Mother In Heaven Essay

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

 

You admitted it yourself.  We can't pray to Jesus or to Heavenly Mother.  Only to Heavenly Father.  One boss, one head of family.  That rankles you, but why should it?  That may simply be the way the system works.  You call it "unfair."  So, man up and get over it already.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

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?

YOU MUST READ THIS

honestly- you are gonna love it

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/womans-church

[Calm]

Better to listen to it...and so speaks a woman who can't stand to listen to most things, but Sister Eubank has a wonderful delivery imo.

[Calm]

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).

 

 

When you say "equivalent", how equivalent do you mean?  Are they truly husband and wife as in being human and married or is this metaphorical for the relationship between different attributes of God?  Is God human, of immaterial substance or something else?  Is the Shechnineh distinct from God, her own person or something else?

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

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

Margaret Toscano's writings are all available publicly and cover a broad range of theological reflections, including strong feminist views.  I would say that the excommunication of her and her husband are for blatant apostasy in general.

[CA Steve]

Margaret Toscano's writings are all available publicly and cover a broad range of theological reflections, including strong feminist views.  I would say that the excommunication of her and her husband are for blatant apostasy in general.

Excommunications in the church, not for morality reasons, are generally labeled as "apostasy", because what happens in cases like these is the members are publishing and or talking about a subject of which they are asked to cease talking/publishing. When the do not cease they are excommunicated for failure to follow leadership direction.

So maybe I should rephrase my question. Were any of those people engaged in discussions about HM which led to their church discipline?

[SeekerB]

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.

 

I don't believe that is true at all.  We are thousands of years old, possibly much older.  Our time on earth amounts to only a fraction of our total existence. I am sure we had a great deal of interaction with our Heavenly Mother before this life and will do so afterward in the next life.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

You have to remember that Prof Sterling McMurrin was not excommunicated, even though he publicly stated the Book of Mormon to be fiction on many occasions.  He certainly did not believe in Mormonism, and made that clear, yet he was never disciplined.  Men who write similar stuff today just don't get exed.  Grant Palmer for example.  He was only disfellowshipped, and still collects a nice LDS Church retirement check.

[Calm]

 Were any of those people engaged in discussions about HM which led to their church discipline?

Do you mean the only thing they discussed was HM and thus it would be the only subject they were being disciplined on?

[Gray]

The problem of course is reconciling the doctrine of Heavenly Mother (a doctrine that makes all the sense in the world if you think of God as a literal and corporeal father of the human race) with the silence regarding heavenly mother since most traces of the the old pantheon of El were purged from Hebrew worship. Not to mention the near silence over the last century in the church. 

 

Efforts to explain the silence around Heavenly Mother have been unsatisfactory and rather sexist. A better framework needs to be constructed if Heavenly Mother is to to emerge from obscurity in LDS worship practices. 

Edited October 26, 2015 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

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)

The Shekinah or "Divine Presence" does not appear in the Bible, and the concept can be fully accounted for via the Holy Spirit, which is male.

[jkwilliams]

The problem of course is reconciling the doctrine of Heavenly Mother (a doctrine that makes all the sense in the world if you think of God as a literal and corporeal father of the human race) with the silence regarding heavenly mother since most traces of the the old pantheon of El were purged from Hebrew worship. Not to mention the near silence over the last century in the church. 

 

Efforts to explain the silence around Heavenly Mother have been unsatisfactory and rather sexist. A better framework needs to be constructed if Heavenly Mother is to to emerge as in LDS worship practices. 

 

I'm not seeing any effort to have Heavenly Mother emerge as in LDS worship practices. 

 

Maybe it's sexist of me to admit that I never really thought much of the church's position on women until my daughters started growing up and asking me questions about their roles and relationships to the priesthood. I always just figured that the Lord would reveal what he wanted us to know about women's roles in the eternities and in the here and now. I agree with you that so far, it's been mostly silence. If the gospel is true, I wonder if we're in for some huge surprises in the next life as to how men and women are involved in the plan of salvation.

[CA Steve]

Do you mean the only thing they discussed was HM and thus it would be the only subject they were being disciplined on?

No, I mean did their church discipline result in any part as a result of talking about HM.

 

Look, it's all speculation unless the person who was disciplined wants to comment directly. I was hoping Robert, who seems to have been close to some of those people and around at that time, might offer his opinion as to what he thought led to their discipline. Btw, people are not disciplined for taking on a subject. They are disciplined for refusing to follow leadership direction. There is a difference.

[Robert F. Smith]

Excommunications in the church, not for morality reasons, are generally labeled as "apostasy", because what happens in cases like these is the members are publishing and or talking about a subject of which they are asked to cease talking/publishing. When the do not cease they are excommunicated for failure to follow leadership direction.

So maybe I should rephrase my question. Were any of those people engaged in discussions about HM which led to their church discipline?

You need to read their publicly available books and articles, which cover a very broad range of theological disagreements with the LDS Church, not just one small issue.  You can find that information online.  When one excoriates the Church and its leaders in general and across a broad range, it becomes difficult to fasten on only one issue as the "problem."  Apostasy as I use the term is not just one issue, but is a broad rejection of the Restoration and of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  You have not apparently read anything by the Toscanos.  Take a gander at their work, and then come back and tell me what you think.  Not having been at their excommunication trials, I cannot speculate on what the reasons for their discipline may have been, but I can certainly read what they have written.

[Storm Rider]

No, I mean did their church discipline result in any part as a result of talking about HM.

 

Look, it's all speculation unless the person who was disciplined wants to comment directly. I was hoping Robert, who seems to have been close to some of those people and around at that time, might offer his opinion as to what he thought led to their discipline. Btw, people are not disciplined for taking on a subject. They are disciplined for refusing to follow leadership direction. There is a difference.

 

I am not aware of each of these cases, but one of them I remember reading about.  It had more to do with encouraging other members to pray to their Heavenly Mother.  Anyone, male or female, that attempts to lead away the members of the Church in to heresy and false teachings will be disciplined.  Though the Church allows each individual a wide berth of learning truth; that leniency does not extend to allowing everyone to teach their own personal doctrine or to present yourself as a new leader of the Church with new doctrines that conflict with the teachings of the Church. 

[CA Steve]

You need to read their publicly available books and articles, which cover a very broad range of theological disagreements with the LDS Church, not just one small issue.  You can find that information online.  When one excoriates the Church and its leaders in general and across a broad range, it becomes difficult to fasten on only one issue as the "problem."  Apostasy as I use the term is not just one issue, but is a broad rejection of the Restoration and of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  You have not apparently read anything by the Toscanos.  Take a gander at their work, and then come back and tell me what you think.  Not having been at their excommunication trials, I cannot speculate on what the reasons for their discipline may have been, but I can certainly read what they have written.

So either you can state that their work on HM had nothing to do with their discipline, or it did, or you do not know.

 

Which is it?

 

Robert I asked your opinion about what went on since you expressed that you knew these people and were around at the time.

Basically you're telling me to look it up and return and tell you what I think. Can't you tell me what you think? I do value your opinion.

Edited October 26, 2015 by CA Steve

[Zakuska]

CA Steve,

 

There was at least one who was disciplined by disfellowship for speaking on Heavenly Mother. Though technically still a member she has since left the church on her own accord.

 

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]

 

^[7]   Whitesides, Lynne. "Spiritual Paths After September 1993." Sunstone Symposium, 2003.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Zakuska

[Calm]

I am not aware of each of these cases, but one of them I remember reading about. It had more to do with encouraging other members to pray to their Heavenly Mother.

I am wondering if you mean Janice Allred who describes her own praying to Heavenly Mother.

But I think she went more into apostasy by teaching a different form of the Godhead. My memory (it has been over a decade since I last read God the Mother and Other Theological Essays) is that she altered the role of the Son and the Father as well, but my memory being what it is could be wrong.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V27N02_27.pdf

If a quick skim reading is accurate, it appears to me she is saying that God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same person, the Father became Christ by laying aside his immortality. Heavenly Mother laid aside her immortality as well and became the Holy Ghost, so the Godhead only consists of two persons, but both in two different forms, the Divine Couple/Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Calm

[Guest]

Mother In Heaven

 

 

Thoughts?

With nothing in recorded scripture ever, it is something Joseph was remiss in speaking to it in the D&C. It is something I believe, but would love to hav something in canonized scripture, without and ambiguity.

[HappyJackWagon]

You admitted it yourself.  We can't pray to Jesus or to Heavenly Mother.  Only to Heavenly Father.  One boss, one head of family.  That rankles you, but why should it?  That may simply be the way the system works.  You call it "unfair."  So, man up and get over it already.

Man up?

 

One boss/one family versus equal partners. It's hard to be equal partners while also having one preside as boss. I'm good with it though since I'm the man...I mean, boss.

[KevinG]

If you think preside = bossing  or president = boss in the family context I'd suggest repentance.

[Gray]

If you think preside = bossing  or president = boss in the family context I'd suggest repentance.

 

That's what preside means, but it's appropriate in this context to understand that as long as we're still using that word (not a great word, IMO), it should have a special and different definition in the context of LDS practices. 

[KevinG]

That's what preside means, but it's appropriate in this context to understand that as long as we're still using that word (not a great word, IMO), it should have a special and different definition in the context of LDS practices. 

 

It does:

 

D&C 121:36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

 

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

 

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

 

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

 

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

 

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

 

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

 

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

 

44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

 

45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

[Gray]

It does:

 

D&C 121:36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

 

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

 

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

 

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

 

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

 

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

 

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

 

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

 

44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

 

45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

 

Well, if we're still using the word to mean someone who is kind of in charge, but seeks to persuade rather than give orders, we're still using it wrong. A marriage should be a partnership between two equals. If we must use the word preside, the word should have very little actual meaning. 

Edited October 26, 2015 by Gray

[KevinG]

A man should preside over his family as Christ presides over the church.  Up to and including giving his life.

 

Of course presiding is a partnership.  Mothers and fathers share that responsibility.  But you are reading too much into the word that doesn't apply to the way we preside in the church.