Trib Article re: Heavenly Mother

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

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?

I wonder if it's the same for everyone.

With human genetics, it's never a 50-50 split between the mom and the dad, and siblings don't all get the same parts of the parents in the same way.  I wonder if it's the same for our spiritual genetics.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I wonder if it's the same for everyone.

With human genetics, it's never a 50-50 split between the mom and the dad, and siblings don't all get the same parts of the parents in the same way.  I wonder if it's the same for our spiritual genetics.  

Outside of children with chromosomal abnormalities, it’s exactly a 50 50 split between parents. Full Siblings share between 40-60 percent:
 

https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020041.g001

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

Eternal pregnancy.  How exciting... 🙄

Even if resurrected females become pregnant, there is no reason their condition would be remotely similar to mortal females who get pregnant.  9 month pregnancies with all the pains and sickness would not be a factor.

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Outside of children with chromosomal abnormalities, it’s exactly a 50 50 split between parents. Full Siblings share between 40-60 percent:
 

https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020041.g001

I said that poorly. What I mean is that you never know exactly how the genetics are going to be distributed.

A parent might be French and German, and another might be Native American and Swedish, but you can get one child that is 80% Swedish with almost no French, and another that is mostly French and Native American with very little German or Swedish.

Or, one parent could have A blood and another B, and they could have a child with blood type O and another with AB. 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Some experiences don't transcend the male/female division.

Then how could Christ be the one descended below all and therefore who understands all of us, etc.  (sorry for the poor way that is stated, hopefully close enough you get where I am going…brain fog at the moment, may rewrite it to be more precise when it clears)?

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours 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.

From my understanding, all of God’s efforts are focused on creation…and the purpose of creation is to give eternal life to his children. As the First Presidency stated in 1909,

Quote

The doctrine of the preexistence—revealed so plainly, particularly in latter days—pours a wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man’s origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality…

 Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

And in 1916, First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve declared,

Quote

So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation.

I’m assuming they mean man and woman. How this evolution comes about requires both a Father and a Mother. We know some of the details of one step here in mortality. Since such mysteries have not yet been made known to us, perhaps it would be prudent not to project our current situation on the eternities. .

Edited March 28, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

Eternal pregnancy.  How exciting... 🙄

That is your phrase, not mine.

We barely understand the process of creation here in this mortal world. We know nothing of the process in the pre-and post-mortal existence. One thing we can be sure of is that God will not force anyone to participate in something they don’t desire with all their soul. Whatever divine parentage might entail, I’m certain it will be glorious beyond anything we can imagine. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Then how could Christ be the one descended below all and therefore who understands all of us, etc.  (sorry for the poor way that is stated, hopefully close enough you get where I am going…brain fog at the moment, may rewrite it to be more precise when it clears)?

Perhaps that's why gnostic and other Christian thinkers created a sacred feminine counterpart, real or not.

But regardless of that the Father and the Son are men.  No matter how perfect they may be they've never carried a child, given birth, had a husband, filled the roles and complexities of a mother/wife/sister/daughter, or other uniquely female experiences.

If we truly believe the male and female experiences differ we have to acknowledge that.

I'm sure divine empathy exists but they have never experienced these things.  Heavenly Mother presumably has.

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

Eternal pregnancy.  How exciting... 🙄

My mum had been told that any more pregnancies would kill her. Then, in her mid-40s, she awoke one morning with a strong spiritual impression that she could safely have another child. After discussing this with her GP -- who agreed that, despite her age, she could probably survive the experience -- she and my dad conceived me. She had a history of miscarriages and very difficult pregnancies, as well as premature births, so my dad was still worried. His fears were completely erased one night when, as he lay in bed worrying and praying, an angel appeared and assured him that both Mum and I would be fine.

After exactly nine months, I was delivered following a short labour that Mum described as a 'tickle' instead of pain. She said it was the best nine months of her entire life, a period filled with boundless energy, extraordinary strength, and good health. She had been born with a serious heart defect, one that eventually took her life (and should have done so before she was old enough to marry), so feeling well was not a normal experience for her, but she said that whenever she thought of being resurrected in a perfected body, she would remember how she felt whilst carrying me.

Eleven years ago, as I was working on my PhD thesis, I heard a voice: 'Hamba, if you wish to spend time with your mother, you need to go now'. I was on an aeroplane the next day and got to spend four glorious weeks with (and caring for) her right before she passed. One very difficult night, the two of us spent a number of hours together in the bathroom. To pass the time, I started asking questions about these experiences. I still remember three things she said to me that night:

'I wanted you so badly, and then I had you in my arms. It felt like such a miracle.'

'Being your mother has been the happiest thing I have ever done'.

'I never got my fill of children'.

So yeah. I know you're trying to lob a supposedly clever (if entirely unoriginal) criticism, but if my mum were still with us, she'd have a serious  in return ... and probably a  too!

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[let’s roll]

11 hours 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.  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?

Or we could ask Deity.  Hasn’t what we need to know about how to receive Divine information and wisdom already been revealed?  Why is there a desire to have some mortal tell us about the nature and composition of the Divine when God has promised to answer sincere queries made in faith with a resolve to act upon the answer.

[kimpearson]

41 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Or we could ask Deity.  Hasn’t what we need to know about how to receive Divine information and wisdom already been revealed?  Why is there a desire to have some mortal tell us about the nature and composition of the Divine when God has promised to answer sincere queries made in faith with a resolve to act upon the answer.

And there is the rub, no prophet has ever indicated that they prayed sincerely to know the role of Mother in Heaven.  Has the prophetic mantel ever wrestled with this question similar to the wrestle describe about President Kimball's revelation on the priesthood?  If this wrestle has been made, why no disclosure of the resulting answer or non answer?  Why do our current prophets, seers and revelators not express that this question is constantly be asked as it is such a tender issue with many of our sisters?  My 5 year old grandniece asked her mom yesterday why her primary teacher never tells her anything about Mother in Heaven only Father in Heaven.  

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

YEs sorry I meant knee.  I think I explained this with pointing out things the Church has done to highlight and even promote the doctrine of a heavenly mother and heavenly parents and now the church seems to be taking a step backwards.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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...).

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

Well why do an essay about her then?  As for what we know and don't I cannot say other than what the leaders say. If they say they do not know and want to step carefully I am fine with that.  But as notes it seems that she was being highlighted more and now there is back stepping.  Maybe that is due to members getting to exuberant on the ide

Well I am not sure how revelations come to the LDS top leadership and actually a very skeptical that there if there is a god he is talking to the LDS leaders. I think most of what they come up with is from their own minds.  So if they wanted they could move forward with this doctrine can believe/say it is a revelation.  But if it foes like the priesthood ban revelation it likely won't happen till all the top leadership are good with it.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Even if resurrected females become pregnant, there is no reason their condition would be remotely similar to mortal females who get pregnant.  9 month pregnancies with all the pains and sickness would not be a factor.

I guess nobody knows right?  Nobody knows really if there will be the birthing of any spirit babies at all. Its just faith in some doctrine.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

YEs sorry I meant knee.  I think I explained this with pointing out things the Church has done to highlight and even promote the doctrine of a heavenly mother and heavenly parents and now the church seems to be taking a step backwards.

Well why do an essay about her then?  As for what we know and don't I cannot say other than what the leaders say. If they say they do not know and want to step carefully I am fine with that.  But as notes it seems that she was being highlighted more and now there is back stepping.  Maybe that is due to members getting to exuberant on the ide

Well I am not sure how revelations come to the LDS top leadership and actually a very skeptical that there if there is a god he is talking to the LDS leaders. I think most of what they come up with is from their own minds.  So if they wanted they could move forward with this doctrine can believe/say it is a revelation.  But if it foes like the priesthood ban revelation it likely won't happen till all the top leadership are good with it.

I think the bold is what is happening and what is causing the need for the caveat.  I'm seeing Her come up a lot more in blogs, lessons, and discussions.  And in the last year I've heard of multiple people praying to her.  I hadn't heard that in the years previous.

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree, it's a problem for some. 

I think its a problem the top church leaders don't want to deal with. Polygam-the gift that keep on giving.🙄

[MrShorty]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

From my understanding, all of God’s efforts are focused on creation…and the purpose of creation is to give eternal life to his children.

This seems about right, and your statements/quotes seem to support this. But do they really support the idea that God the Father's "job/role" is to shepherd the sheep after "birth" (whatever that means to an intelligence/spirit) and God the Mother's job is to do the actual "creation"? The statements support the idea that God's purpose is to create, but they don't delineate the roles that we have ascribed to God the Mother and God the Father. Is it possible they are more egalitarian than we are comfortable with?

[MiserereNobis]

On 3/26/2022 at 12:16 PM, smac97 said:

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.

Except that the world's largest Christian church, the Roman Catholic Church, regularly prays to Jesus, Mary, and Saints. I think the bolded statement shows the apostle's protestant bias.

I have a very special devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

[let’s roll]

23 hours ago, kimpearson said:

And there is the rub, no prophet has ever indicated that they prayed sincerely to know the role of Mother in Heaven.  Has the prophetic mantel ever wrestled with this question similar to the wrestle describe about President Kimball's revelation on the priesthood?  If this wrestle has been made, why no disclosure of the resulting answer or non answer?  Why do our current prophets, seers and revelators not express that this question is constantly be asked as it is such a tender issue with many of our sisters?  My 5 year old grandniece asked her mom yesterday why her primary teacher never tells her anything about Mother in Heaven only Father in Heaven.  

Church leaders are tasked with directing the Church.  There are official Church publications that affirm that we have heavenly parents, including a Mother in Heaven.  Beyond that, per my prior post, what can leaders provide that we can’t obtain on our own?  I appreciate a leader or a teacher sharing a testimony, but I need to develop my own, including an ability to teach, testify and make invitations with respect to our Heavenly Mother.

Seems to me that your grandniece’s question to her mother was a great opportunity for the mom to teach, testify and invite.

Edited March 29, 2022 by let’s roll

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

That is your phrase, not mine.

We barely understand the process of creation here in this mortal world. We know nothing of the process in the pre-and post-mortal existence. One thing we can be sure of is that God will not force anyone to participate in something they don’t desire with all their soul. Whatever divine parentage might entail, I’m certain it will be glorious beyond anything we can imagine. 

No you really cannot be sure of anything. It is just faith in your chosen religions doctrine.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

YEs sorry I meant knee.  I think I explained this with pointing out things the Church has done to highlight and even promote the doctrine of a heavenly mother and heavenly parents and now the church seems to be taking a step backwards.

A step backwards from speculation and conjecture, yes.  But a step backward from what it (the Church) has said about Heavenly Mother?  I don't think so.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well why do an essay about her then? 

To provide a concise and authoritative resource as to what we know (and don't know) on a topic about which quite a few people are interested.

To differentiate between the (limited) information that we do have about Her from the speculative guesswork that occasionally makes the rounds in Latter-day Saint circles.

To provide guidance that keeps us within the bounds of revealed light and knowledge, and to discourage exceeding those bounds (again, I think we should consider the lessons learned from the damage caused by speculating about the priesthood ban).

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

As for what we know and don't I cannot say other than what the leaders say.

Same here.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

If they say they do not know and want to step carefully I am fine with that. 

I think that is what they are saying.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

But as notes it seems that she was being highlighted more and now there is back stepping.  Maybe that is due to members getting to exuberant on the ide

We sometimes see this tendency toward "looking beyond the mark" (Jacob 4:14) and having "a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge" (Romans 10:2).  

It is unfortunately too easy to take a correct and holy principle too far, or to distort it in some way.  Emergency preparedness and self-reliance can morph into the stuff we have seen from Julie Rowe, and even the Daybells.  Seeking personal revelation can morph into the Denver Snuffer type of thing.  The basic principles of the Law of Chastity can be twisted so as to make sex and sexuality appear per se sinful and ugly.  Seeking holiness can lead to Zoramites-on-their-Rameumptom-style arrogance and pride.  

I think discussions of Heavenly Mother, like many other discussions, can exceed the bounds of revealed light and knowledge, and can devolve into speculation, divisiveness, rebellion, and so on.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well I am not sure how revelations come to the LDS top leadership and actually a very skeptical that there if there is a god he is talking to the LDS leaders.

I believe both that there is a God and that He is speaking to prophets and apostles in our day.

One of the things I have appreciated about watchign The Chosen series (directed by Dallas Jenkins) is how much it humanizes the followers of Jesus.  These were rough-hewn men and women, with flaws and defects galor.  Just like us.  And yet He chose them and sent them out to minister in His name.  They were not perfect, in fact they were far from it.  But the message they carried was real and true.  

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think most of what they come up with is from their own minds.  So if they wanted they could move forward with this doctrine can believe/say it is a revelation. 

I think they are sincere in their beliefs, which if so precludes what you propose here.  This is particularly so where "they," the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, would all need to go along with the falsehood you are proposing.  All fifteen men would need to A) arrive at a unified decision "from their own minds," B) agree to collude amongst themselves to "say" it is a revelation (as opposed to being "from their own minds"), and C) therafter present that falsehood to the body of the Church.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

But if it foes like the priesthood ban revelation it likely won't happen till all the top leadership are good with it.

"But if it foes like the priesthood ban revelation?"  I'm not sure what this means.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 28, 2022 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think its a problem the top church leaders don't want to deal with. Polygam-the gift that keep on giving.🙄

I have no issue with multiple Heavenly Mothers.  But I see why leaders wouldn't want to address that.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Except that the world's largest Christian church, the Roman Catholic Church, regularly prays to Jesus, Mary, and Saints. I think the bolded statement shows the apostle's protestant bias.

I have a very special devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

With Christendom as variegated as it is, any declaratory statement about "all Christians" is likely to be falsifiable.

As regarding Marian prayers, I have previously understood them to be "intercessory," and distinctive from prayers to God.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The term "devotions" is commonly understood to refer to those external practices of piety by which the faith of an individual finds expression.^[134] Such prayers or acts may be accompanied by specific requests for Mary's intercession with God.^[135][136] Devotion to the Virgin Mary does not, however, amount to worship – which is reserved for God.

Here:

Quote

Prayer that is specifically for others is called intercessory prayer, and it’s one of the most common ways that we pray. For instance, when we pray for health for friends, that’s intercessory prayer. Or when we ask our family to pray for a job interview, that’s intercessory prayer. This form of prayer isn’t merely “okay,” it’s highly praiseworthy. We should pray for others and we should ask others to pray for us. Such a practice is not only not in contradiction to Jesus’ mediation, but in fact is expected of us as His disciples and members of His Church.

I’d also make the point that when we ask people to pray for us, we tend to ask people who we know take their faith seriously. We intuitively recognize that not only will they pray, but there is a particular efficacy in their prayer because of their close relationship with God.

This essentially is what we’re doing when we pray to Mary. Prayer to Mary is simply asking her to pray for us, as we might ask a faithful friend to pray for us. Even more, it’s asking someone we recognize as the greatest of Jesus’ disciples to pray for us, as we would ask someone we recognize as a holy person on earth to pray for us.

Here:

Quote

Catholics don’t worship Mary

Admittedly, this is an understandable misconception due to the profound amount of Catholic art dedicated to the blessed virgin. But there’s one thing this article needs to make clear:

CATHOLICS. DO. NOT. WORSHIP. MARY.

Instead, Mary is honoured in our faith as the mother of our saviour. She is not worshipped as this is a respect reserved for God alone, as laid out in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:3).

Here:

Quote

Catholics do not pray to Mary as if she were God. Prayer to Mary is memory of the great mysteries of our faith (Incarnation, Redemption through Christ in the rosary), praise to God for the wonderful things he has done in and through one of his creatures (Hail Mary) and intercession (second half of the Hail Mary). The latter is addressed to Mary not as to a vending machine but a support person helping us to discern the will of God in our lives. Mary is a volunteer, highly recommendable and recommended, but not a mandatory and inescapable passage.

And here:

Quote

Here is where the Virgin Mary comes in. She takes a special place among us, who participate in Jesus’ mediation, because God chose to come to us through her and gave her to us as Mother. Her mission consists in always leading us to him: “Do whatever he tells you” (Jn 2:5). She, like us, mediates under Christ’s mediation. When we say she intercedes for us, we are not saying we forget about God. It simply means we turn to her for prayers, something all Christians do when they ask for prayers from their brothers and sisters.

So, when Catholics “pray” to Mary, we’re not praying in the same way as we pray to God. We’re asking for her intercession, the way we ask our brothers and sisters for prayers. That is what we ask from her in the Hail Mary. 

As a Latter-day Saint, I participate in temple ordinances that could be construed as "intercessory" in a sense.  We ask others to fast and pray for us.  Naaman sought help from Elisha, and received it.

"Prayer" for me as a Latter-day Saint is a distinctive observance.  We do not have the concept of "intercessory" prayers as distinguishable from prayers to God.  However, we do differentiate "prayer" in a different way, namely specifically rote/set prayers (in temple ordinances, in the two Sacrament prayers, and in the baptismal prayer) from normative, expressed-in-your-own-words prayers.

As a missionary in Taiwan I watched members of our faith struggle to honor their ancestors, which sometimes could be reduced to a somewhat semantic distinction of "veneration" versus "worship" of ancestors.  While "veneration" is fine, "worship" is not.  We "venerate" our ancestors, but we do not.  We "venerate" Joseph Smith and other prophets and apostles, but we do not "worship" them.  I think this distinction is helpful:

Quote

Difference Between Veneration and Worship

May 23, 2015 Posted by Admin

 

 

Veneration vs Worship
 

Though the words veneration and worship are used interchangeably there is a clear difference between them. In different religions, people worship and venerate religious figures. These acts of veneration and worship, however, are not the same thing. First, let us define the two words. Veneration can be defined as a deep respect. On the other hand, worship can be defined as a deep respect paid to a god or goddess. The difference between the two words is that while worship is mostly associated with gods, veneration is not associated with gods. It is mostly used for saintly individuals who display the goodness of gods. This is the main difference between the two words. Through this article, let us examine this difference further.

What is Veneration?

Veneration can be defined as a deep respect. This is mostly used for figures such as saints, or individuals who display immense goodness and purity. For instance, in Christianity, veneration is for figures such as Blessed Virgin Mary. Veneration is also a form of respect or else an honor towards a figure of extreme significance. However, in comparison to worship, it is secondary.

When we venerate a figure of importance, we not only respect and honor that figure for his or her excellence and goodness, but we are also reminded of the fact that these qualities that we admire and respect are a reflection of God.

What is Worship?

Worship can be defined as a deep respect paid to a god or goddess. It can even be stated that it is a combination of respect, reverence, admiration and even love. This can also be understood as paying homage to a god. In most religions, we worship a god or a pantheon of gods. In some cases, this figure is not exactly a god but a superhuman personality. Nevertheless, unlike in the case of veneration, worship consists of a deeper form of respect which stems from the figure itself and is not reflective of anything else. This can be explained further in this manner. When we venerate a saint, we not only celebrate and admire his qualities, but we are also reminded of the fountain that creates it. This fountain is usually a god or goddess. In different religions, worshiping is associated with different customs and traditions. For instance, in Buddhism, Buddhists offer flowers, light lamps and incense to Lord Buddha.

In the Catholic Church, worship consists of three degrees. They are dulia, hyperdulia, and latria. Latria is the respect and honor given to God. This cannot be given to any other figure. Hyperdulia is given to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Dulia is for saints. However, dulia and hyperdulia are mostly considered more as veneration than worship.

The gist seems to be that A) Marian prayers, being intercessory, are materially distinguishable from prayers to God, and B) Catholics "venerate," but do not "worship," Mary.  Are these accurate characterizations in your view?

I'm a big fan of letting religious adherents explain their own faith before listening to outsiders and critics.  To that end, while I do not subscribe to the distinction of prayer in "intercessory" terms, I recognize and respect that our Catholic brothers and sisters do.  Any further input would be helpful.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

 

On 3/27/2022 at 10:27 AM, bluebell said:

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.

 

 

I don't think most people are "making up something" in head.  Rather I think they just have strong feelings or what they feel are spiritual promptings.  I get what you are saying and agree, but the wording doesn't quite mean the same thing for me as misunderstanding the feelings they might have that tells them wrong things.  

On 3/27/2022 at 10:27 AM, bluebell said:

 

 

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.

 

 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

I don't think most people are "making up something" in head.  Rather I think they just have strong feelings or what they feel are spiritual promptings.  I get what you are saying and agree, but the wording doesn't quite mean the same thing for me as misunderstanding the feelings they might have that tells them wrong things.  

 

"Have strong feelings or what they feel are spiritual promptings" doesn't really match what I'm trying to say though.  But I can't think of a clearer way to put it right now.  I know that's not very helpful.  I'll see if I can figure out a different way to put it.

[mfbukowski]

On 3/26/2022 at 11:16 AM, 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

The Trib commenting on Heavenly Mother?

Suddenly I understand Will Smith vs Chris Rock better

😱😡

😉