Mother In Heaven Essay

[RevTestament]

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.

Eloah is used in conjunction with being the Rock of our Salvation or the Rock of Israel, so is not "heavenly Mother."

 

El Shaddai has feminine connotations.

[Thinking]

This discussion reminds me of Dishwalla's 1996 song Counting Blue Cars. Below is part of the chorus.

Tell me all your thoughts on God,
'Cause I'd really like to meet her.
And ask her why we're who we are.

[Robert F. Smith]

.................................................................  

 

El Shaddai has feminine connotations.

No more so than the Grand Tetons.

[Meadowchik]

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

 

Perhaps I'm weird, but I never felt like God the Father and the Son were not heavenly models for me, just because I am female and they are male.  I have 4 older brothers, I was the first girl.  So I definitely know the feeling of being "not one of the boys" while also feeling quite familiar with all stuff boys.

 

I guess, for me, the fact that God is perfect is what made the difference.  I figured that anything that could make a man a poor model for me was due to imperfection and not due to sexual gender, so therefore, God as male is a good example.

 

That said, it could be that I am so far from the prototype of perfection that I already have enough to work on in this lifetime, such that I don't need to get more specific. But I suppose that some women may feel that, had they a gender-specific prototype of perfection, they'd be better able to become who they are expected to become, starting today.

 

I don't know. 

 

Is it possible that God, including Heavenly Mother, being the eternal fusion of both Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother in the Glorified One, has all such necessary attributes that we need to exemplify?  Could it be that this is why we aspire to exaltation with the bond of male and female?  Could it be that true ecstasy is that of being a free-willed individual voluntarily coupled with another free-willed individual, each necessarily different, but together forming a complementary whole in the epitome of loving, exalting synchrony?

Edited October 26, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

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.

 

Perhaps this is why we have not yet heard more than what has been said.  The implications are pretty big, aren't they?

[Zakuska]

So now that the church is officialy teaching and acknowleding Heavenly Mother. What are they going to do about all the people over the years who thy excommunicated for daring to teach about it. Such as the September Six?

This isn't boding well for the Church leaders. They are coming off as hypocritical over baring religious zealots who rule with an Iron fist.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Zakuska

[CV75]

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

I’m sure I can be perceived as such and that the Father and the Son can be framed as two distinct and strictly male role models. I am still speaking as someone who believes that everyone shares common Parentage, a common Atonement and means to reunite with Them, and a common Exemplar in Jesus. I also believe that anyone can feel stranded, neglected or abandoned as Jesus did, except that He went through it and overcame it for all of us.

[HappyJackWagon]

We don't pray to Jesus either.  So unfair . . .

What's unfair?

 

I stated we're told not to pray to HM. Am I wrong? Nope.

But we don't pray to Jesus either. Okay. Jesus is the child, HF & HM are the parents who, according to the proclamation are equal partners. Yet all praise is given to HF. Every expression of love is to HF & Jesus. HM is an absentee mother we're told not to wonder about, speak to, express love to in prayers or publicly at all. So what's unfair?

[Meadowchik]

So now that the church is officialy teaching and acknowleding Heavenly Mother. What are they going to do about all the people over the years who thy excommunicated for daring to teach about it. Such as the September Six?

This isn't boding well for the Church leaders. They are coming off as hypocritical over baring religious zealots who rule with an Iron fist.

You really think so?

I'm more inclined to say that there is a time for everything, including heeding the timing of the apostles.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Meadowchik

[CV75]

Perhaps this is why we have not yet heard more than what has been said.  The implications are pretty big, aren't they?

Yes, not the least of which is that we are all in this together! I think you said it best in #79!

 

"Is it possible that God, including Heavenly Mother, being the eternal fusion of both Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother in the Glorified One, has all such necessary attributes that we need to exemplify?  Could it be that this is why aspire to exaltation with the bond of male and female?  Could it be that true ecstasy is that of being a free-willed individual voluntarily coupled with another free-willed individual, each necessarily different, but together forming a complementary whole in the epitome of loving, exalting synchrony?"

[CV75]

Yet all praise is given to HF. Every expression of love is to HF & Jesus. HM is an absentee mother we're told not to wonder about, speak to, express love to in prayers or publicly at all.

I think because the Gospel was brought into the earth through a preparatory patriarchal priesthood order as I described for you in post #46 with the condescension of Jesus as the centerpiece (see 1 Nephi 11:16-23), our complete reincorporation into a fully reconstituted, reunited and reconciled Heavenly Family cannot be fully realized until after mortality.

[HappyJackWagon]

I think because the Gospel was brought into the earth through a preparatory patriarchal priesthood order as I described for you in post #46 with the condescension of Jesus as the centerpiece (see 1 Nephi 11:16-23), our complete reincorporation into a fully reconstituted, reunited and reconciled Heavenly Family cannot be fully realized until after mortality.

I agree that the the Patriarchal order and structure of the church, as a continuation of the patriarchal order found throughout centuries of civilization, makes it difficult to allow for the divine feminine...but not impossible. We first need to overcome our cultural bias and tradition.

[Zakuska]

What's unfair?

 

I stated we're told not to pray to HM. Am I wrong? Nope.

But we don't pray to Jesus either. Okay. Jesus is the child, HF & HM are the parents who, according to the proclamation are equal partners. Yet all praise is given to HF. Every expression of love is to HF & Jesus. HM is an absentee mother we're told not to wonder about, speak to, express love to in prayers or publicly at all. So what's unfair?

 

Here again their is Scriptural precedent for praying to Jesus. When he comes to visit the Nephites and then returns to heaven for the evening and then comes back the next day the Nephites pray to him all that night.

 

If We can pray to Jesus and HF why is our spirtual growth being stunted and our conversation being cut off  from our heavenly Mother.  We are being precluded from even talking to her or mentioning her.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Zakuska

[Calm]

HM is an absentee mother we're told not to wonder about, ....express love to...publicly at all.

Please cfr those two claims specifically, we are told not to wonder about her or express love to her publically at all. I am not aware of those instructions and it would appear from behaviour lots of other LDS are not either.

[Calm]

"We are being precluded from even..... mentioning her."

"Heavenly Mother" and "Mother in Heaven" bring up almost 2000 hits on lds.org. Nowhere near God the Gather or Son of God in all its variations, but I think it counts as mention.

 

Add on:  Since hymns or "the songs of the righteous" are described as prayers unto God, anytime we sing O My Father (at least once a year in my ward as she rotates through all the songs as appropriate) are we not in essence offering a prayer to both our Heavenly Parents?...And we receive blessings because of our offering (D&C 25:12)

 

The hymn book is also to be used as a reference book for speaking and teaching and personal study just as conference talks are ("some of the greatest sermons are preached by the singing of hymns", preface to hymnbook).

Edited October 26, 2015 by Calm

[CA Steve]

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'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

Hi GG,

 

"Against" was a poor choice of words on my part and carried more defensiveness than I intended. How about "in a conversation with"?

 

If our leaders are not reluctant to speak about HM why is there significantly less mention of her than of HF? Is she not equally important to us as HF? Doesn't our plan of salvation teach that both parents are necessary to eternal families and are equally important? I think one of the main arguments used by opponents against SSM is that it does not give children a parent from both sexes, and yet from how much we hear about HF & Jesus, it is almost like we are being raised by a father and older brother with our mother getting a mother's day card once in a while.

 

You were asking for evidence about our leaders holding back information about our HM and while I think "holding back" is a strong term, it may well be applicable in the case of those women I mentioned above. It has been a while since I read about them but if memory serves they were censored, or at least some of them were, for speaking out about HM. You may want to read a bit about them. And I would readily agree that they were "probably speaking about views that simply were conjecture, supposition, and opinion and not based in real revealed truth". But we see people do that all the time on subjects like Book of Mormon geography, Book of Abraham translation methodology and so on, with out being excommunicated for such speculation.

 

To you last point about the brethren feeling superior and dominating. I am confidant if we were to ask any of them they would express shock at such a notion and assure us they are only following the Lord's will regarding current policies on women, but then I think similar conversations with leadership previous to 1978 about blacks and the priesthood would have had the same reaction from leadership then. I don't understand why it is okay to blame cultural factors for what past leaders have done, as we can see in the priesthood essay, but not okay to ask if those same factors might be at work in how women are treated within the church?

 

Thanks

Edited October 26, 2015 by CA Steve

[CV75]

I agree that the the Patriarchal order and structure of the church, as a continuation of the patriarchal order found throughout centuries of civilization, makes it difficult to allow for the divine feminine...but not impossible. We first need to overcome our cultural bias and tradition.

If you agree in with the condescension of God as described in 1 Nephi 11, you also agree see that my remarks have nothing to do with mortal civilizations but with the plan of salvation. I agree that you need to overcome some cultural bias and tradition in order to make sense of what I and others have been  explaining to you at your request.

[HappyJackWagon]

If you agree in with the condescension of God as described in 1 Nephi 11, you also agree see that my remarks have nothing to do with mortal civilizations but with the plan of salvation. I agree that you need to overcome some cultural bias and tradition in order to make sense of what I and others have been  explaining to you at your request.

Yes, I am struggling to overcome my bias but will never fully succeed. You are free of cultural and traditional bias? Good job!

[Nofear]

Two common complaints I hear about our Mother in Heaven is that 1) we don't know pretty much anything about her and 2) we can't pray to her. I'm not particularly sensitive to these complaints for the following reasons:

 

Complaint 1: We don't know anything about her

We could similarly ask what we really know about our Father in Heaven. We know he has a perfection of attributes, he is the father of our spirits, he loves us perfectly and all his actions are calculated for our well being, and he is omniscient. What else do we know? Do we know anything of his aesthetic preferences (e.g. what kind of music he prefers, favorite color, etc.), sense of humor (vast opening for jokes here), etc.

What do we know about our Mother in Heaven? We know she has a perfection of attributes, she is the mother of our spirits, she loves us perfectly and all her actions are calculator for our well being, and she is omniscient. We don't know her aesthetic preferences, or her sense of humor, etc. But in other aspects it seems we know about as much about her as we do our Father. There is the whole one mother vs. many mothers issue, but that doesn't really change what was said so far.

 

In the end, I understand her about as much as I do him. I am very much comforted with their perfection of love for me and the well being of me and my family -- both of them.

 

Complaint 2: We don't pray to our Heavenly Mother

We address our Father in Heaven, true. That is as instructed. Yet, given the omniscience of our Heavenly Mother I cannot conceive of a prayer to my Heavenly Father of which she is not aware. I cannot conceive of a situation he knows about that she does not. Moreover, given their perfection of attributes I cannot conceive of an answer my prayer that would be different from my Father in Heaven as opposed to an answer from my Mother in Heaven. They would be the same.

 

Why do we then not pray to her? I can think of a few reasons but none of them are flattering to we fallen humans. The one I preference the most is that it would open the door to putting an false separation between them -- that we would mentally place disharmony between them where there is none. It is our inability to see their unity, their perfect sameness of love for us, their harmony that we are instructed to simply address the one. But I am perfectly comfortable with the concept that my prayers to my Father in Heaven are heard and even potentially answered by my Mother in Heaven. Whether by her or him, it is the same.

 

But if this is so, why the Father and not the Mother? Well, it was one or the other. Another trap that we are very prone to is our incredibly childish and myopic view. It is as if here, now, mortality is everything and there is nothing else. But that is very much false. Our Heavenly Parents oversee and manage a vast array of pre-mortal and post-mortal kingdoms in addition to our mortal one. Important though our mortal phase is, it is but a tiny portion of the Kingdom of our Heavenly Parents. Perhaps our Mother in Heaven takes a more visible, front-and-center, position elsewhere. Perhaps not. Nonetheless, we would be well served to understand the perspective that is so much larger than our current state. We ought not adopt the role of petulant children and assume we are the center of everything.

 

Anyway, I enjoyed reading the essay. It offered no new information but it is nice to see the collection of information into one place.

[CA Steve]

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 I would be really interested in your opinion on if any of those women were censored specifically for talking about HM? How about Margaret Toscano?

 

And I also am a fan of Lavina's. She has taken the time to answer a few questions I directed to her personally regarding her book on Lucy Smith. She is indeed just as you describe.

[Hillel2]

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

Hello.

 

Since the 16th century Jews have been welcoming the Shabbes Queen into their home on Friday nights. The SQ is identified with the Shechineh, G-d's feminine presence...The word is used extensively throughout the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.

 

We do not know how long Jews have conceptualized of the Shechineh as a feminine counterpart to G-d the Father (and hence an equivalent to the LDS heavenly mother). However, it seems that the idea was in common currency during the time of Jesus. Although there would appear to be no scripture common to all Christians to back up his having done so, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Jesus would have recognized the very feminine Shechineh as, for lack of a better term, a divine manifestation.

 

One apparent difference between the Shechineh and HM, however is the following. Whereas it appears (emphasis) that HM does not participate in history along with the other members of the divine family, the Shechineh is not only immersed in the world, She is both exiled and entrapped in it...the duty of the faithful is to live according to G-d's directives so that She can be liberated from Her exile and return to Her husband (which we attempt to bring about on the Sabbath)

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Robert F. Smith, on 25 Oct 2015 - 9:06 PM, said:

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.

Probably? Or at least, maybe. But it's uncertain, isn't it.

[CA Steve]

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

 

 

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.

 

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

Hi Robert,

 

I'll pass on the essay and me writing it has nothing to do with my criticism of how short the current essay is. My ability to write a longer essay is irrelevant to the effort the church has put forth. Thanks for the links to Jeremy's post which I did see. I can only wonder why those who wrote the church essay didn't use more of that material also.

 

I understand the brethren have "restrained" themselves, I am asking why. And if the church themselves can blame past leadership for being subject to cultural influences, as we see in the priesthood essay, cannot current leadership be subject to the same pressure, can't the same questions be asked now to current leadership? Or is it just past leadership that are not due the same respect  you require for current leadership?

 

I am aware of Mary the Mother of God in Roman Catholic tradition but do not see how that is relevant to our discussion regarding the length of the church essay on HM. Maybe you would like to expand a bit more or start another thread on it?

Edited October 26, 2015 by CA Steve

[CV75]

Yes, I am struggling to overcome my bias but will never fully succeed. You are free of cultural and traditional bias? Good job!

If you agree with the condescension of God as described in 1 Nephi 11, you also agree  that my remarks have nothing to do with mortal culture but with the plan of salvation. I'm here to talk about that (aren't you, rather than stew in your biases?).

 

I’m sure I can be perceived as biased. I am still speaking as someone who believes that everyone shares common Parentage, a common Atonement and means to reunite with our Heavenly Parents, and a common Exemplar in Jesus. I find it interesting that you don't address the actual doctrinal points I've posted on the plan of salvation as it relates to this topic.

[Zakuska]

Some snips on the September Six

 

 

Lynne Kanavel Whitesides 

Lynne Kanavel Whitesides is a Mormon feminist noted for speaking on the Mother in Heaven. Whitesides was the first of the group to experience church discipline. She was disfellowshipped September 14, 1993. Though technically still a member, Whitesides claims that she "burst" out of the church and her marriage in 1993, and now considers herself a practitioner of Native American philosophies.^[7]

 

 

Avraham Gileadi

 The reasons for his excommunication on September 15 are unclear. According to Margaret Toscano (whose husband was among the September Six and who would also later be excommunicated), Gileadi's "books interpreting Mormon scripture challenged the exclusive right of leaders to define doctrine",^[9] a characterization that Gileadi himself disputes.^[10] The church afterwards reversed its disciplinary action against him and expunged it from the church's records, meaning it was to be officially regarded as having never happened.^[10] Gileadi is currently an active member of the church.^[11][12] He has continued to write books on Isaiah, including The Literary Message of Isaiah (2002) and Isaiah Decoded: Ascending the Ladder to Heaven (2002).

 

Paul Toscano and Wife

 

He was excommunicated from the church on September 19, 1993; the reasons for his excommunication, as reportedly given by church leaders, were apostasy and false teaching. According to Toscano, the actual reason was insubordination in refusing to curb his sharp criticism of LDS Church leaders' preference for legalism, ecclesiastical tyranny, white-washed Mormon history, and hierarchical authoritarianism that privilege the image of the corporate LDS Church above its commitment to its members, to the teachings and revelations of founder Joseph Smith, and to the gospel of Jesus Christ.^[13]

In 2007, Toscano wrote that he lost his faith "like losing your eyesight after an accident"; he regrets that LDS Church leaders have disregarded his criticisms of what he considers the church's growing anti-intellectualism, homophobia, misogyny, and elitism.^[14]

 

Maxine Hanks[edit]

 

Maxine Hanks is a Mormon feminist theologian who compiled and edited the book Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism (1992). She was excommunicated on September 19 (along with fellow contributor D. Michael Quinn). In February 2012, Hanks was re-baptized as a member of the church.^[17]

 

Lavina Fielding Anderson[edit]

Lavina Fielding Anderson is a Mormon feminist writer who edited the books Sisters in Spirit: Mormon Women in Historical and Cultural Perspective (1992), and Lucy's Book, the definitive edition of the Lucy Mack Smith narrative. She is a former editor for the Ensign and served as editor for the Journal of Mormon History from 1991 until May 2009. She was excommunicated September 23.

Anderson continues to attend LDS Church services as a non-member. She writes on Mormon issues, including editing the multi-volume Case Reports of the Mormon Alliance, an ongoing collection of interviews with Mormons who believe they were unfairly disciplined by the church.^[18]

 

D. Michael Quinn[edit]

 

D. Michael Quinn is a Mormon historian. Among other studies, he documented LDS Church-sanctioned polygamy from 1890 until 1904, after the 1890 Manifesto when the church officially abandoned the practice.^[19] He also authored the 1987 book, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, which argues that early Mormon leaders were greatly influenced by folk magic and superstitious beliefs including stone looking, charms, and divining rods. He was excommunicated September 26. Quinn had been summoned to a disciplinary council to answer charges of "of conduct unbecoming a member of the Church and apostasy", including "'very sensitive and highly confidential' matters that were not related to Michael's historical writings".^[20] Anderson has suggested that the "allusion to Michael's sexual orientation, which Michael had not yet made public, was unmistakable."^[20]

Quinn has since published several critical studies of Mormon hierarchy, including his two-volume work of The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power and The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power. He also authored the 1996 book Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example, which argues that homosexuality was not uncommon among early Mormons, and was not seen as a serious sin or transgression.

Despite his excommunication and critical writings, Quinn, who is now openly gay,^[21] still considers himself to be a Latter-day Saint.^[20]

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six

 

So at least one was disfellowshipped for her teachings on HM.  

 

As I said earlier I can see nothing in the by laws of the church  (D&C 102) that would give anyone even Apostles the ability to excommunicate anyone for anything other than "gross sin". They can disfellowship (Equivalent to Amish SHUNNING practices) for disorderly conduct and insubordination which some of the September Six were exed for.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Zakuska