Trib Article re: Heavenly Mother

[smac97]

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/03/26/i-wish-we-knew-more-lds/

(Apparently posted in its entirety here, though without attribution: https://webringnet.com/while-lds-leaders-warn-against-praying-to-the-heavenly-mother-questions-remain/ )

Quote

‘I wish we knew more’ – As LDS leaders warn against praying to Heavenly Mother, questions persist
Asking for more information is “not a bad thing,” apostle Dale Renlund says, “...but reason cannot replace revelation.”

By Peggy Fletcher Stack | March 26, 2022, 7:00 a.m.

All that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints need to know about Mother in Heaven, leaders say, is spelled out in the faith’s own essay about her.

“I wish we knew more and you may wish you knew more as well, but reason cannot replace revelation,” apostle Dale G. Renlund said in a recent video that is floating around on social media. “Wanting to know more, asking questions, is not a bad thing. But speculation can sometimes … divert us from what has been revealed.”

This is a really good point.  Revelation is not interchangeable with speculation and conjecture.

Quote

One thing is clear, the apostle said, Jesus instructed his disciples to pray to Heavenly Father alone so that is the pattern for all Christians, including Latter-day Saints.

In other words, no prayers should be addressed to Heavenly Mother.

Or to anyone else, including even to Jesus Christ.

Quote

It could be “wonderful to sit back and make up all kinds of comforting doctrines,” he said, “but latter-day prophets are constrained not to do that.”

Yep.

The same could be said about other topics about which some people have very strong opinions and emotions.  Revelation is generally not about satiating strong feelings.

Quote

Renlund’s words — and similar sentiments reportedly from several other apostles — have ricocheted around Mormonism’s social media universe, causing confusion and, in some cases, alarm.

The rumors included an edict to stop capitalizing “Heavenly Mother,” which seemed like, well, a demotion in her status (the term remains uppercase in the essay).

This seems a bit odd for a news item.  It's worded like a message board post.

Also, a news item in the Tribune about online rumors seems not particularly newsworthy.

Quote

As members prepare for the general conference next weekend, many are concerned that the message the apostles were giving was to stop talking about the female divine, stop imagining her and stop looking for women and men.

"Many are concerned that the message..."

Quote

Talk of a Mother God emerged in Mormonism’s 19th-century beginnings, when church founder Joseph Smith declared that God is a literal father of Jesus and all human spirits. It made sense to Smith and subsequent church leaders that Heavenly Father must have a wife.

“In the heavens are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason, truth eternal, tells me I’ve a mother there,” early Mormon women’s leader Eliza Snow penned in the poem “Invocation, or the Eternal Father and Mother,” which became the hymn “O My Father.”

Note the poem’s title, “Invocation,” which is another word for prayer.

And yet I don't think we have any record of Eliza R. Snow advocating prayer to Heavenly Mother.

Quote

In 2015, the Church quoted Snow’s verse when it published a 623-word article on Bible topics, affirming the existence of the Heavenly Mother as a “belief cherished and distinguished among Latter-day Saints.”

It is “rooted in biblical and prophetic teachings about the nature of God, our relationship to God, and the divine power of men and women.”

Latter-day holiness prophets taught that “Heavenly Fathers work together for the salvation of the human family,” the article says, while not much is known about the Mother God.

Four years later, the topic for young women was updated to say, “I am the beloved daughter of two heavenly parents, of divine nature and eternal destiny.”

Good stuff.  

Quote

Amid this enigma, there has been an explosion in the works of the Latter-day Saint on the divine feminine, celebrated in poetry, song, and art.

Some are not particularly bothered by a lawyer to be wary of speculation.

“Even if we focus only on what is taught in the Bible Topics article on Heavenly Mother, it would be revolutionary for girls and women,” says Bethany Brady Spalding, co-author of The Boy’s Guide to Heavenly Mother. “

Not so good.  Elder Renlund was speaking in his capacity as an apostle, not as "a lawyer."

Anyway, the article is a bit strangely worded and uneven, but still interesting to read.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

...............  Revelation is not interchangeable with speculation and conjecture............................

Revelation and reason are two very separate endeavors.  Dan Peterson's careful analysis of possible Book of Mormon references to actual worship of Ashera by ordinary Israelites was restrained and reasonable:  Daniel Peterson, “Nephi and His Asherah,” JBMS, 9/2 (2000):16-25, online at https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/ .

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Also, a news item in the Tribune about online rumors seems not particularly newsworthy.

"Many are concerned that the message..."

The Trib was serving the Mormon Corridor interest in the subject, which makes it newsworthy.

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Anyway, the article is a bit strangely worded and uneven, but still interesting to read.................

Yup.

[SwedishLDS]

I dislike the speculation always ends up in these conversations. we know so little that any conversation beyond her existence kinda falls apart. Some people treat her like Catholics treat Mary

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

I dislike the speculation always ends up in these conversations. we know so little that any conversation beyond her existence kinda falls apart. Some people treat her like Catholics treat Mary

I dislike speculation on these topics because I would rather stand in an 'I don't know" scenario than make up something in my head because it sounds good (or believe something that someone else has come up with that's not based on anything) and have it be wrong.

A comforting doctrine, that is ultimately a completely wrong doctrine, isn't worth anything to me.  I'd rather not have to wade through speculation if I don't have to.  I realize that other people see things differently though.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/03/26/i-wish-we-knew-more-lds/

(Apparently posted in its entirety here, though without attribution: https://webringnet.com/while-lds-leaders-warn-against-praying-to-the-heavenly-mother-questions-remain/ )

This is a really good point.  Revelation is not interchangeable with speculation and conjecture.

Or to anyone else, including even to Jesus Christ.

Yep.

The same could be said about other topics about which some people have very strong opinions and emotions.  Revelation is generally not about satiating strong feelings.

This seems a bit odd for a news item.  It's worded like a message board post.

Also, a news item in the Tribune about online rumors seems not particularly newsworthy.

"Many are concerned that the message..."

And yet I don't think we have any record of Eliza R. Snow advocating prayer to Heavenly Mother.

Good stuff.  

Not so good.  Elder Renlund was speaking in his capacity as an apostle, not as "a lawyer."

Anyway, the article is a bit strangely worded and uneven, but still interesting to read.

Thanks,

-Smac

A problem for many is that their speculations are confirmed by the Holy Ghost, which makes them unhappy and in conflict and contentious with the Church they love (makes you wonder…). The last time I experienced it, I would not characterize charity and oneness as a very strong opinion or feeling requiring satiation, no matter to whom or what I direct it.

Similarly (concerning the panicky extrapolations from Elder Renlund’s remarks), I’ve been told that saying you are grateful for your fiancée or wife is a declaration of your sexuality, which Elder Holland called out as inappropriate (with regards to the 2019 BYU valedictorian’s statements), and an example of another double-standard.

So is it OK to have a gospel hobby if you want to run with it and change the world?

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I dislike speculation on these topics because I would rather stand in an 'I don't know" scenario than make up something in my head because it sounds good (or believe something that someone else has come up with that's not based on anything) and have it be wrong.

A comforting doctrine, that is ultimately a completely wrong doctrine, isn't worth anything to me.  I'd rather not have to wade through speculation if I don't have to.  I realize that other people see things differently though.

I believe doctrine can be comforting, but the companionship of the Holy Ghost so much more so... the latter is what makes the former comforting! I also think people confuse "comforting" with "comfortable."

[Nofear]

I am quite fond of the doctrine of Heavenly Mother. I very much support Elder Renlund's comments "speculation can sometimes … divert us from what has been revealed". As members we are not constrained from receiving personal revelation concerning Her. I make no claims to such personal revelation, but if there was such, it is to be limited to the benefit of oneself and/or one's stewardship.

But, I can speculate why we don't have more revelation concerning our Heavenly Mother. I think far too many members would put distinction and differences between them where there is none. They are perfectly unified, even as Christ and the Father are unified. How horrible it would be to hear a member say, "I prayed to Heavenly Father but got no response, so I prayed to Heavenly Mother and the heaven's opened to me". Yet, I see that as an inevitability given the current status. I believe God will have none of that nonsense and so we are instructed to look to one. I'm ok with that. I have no doubt but that the omniscient and eternal companion of Heavenly Father is just as aware of my prayers as he is. If there is an answer from one or the other, to me, it is as if there is an answer from both. To put it more straight forwardly, in my prayers when I say "Dear Heavenly Father", to me it is no different than saying "Dear Heavenly Mother" or "Dear Heavenly Parents". They are perfect. They are one.

 

Edited March 27, 2022 by Nofear

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I believe doctrine can be comforting, but the companionship of the Holy Ghost so much more so... the latter is what makes the former comforting! I also think people confuse "comforting" with "comfortable."

I think that sometimes, the Holy Ghost provides comfort without necessarily teaching truth, but we don't always recognize it.  Sometimes I think the Holy Ghost gives us a "it's fine/beneficial for you to believe this" revelation and we take it and turn it into a "this is an eternal truth" revelation. 

In my opinion, this is why we are told that revelations to us do not necessarily translate to others and that we should not teach or share our personal revelations as if they are applicable to everyone.

 

[JLHPROF]

I love the doctrine of Heavenly Mother(s).  I love the restored reputation of Mother Eve in our religion.  I think more should be taught on women's roles, queenhood, priestesses, exaltation, and I've felt Mother's blessings need to be brought back.

But as far as praying to Heavenly Mother - Christ specifically directed us to pray to the Father in his name.  I understand the sentiment but I think it contradicts Christ to do differently.  I don't consider it appropriate because it contradicts his teaching on prayer.

[carbon dioxide]

It would be reasonable to assume that the oneness of the Father with the Mother is the same as the with the Son.  Which means if the Father and Son have not revealed anything regarding our Heavenly Mother and no instruction that to pray to our Mother, we can conclude our Heavenly Mother is 100% on board with these decisions.   There is no reason to believe the Father has banished our Heavenly  Mother in some corner of the Celestial Kingdom and she as wanting us to pray to her but the Father will not allow it.  So any attempt to pray to our Heavenly Mother would not be honoring her.  It would be going against Her will and desires.  If we follow the will of the Father and the Son, we will be following the will of our Heavenly Mother.

Edited March 27, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[kimpearson]

I think the real issue driving all speculations and questions about Mother in Heaven, is the fact half of God's children are women and yet there are no divine feminine examples.   The role of women in the Church is always under the priesthood authority who is male.  This leads many sisters to wonder if this was intended by God or just the results of thousands of years of male domination.   Its easy to say God hasn't revealed much about Mother in Heaven but is that because God truly hasn't or have men always been the source of revelation that is accepted as from God with an inherent bias of never even considering women as having a divine role other than wives or mothers?  This is what troubles me.  It just doesn't feel right that we know so little of Mother in Heaven.  All the reasons I have heard for so little mention just don't align with reason or the value I see in women and their capabilities.  Something is going on that limits our spiritual knowledge of Mother in Heaven and the full role of women.  I can't help but wonder if the problem is the biased world view of male exclusivity to prophetic revelation from God.

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I think the real issue driving all speculations and questions about Mother in Heaven, is the fact half of God's children are women and yet there are no divine feminine examples.   The role of women in the Church is always under the priesthood authority who is male.  This leads many sisters to wonder if this was intended by God or just the results of thousands of years of male domination.   Its easy to say God hasn't revealed much about Mother in Heaven but is that because God truly hasn't or have men always been the source of revelation that is accepted as from God with an inherent bias of never even considering women as having a divine role other than wives or mothers?  This is what troubles me.  It just doesn't feel right that we know so little of Mother in Heaven.  All the reasons I have heard for so little mention just don't align with reason or the value I see in women and their capabilities.  Something is going on that limits our spiritual knowledge of Mother in Heaven and the full role of women.  I can't help but wonder if the problem is the biased world view of male exclusivity to prophetic revelation from God.

Creating spiritual and mortal bodies for intelligences and spirits is the divine role. “This is my work and my glory…..”

Edited March 27, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Nofear]

9 hours ago, kimpearson said:

... It just doesn't feel right that we know so little of Mother in Heaven. ...

Tell me what you know (attributes, characteristics, activities, etc.) of our Father in Heaven, and by and large, I'll tell you what we know about our Mother in Heaven.

[Fether]

8 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Tell me what you know (attributes, characteristics, activities, etc.) of our Father in Heaven, and by and large, I'll tell you what we know about our Mother in Heaven.

The issue is not so much about her character, but where is she and what is her role in the whole narrative? Where was she in the counsels of heaven? Does she have any sort of role in the judgement or in Welcoming us back home? What is her relation with our prayers?

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Creating spiritual and mortal bodies for intelligences and spirits is the divine role. “This is my work and my glory…..”

I know it's a bit of a caricature, but are you saying that the "eternally pregnant" idea for an exalted woman's destiny is not as wrong as it seems?

I realize it's a harder issue than the caricature suggests, but, as I drop complementarianism from my belief system, I find myself less convinced that Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother by some eternally existing law have separate roles (unless they themselves have somehow chosen them). I am not convinced that Mother is eternally decreed to be in the "create spirit" role while Father is in the "guide said spirits through the plan of salvation" role.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

The issue is not so much about her character, but where is she and what is her role in the whole narrative? Where was she in the counsels of heaven? Does she have any sort of role in the judgement or in Welcoming us back home? What is her relation with our prayers?

I think there are things that only Heavenly Mother can truly understand.  And I suspect she has authority over those things.  I suspect a judgement role too.  However perfect Heavenly Father and Christ are they are still male.  Some experiences don't transcend the male/female division.

Edited March 27, 2022 by JLHPROF

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/03/26/i-wish-we-knew-more-lds/

(Apparently posted in its entirety here, though without attribution: https://webringnet.com/while-lds-leaders-warn-against-praying-to-the-heavenly-mother-questions-remain/ )

This is a really good point.  Revelation is not interchangeable with speculation and conjecture.

Or to anyone else, including even to Jesus Christ.

Yep.

The same could be said about other topics about which some people have very strong opinions and emotions.  Revelation is generally not about satiating strong feelings.

This seems a bit odd for a news item.  It's worded like a message board post.

Also, a news item in the Tribune about online rumors seems not particularly newsworthy.

"Many are concerned that the message..."

And yet I don't think we have any record of Eliza R. Snow advocating prayer to Heavenly Mother.

Good stuff.  

Not so good.  Elder Renlund was speaking in his capacity as an apostle, not as "a lawyer."

Anyway, the article is a bit strangely worded and uneven, but still interesting to read.

Thanks,

-Smac

It seems to me that the church wants to dip a toe in, then a foot, then up to the knew, then pull out to the toe again on this topic.  We see reference to Heavenly Parents in the Proclamation on the Family.  Then they add this to the YW theme and also write an essay.  And then when members seem to want to take it a bit further they back off.  Seems like an odd approach. Are they prophets?  Then seek a revelation.  Maybe they are or have but talk about that as well maybe?

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

I dislike speculation on these topics because I would rather stand in an 'I don't know" scenario than make up something in my head because it sounds good (or believe something that someone else has come up with that's not based on anything) and have it be wrong.

A comforting doctrine, that is ultimately a completely wrong doctrine, isn't worth anything to me.  I'd rather not have to wade through speculation if I don't have to.  I realize that other people see things differently though.

How do you distinguish between the two?

Edited March 27, 2022 by Teancum

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I love the doctrine of Heavenly Mother(s). 

And herein is the problem.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Creating spiritual and mortal bodies for intelligences and spirits is the divine role. “This is my work and my glory…..”

Eternal pregnancy.  How exciting... 🙄

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

How do you distinguish between the two?

There is no foolproof way to distinguish between the two, because the need for faith and the reality of fallibility are our constant companions here in mortality.  But, that wasn't really what I was talking about.  In order to understand the second sentence of my post, you have keep it in context with my first sentence.  Especially the parts that I've bolded below:

I dislike speculation on these topics because I would rather stand in an 'I don't know" scenario than make up something in my head because it sounds good (or believe something that someone else has come up with that's not based on anything) and have it be wrong.

In this post I'm specifically talking about speculation that comes from an absence of information.  Like, for example, the article that someone wrote for Exponent about Lot's wife, on how she must have felt "this" or done "that' and "this" is why, etc.  It all sounded very nice and some of it could have been correct, maybe, but in the end it was completely made up because we just don't have the information necessary in the record to say such things about her.  It would be nice if we did, but wanting to fill in the gaps in knowledge, and being able to fill them in, are two different things.

For me, I have little interest in making stuff up that may be right because it's what I want to be right.  That kind of stuff doesn't work with my personality; it's not useful to me.  But I know that it is useful to others and can be very helpful.  But for me, I really dislike it.

I prefer to lean more on the revelation of prophets and apostles and scripture on these kinds of topics.  I do think that personal revelation should also play a part, but that isn't the kind of stuff that should be taught to others as truth in my opinion.

 

[Boanerges]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I know it's a bit of a caricature, but are you saying that the "eternally pregnant" idea for an exalted woman's destiny is not as wrong as it seems?

I realize it's a harder issue than the caricature suggests, but, as I drop complementarianism from my belief system, I find myself less convinced that Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother by some eternally existing law have separate roles (unless they themselves have somehow chosen them). I am not convinced that Mother is eternally decreed to be in the "create spirit" role while Father is in the "guide said spirits through the plan of salvation" role.

We don't know how spirit children are created. It's very possible it has nothing to do with the way mortal children are created (pregnancy as we know it). 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

It seems to me that the church wants to dip a toe in, then a foot, then up to the knew, then pull out to the toe again on this topic. 

I assume you meant "up to the knee," yes?  If so, could you elaborate?  

Also, what are your thoughts about this?  To me, it does not seem a bad thing for the Church to be reticent to spend substantial time and attention on a topic about which we have so limited light and knowledge.  We just don't know that much about Her.  And we've already seen the risks inherent in the Brethren resorting to speculation and conjecture in lieu of substantive revelatory guidance (now disavowed explanations for the priesthood ban come to mind...).

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

We see reference to Heavenly Parents in the Proclamation on the Family.  Then they add this to the YW theme and also write an essay.  And then when members seem to want to take it a bit further they back off. 

There seem to be all sorts of potential problems in going "a bit further."  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Seems like an odd approach. Are they prophets?  Then seek a revelation.  Maybe they are or have but talk about that as well maybe?

And maybe the revelation has not been forthcoming.  Or maybe it will come in the Lord's due time.  Plenty of precedents for this sort of thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And herein is the problem.

I agree, it's a problem for some. 

[2BizE]

If we believe we were created in the image of the Father, then half of that image was provided by the mother.  What aspects of our image are from the father and what aspects are from our Morher?