Mother In Heaven Essay

[CA Steve]

I 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.

Of course there is.

 

Do you also see any irony in a predominately while male leadership defining women's roles in the church?

[provoman]

My main issue is they speak of "A Mother in Heaven"- when, quite frankly, the teaching, when examined in light of ALL LDS teachings, espouses multiple "MotherS in Heaven".

But like someone said in a previous post... baby steps.

I noticed the same. Even if we assume there are Mothers, the singular form" Mother" is still correct.

"We have a Mother in Heaven."

Would it have been accurate for Jacob's children to say "We have a Mother at home." Each could speak of their own Mother by birth, yet the group statement, even using an apparent singular is correct.

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

Which is why we live by EVERY word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God through his servants.

When we don't do that we are led astray.  Without D&C 132 temples, eternal families, eternal marriage, eternal increase, mean nothing.

Heck...all of eternity becomes little more than sitting on a cloud singing praises forever.  In other words, hell.

[Calm]

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.

 

Just to be clear, would a paraphrase saying that your belief is that it has not occurred to our male leaders over the centuries that we have needed more revelation on Heavenly Mother so they have not asked for revelation an accurate paraphrase...or do you see the lack of revelation also a proactive result, in that when God chose to send revelation, they chose to ignore it or were by their disposition and certainty of women's place unable to understan it?

[CA Steve]

Just to be clear, would a paraphrase saying that your belief is that it has not occurred to our male leaders over the centuries that we have needed more revelation on Heavenly Mother so they have not asked for revelation an accurate paraphrase...or do you see the lack of revelation also a proactive result, in that when God chose to send revelation, they chose to ignore it or were by their disposition and certainty of women's place unable to understan it?

I don't think we actually know why we as a church as a whole haven't spoken more about HM. I disagree with the response that says it is because God has not chosen to, but freely admit I do not know that to be the case. If it is, I hope there is a really good reason why He seems to have chosen to place women in what appears to me to clearly be a subordinate role. At this point I believe the church is merely following cultural trends and practices, just like the explanation in the church priesthood and race essay. Correct me if I am wrong but has any doctrinal reason been given by leadership for not giving women the priesthood? Is there any clear doctrinal injunction for not involving HM in our theological studies, talks, instructions and so on at the same level we do HF?

 

I seriously doubt any church leader has ever felt he received a revelation from God and then proceeded to ignore it. I think were we able to survey current leadership, independent of each other, we might find there is some differences in how they see women's roles in the church now and in the future, also similar to the dynamic of what went on in the 1950-1970's regarding different views within the quorum on the priesthood ban.

 

So my position now is that what we have seen over the last 2 centuries, regarding women in the church, has been affected by the culture within which the church has evolved and continues to be even today.

[carbon dioxide]

Which is why we live by EVERY word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God through his servants.

When we don't do that we are led astray.  Without D&C 132 temples, eternal families, eternal marriage, eternal increase, mean nothing.

Heck...all of eternity becomes little more than sitting on a cloud singing praises forever.  In other words, hell.

I don't think everything is tied to D&C 132 but that section is the clearest section on those subjects.  It is one of my top 10 sections in the D&C. 

[MiserereNobis]

Roman Catholicism may actually show us how the high regard for the Mother of God can properly be handled. 

 

We love the Blessed Virgin and I am so glad to be able to venerate Her, pray to Her, ask for Her intercession, and feel Her love.

 

It was She, as Our Lady of Guadalupe, who first led me to the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[MiserereNobis]

Which is why we live by EVERY word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God through his servants.

When we don't do that we are led astray.  Without D&C 132 temples, eternal families, eternal marriage, eternal increase, mean nothing.

Heck...all of eternity becomes little more than sitting on a cloud singing praises forever.  In other words, hell.

 

This is quite the strawman argument against the Beatific Vision.  Personally, the thought of heaven being a time of work (eternal increase, exaltation, creating and populating worlds, forever and ever) seems very Protestant/Puritan.  I'd much rather enjoy the perfect joy and happiness of a direct communion with God, and sing His praises forever (note: it's a metaphor, which is why your description is a strawman).

 

But then again, I tend towards laziness

[mfbukowski]

This is quite the strawman argument against the Beatific Vision.  Personally, the thought of heaven being a time of work (eternal increase, exaltation, creating and populating worlds, forever and ever) seems very Protestant/Puritan.  I'd much rather enjoy the perfect joy and happiness of a direct communion with God, and sing His praises forever (note: it's a metaphor, which is why your description is a strawman).

 

But then again, I tend towards laziness

We believe that largely we will get what will make us happiest, so as far as I am concerned you will get your wish.

I personally believe that just as we largely create out own lives here with our choices, that will continue in the hereafter. I think the three kingdoms may be metaphorical for exactly that sort of belief.

We are judged and rise to the degree we deserve exactly- there is no one reward - or three awards- which fit everyone's situation in justice.

Maybe there may be three general categories of reward with infinite gradations possible to fit each individual's exact circumstances. I think nothing else would be just, having everyone in one kingdom or three for that matter.

That is one of my favorite teachings of Mormonism- that our rewards/punishments fit our personal situations exactly to fulfill justice and mercy, taking into account God's grace in that none of us really "deserve" anything from him at all as the little worms we tend to be.

[ERayR]

This is quite the strawman argument against the Beatific Vision.  Personally, the thought of heaven being a time of work (eternal increase, exaltation, creating and populating worlds, forever and ever) seems very Protestant/Puritan.  I'd much rather enjoy the perfect joy and happiness of a direct communion with God, and sing His praises forever (note: it's a metaphor, which is why your description is a strawman).

 

But then again, I tend towards laziness

 

Playing harps and singing are not my idea of heaven.

[mfbukowski]

We love the Blessed Virgin and I am so glad to be able to venerate Her, pray to Her, ask for Her intercession, and feel Her love.

 

It was She, as Our Lady of Guadalupe, who first led me to the Roman Catholic Church.

I have not followed the thread, but some who believe that as Jesus was Jehovah incarnate, Mary was Heavenly Mother incarnate.

Perhaps also "Eve" can be seen as a title for "the mother of all living"- personified by Heavenly Mother/Mary in the flesh.

Pretty heretical strictly speaking up some find it an interesting idea.

Edited October 25, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I also see problems with descriptions of the beatific vision for a God who does not have a face.

Perhaps it is metaphorical, whatever, but at any rate I do not understand how the explanation is supposed to work with three persons unified by "substance".

I would think that another model could be thought up rather than "seeing the face of God" with a disembodied God. I have always found that confusing.

[juliann]

I don't think we actually know why we as a church as a whole haven't spoken more about HM. I disagree with the response that says it is because God has not chosen to, but freely admit I do not know that to be the case. If it is, I hope there is a really good reason why He seems to have chosen to place women in what appears to me to clearly be a subordinate role. At this point I believe the church is merely following cultural trends and practices, just like the explanation in the church priesthood and race essay. Correct me if I am wrong but has any doctrinal reason been given by leadership for not giving women the priesthood? Is there any clear doctrinal injunction for not involving HM in our theological studies, talks, instructions and so on at the same level we do HF?

 

I seriously doubt any church leader has ever felt he received a revelation from God and then proceeded to ignore it. I think were we able to survey current leadership, independent of each other, we might find there is some differences in how they see women's roles in the church now and in the future, also similar to the dynamic of what went on in the 1950-1970's regarding different views within the quorum on the priesthood ban.

 

So my position now is that what we have seen over the last 2 centuries, regarding women in the church, has been affected by the culture within which the church has evolved and continues to be even today.

 

We have barely begun to dig out the feminine divine in scripture, particularly in the OT when she was turned into euphemisms like Wisdom after being erased. Give it some time. What this essay does is finally allow open mention of her, it has primed discussion. I thought it particularly interesting that surrounding church culture was given as an explanation for the male dominance. I immediately thought of the same rationale in the Blacks and the Priesthood essay. Like that topic, I think this is another topic that has been so set up by culture that no one has seen a need to even think about it let alone question it until now. We are just now seeing the build up of information that occurred before the ban was rescinded. I don't know how this will all end up, I don't think being ordained to priesthood office is a cure all or even necessary. We just need to build a foundation that can be considered before expecting anything more...and just as with blacks and priesthood, that will be done by historians and scholars. Lester Bush just gave a compelling summary of his role in a recent conference.

[Meadowchik]

So by virtue of eternal marriage does this make HM a member of the Godhead?

To me, it seems so.

Thus, perhaps it's possible that reference to God can refer sometimes to The Son, or the Holy Ghost, or the Father, or Heavenly Mother and Father, or all three.

Could it be that the fact that "we don't pray to Heavenly Mother" means that we she is NOT excluded but simply that we don't pray to the exclusion of God the Father?

Just some points to ponder...

Edited October 25, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Jeanne]

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.

I was told that it was not a good thing to pray to anyone but the Father.

[MiserereNobis]

Playing harps and singing are not my idea of heaven.

 

Well, you obviously missed the point of my post, which is probably my problem, ha!

 

Check out my link on the Beatific Vision and see what is really meant by Heaven in the Catholic tradition.

 

(and please, no one of any education in Catholic theology believes that heaven is playing harps and singing.  There are such things as metaphors, and bad metaphors, too )

[CV75]

So by virtue of eternal marriage does this make HM a member of the Godhead?

To me, it seems so.

Thus, perhaps it's possible that reference to God can refer sometimes to The Son, or the Holy Ghost, or the Father, or Heavenly Mother and Father, or all three.

Could it be that the fact that "we don't pray to Heavenly Mother" means that we she is NOT excluded but simply that we don't pray to the exclusion of God the Father?

Just some points to ponder...

I think She is part of the Godhead, thus Adam and Eve are in Their image (marriage is only between a Man and a Woman). That the Father is our connection between Heaven and earth in this life (through Jesus) and not Heavenly Mother is based on my comments in post #46.

 

Considering the infinitesimally short period of this mortal estate, I don’t think our perceived absence or lack of involvement from Her is any more or less detrimental than Jesus’ separation from the Father in His last moments on the cross. And He is only involved with us through Jesus anyway. It is part of the temporal probation, including our securement of necessary priesthood covenants and ordinances through authorized means, but we were prepared by Them for eons before and will enjoy a full restoration of our relationships in the next life.

[Jeanne]

Celestial marriage ..as I assume that God and my Heavenly Mother would have ..an eternal partnership...why not have these women or at least one..as part of the Godhead?  I am just not getting to understand where the Priesthood is in the divine plan for womanhood here...sacred isn't invisible.

[CV75]

Celestial marriage ..as I assume that God and my Heavenly Mother would have ..an eternal partnership...why not have these women or at least one..as part of the Godhead?  I am just not getting to understand where the Priesthood is in the divine plan for womanhood here...sacred isn't invisible.

I think She is part of the Godhead. Our interaction with the Godhead in this world (a microsecond in the eternal scheme of things) is through Christ the Mediator to the Father along patriarchal priesthood channels for reasons I proposed in post #46. This takes nothing away from women possessing the power of God in any other context. The power of God in the divine plan is for everyone.

[juliann]

 

 

Considering the infinitesimally short period of this mortal estate, I don’t think our perceived absence or lack of involvement from Her is any more or less detrimental than Jesus’ separation from the Father in His last moments on the cross. And He is only involved with us through Jesus anyway. It is part of the temporal probation, including our securement of necessary priesthood covenants and ordinances through authorized means, but we were prepared by Them for eons before and will enjoy a full restoration of our relationships in the next life.

 

Are you speaking for women's experiences as a male who has always had two heavenly models?

[Zakuska]

So by virtue of eternal marriage does this make HM a member of the Godhead?

To me, it seems so.

Thus, perhaps it's possible that reference to God can refer sometimes to The Son, or the Holy Ghost, or the Father, or Heavenly Mother and Father, or all three.

Could it be that the fact that "we don't pray to Heavenly Mother" means that we she is NOT excluded but simply that we don't pray to the exclusion of God the Father?

Just some points to ponder...

I do know there is a feminine form of the word God in the OT. I think it is "Eloah" perhaps those verses are a good place to start uncovering her. Edited October 26, 2015 by Zakuska

[Garden Girl]

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.

 

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.

 

Hello CA Steve...

I guess we'll just have to disagree... we have differing viewpoints... I don't think our leaders are "reluctant" to speak out on HM...

Nor do I see your  point of view being "against a female church member."  It's simply your view which differs considerably from mine... and we both can express those views to each other with understanding and good will...

 

 

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.

 

I'm not familiar with why/how these women were disciplined "for speaking out about HM."  My first thought would be that perhaps they were expressing views that simply were conjecture, supposition, and opinion and not based in real revealed truth... similar to how I consider your view on the Church's approach to HM, i.e., the brethren withholding more information so they can somehow feel superior and dominate... and what you consider to be "evidence." 

Be that as it may, I do wish you well this evening CA Steve... very much so... 

 

GG

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Lavina was certainly not disciplined for speaking out about Heavenly Mother (Lavina, who has a PhD, is a professional writer-editor who has worked for the Church magazines, and is one of the nicest people you will ever meet).  She wrote an academic study with plenty of documentation, and was excommunicated for it.  That probably would not happen today, but those were more sensitive times and the topic she dealt with garnered some anger.  A professional male writer would likely not even have been called in for an interview.  Lavina has never stopped attending her ward, and is as faithful as ever.  No one has ever explained to her what she needs to repent of in order to be rebaptized.

 

As for Maxine Hanks (another friend of mine), she has since come back to full fellowship in the LDS Church.  I just saw her a couple of weeks ago at BYU.  She has spoken openly not only about why she left the Church, but also about why she returned, and that is all publicly available.

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

I did not suggest that we say less (although less is sometimes more) due to a lack of information, and I even referred you to the BofM and other Scripture in order to write your own, more detailed essay.  There is no dearth of info, and perhaps you missed the long list of publications about Her presented by Jeremy OrbeSmith: 

A Mother There: A Survey Of Historical Teachings About Mother In Heaven by David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido

The Other Half of Heaven: Debunking Myths about Heavenly Mother by Warren Aston

Nephi And His Asherah by Daniel C. Peterson

Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? by Margaret Barker

What Did King Josiah Reform? by Margaret Barker (presented at BYU)

The Images Of Mary In The Litany Of Loreto by Margaret Barker

Nephite Feminism Revisited by Shauna and Kevin Christensen

Kevin Christensen On The Scholarship Of Margaret Barker

Does God Have A Wife? by Alyson Skabelund Von Feldt

The Assyrian Tree Of Life: Tracing The Origins Of Jewish Monotheism And Greek Philosophy by Simo Parpola

Shadday As A Goddess Epithet For Asherah by Harriet Lutzky

How To Worship Our Mother In Heaven (Without Getting Excommunicated) by Kevin L. Barney

Asherah, The Tree Of Life, And The Menorah: Continuity Of A Goddess Symbol In Judaism? by Asphodel P. Long

The Deseret Connection by Hugh W. Nibley (plus a whole bunch of stuff from his last -- amazing -- book One Eternal Round)

The Sacred Tree Of The Ancient Maya by Allen J. Christenson

Did God Have A Wife? by William G. Dever

The Hebrew Goddess by Raphael Patai

The Mother of the Lord Volume One: The Lady In The Temple by Margaret Barker

The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler (an uneven book, which I recommend primarily -- for the purposes of this discussion, anyway -- for her views on the Holy Spirit of Wisdom.)

The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe: Myths and Cult Images by Marija Gimbutas (a much-maligned book that still has some useful bits)

The White Goddess by Robert Graves (an even more-maligned book, but hey, Nibley cites him so he can't be all bad, right?)

The Myth of the Goddess: Evolution of an Image by Jules Cashford

Feminine Features In The Imagery Of God In Israel: The Sacred Marriage And The Sacred Tree by Moshe Weinfeld

 

 

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?

As I suggested, you can write a bigger and better essay, if you wish.  Plenty of people have gone at book length on the subject.  The Brethren may have restrained themselves for other, non-secular reasons.  And you should respect that.

 

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.

Are you at least familiar with the tradition of Mary the Mother of God in Roman Catholic tradition?

Edited October 26, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

So by virtue of eternal marriage does this make HM a member of the Godhead?

To me, it seems so.

Thus, perhaps it's possible that reference to God can refer sometimes to The Son, or the Holy Ghost, or the Father, or Heavenly Mother and Father, or all three.

Could it be that the fact that "we don't pray to Heavenly Mother" means that we she is NOT excluded but simply that we don't pray to the exclusion of God the Father?

Just some points to ponder...

That's about the way I see it. IMO we essentially worship the Family of God and also the principle of the Ideal Human Family if you want to get philosophical about it

 

One can see it either way.  I really believe in the Persons, because I have experienced a personal intelligence who knows my deepest concerns, but for those who are more secular and want to keep it abstract, I think the other view works