Trib Article re: Heavenly Mother

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I would have to dig through the Church essay on this.  Don't have time right now.  I may be mistaken.  But I do not think you can have it both ways.  In fact I think it is disingenuous to toss all prior LDS leaders comments about why the ban existed under the bus.

I think that the parable of the wheat and the tares is a perfect example of why you could have it both ways.

In the parable, a man plants a field with wheat and during the night, his enemy comes along behind him and plants tares in with the wheat.  Once the wheat and tares begin to grow, the man realizes what has happened but at the point, it is better for him to do nothing.  It would actually cause more harm to his crop to remove the tares right way, than to let them grow for a while.  Eventually, the tares are removed and burned, but not until the timing is right.

In regards to the priesthood ban, if the ban was not of God, but was just the follies of one or more earlier prophets, it could be (not saying it would have to be or definitely was, but it could be) that the best outcome for the church, after the tare had been sown in with the wheat, was for God to keep the ban in place for a while, until it could be removed with the least damage to the whole.

Again, to clarify, I'm not saying that we definitely have to have it both ways on this topic, only that I can conceive of it being possible to do so.

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If the account about President McKay being told no is true then why is the stance now that the ban was never really from God and all accounts of explaining it were just mere speculations.  You cannot have it both ways.

Could you elaborate?  I'm not sure I understand your reasoning.

The Lord delivered the Hebrews from Egypt, but He did so on His own timetable.  And that He delivered the Hebrews from bondage does not equate to Him putting them into bondage.  

Also, I'm not sure the "stance now" is "that the ban was never really from God."  I don't think the essay goes that far.  What have been disavowed are the subsequent rationalizations/justifications for the ban.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate?  I'm not sure I understand your reasoning.

The Lord delivered the Hebrews from Egypt, but He did so on His own timetable.  And that He delivered the Hebrews from bondage does not equate to Him putting them into bondage.  

Also, I'm not sure the "stance now" is "that the ban was never really from God."  I don't think the essay goes that far.  What have been disavowed are the subsequent rationalizations/justifications for the ban.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't know.  Ignore me today.  I had two follow up medical appointments for my current health issue and am beat and reading what I wrote I do not think I am sounding coherent. Sorry about that.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I don't know.  Ignore me today.  I had two follow up medical appointments for my current health issue and am beat and reading what I wrote I do not think I am sounding coherent. Sorry about that.

Sorry you're having to deal with all of that.  

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I don't know.  Ignore me today.  I had two follow up medical appointments for my current health issue and am beat and reading what I wrote I do not think I am sounding coherent. Sorry about that.

Best wishes for success in your continuing battle.  Certainly, we all could use reminding that, in the grand scheme of things, the often-petty battles that are waged here mean very little (if, indeed, they mean anything at all) in the grand scheme of things.

Best Wishes and Warm Regards,

-Ken

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I don't know.  Ignore me today.  I had two follow up medical appointments for my current health issue and am beat and reading what I wrote I do not think I am sounding coherent. Sorry about that.

Take care.

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

I'll repeat my earlier assertion/belief that revelation concerning Heavenly Mother is not more pronounced than it currently is because of the abuses of the doctrine that would occur among the membership.

That is kinda the case for all forms of doctrine though. Let's go with an innocuous one like the WOW. On one end you get cultural "doctrine" where people get edgy about caffeine and herbal tea. You can get people who use it to validate their own diets from veganism to meat heavy diets (though the latter you've got to first get into a debate about comma placement). Temples? People can abuse the doctrine....bishops/stakes begin adding questions to temple recommend interviews that aren't there turning a moment of self reflection and accountability to more of a monitoring their views of what equals a good member. People get hung up on changes in it.  How sacrament should be passed and whether earrings/tattoos say something about your worthiness. And don't get me started on the law of chastity. Basically if there's a doctrine or practice out there and there's a group of humans, something's likely being screwed up. Humans be human. I'm not sure how this form of revelation would be a bigger problem than all the other forms of revelation we've had and the ways it's been abused in the past and present that trip people up. In some ways it could help as well. Just as other changes in emphases and understanding recently have helped shift the discussion on women and priesthood recently. 

 

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

However, there isn't anything stopping one from receiving personal revelation on the matter. However, the lines of what is appropriate for public discourse as to the doctrines of the Church is the role of the Revelator to demarcate. Anything outside that boundary we are to keep to ourselves.

I strongly believe that the path to understanding our Heavenly Mother is the same path as coming to an understanding of our Heavenly Father -- through Christ (see John 14:8-9). Anything beyond that is "looking beyond the mark" (also referenced by smac97). I also strongly believe that public or personal revelation won't come by covering ourselves with sack cloth and ashes wailing aloud, "Wo, wo, wo are we. She is hidden! Patriarchy!" Maybe the wo part is accurate, but I do not believe she is hidden, not to them that have eyes to see.

Having a clear starting point is a biggie. I went through all of my teens while avidly looking for God, finding HM only in online discussions at a point that it was mentioned...let's say briefly. Often in the same way more theoretical claims, fringe theories from BY's days, and other random points are brought up. So it felt speculative and taboo. I didn't have a firm experience that I'd later attribute to her until I was 21. For me, she was effectively hidden through a time it may have been extremely helpful to have had a better view of her. At the very least I wasn't aware that I was experiencing her. Of course this comes through via the atoning experience of Christ and messaged via the HG. 

I just listened to a podcast spotlighting McArthur Krishna that stayed well within the limits of the boundaries set while proactively talking about HM. There is space, even without more detailed revelation to express Her, honor Her, and acknowledge her. To express what that even looks like. Doing so does make a difference and gives a stronger ability for people to receive personal revelation. 

Last note, the discrepancy between what I knew in my soul and experienced of being endowed with divine feminine power as well as having divine power course through me at different points and some of the way we've taught and understood things around women, HM, and other things were some of the driving forces to later receive revelation. So in a sense "wo wo, patriarchy" did end up leading to me getting personal revelation at varying points. There may be a more specific variation of this you're picturing, but that's a bit of a broad description. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

[BlueDreams]

The vid with Krishna:

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

That is kinda the case for all forms of doctrine though. Let's go with an innocuous one like the WOW. On one end you get cultural "doctrine" where people get edgy about caffeine and herbal tea. You can get people who use it to validate their own diets from veganism to meat heavy diets (though the latter you've got to first get into a debate about comma placement). Temples? People can abuse the doctrine....bishops/stakes begin adding questions to temple recommend interviews that aren't there turning a moment of self reflection and accountability to more of a monitoring their views of what equals a good member. People get hung up on changes in it.  How sacrament should be passed and whether earrings/tattoos say something about your worthiness. And don't get me started on the law of chastity. Basically if there's a doctrine or practice out there and there's a group of humans, something's likely being screwed up. Humans be human. I'm not sure how this form of revelation would be a bigger problem than all the other forms of revelation we've had and the ways it's been abused in the past and present that trip people up. In some ways it could help as well. Just as other changes in emphases and understanding recently have helped shift the discussion on women and priesthood recently. 

 

Having a clear starting point is a biggie. I went through all of my teens while avidly looking for God, finding HM only in online discussions at a point that it was mentioned...let's say briefly. Often in the same way more theoretical claims, fringe theories from BY's days, and other random points are brought up. So it felt speculative and taboo. I didn't have a firm experience that I'd later attribute to her until I was 21. For me, she was effectively hidden through a time it may have been extremely helpful to have had a better view of her. At the very least I wasn't aware that I was experiencing her. Of course this comes through via the atoning experience of Christ and messaged via the HG. 

I just listened to a podcast spotlighting McArthur Krishna that stayed well within the limits of the boundaries set while proactively talking about HM. There is space, even without more detailed revelation to express Her, honor Her, and acknowledge her. To express what that even looks like. Doing so does make a difference and gives a stronger ability for people to receive personal revelation. 

Last note, the discrepancy between what I knew in my soul and experienced of being endowed with divine feminine power as well as having divine power course through me at different points and some of the way we've taught and understood things around women, HM, and other things were some of the driving forces to later receive revelation. So in a sense "wo wo, patriarchy" did end up leading to me getting personal revelation at varying points. There may be a more specific variation of this you're picturing, but that's a bit of a broad description. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

I love what you said about having a clear starting point.  

I feel like HM is one of those subjects where we have "built a hedge around the law" so to speak.  We are so worried that we might tread on ground that we shouldn't, that we are afraid to even get close in case we step over a line we didn't know was there.

Having a clearer idea of where to start and how to engage, provided by church sources, would be a really cool thing in my opinion.

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I love what you said about having a clear starting point.  

I feel like HM is one of those subjects where we have "built a hedge around the law" so to speak.  We are so worried that we might tread on ground that we shouldn't, that we are afraid to even get close in case we step over a line we didn't know was there.

Having a clearer idea of where to start and how to engage, provided by church sources, would be a really cool thing in my opinion.

There’s wisdom in your (you and BD) thoughts.  

That said, my experience has been sincerity and love trump process.

Edited March 30, 2022 by let’s roll

[kimpearson]

What do you all think about the idea that God doesn't give revelation when He knows that vast majority of those who would hear it would reject it.  I wonder if Pres. Mckay either couldn't get an answer or got the answer no because God knew many of the apostles, local church leaders and members would have rejected the revelation to give the priesthood to the blacks because of their strong racist viewpoints.  How many of our current general and local priesthood leaders (all men) and members of the Church refuse to consider learning about Mother in Heaven or women and the priesthood because of their strong sexist views?  Because of free agency, I don't think God gives us guidance we really need until we truly open our hearts to receive it.  If enough of His children refuse to open their hearts to further guidance, God doesn't reveal it.

I think individuals can receive revelation on such subjects individually long before Church leaders do.  They just have to wait for Church leaders to open their hearts.

Edited March 30, 2022 by kimpearson

[Nofear]

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

There is space, even without more detailed revelation to express Her, honor Her, and acknowledge her. To express what that even looks like. Doing so does make a difference and gives a stronger ability for people to receive personal revelation.

I have wrestled with others on this very board who want to insist we don't know anything and assert that orthodoxy constrains our silence. Such is very wrong. We do know things and we have space to express Her, honor Her, and acknowledge Her. I personally am quite comfortable in doing so. I also consider myself one rather ensconced in orthodoxy and orthopraxy. If you can sing, "God bless the winding road that led me straight to you." it isn't my place to begrudge or judge that journey and can simply be happy at the destination. The more the merrier! For me, personally, the road was/is pretty straight and straight forward. If I can help others see that path, I'll gladly do so (but I won't force it upon anyone -- one couldn't anyway even if one tried).

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, kimpearson said:

What do you all think about the idea that God doesn't give revelation when He knows that vast majority of those who would hear it would reject it.  I wonder if Pres. Mckay either couldn't get an answer or got the answer no because God knew many of the apostles, local church leaders and members would have rejected the revelation to give the priesthood to the blacks because of their strong racist viewpoints.  How many of our current general and local priesthood leaders (all men) and members of the Church refuse to consider learning about Mother in Heaven or women and the priesthood because of their strong sexist views?  Because of free agency, I don't think God gives us guidance we really need until we truly open our hearts to receive it.  If enough of His children refuse to open their hearts to further guidance, God doesn't reveal it.

I think individuals can receive revelation on such subjects individually long before Church leaders do.  They just have to wait for Church leaders to open their hearts.

This is more speculative on my part. A) because I’m not god and b) because I’ve never talked to a leader beyond the local level on these things (let alone the dead ones involved)

I do think that part of the reason that McKay got a firm no, not in your lifetime, is because of the preparedness of the people to receive it. As I’ve mentioned previously, the rationale and attitudes of the bulk of the church were racist and maintained racist stances/perspectives when interpreting scripture and making policy. Though there was always pushback, the majority didn’t. Since I believe in communal preparedness for greater light and knowledge in the church, it make sense that God would wait until we were more prepared to receive it as a community. 

I see some similarities and major differences though with women related topic. I do believe there’s something to be said in there about community preparedness to receive more. We’re a global church where in some countries the current beliefs and policies of the church already push members to relook at their sexist beliefs (Krishna for example keeps referencing the church in India…where sexism in the larger community is more blatant and pervasive). I don’t think HM is necessarily a big leap in some of these communities but it’s also something that may not be a major focus or concern in a nascent church where the foothold and teachings are still in larger flux. 
That said there is also a lot of differences to me as well. For one, we are receiving and integrating a lot of change into our communities already. There’s been reevaluating what really needs to be gendered, focus on more council orientations in decision making (which then incorporates more women in decision making), and better understanding of priesthood as a power both men and women use. To me there’s already community and individual revelatory changes happening around this topic. On another, this is an area that’s in need of restoration via deep study or revelation to find Her in scripture, let alone one’s personal life. She’s not just not present for many right now, She hasn’t been for millenia and it shows in the texts we have. *There’s indications that her worship likely got corrupted and/or then completely removed in later  Israeli reformations to assert a monotheistic belief. And that our OT still shows the odd juxtaposition of a religion that was once more polytheistic being overlaid with more monotheistic later interpretations. So the change is OLD and long lost. We have Her restored in the sense of recognition she exists. With the gospel topics and increased shift of noting “heavenly parents,” more public and official sources to note this. But what it means to relate to Her or incorporate her more in forms of worship is not easily there. The firm precedent is lacking. And in this point there is the biggest difference to me. Where with the black ban on priesthood we had to remove a racist modern interpretation of doctrines to get to something more true in our practice, with HM we would need to inject or add to the scriptures to incorporate a clearer understanding of what has been lost and is not fully seen or explicit in any book of scripture.* And there’s not a clear model as to what that should look like. By clear model, I mean a chapter somewhere in the OT that says: and this is how you give honor to our Beloved Mother: via honey cakes and pillar art and sacred symbology. Ie something tangible that could be more easily translated into a fuller worship in the here and now. 
 

i have ideas as to what that could entail. They’re solidly in the speculative camp based on my own studies and pondering. But I’m not the prophet and I won’t pretend that I am. It’s not my calling to restore lost truths from antiquity. The best I can do is share that I’ve experienced Her and if appropriate: how/what that entails. That said, I do feel we’re in a place of being prepared to receive more. More information is coming to light, more are experiencing Her and being open about it, more understanding of women’s power and capacity in the gospel is occurring in general. And more is being put into practice based in this understanding. 
 

*I think there’s also a strong case to say that She is there in particular the OT and BOM. And the patterns of shadow of her is seen in several of the women/symbols in scripture in general. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Edited March 30, 2022 by BlueDreams

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, kimpearson said:

What do you all think about the idea that God doesn't give revelation when He knows that vast majority of those who would hear it would reject it.  I wonder if Pres. Mckay either couldn't get an answer or got the answer no because God knew many of the apostles, local church leaders and members would have rejected the revelation to give the priesthood to the blacks because of their strong racist viewpoints.  How many of our current general and local priesthood leaders (all men) and members of the Church refuse to consider learning about Mother in Heaven or women and the priesthood because of their strong sexist views?  Because of free agency, I don't think God gives us guidance we really need until we truly open our hearts to receive it.  If enough of His children refuse to open their hearts to further guidance, God doesn't reveal it.

I think individuals can receive revelation on such subjects individually long before Church leaders do.  They just have to wait for Church leaders to open their hearts.

I think it could be a possibility under some circumstances.  My only caveat with the idea is that we have to be very careful that we don't just assign this reasoning to the apostles and prophets anytime they aren't doing what we want them too.

It's very easy to decide that anytime God isn't reacting how we believe He should through the prophets and apostles, that the problem is obviously the prophets and apostles.  We would need to remain incredibly humble and open to correction because it's just as easy for us to be the ones who aren't receiving revelation because God knows that we won't listen to it, as it is for anyone else.

*Edit to add:  It's probably more easy for it to happen to us than the apostles and prophets because there's only one of us that needs to reject revelation from God to keep us from getting it, while there are 15 apostles and prophets that would need to all (or at least a good amount) be preemptively rejecting the same revelation at the same time.  One or two or three people being closed off to something from God is more likely to happen than 10 or 12 or 15 all being closed to it. 

Not saying it couldn't happen with the quorum of the twelve and first presidency, only that it would probably be a rarer event than for one person on their own to close themselves off to further light.

Edited March 30, 2022 by bluebell

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, kimpearson said:

What do you all think about the idea that God doesn't give revelation when He knows that vast majority of those who would hear it would reject it.  I wonder if Pres. Mckay either couldn't get an answer or got the answer no because God knew many of the apostles, local church leaders and members would have rejected the revelation to give the priesthood to the blacks because of their strong racist viewpoints.  How many of our current general and local priesthood leaders (all men) and members of the Church refuse to consider learning about Mother in Heaven or women and the priesthood because of their strong sexist views?  Because of free agency, I don't think God gives us guidance we really need until we truly open our hearts to receive it.  If enough of His children refuse to open their hearts to further guidance, God doesn't reveal it.

I think individuals can receive revelation on such subjects individually long before Church leaders do.  They just have to wait for Church leaders to open their hearts.

There are several reasons God would decline to provide revelation on a subject.

This is definitely one - ie that it would be rejected anyway.
Another is when the answer is already sufficiently provided in revelation.  Joseph clearly taught that we should not ask if there already is a revelation to suit the purpose.
Another is if we ask amiss according to the scriptures, for something that we seriously should know better than to pursue.

There are probably others.  But expecting further light on subjects we already have the answer to or would reject if given is never a good plan.
God doesn't change his mind on eternal principles, but he does remove light from our midst if we reject it, provide more light when we are lacking, and make adjustments for situations.  The children of Israel and the higher law spring to mind.

There's an old saying - we don't pray to change God's mind, we pray to change our minds.

[MrShorty]

11 hours ago, kimpearson said:

What do you all think about the idea that God doesn't give revelation when He knows that vast majority of those who would hear it would reject it.

In hindsight, this is the best explanation in my mind for the priesthood and temple ban continuing until 1978. As an example, I recall reading in one of Ed Kimball's history of the issue (https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3908&context=byusq ) where he cites a letter from the First Presidency to Lowry Nelson in '47 claiming that "From the days of the prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the gospel" (emphasis mine). Someone at the top of the Church hierarchy believed that Church leaders up to that point had not even considered the possibility that the priesthood ban or its justificiations was a human error.

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's probably more easy for it to happen to us than the apostles and prophets because there's only one of us that needs to reject revelation from God to keep us from getting it, while there are 15 apostles and prophets that would need to all (or at least a good amount) be preemptively rejecting the same revelation at the same time. 

 

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph clearly taught that we should not ask if there already is a revelation to suit the purpose.

The main problem I see with these two assertions is that, to me, they seem more likely to trend towards conservatism rather than truth. In the case of getting unity among the Q15, it only takes one who is uncomfortable with a change to veto the change. In the other case, we assume that past revelation is usually best, but, again, that feels more like a conservative position rather than a truth position. When the proposed change is closer to the truth, does our conservative bias ever prevent us from receiving revelation? I think @kimpearson's question suggests to that sometimes it is possible for our conservatism to get in the way of our revelation.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In hindsight, this is the best explanation in my mind for the priesthood and temple ban continuing until 1978. As an example, I recall reading in one of Ed Kimball's history of the issue (https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3908&context=byusq ) where he cites a letter from the First Presidency to Lowry Nelson in '47 claiming that "From the days of the prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the gospel" (emphasis mine). Someone at the top of the Church hierarchy believed that Church leaders up to that point had not even considered the possibility that the priesthood ban or its justificiations was a human error.

 

The main problem I see with these two assertions is that, to me, they seem more likely to trend towards conservatism rather than truth. In the case of getting unity among the Q15, it only takes one who is uncomfortable with a change to veto the change. In the other case, we assume that past revelation is usually best, but, again, that feels more like a conservative position rather than a truth position. When the proposed change is closer to the truth, does our conservative bias ever prevent us from receiving revelation? I think @kimpearson's question suggests to that sometimes it is possible for our conservatism to get in the way of our revelation.

I agree.

Both conservatism and progressivism can get in the way equally.  Bias, wherever it comes from, can make receiving revelation difficult. 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Joseph clearly taught that we should not ask if there already is a revelation to suit the purpose.

 ...they seem more likely to trend towards conservatism rather than truth. 

In the other case, we assume that past revelation is usually best, but, again, that feels more like a conservative position rather than a truth position. When the proposed change is closer to the truth, does our conservative bias ever prevent us from receiving revelation? I think @kimpearson's question suggests to that sometimes it is possible for our conservatism to get in the way of our revelation.

Are you suggesting that we can ignore previous revelations that become viewed as conservative and request a more hip, up to date, progressive revelation?
I'm not sure I understand why anyone would think that's ok.  If God has already spoken on a subject why would we expect a different response.

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, Nofear said:

I have wrestled with others on this very board who want to insist we don't know anything and assert that orthodoxy constrains our silence. Such is very wrong. We do know things and we have space to express Her, honor Her, and acknowledge Her. I personally am quite comfortable in doing so. I also consider myself one rather ensconced in orthodoxy and orthopraxy. If you can sing, "God bless the winding road that led me straight to you." it isn't my place to begrudge or judge that journey and can simply be happy at the destination. The more the merrier! For me, personally, the road was/is pretty straight and straight forward. If I can help others see that path, I'll gladly do so (but I won't force it upon anyone -- one couldn't anyway even if one tried).

I honestly don’t know if I’m orthodox or orthoprax. I know to my LDS (or once LDS) clients they quickly admit I’m a “weird” active member. As in not the usual norm in these parts (ie. The Mormon corridor)…I assume that’s mostly ortho-cultural than anything else though. I don’t think I’m all that wild even in my speculations let alone my practice. Though maybe a little. There’s not exactly set policy on what it looks like to honor let alone experience the Mother. There’s more set on what we can’t/shouldn’t do. And on that I try to follow the parameters. Even though it doesn’t fully make sense and from what I’ve received feels like we’re probably missing something here. My speculative side leans to the idea that praying to HF is basically praying to HM too without recognizing you’re doing so. Because they are One. They are Elohim. I still think there’s something potent in recognizing it though. Since I started acknowledging the presence of HM in my prayers, it’s changed my prayers to something that feels like family counsel to me. The HG facilitated communication, Jesus opens the door and brings my healing growth, and I sit with my two loving Parents to receive from and share with Them in my life and growth. Either one can add input/ guidance (and do). It feels complete. I stick with orthoprax model of prayer in public. My prayer would likely not fly well in public space.

but then so is my honoring the little lives of plants I kill when I thin out my seedlings.  Not in sort of weird worship sense more in a “all living things have intelligence/spirit” sense and we are here to be careful stewards of earth. So I thank them for living and thank them for returning to the soil to give life in another way. If you can’t guess, gardening is inherently spiritual for me and likely from it I have a particular affinity to all the plant analogies in scriptures. Is that in the normal range of LDS spiritual practice? I have no idea. I doubt it….but it’s not something I have a deep need to check on.

On your first point I’m not very adamant that it needs to be absolutely by the book or that we need to burn the book. Both just seem like book ends of black and white thinking. Orthodox views and practice have place. So do exploratory questions, change, and sometimes winding paths. One without the other quickly leads to problems/imbalance. 
 

with luv, 

Bd 
 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by BlueDreams

[CV75]

16 hours ago, kimpearson said:

What do you all think about the idea that God doesn't give revelation when He knows that vast majority of those who would hear it would reject it.  I wonder if Pres. Mckay either couldn't get an answer or got the answer no because God knew many of the apostles, local church leaders and members would have rejected the revelation to give the priesthood to the blacks because of their strong racist viewpoints.  How many of our current general and local priesthood leaders (all men) and members of the Church refuse to consider learning about Mother in Heaven or women and the priesthood because of their strong sexist views?  Because of free agency, I don't think God gives us guidance we really need until we truly open our hearts to receive it.  If enough of His children refuse to open their hearts to further guidance, God doesn't reveal it.

I think individuals can receive revelation on such subjects individually long before Church leaders do.  They just have to wait for Church leaders to open their hearts.

Suppose everything you say here is the case. The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not. The Lord is coming anyway and will set us all straight. The idea is to be prepared for that day, without fear.

“The Lord has declared that despite today’s unprecedented challenges, those who build their foundations upon Jesus Christ, and have learned how to draw upon His power, need not succumb to the unique anxieties of this era.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2021/10/47nelson?lang=eng

I find that people who receive divine revelation (on whatever topic) behave especially Christlike and display overtly kind and friendly attitudes toward the brethren. Far too often though, their particular revelation is instead expressed as distress over the saints needing it, that they and the brethren refuse to open their hearts to it, and other indignation.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

There are several reasons God would decline to provide revelation on a subject.

This is definitely one - ie that it would be rejected anyway.
Another is when the answer is already sufficiently provided in revelation.  Joseph clearly taught that we should not ask if there already is a revelation to suit the purpose.
Another is if we ask amiss according to the scriptures, for something that we seriously should know better than to pursue.

There are probably others.  But expecting further light on subjects we already have the answer to or would reject if given is never a good plan.
God doesn't change his mind on eternal principles, but he does remove light from our midst if we reject it, provide more light when we are lacking, and make adjustments for situations.  The children of Israel and the higher law spring to mind.

There's an old saying - we don't pray to change God's mind, we pray to change our minds.

The emotional tonality of the expectation is important also, and I think this is where the companionship of the Holy Ghost is helpful. The fruits (thoughts and feelings) of the particular spirit we list to obey in our approach to understanding what we really need to know involves that "happiness, peace and rest" that comes with being settled and grounded in Christ, usually by way of repentance by letting go of what we really do not need to know.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

In hindsight, this is the best explanation in my mind for the priesthood and temple ban continuing until 1978. As an example, I recall reading in one of Ed Kimball's history of the issue (https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3908&context=byusq ) where he cites a letter from the First Presidency to Lowry Nelson in '47 claiming that "From the days of the prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the gospel" (emphasis mine). Someone at the top of the Church hierarchy believed that Church leaders up to that point had not even considered the possibility that the priesthood ban or its justificiations was a human error.

 

The main problem I see with these two assertions is that, to me, they seem more likely to trend towards conservatism rather than truth. In the case of getting unity among the Q15, it only takes one who is uncomfortable with a change to veto the change. In the other case, we assume that past revelation is usually best, but, again, that feels more like a conservative position rather than a truth position. When the proposed change is closer to the truth, does our conservative bias ever prevent us from receiving revelation? I think @kimpearson's question suggests to that sometimes it is possible for our conservatism to get in the way of our revelation.

Institutions by definition do not change, especially those set up by the Lord (take a look at the word search in the D&C). But even those set up by societies, such as the "highly contentious racial culture" found in the USA at the time of the Restoration are tough to change. So of course those at the top take a conservative approach -- you will see this conservatism at work in "progressive" organizations as well, if they last long enough.

In my opinion, Brother Nelson stepped over the scope of what he was asked to do and wouldn't stop, had a bad attitude and thus undermined a potentially fine discussion. He didn't even appeal to personal revelation. I don't know about his spiritual witness of the Risen Lord, Book of Mormon, restored keys and the validity of his covenants, etc. but if he wasn't conservative about those, he probably lost what was most important to/for him.

To be liberal and progressive in spirit is to be conservative in faith.

[mfbukowski]

On 3/29/2022 at 12:12 PM, bluebell said:

Again, to clarify, I'm not saying that we definitely have to have it both ways on this topic, only that I can conceive of it being possible to do so.

Agree totally, but I have learned that there are some who simply cannot understand "seeing things both ways."

It's essentially fundamentalist atheism, and literalist scientism in one package 

[Tacenda]

 

Here's a wonderful conversation with Carol Lynn Pearson and her readings of her poems about Mother in heaven. 

It's sad to me that the church is walking back it's stance on Mother in heaven. The church was quite unique about it's openness of even having a Mother in heaven. They should stand firm on that, and enable men and women to embrace Her and commune more readily. 

I guess to other faiths or men in those faiths, they just can't have a woman be on the same level, sadly. 

Time stamped: All of it, haha!

Here's a written poem that is a favorite:

Carol Lynn Pearson

I live in a Motherless house, A broken home. How it happened I cannot learn.

When I had words enough to ask "Where is my Mother?" No one seemed to know, And no one thought it strange That no one else knew either.

I live in a Motherless house. They are good to me here, But I find that no kindly Patriarchal care eases the pain.

I yearn for the day Someone will look at me and say, "You certainly do look like your Mother."

I walk the rooms, Search the closets, Look for something that might Have belonged to her - A letter, a dress, a chair. Would she not have left a note?

I close my eyes And work to bring back her touch, her face. Surely there must have been A Motherly embrace I can call back for comfort. I live in a Motherless house, Motherless and without a trace.

Who could have done this? Who would tear an unweaned infant From its Mother's arms And clear the place of every souvenir?

I live in a Motherless house. I lie awake and listen always for the word That never comes, but might. I bury my face In something soft as a breast.

I am a child - Crying for my Mother in the night.

Edited April 1, 2022 by Tacenda

[Durangout]

29 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

Here's a wonderful conversation with Carol Lynn Pearson and her readings of her poems about Mother in heaven. 

It's sad to me that the church is walking back it's stance on Mother in heaven. The church was quite unique about it's openness of even having a Mother in heaven. They should stand firm on that, and enable men and women to embrace Her and commune more readily. 

I guess to other faiths or men in those faiths, they just can't have a woman be on the same level, sadly. 

Time stamped: All of it, haha!

 

I missed something.  When / where did The Church walk back it’s stance on HM?