Scott Lloyd Posted November 20, 2019 Author Posted November 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: 1 Nephi 11:18 "the Virgin which thou seest is the Mother of God" 11:20 "bearing a child in her arms" This is the Theotokos "God-bearer," and Regina Caelestis "Queen of Heaven" of Roman Catholic veneration, but who was known much more anciently. I thought the orthodox belief was that this passage pertains to Mary, the mortal mother of Jesus. Am I missing something?
Robert F. Smith Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I thought the orthodox belief was that this passage pertains to Mary, the mortal mother of Jesus. Am I missing something? Yeh, you missed the obvious. Everyone reading those passages knows exactly who is being referred to.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 20, 2019 Author Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Yeh, you missed the obvious. Everyone reading those passages knows exactly who is being referred to. Well, apparently not everyone. And as late as 2013, apparently even you were under the impression it is Mary who is being referred to (see the following link and scroll down to the comments). https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-musings-on-the-making-of-mormons-book-1-nephi-11/ Edited November 20, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
Robert F. Smith Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Well, apparently not everyone. And as late as 2013, apparently even you were under the impression it is Mary who is being referred to (see the following link and scroll down to the comments). https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-musings-on-the-making-of-mormons-book-1-nephi-11/ Yep. And thank you for the trip down memory lane. However, that is twice now that you missed the obvious. But I like you anyway, Scott.
Nofear Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) 15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: While all of the above seems quite reasonable and, in my mind at least, more than likely true given what we know about the plan of salvation and our doctrines pertaining to exaltation, eternal increase, etc., it strikes me as inferential and extrapolative. That is, I don’t know that any of it could be tied to scriptural passages or any definitive revelatory declaration. I think it safe to say that the Church leaders feel that what the Church can authoritatively teach <at this time> about this concept is contained in the Gospel Topics essay. And I still say that boils down to a modicum of knowledge and understanding. You're right that the scriptures don't say much... not directly. But what we gather from the Revelators of the Church is much more than a modicum. Indeed, I will go so far to say that we pretty much know almost as much about her and her attributes as we know about her husband as there is no attribute of perfection but that she shares it with him and he her. And how do we know pretty much anything at all about the attributes or otherwise of Heavenly Father? Through Christ. Similarly, we know of Heavenly Mother. I'm going to adjust John 14:6-8. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Mother, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Mother also: and from henceforth ye know her, and have seen her. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Mother, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Mother; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Mother? The revelations of God are before us for them that have eyes to see and ears to hear. Yet, for some reason the hearts of men and women obstinately refuse to see and hear that which is plainly manifest. But that is the story of the world (D&C 93:31) and the latter-day saints are by no means immune. Still, this is a topic for another day and another tread. I shan't derail this one any further. Edited November 20, 2019 by Nofear
ksfisher Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 15 minutes ago, Nofear said: Yet, for some reason the hearts of men and women obstinately refuse to see and hear that which is plainly manifest. You seem to be trying to turn things that are implied in the scripture and through modern day revelation into implicit revelation. While I agree with you, in general, I believe we should be more cautious for the moment. 1
Nofear Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, ksfisher said: You seem to be trying to turn things that are implied in the scripture and through modern day revelation into implicit revelation. While I agree with you, in general, I believe we should be more cautious for the moment. What I am saying is that I believe implicit (and explicit) revelation most distinctly is available and accessible to the saints and has been explicitly shared with us by the Revelators of the Church. Given that latter fact, I find your (and many others) caution... baffling to say the least. It is as if faithful latter-day saints stick their fingers in their their ears and cry out "la-la-la, we don't know hardly nothin' ". Despite some small intellectual understanding of human nature, I get it, emotionally I find this behavior completely baffling. Edited November 20, 2019 by Nofear
Scott Lloyd Posted November 20, 2019 Author Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Nofear said: You're right that the scriptures don't say much... not directly. But what we gather from the Revelators of the Church is much more than a modicum. Indeed, I will go so far to say that we pretty much know almost as much about her and her attributes as we know about her husband as there is no attribute of perfection but that she shares it with him and he her. And how do we know pretty much anything at all about the attributes or otherwise of Heavenly Father? Through Christ. Similarly, we know of Heavenly Mother. I'm going to adjust John 14:6-8. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Mother, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Mother also: and from henceforth ye know her, and have seen her. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Mother, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Mother; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Mother? The revelations of God are before us for them that have eyes to see and ears to hear. Yet, for some reason the hearts of men and women obstinately refuse to see and hear that which is plainly manifest. But that is the story of the world (D&C 93:31) and the latter-day saints are by no means immune. Still, this is a topic for another day and another tread. I shan't derail this one any further. I still say that while what you are propounding does make sense in the broader context of our doctrine and is more than likely true, it is at this point mostly inferential and extrapolative. I cherish the concept of a Mother in Heaven, but at the same time, I’m determined to preserve the purity of our doctrine by not going beyond the mark, as it were, in my public discourse. By way of illustration, I was assigned to give a sacrament meeting talk last Mother’s Day. I wanted to mention Mother in Heaven, but I did not want to transcend the boundaries of what is authoritatively regarded as doctrinal. Accordingly, I read verbatim from the Church’s “Gospel Topics,” essay and did not elaborate or embellish, figuring that the content therein has the Church’s imprimatur. Edited November 20, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
ksfisher Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Nofear said: What I am saying is that I believe implicit (and explicit) revelation most distinctly is available and accessible to the saints and has been explicitly shared with us by the Revelators of the Church. Given that latter fact, I find your (and many others) caution... baffling to say the least. It is as if faithful latter-day saints stick their fingers in their their ears and cry out "la-la-la, we don't know hardly nothin' ". Despite some small intellectual understanding of human nature, I get it, emotionally I find this behavior completely baffling. Could you please cite some of the revelation, both from scripture as well as modern revelation, that teach explicitly about a mother in heaven. Edited November 20, 2019 by ksfisher
Nofear Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: I still say that what you are propounding does make sense in the broader context of our doctrine and is more than likely true is at this point mostly inferential and extrapolative. I cherish the concept of a Mother in Heaven, but at the same time, I’m determined to preserve the purity of our doctrine by not going beyond the mark, as it were, in my public discourse. By way of illustration, I was assigned to give a sacrament meeting talk last Mother’s Day. I wanted to mention Mother in Heaven, but I did not want to transcend the boundaries of what is authoritatively regarded as doctrinal. Accordingly, I read verbatim from the Church’s “Gospel Topics,” essay and did not elaborate or embellish, figuring that the content therein has the Church’s imprimatur. As appropriate. Personal revelation about doctrine beyond that which is revealed by the Revelators of the Church is inappropriate. However, that which has been revealed by them goes well beyond the Gospel Topic Essays.
Nofear Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Could you please cite some of the revelation, both from scripture as well as modern revelation, that teach us about a mother in heaven. See linked article above (http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleWelchHeavenlyMother.html). There are several on the tubes of the interwebs too. Edited November 20, 2019 by Nofear
Scott Lloyd Posted November 20, 2019 Author Posted November 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Nofear said: What I am saying is that I believe implicit (and explicit) revelation most distinctly is available and accessible to the saints and has been explicitly shared with us by the Revelators of the Church. Given that latter fact, I find your (and many others) caution... baffling to say the least. It is as if faithful latter-day saints stick their fingers in their their ears and cry out "la-la-la, we don't know hardly anything". Despite some small intellectual understanding of human nature, I get it, emotionally I find this behavior completely baffling. There is nothing inappropriate or inherently “baffling” about wanting to stay within authoritative doctrinal boundaries. As I’ve noted earlier, we only know through hearsay that the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the doctrine in the first place. That anointed and inspired prophets and apostles have consistently carried it forward through the years is a good indication it is authentic, but as with anything else, we ought to be wary about conjecture and stay grounded in authoritative doctrine as we understand it.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 20, 2019 Author Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Nofear said: As appropriate. Personal revelation about doctrine beyond that which is revealed by the Revelators of the Church is inappropriate. However, that which has been revealed by them goes well beyond the Gospel Topic Essays. I think we need to distinguish between incidental and isolated comments made here and there and precepts that are consistently and widely taught. Edited November 20, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
Nofear Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think we need to distinguish between incidental and isolated comments made here and there and precepts that are consistently widely taught. The fact that you say these words tell me you did not read the article. Fingers in the ears...
Scott Lloyd Posted November 20, 2019 Author Posted November 20, 2019 9 minutes ago, Nofear said: See linked article above. There are several on the tubes of the interwebs too. Your linked article cherry picks occasional commentary and extrapolation. I think what ksfisher is asking for (and he can clarify if necessary) is scriptural citations and modern revelation that teach about a Mother in Heaven.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 20, 2019 Author Posted November 20, 2019 1 minute ago, Nofear said: The fact that you say these words tell me you did not read the article. Fingers in the ears... I did read it. I’m giving my honest impression.
Nofear Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 Well, we'll have to disagree then. My opinions on the matter formed before the article linked and didn't really change from it either. It simply validated what I had learned in years earlier. While the doctrines of Heavenly Mother typically is only taught here a little and there a little, the information is out there. If I seem harsh, it's probably because I am being harsh. A failing on my part, getting riled up. I have seen and I have difficulty understanding the scales on the eyes of so many because they don't have to be there. They should not be there. But it is not my place to steady the ark and when the Lord is ready for his people (and the earth) to wake up more fully, that'll come from the Presiding High Priest and not the likes of me or anyone like me. Right now, we are just getting little nudges on the shoulder, "wake up, wake up". Some of us have and my prediction is that within my life time the little nudge on the shoulder will change to a loud cry of "wake up" in the sleeping ear. Know that I nonetheless read and respect your commentary on the discussion boards. I have yet much to learn from your understandings of things.
Recommended Posts