Relationship with Heavenly Parents

[The Nehor]

On 12/19/2021 at 9:02 AM, The Nehor said:

Fun Pop Quiz: How many women are mentioned by name in the Book of Mormon?

It is six. Eve, Sarah, Mary, Sariah, Abish, Isabel.

Half are biblical. Abish is mentioned pretty incidentally. Very few women are directly quoted. I am guessing the woman who gets the most words being directly quoted was Lamoni’s wife in her conversation with Ammon. Sariah and Abish get paraphrased mostly. I think Abish and Sariah get one direct quote each. Sariah after she repents of her anger against Lehi and Abish calling for the queen to arise. Isabel may or may not be “real” depending on if you believe Nibley about Isabel being a symbolic name for some kind of fertility rite. Sarah is only mentioned once as part of an Isaiah quote. Eve getting mentioned is always just mentioned as part of a discussion of the Fall.

There are a few other women who are characters in the narrative. Some are flattering such as Lamoni’s wife and Nephi’s wife and Nephi’s sisters. Others are not so much such as Lamoni’s father’s wife and the daughter of Jared. The latter was probably the most ‘powerful’ in the worldly sense as she seems to have manipulated everyone around her to get power for her and her husband.

There are around 400 female characters in the Bible we have a name for (some names given in the Bible and some given elsewhere). Women make up between 5 and 15 percent of the characters in the Bible depending on how you figure who qualifies. The number is skewed a little by the genealogy chapters and “honorable mention” section in both the Old and New Testaments and elsewhere where men get the lion’s share of the mentions but no one is really part of a story. Sarah (Abraham’s wife) gets the most mentions and the most quotes. 86 women are quoted, about half of them named. The Bible does have two books where a woman is the main character (Ruth and Esther).

[MacGyver]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I take issue with the word tried.  We succeeded.  

Using false and misleading statistics isn't succeeding.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

The point was not to argue that the bible is sexist and can't be trust as God's word. 

That was Tacenda's point, and both you and Calm used those faulty stats to try and rebuff my counter claim that the prophets in the Bible cared about women and included many of their stories in the Bible. 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

The point was to argue against the idea that the bible is exactly how God would have done it if He had done it himself.  To argue against the idea that someone can say "if it's not in the bible then obviously God didn't want it in there".

So is your point that God did want the prophets to write all about Heavenly Mother and how to build a relationship with her, but the prophets simply chose not to?

Edited December 20, 2021 by MacGyver

[Kenngo1969]

On 12/18/2021 at 2:12 PM, MacGyver said:

I'm not "allowing" her awareness.

The reality is that we know precious little about our Heavenly Mother. We don't even know if she is aware of what is going on in our lives in the same way our Heavenly Father is. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.] But I think it's safe to assume that she is aware of us and that it brings her joy when we keep the commandments of God and love and serve our fellow man.

If the Father and She are One, then, yes, we most certainly do "know [that] she is aware of what is going on in our lives in the same way our Heavenly Father is."

[Kenngo1969]

19 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

For their time period they were perhaps represented adequately. Not according to their needs but according to the Lord's needs. I haven't a clue what has been recorded and left out. That is the realm of scholars not Carpenters.

... Not Carpenters ... ?

Sorry!  Couldn't resist!  

[MacGyver]

12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If the Father and She are One, then, yes, we most certainly do "know [that] she is aware of what is going on in our lives in the same way our Heavenly Father is."

I don't think we do.

For all we know she is busy taking care of other matters or having a vacation, while the Father deals with us. Could be like when a father takes the kids camping and teaches them some life lessons while the mother stays home. The mother knows where they all are and has some idea about what is going on, but doesn't know all the details in the same way the father does. But she cares and will be very interested to know how things went when they return home. 

Not saying this is how it is. What I'm saying is, we simply don't know.

[rodheadlee]

31 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

... Not Carpenters ... ?

Sorry!  Couldn't resist!  

Yeah but He is THE CARPENTER. 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Yeah but He is THE CARPENTER. 

Fair enough.  No question, we ALL could do better in seeking to emulate Him, but, also, I think He is more tolerant of when we fall short, and more cognizant of our efforts, than we realize.  In that connection, I really like this, from Teddy Roosevelt (while some may fail to see the connection, I would argue that to seek to emulate Him is to "dare greatly" ... and could there be any more worthwhile effort in which one, in which we, in which you and I, could do that?)

 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, MacGyver said:

I don't think we do.

For all we know she is busy taking care of other matters or having a vacation, while the Father deals with us. Could be like when a father takes the kids camping and teaches them some life lessons while the mother stays home. The mother knows where they all are and has some idea about what is going on, but doesn't know all the details in the same way the father does. But she cares and will be very interested to know how things went when they return home. 

Not saying this is how it is. What I'm saying is, we simply don't know.

You may not know, but orthodox, informed members do know. President Harold B. Lee stated, “We forget that we have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother who are even more concerned, probably, than our earthly father and mother, and that influences from beyond are constantly working to try to help us when we do all we can.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng)

[MacGyver]

4 minutes ago, Nofear said:

You may not know, but orthodox, informed members do know. 

Why do you accuse me of being an unorthodox and uninformed member?

Is that false accusation really necessary?

7 minutes ago, Nofear said:

President Harold B. Lee stated, “We forget that we have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother who are even more concerned, probably, than our earthly father and mother, and that influences from beyond are constantly working to try to help us when we do all we can.”

Notice how President Lee says probably. Apparently he doesn't know, either. 

Earlier I said that I believe it's safe to assume that our Heavenly Mother is aware of us and that it pleases her when we keep the commandments and love and serve God and our fellow man, but I don't know this for certain, because it hasn't been revealed. 

 

[Nofear]

19 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Why do you accuse me of being an unorthodox and uninformed member?

Is that false accusation really necessary?

Notice how President Lee says probably. Apparently he doesn't know, either. 

Earlier I said that I believe it's safe to assume that our Heavenly Mother is aware of us and that it pleases her when we keep the commandments and love and serve God and our fellow man, but I don't know this for certain, because it hasn't been revealed.

I am certain you understand our theology on many, many fronts. But, on the topic of Heavenly Mother you appear (from what I can gather from your comments) to be neither informed nor orthodox and I find your assertions of ignorance about Her both ignorant and offensive. It is because of your orthodoxy I am being unusually harsh in tone. Something along the lines of "with friends like these, who needs enemies".

Edited December 20, 2021 by Nofear

[Kenngo1969]

On 12/18/2021 at 1:58 PM, Calm said:

Very generous of you to allow her awareness. 

 

On 12/18/2021 at 2:12 PM, MacGyver said:

I'm not "allowing" her awareness.

The reality is that we know precious little about our Heavenly Mother. We don't even know if she is aware of what is going on in our lives in the same way our Heavenly Father is. [Emphasis added by Kenngo 1969.] But I think it's safe to assume that she is aware of us and that it brings her joy when we keep the commandments of God and love and serve our fellow man.

 

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If the Father and She are One, then, yes, we most certainly do "know [that] she is aware of what is going on in our lives in the same way our Heavenly Father is."

 

2 hours ago, MacGyver said:

I don't think we do.

For all we know she is busy taking care of other matters or having a vacation, while the Father deals with us. Could be like when a father takes the kids camping and teaches them some life lessons while the mother stays home. The mother knows where they all are and has some idea about what is going on, but doesn't know all the details in the same way the father does. But she cares and will be very interested to know how things went when they return home. 

Not saying this is how it is. What I'm saying is, we simply don't know.

For someone who, putatively, takes great pains to not sound or to not seem sexist, you seem to have an odd talent for doing that anyway.  Ah, well.  I'm glad, at least, that you're "[n]ot saying this is how it is."  For all that, admittedly, we don't know about Heavenly Mother, I would argue that, actually, we know much that, for whatever reason, people tend to gloss over.  It seems to me, MacGyver, that you are "filling in the holes" (at least tentatively, since you're "[n]ot saying this is how it is") by attempting to extrapolate the Heavenly paradigm of parenting from what we know of the earthly paradigm of parenting, and I don't think that works.  I would rather extrapolate what we don't necessarily know for sure about the Heavenly paradigm of parenting from what we do know of the Heavenly paradigm of parenting.

For example, since we know, already, Heavenly Father is Omnipotent, Omniscient, All-Knowing, All-Loving, and so on, why assume anything less of Heavenly Mother?  The only caveat I would throw in there is that we know from Temple ordinances that the fullness of God's power can be exercised only jointly: That is to say that neither one of the is Omnipotent, et cetera, without the other.  If that's the case, and I think it is, I don't see any reason why Heavenly Mother would know any less (or would be any less aware about) what's going on in the lives of Her children than Heavenly Father does, and than He is.

Another thing I think we know is that Heavenly Father is who Heavenly Father is because of Heavenly Mother (and vice-versa).  That is so, not simply in some abstract "wind-beneath-His-wings" sense, but in a very real, literal, tangible, men-and-women-are-exalted-as-couples-who-have-Become-One sense.  I think that is taught very clearly, unmistakably, in fact, in the Temple.  In fact, it's taught even in "non-Restoration" scripture: "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."  1 Corinthians 11:11. 

What does "in the Lord" mean, in that verse?  I think it means the same thing as it meant when Christ prayed that His disciples would be One with Him in His Intercessory Prayer: That both individual persons want the same things, for the same reasons, with the same intensity, want to go about getting those things in exactly the same way, that, eventually, they will become Joint Heirs, will have the same things that Christ and God have, and so on. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[MacGyver]

8 minutes ago, Nofear said:

22 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Expand  

I am certain you understand our theology on many, many fronts. But, on the topic of Heavenly Mother you appear (from what I can gather from your comments) to be neither informed nor orthodox and I find your assertions of ignorance about Her both ignorant and offensive.

I'm saying the same thing President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

Logic and reason would certainly suggest that if we have a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in Heaven. That doctrine rests well with me. . . . The fact that we do not pray to our Mother in Heaven in no way belittles or denigrates her. . . . None of us can add to or diminish the glory of her of whom we have no revealed knowledge.

Gordon B. Hinckley, “Daughters of God,” Ensign 31 (November 1991): 100.

Do you consider what he said about Heavenly Mother to be ignorant and offensive?

What about Harold B. Lee's "probably?" Is what he said ignorant and offensive, too?

[MacGyver]

33 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

 

 

For someone who, putatively, takes great pains to not sound or to not seem sexist, you seem to have an odd talent for doing that anyway.  Ah, well.  I'm glad, at least, that you're "[n]ot saying this is how it is."  For all that, admittedly, we don't know about Heavenly Mother, I would argue that, actually, we know much that, for whatever reason, people tend to gloss over.  It seems to me, MacGyver, that you are "filling in the holes" (at least tentatively, since you're "[n]ot saying this is how it is") by attempting to extrapolate the Heavenly paradigm of parenting from what we know of the earthly paradigm of parenting, and I don't think that works.  I would rather extrapolate what we don't necessarily know for sure about the Heavenly paradigm of parenting from what we do know of the Heavenly paradigm of parenting.

For example, since we know, already, Heavenly Father is Omnipotent, Omniscient, All-Knowing, All-Loving, and so on, why assume anything less of Heavenly Mother?  The only caveat I would throw in there is that we know from Temple ordinances that the fullness of God's power can be exercised only jointly: That is to say that neither one of the is Omnipotent, et cetera, without the other.  If that's the case, and I think it is, I don't see any reason why Heavenly Mother would know any less (or would be any less aware about) what's going on in the lives of Her children than Heavenly Father does, and than He is.

Another thing I think we know is that Heavenly Father is who Heavenly Father is because of Heavenly Mother (and vice-versa).  That is so, not simply in some abstract "wind-beneath-His-wings" sense, but in a very real, literal, tangible, men-and-women-are-exalted-as-couples-who-have-Become-One sense.  I think that is taught very clearly, unmistakably, in fact, in the Temple.  In fact, it's taught even in "non-Restoration" scripture: "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."  1 Corinthians 11:11. 

What does "in the Lord" mean, in that verse?  I think it means the same thing as it meant when Christ prayed that His disciples would be One with Him in His Intercessory Prayer: That both individual persons want the same things, for the same reasons, with the same intensity, want to go about getting those things in exactly the same way, that, eventually, they will become Joint Heirs, will have the same things that Christ and God have, and so on. 

President Gordan B. Hinckley stated that we have no revealed knowledge of our Heavenly Mother, but that logic shows she exists. I agree with what he said.

If you believe you've found something in the scriptures that reveals something about her, that's fine. What you say could very well be true, it's logical enough. But we don't know for certain one way or the other.

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, MacGyver said:

President Gordan B. Hinckley stated that we have no revealed knowledge of our Heavenly Mother, but that logic shows she exists. I agree with what he said.

If you believe you've found something in the scriptures that reveals something about her, that's fine. What you say could very well be true, it's logical enough. But we don't know for certain one way or the other.

We don't have any canonized revelation on the matter (well, that's debatable, as mentioned in one of the articles) but there is much more revealed truth that is available to us than canon. You have the links, quotes from the Revelators of the Church, reason, logic, and most importantly inspiration (albeit, personal inspiration is only good for one's own stewardship). The doctrine of divine parentage has been taught openly by the prophets since Joseph Smith. While they haven't said "thus saith the Lord" or otherwise sometimes phrased it to allow wiggle room for those that would doubt, I personally see no reason to doubt and every reason to be bold to the contrary of those who would be wishy-washy and spit out the lukewarm.

[MacGyver]

54 minutes ago, Nofear said:

The doctrine of divine parentage has been taught openly by the prophets since Joseph Smith. While they haven't said "thus saith the Lord" or otherwise sometimes phrased it to allow wiggle room for those that would doubt, I personally see no reason to doubt and every reason to be bold to the contrary of those who would be wishy-washy and spit out the lukewarm.

Where did I say that I doubt the doctrine of divine parentage? Where was I wishy-washy? I said we have a Heavenly Mother, but that we know almost nothing about her  

Which is exactly what Hinckley and other general authorities have said. Now if you believe what Hinckley said is unorthodox, ignorant, and offensive, there's not much anyone can do about that. 

[Freedom]

I see that the scriptures are clearly men centric because that is the culture in which it was produced. God allows us to get our way. He allowed early church leaders to prevent blacks from receiving the priesthood, he allowed slaves in the days of Moses, and he allowed men who had no concept of women as anything more than property to write scriptures within the limited knowledge an understanding today. Our modern scriptures, being general conference talks, has a much better balance but we still have a long ways to go. I get MacGyvers point, the scriptures are silent and even our modern proclamations continue this silence. 

Hate to bring in the phrase 'social construct' again, but we have historically required God to be a man because...men historically did not think much of women and still today women are not held in high esteem. We talk of heavenly Father, but perhaps this husband and wife team have 'become one flesh' and they work in unison. Can god be a women? I do not believe our doctrine allows for this, but can God be both? We have such a limited understanding of what an eternal being is so it is dumbed down for us. Simplified to meet the level of our ability or willingness to understand. 

[Nofear]

12 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Where did I say that I doubt the doctrine of divine parentage? Where was I wishy-washy? I said we have a Heavenly Mother, but that we know almost nothing about her

Sometimes members will express exasperation that we don't know anything Heavenly Mother and they desire to know her more. To be fair I find such frustrations to be as misplaced as your claims of ignorance about her. Tell me what you know about Heavenly Father and I'll tell you what we know about Heavenly Mother.

Here, I'll get you started:

• Has a body of flesh and bone
• Father of our spirit bodies
• Has a perfection of character and attributes
• Loves us immensely and absolutely desires our well being
• As an exalted being, knows the fullness of truth and a has a fullness of power
• coming to know our Savior helps us understand our Father
• creator of the Universe

Some examples of things we don't know:

• Does his body have a coccyx, is he left or right handed or perfectly ambidextrous, innie or outtie, shape of his foot (https://www.sportspodiatry.com.au/2020/07/30/do-you-have-greek-feet/)
• What is his aesthetic preference in music, favorite color, style of humor, favorite style of dance (see Men Without Hats - Safety Dance on youtube)

So, where are you being wishy-washy? With the statement "we know almost nothing about her". It's an absolutely absurd statement and a fabrication of willful ignorance*. I suspect you have influence in your congregation and those around you. Use that influence. Obtain a personal witness of the truths that have been revealed and boldly stand. Zion cannot be built by a membership that will not see, hear, or believe that which heaven has gifted us.



* Though, to be fair, some general authorities have used that kind of language before (a fabrication of societal ignorance, in my opinion). Thankfully the Church has matured some.

[MacGyver]

9 hours ago, Freedom said:

...[God] allowed men who had no concept of women as anything more than property to write scriptures...

...men historically did not think much of women and still today women are not held in high esteem. 

I believe this is totally false, but I'm curious what you base this claim on.

Edited December 21, 2021 by MacGyver

[Freedom]

1 hour ago, MacGyver said:

I believe this is totally false, but I'm curious what you base this claim on.

Are you suggesting that women have always been on equal.footing and that they are so today?

[bluebell]

22 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Using false and misleading statistics isn't succeeding.

That was Tacenda's point, and both you and Calm used those faulty stats to try and rebuff my counter claim that the prophets in the Bible cared about women and included many of their stories in the Bible. 

So is your point that God did want the prophets to write all about Heavenly Mother and how to build a relationship with her, but the prophets simply chose not to?

There is a difference between faulty stats and stats that are measuring something a specific way.

Your counter claim cannot be supported.  You cannot use the bible to show that prophets cared about women and included many of their stories in the bible.  

Prophets were men of their time.  They were sexist because their cultures were sexist, and the way that they interacted with God was impacted by their biases. God worked with their biases just as He works with ours.

As Elder Holland reminded us, all God has ever had to work with are imperfect people, but He deals with it.

[teddyaware]

4 minutes ago, Freedom said:

Are you suggesting that women have always been on equal.footing and that they are so today?

Does the following sound like the New Testament period men of the Church looked upon women as slaves?

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5)

[MacGyver]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

There is a difference between faulty stats and stats that are measuring something a specific way.

The 93 women mentioned in the scriptures stat was completely false and the stat about quoted words by women was very misleading. You tried to use false and misleading stats to show that the prophets in the scriptures were sexist. 

Which you now admit was your intent all along:

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Prophets were men of their time.  They were sexist because their cultures were sexist, and the way that they interacted with God was impacted by their biases.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Your counter claim cannot be supported.  You cannot use the bible to show that prophets cared about women and included many of their stories in the bible.  

Sure it can be supported, because that's exactly what they did. Many (as in a lot) of women are mentioned in the stories in the Bible. Women in the Bible are praised for their contributions to God's purposes. Two books in the Bible are even named after women, because they are the main characters in the story. 

[MacGyver]

1 hour ago, Freedom said:

Are you suggesting that women have always been on equal.footing and that they are so today?

I'm suggesting that this claim of yours is completely false:

"...[God] allowed men who had no concept of women as anything more than property to write scriptures...

...men historically did not think much of women and still today women are not held in high esteem."

You made this claim. It's up to you to back it up now. 

[MacGyver]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

Sometimes members will express exasperation that we don't know anything Heavenly Mother and they desire to know her more. To be fair I find such frustrations to be as misplaced as your claims of ignorance about her. Tell me what you know about Heavenly Father and I'll tell you what we know about Heavenly Mother.

Here, I'll get you started:

• Has a body of flesh and bone
• Father of our spirit bodies
• Has a perfection of character and attributes
• Loves us immensely and absolutely desires our well being
• As an exalted being, knows the fullness of truth and a has a fullness of power
• coming to know our Savior helps us understand our Father
• creator of the Universe

Some examples of things we don't know:

• Does his body have a coccyx, is he left or right handed or perfectly ambidextrous, innie or outtie, shape of his foot (https://www.sportspodiatry.com.au/2020/07/30/do-you-have-greek-feet/)
• What is his aesthetic preference in music, favorite color, style of humor, favorite style of dance (see Men Without Hats - Safety Dance on youtube)

So, where are you being wishy-washy? With the statement "we know almost nothing about her". It's an absolutely absurd statement and a fabrication of willful ignorance*. I suspect you have influence in your congregation and those around you. Use that influence. Obtain a personal witness of the truths that have been revealed and boldly stand. Zion cannot be built by a membership that will not see, hear, or believe that which heaven has gifted us.



* Though, to be fair, some general authorities have used that kind of language before (a fabrication of societal ignorance, in my opinion). Thankfully the Church has matured some.

Nowhere in this post did you provide any revealed information about Heavenly Mother. You only provided revealed information about Heavenly Father and then used logic to assume that this information very likely also applies to Heavenly Mother. 

And yet you claim that what Hinckley and I said about having almost no revealed knowledge of Heavenly Mother is absurd, unorthodox, willfully ignorant, and offensive. 

Your accustion against me is absurd and offensive. 

 

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

The 93 women mentioned in the scriptures stat was completely false and the stat about quoted words by women was very misleading. You tried to use false and misleading stats to show that the prophets in the scriptures were sexist. 

Which you now admit was your intent all along:

It's not misleading.  It's measuring a specific thing.  It measures the number of women mentioned in the bible.  The answer the study came up with is 93. How is that false and misleading?  And I'm sorry if I have some how confused you in regards to my intent, which is and has been during our whole discussion to acknowledge the fact that men in the bible were by and large sexist and that that bias shows up in scriptures and that it is dangerous not to take that bias into consideration when trying to understand God's relationship with His daughters.

I do not believe that it was God who said that if a woman is raped in town then she should be stoned, because no woman can possibly be raped in town without someone coming to her defense therefore it had to have been consensual, for example.  The bible says that it was God who said it because it's part of the Law of Moses, but I don't believe that God agrees with killing women who have been raped; I believe that is the product of sexist men who are claiming to speak for God but who are fallible and flawed.

It's harmful to women and their relationship with God, and to men trying to understand their own relationship to God, to teach that God agrees with killing women who have been raped.

Quote

Sure it can be supported, because that's exactly what they did. Many (as in a lot) of women are mentioned in the stories in the Bible. Women in the Bible are praised for their contributions to God's purposes. Two books in the Bible are even named after women, because they are the main characters in the story. 

93 women are mentioned in the bible, which is not a lot when you are talking about a book that spans a few thousand years.  A handful could probably be said to be praised for their contributions to God's purposes but the might be pushing it and largely depends on how a person interprets "praised for their contributions".

I love the books of Esther and Ruth, but they also are products of their time.  Esther is basically forced into a marriage to an unrighteous king because it is her uncle's wish.  Ruth likewise must proposition a man she barely knows for marriage to survive because her mother-in-law's culture does not value widows with no sons enough to make sure they don't starve.  

Both of these women took the limitations of their sexist cultures and used them to their advantage and to the best of their abilities.  But those books are not great examples of women's equal standing with men before God.