plane occupied by their Father and Mother in heaven.”8 On another, “All that we suffer and all that we endure, especially when we endure it patiently, builds up our characters, purifies our hearts, expands our souls, and makes us more tender and charitable, more worthy to be called the children of God … and it is through sorrow and suffering, toil and tribulation, that we gain the education that we come here to acquire and which will make us more like our Father and Mother in heaven.”9
• Almost every Church President has spoken specifically of Heavenly Mother, but none did so more often than Spencer W. Kimball.
• Apostle Neal A. Maxwell referred to truths concerning our Heavenly Mother as one of the “truths that [is] most relevant and most needed in the times in which [we] live.”10
• Most General Authorities today verbally pair Heavenly Father and Mother together with the phrase, “Heavenly Parents.” This may be because it mirrors the well known language of the Family Proclamation, but it also might be to emphasize the closeness and unity of the Father and Mother. An earlier Apostle, Erastus Snow, said, “If I believe anything that God has ever said about himself, and anything pertaining to the creation and organization of man upon the earth, I must believe that deity consists of man and woman…there can be no God except he is composed of the man and woman united, and there is not in all the eternities that exist, or ever will be a God in any other way.”11

Thanks. Good resources.

[Bobbieaware]

I know it is church doctrine, or certainly appears to be nowadays.

I know it makes sense and all that, but it just doesn't sit right with me.

The truth is, I don't really believe it if I'm being honest.

So I take it you don't believe in eternal marriage in the celestial kingdom?

[VideoGameJunkie]

Im just making an assumption but I assume out of Heavenly Father's pure love which I know to be true that He loves Heavenly Mother dearly and has only one companion. He may have approved of some practice of polygamy on earth but when I imagine heaven I picture Father and one Mother sitting together on thrones like a king and queen. Oh and Jesus is sitting next to them and one day if we're exalted we will be on our thrones too as husband and wife.

[Paddy]

So I take it you don't believe in eternal marriage in the celestial kingdom?

How do you make that leap from that post?

[Garden Girl]

And here I thought that the essay was beautiful, balanced, and sensitive.

 

I do too, RFS... I believe the essay formally acknowledges our belief in a Heavenly Mother... Heavenly Parents... between the essay and temple narrative and blessings, we have as much as can be formally declared... any additional wording would then actually be assumptions, suppositions, and speculation... certainly we would like to know more... be given more... and hopefully more will be revealed... Until then, I think it is incorrect to simply dismiss the essay as irrelevant speculation or assumptions...  I would be interested in what those critical of the essay would actually say... what has been formally revealed?

In regard to praying to a Heavenly Mother... Jesus Christ himself, instructed in the way we are to pray... Matt 6:-9 gives the manner in which we pray...

"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do; for they think they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Be not ye therefore like unto them; for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

After this manner therefore pray ye:  Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name..."

I don't see any admonition that we are to pray to a Mother... not in all the scriptures, including the D&C...

I love the knowledge that we have a Heavenly Mother... I would love to understand more about that... hopefully more will be revealed... Article of Faith #9: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God"

 

GG

Edited October 25, 2015 by Garden Girl

[CA Steve]

  I would be interested in what those critical of the essay would actually say... what has been formally revealed?

 

GG

Only 6 paragraphs on a being who may very well be as important as God the father?  My criticism would be on what is missing. Why is it after 6000 years of religious history ± we can only produce six paragraphs about our Heavenly Mother? Is it because HF hasn't said much, or is it because religious leaders have been predominately male and continue to try and exclude women from leadership? My vote is for the latter. Beautifully worded it may be but what it does not say speaks volumes.

[Garden Girl]

Only 6 paragraphs on a being who may very well be as important as God the father?  My criticism would be on what is missing. Why is it after 6000 years of religious history ± we can only produce six paragraphs about our Heavenly Mother? Is it because HF hasn't said much, or is it because religious leaders have been predominately male and continue to try and exclude women from leadership? My vote is for the latter. Beautifully worded it may be but what it does not say speaks volumes.

 

Hello CA Steve...

This is exactly my question... What could anyone add that would NOT be speculative or opinion?  Can someone point to revealed truth in the scriptures... What would you add, CA Steve that would be revealed truth from God about Heavenly Mother? 

I think your assertion that religious leaders (Ours?) do not say more in the essay so as to continually try to exclude women from leadership is faulty.  Is your position actually that this is what is happening?

 

 

GG

[CA Steve]

Hello CA Steve...

This is exactly my question... What could anyone add that would NOT be speculative or opinion?  Can someone point to revealed truth in the scriptures... What would you add, CA Steve that would be revealed truth from God about Heavenly Mother? 

I think your assertion that religious leaders (Ours?) do not say more in the essay so as to continually try to exclude women from leadership is faulty.  Is your position actually that this is what is happening?

 

 

GG

We are asking the same question but from opposite sides. I am not suggesting what could be said, I am suggesting that after 6000 years of male dominated religious leadership that the fact more cannot be said is evidence that the same leadership is excluding women from participation at the equal levels. Whether or not such exclusion is intentional or simply a by product of a male dominated culture or both (we are talking about many different cultures over a long period of time) is not the question, the question is why do we not know more?  6 paragraphs, in my opinion, is an indictment of who controls the narrative.

 

I am curious, is there any reason we should not know as much about HM as we do about HF?

Edited October 25, 2015 by CA Steve

[Bobbieaware]

How do you make that leap from that post?

Doctrine and Covenants 132 clearly declares the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom is reserved for eternally married men and women who become "gods" and have spirit children in heaven. So if this is what's promised to faithful Latter-day Saint men and women, why is it so hard to believe God the Father also has a wife in heaven with whom he has spirit children (us)?

[Robert F. Smith]

We are asking the same question but from opposite sides. I am not suggesting what could be said, I am suggesting that after 6000 years of male dominated religious leadership that the fact more cannot be said is evidence that the same leadership is excluding women from participation at the equal levels. Whether or not such exclusion is intentional or simply a by product of a male dominated culture or both (we are talking about many different cultures over a long period of time) is not the question, the question is why do we not know more?  6 paragraphs, in my opinion, is an indictment of who controls the narrative.

 

I am curious, is there any reason we should not know as much about HM as we do about HF?

You appear to be unfamiliar with archeology and the history of religions.  During many thousands of years of religion on Earth, we have seen major religious emphasis on Heavenly Mother and other goddesses.  The feminine has not been excluded from most religions, and Roman Catholicism may actually show us how the high regard for the Mother of God can properly be handled.  You need to rethink your abrupt and faulty critique.

[carbon dioxide]

If I really truly have a mother in heaven...I so want to talk to her..and even when I was an active member, I really needed her. Why is it a bad thing to want that?

You can talk to whomever you want.  I would not expect many answers though.  God house is a house of order.  One can't decide to do things that they want and expect the same results had they done it the Lord's way.

[carbon dioxide]

Only 6 paragraphs on a being who may very well be as important as God the father?  My criticism would be on what is missing. Why is it after 6000 years of religious history ± we can only produce six paragraphs about our Heavenly Mother? Is it because HF hasn't said much, or is it because religious leaders have been predominately male and continue to try and exclude women from leadership? My vote is for the latter. Beautifully worded it may be but what it does not say speaks volumes.

Man only knows what God tells us.  To assume that prophets would bury information that they got from God reading our heavenly mother would be quite risky for them in their eternal destiny.  I think if they were told something and told to pass on that information they would do it unless they liked the possibility of eternal damnation for not doing so.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Anyone else feel similar that God only has 1 wife?

[JLHPROF]

Anyone else feel similar that God only has 1 wife?

 

Not me.

[CA Steve]

You appear to be unfamiliar with archeology and the history of religions.  During many thousands of years of religion on Earth, we have seen major religious emphasis on Heavenly Mother and other goddesses.  The feminine has not been excluded from most religions, and Roman Catholicism may actually show us how the high regard for the Mother of God can properly be handled.  You need to rethink your abrupt and faulty critique.

Hi Robert,

 

Yes I readily grant unfamiliarity with archaeology and history of religions, at least when compared to those who have studied such areas.  My poorly expressed critique was aimed at the 6000 years of such religious history as explained by Mormonism, not religions in general. Clearly there is an abundance of information regarding female deity figures when we examine other religious traditions.

My question was aimed at Mormonism.

 

Why is it, given a tradition claimed back to Adam and Eve, the church can only produce an essay 6 paragraphs long regarding our heavenly mother and why do we not know (as Mormons) as much about our HM as we do about our HF?

[Robert F. Smith]

Hi Robert,

 

Yes I readily grant unfamiliarity with archaeology and history of religions, at least when compared to those who have studied such areas.  My poorly expressed critique was aimed at the 6000 years of such religious history as explained by Mormonism, not religions in general. Clearly there is an abundance of information regarding female deity figures when we examine other religious traditions.

My question was aimed at Mormonism.

 

Why is it, given a tradition claimed back to Adam and Eve, the church can only produce an essay 6 paragraphs long regarding our heavenly mother and why do we not know (as Mormons) as much about our HM as we do about our HF?

So, taking all that has been said about her in this dispensation, and taking what the Book of Mormon and other Scripture say of her, why don't you try your hand at writing a nice essay?  This has been done by a good many scholars and ordinary folk within Mormonism.

 

You are being critical of a nice essay which attempts to sum up what is actually known and has been revealed to the Prophets in recent times.  Necessarily cautious, it leaves much to our speculative whimsy.  It also seems to suggest that some matters are to be left as mystery, for another time in another venue.  Perhaps such deep and esoteric matters are inappropriate for quotidian discussion.

 

Still, you haven't reacted to my notion that we might learn something from Catholicism on the proper way to show high regard for the Mother of God.

[Garden Girl]

We are asking the same question but from opposite sides. I am not suggesting what could be said, I am suggesting that after 6000 years of male dominated religious leadership that the fact more cannot be said is evidence that the same leadership is excluding women from participation at the equal levels. Whether or not such exclusion is intentional or simply a by product of a male dominated culture or both (we are talking about many different cultures over a long period of time) is not the question, the question is why do we not know more?  6 paragraphs, in my opinion, is an indictment of who controls the narrative.

 

I am curious, is there any reason we should not know as much about HM as we do about HF?

 

No, CA Steve, we are not asking the same question... certainly not from the  same point of view.   I don't for one minute believe that our male dominated leadership is holding back information that has been revealed to them by God in regard to our Heavenly Mother so that they can exclude women from equal participation... and in no way do I believe that because "the fact" that no more has been or cannot be said is evidence of such...  Evidence?  I don't see any evidence of your premise... Do you have actual evidence the male dominated leaders are doing this... what evidence?

My answer to your question as to whether there is any reason we should not know as much about HM as we do about HF is... that HF has chosen not to reveal any more information at this time than what we have in the essay and in temple blessings.   And to try to add anything additional to the six paragraphs would simply be conjecture, supposition, and opinion...  if six paragraphs is all we have after 6000 years, then so be it... I yearn for the day we will have more given to us through our prophets.

 

And another thought about praying to Heavenly Mother... I cannot find any scriptural passage that shows that Christ ever prayed to a Heavenly Mother... On the cross, he prayed... Father, forgive them...  and, Father, why has thou forsaken me? Nowhere did he utter the word "mother" even in his darkest moments... in my post #30 above, I cited the instructions Christ gave as to who we were to pray to... and he followed those himself...

Until this changes, I will follow his admonition and hope for the day we will have more given to us...

 

GG

[Zakuska]

And another thought about praying to Heavenly Mother... I cannot find any scriptural passage that shows that Christ ever prayed to a Heavenly Mother... On the cross, he prayed... Father, forgive them... and, Father, why has thou forsaken me? Nowhere did he utter the word "mother" even in his darkest moments... in my post #30 above, I cited the instructions Christ gave as to who we were to pray to... and he followed those himself...

Until this changes, I will follow his admonition and hope for the day we will have more given to us...

GG

Why would he need to pray to her? She was standing at the foot of the cross. And he did utter the word "mother"... to the Apostle john he said... "behold thy mother". Maybe to look on the face of HM is to simply look on the face of Mary? We know quite alot about her earthly life, not so much about her time in heaven.

Kind of puts a new twist on the whole catholic/mary thing. Huh? It also explains BYs mary and god the father had sex thing now doesn't it?

Edited October 25, 2015 by Zakuska

[Garden Girl]

Why would he need to pray to her? She was standing at the foot of the cross. And he did utter the word "mother"... to the Apostle john he said... "behold thy mother". Maybe to look on the face of HM is to simply look on the face of Mary? We know a lot more about her life.

Kind if puts a new twist on the whole catholic/mary thing. Huh? It also explains BYs mary and god the father had sex thing now doesn't it?

 

Hello Zakuska...

Don't see you here as often as in the past... hope you are doing well...

What you are saying is speculation... and your opinion, i.e., "Maybe" to look on the face.... and "BYs Mary..."...which is fine for you. 

 

GG

[Alan]

Why not?

I assume since you are LDS, you believe that exaltation only occurs for a couple, husband and wife.

Why would this be so established if not on a pattern that God himself experiences?

I believe exaltation occurs for those who God decides it occurs for. Take Section 132 out of the picture and things don't appear so clear cut.

[CV75]

This is what women have to aspire to. A godhood as a mother in which you are not recognized, spoken to, praised, loved, and barely acknowledged by your children. It's very sad.

 

The essay states that we don't pray to her. Okay. Nice statement, but why?

The essay states that we don't know much about her. Okay. Nice statement, but why?

 

All this essay does is illustrate the inequity of a Mother versus her all powerful, Godly husband, and a theology with massive holes that prophets, seers and revelators aren't answering.

Here are my thoughts on why. I think it might be easier to explain by first referring to why women are not ordained to confer priesthood authority. The we can apply the same principle to prayer and revealed doctrine.

 

Jesus brought the power of God into this world from the very beginning as a Spirit Son, and then into His own church organization in the meridian of time as a living soul of mortal flesh and blood. He is the Great High Priest of this world, and all delegation of the power of God (keys) arises from Him. He came into the world miraculously as the Only Begotten Son of the Father.

 

He came as the Only Begotten Son of the Father because Heavenly Mother could not give birth to Him (or a Her) in this world, incorporating telestial material into her unborn Child. She could not accomplish the same in an exalted sphere; the Child had to be born into the telesial earth. All things being equal, She would not implant an egg into a surrogate mortal mother to be fertilized (before or after) by an unmarried but espoused mortal father any more than the Father would have used a surrogate mortal father. So the power of God -- in the case of Jesus, the power over life and death (“the fundamental principles of our religion”) -- can only be conveyed to another soul by the Father.

 

In this way, females do receive priesthood power, authority and order as the article explains, but fellow females do not do the conferring, only males acting in their appropriate office.

 

There is nothing wrong with Their separate roles and eternal natures in how They bring life and death to Their children int the various estates (every birth, or transfer from one estate follows a death of some sort from the previous estate).

 

Taking this into the realm of prayer, Christ is our Intermediary with the Father not the Mother, again, along the priesthood lines described above, for the purpose of getting us through this mortal estate. The Father’s seed in Jesus forms the physical and spiritual connection between Heaven and earth, not the Mother’s.

 

Taking this into the realm of what we know about Her, we scarcely scratch the surface of knowing and understanding our pre-mortal and post-mortal existence, where Her work and influence takes place – simply outside our infinitesimally brief mortal existence. Even the Father’s role in this world and life is minimal as He must operate through the Son, and even then, He left His Son at the most crucial moment.

 

Let's not blame the essays for any lack of understanding.

Edited October 25, 2015 by CV75

[CA Steve]

So, taking all that has been said about her in this dispensation, and taking what the Book of Mormon and other Scripture say of her, why don't you try your hand at writing a nice essay?  This has been done by a good many scholars and ordinary folk within Mormonism.

 

You are being critical of a nice essay which attempts to sum up what is actually known and has been revealed to the Prophets in recent times.  Necessarily cautious, it leaves much to our speculative whimsy.  It also seems to suggest that some matters are to be left as mystery, for another time in another venue.  Perhaps such deep and esoteric matters are inappropriate for quotidian discussion.

 

Still, you haven't reacted to my notion that we might learn something from Catholicism on the proper way to show high regard for the Mother of God.

How am I supposed to write an essay about something for which I believe information is lacking? My point is that the length of the essay seems to reflect poorly on an all male leadership. Are you implying the essay could be longer if I (or someone more capable like yourself) were to write it?  Do you think more could have been said?

 

I do not agree with the excuse that we lack information about HM simply because it is esoteric or inappropriate. I think that is an ad hoc explanation designed to steer the conversation away by placing the blame on God for not communicating with us for whatever reason, when I don't think God is responsible for the lack of communication. Can you point to any doctrinal basis which discourages conversations about HM? My opinion is we should be able to discuss her just as we discuss HF.  As I read the ongoing conversations regarding women in the church, there are many who argue that women are the equal of men (rightly so IMO) in the church. If that is true, if families are forever, if women are to become Godesses who are equal to men Gods, why is it that we only have 6 paragraphs in the first essay produced formally by church leadership on the topic?

 

I missed your suggestion about how "we might learn something from Catholicism on the proper way to show high regard for the Mother of God." I'll go back and find it, but I am certainly not against anything, including this 1st step essay, which the church might use to try and elevate women within the church.

[CA Steve]

No, CA Steve, we are not asking the same question... certainly not from the  same point of view.   I don't for one minute believe that our male dominated leadership is holding back information that has been revealed to them by God in regard to our Heavenly Mother so that they can exclude women from equal participation... and in no way do I believe that because "the fact" that no more has been or cannot be said is evidence of such...  Evidence?  I don't see any evidence of your premise... Do you have actual evidence the male dominated leaders are doing this... what evidence?

My answer to your question as to whether there is any reason we should not know as much about HM as we do about HF is... that HF has chosen not to reveal any more information at this time than what we have in the essay and in temple blessings.   And to try to add anything additional to the six paragraphs would simply be conjecture, supposition, and opinion...  if six paragraphs is all we have after 6000 years, then so be it... I yearn for the day we will have more given to us through our prophets.

 

And another thought about praying to Heavenly Mother... I cannot find any scriptural passage that shows that Christ ever prayed to a Heavenly Mother... On the cross, he prayed... Father, forgive them...  and, Father, why has thou forsaken me? Nowhere did he utter the word "mother" even in his darkest moments... in my post #30 above, I cited the instructions Christ gave as to who we were to pray to... and he followed those himself...

Until this changes, I will follow his admonition and hope for the day we will have more given to us...

 

GG

Hi GG,

 

So the same evidence I see, is the same evidence you see. Better said, it would be a lack of evidence. You conclude from this lack that HF has chosen to not reveal anymore, and I conclude from the same lack of evidence, that we are part  of a male culturally dominated religious organization that may be incapable of exploring this aspect, very similar to how the priesthood ban was kept in effect for so long. Allow me to quote from the essay on race in the priesthood to better explain what I am saying.

 

 

The Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States. At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans. Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion. Many Christian churches of that era, for instance, were segregated along racial lines...

 

 

 

 

Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church

 

 

 

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

 

So I hope that sometime in the future we may see statements like this but dealing with women which explain why leaders are reluctant to speak more about HM or why women have been kept out of leadership positions and that the actions of leaders today and in the past are the result of prejudices that are "not just common but customary among white [male] Americans.

 

I also find it a bit amusing that as an old white male I am defending my view of women's rights within the church against a female church member.

Edited October 25, 2015 by CA Steve

[CA Steve]

  I don't for one minute believe that our male dominated leadership is holding back information that has been revealed to them by God in regard to our Heavenly Mother so that they can exclude women from equal participation... and in no way do I believe that because "the fact" that no more has been or cannot be said is evidence of such...  Evidence?  I don't see any evidence of your premise... Do you have actual evidence the male dominated leaders are doing this... what evidence?

My answer to your question as to whether there is any reason we should not know as much about HM as we do about HF is... that HF has chosen not to reveal any more .

 

GG

I am curious what you think of how the church discipline people like Lynne Whitesides, Margaret Toscano, Maxine Hanks and Lavina Anderson. These women appear to have been disciplined for speaking out about HM.

[Rain2]

I'm finding irony in the last line.

Oops. Checked to see if there was any other posts before pressing submit, but I wasn't fast enough to press it. This post was in reference to the post before the last one.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Rain2