Revelation on Heavenly Mother

[SwedishLDS]

I think Renlunds talk was a clear reminder to not look beyond the mark

Edited April 10, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, SwedishLDS said:

I think Renlunds talk was a clear reminder to not look beyond the mark

if there is no scriptures there is no scriptures

Scripture is not the only source of truth.  There is much that made it in that isn't inspired and much that is revelation that was never considered for addition.

Scripture is the stuff some men thought should be included.

[Fether]

11 hours ago, Durangout said:

Elohim is plural so…it seems pretty obvious to me that She is mentioned many times.

It’s obvious to me as well. But we are talking about the “obvious” referencing of heavenly mother in the endowment, in which there is none.
 

The average member is not going to see the subtle references and nuances that point to heavenly mother. They are absolutely there but to say it “couldn’t be more obvious” is condescending, self aggrandizing, and extremely annoying to hear… also it is false.

[JAHS]

9 hours ago, kimpearson said:

"In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. (D&C 131: 1-3)

That should be clear enough revelation. Since God the Father has been exalted and resides in His Celestial Kingdom He must be married.

 

9 hours ago, kimpearson said:

 And we criticize the interpretations of scriptures by other christian denominations?  You can all have opinions but none of the above statements is based on anything other than opinion.  Your opinion is no more accurate in this case than any other opinion.  There is no revelation directly explaining anything about Mother in Heaven, nothing.  We members of the Church chose to believe in a Mother in Heaven because of feelings in our heart (sure a form of revelation) not because a prophet received any prophetic revelation from Heavenly Father that has been canonized or even written down. 

D&C 131: 1-3 is not opinion.  All scripture has to be interpreted by someone. And our prophets have interpreted the scriptures to mean we have a Heavenly Mother. 

Elder Dallin H. Oaks said:
“Our understanding of the nature and purpose of God the Eternal Father explains our destiny and our relationship in his eternal family. Our theology begins with heavenly parents. Our highest aspiration is to be like them.” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Apostasy and Restoration,” Ensign, May 1995, 84)

If our prophets teach it, it is sound official Church doctrine even though there are no scriptures that specifically state it.

 

[Durangout]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

And yet so much of the world doesn’t interpret the title that way.

So much of the world accepts abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, communism / little to no individual rights (the antítesis of free agency), drug use, pornography…not sure I’d use what the world goes with as my yard stick.

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Durangout

[Durangout]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

It’s obvious to me as well. But we are talking about the “obvious” referencing of heavenly mother in the endowment, in which there is none.
 

The average member is not going to see the subtle references and nuances that point to heavenly mother. They are absolutely there but to say it “couldn’t be more obvious” is condescending, self aggrandizing, and extremely annoying to hear… also it is false.

I said;  “it seems pretty obvious to me” not “it couldn’t be more obvious” which does have a bit of a different connotation so I’m not sure why you are attacking me with the name calling.  You having a tough day?

Edited April 10, 2022 by Durangout

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Durangout said:

So much of the world accepts abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, communism / little to no individual rights (the antítesis of free agency), drug use, pornography…not sure I’d use what the world goes with as my yard stick.

I am not suggesting it should be our yard stick. The question is if it is obvious or not. If something is obvious, I would assume then of those who disagree with whether it is truth or not, one would still get a good portion of them agreeing to the interpretation. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Calm

[Fether]

37 minutes ago, Durangout said:

I said;  “it seems pretty obvious to me” not “it couldn’t be more obvious” which does have a bit of a different connotation so I’m not sure why you are attacking me with the name calling.  You having a tough day?

Your comment is appropriate in The overall topic of the thread. But you hopped on to a conversation that started with:

”For anyone who’s been endowed and sealed in the temple, the Mother in Heaven doctrine couldn’t be more obvious if they got hit over the head with a heavy Mallet. ”

 

[telnetd]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm sure they prayed and pondered over it and felt the finished document was what God wanted.

Do you still feel Elder W. Eugene Hansen is still mistaken in his Ensign article but Elder Packer is
correct in his October 2010 GC sermon?  Or do you view them both as incorrect?

[rodheadlee]

23 hours ago, teddyaware said:

For anyone who’s been endowed and sealed in the temple, the Mother in Heaven doctrine couldn’t be more obvious if they got hit over the head with a heavy Mallet. 

I would have no idea, they don't let me in.

[JLHPROF]

19 hours ago, telnetd said:

Do you still feel Elder W. Eugene Hansen is still mistaken in his Ensign article but Elder Packer is
correct in his October 2010 GC sermon?  Or do you view them both as incorrect?

I believe revelation means to reveal.  If the words of the Proclamation were revealed from the mouth of God to his servants ears or contains new light from heaven then it qualifies.

If that's what Elder Hansen believes happened then great.

Edited April 11, 2022 by JLHPROF

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, Fether said:

It’s obvious to me as well. But we are talking about the “obvious” referencing of heavenly mother in the endowment, in which there is none.
 

The average member is not going to see the subtle references and nuances that point to heavenly mother. They are absolutely there but to say it “couldn’t be more obvious” is condescending, self aggrandizing, and extremely annoying to hear… also it is false.

Heavenly Mother is baked in to Mormon culture.  Even non-Mormon scholars see that and write about it (as I have shown above), and anti-Mormons even attack the LDS faith on that basis.  It is an obvious part of the Mormon ethos.  Why would that make someone angry?

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, JAHS said:

D&C 131: 1-3 is not opinion.  All scripture has to be interpreted by someone. And our prophets have interpreted the scriptures to mean we have a Heavenly Mother. 

The only interpreter of Scripture is the Holy Spirit.  To every individual.  Presidents Young and Cannon insisted on this.  The New Testament insisted on that as a basic principle.  And Joseph Smith jr followed that advice into the Sacred Grove.

17 hours ago, JAHS said:

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

If our prophets teach it, it is sound official Church doctrine even though there are no scriptures that specifically state it.
 

Prophets and Scripture can only give us guidance.  If the Holy Spirit does not confirm it, it has no value -- except for dry, scholarly commentary.  Logic and reason certainly have their place.  God presumably gave us a brain for a reason.  However, nothing a prophet says is automatically official church doctrine in the absence of the witness of the Holy Spirit.  That is the primary reason why mainstream christianity hates the LDS faith and vilifies us.  Continuing revelation scares them.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Heavenly Mother is baked in to Mormon culture.  Even non-Mormon scholars see that and write about it (as I have shown above), and anti-Mormons even attack the LDS faith on that basis.  It is an obvious part of the Mormon ethos.  Why would that make someone angry?

It doesn’t make me angry even if it makes me annoyed and frustrated…frustrated because I have encountered too many women who struggle to find themselves in scripture and revelation and much of the temple endowment in anything but a currently silent sidekick role, including having an eternal female role model.  Being told it is obvious is dismissive of their struggles and pain. If it was so obvious, I don’t believe I would be seeing so many. I think of all the likely silent women as well out there that never speak up because they have seen such comments and either fear being seen as disbelieving…because if it is obvious, only someone malicious would say they couldn’t see it or that they are listening to apostates or fear they will be treated like they were spiritually immature or stupid. 
 

In tutoring math over the decades, I have found one of the easiest way to set off a math block, make it actually harder rather than relax the student is to tell them it is easy, obvious as that instantly shifts them into anxiety mode fearing if they don’t immediately figure it out, that means they are stupid.  And that makes it very hard for them to focus on what they are learning rather how they are feeling.  Even smart kids have that reaction, sometimes they are highly sensitive about such things as they know they are expected to learn quickly and don’t want to disappoint.

If we are intent on sharing our beliefs, with nonmembers or members rather than showing how knowledgeable we are, we should avoid saying things like “it is obvious” imo.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Calm

[Nofear]

On 4/10/2022 at 5:55 AM, SwedishLDS said:

I think Renlunds talk was a clear reminder to not look beyond the mark

While in my personal opinion his talk in some places wasn't the most diplomatic or precise, I quite agree with that sentiment above. We come to know who and what kind of being our Heavenly Father is by acquainting our self with the "mark", Jesus Christ. In a like manner, we come to know who and what kind of being our Heavenly Mother is by acquainting our self with her Son (even if she wasn't the maternal bearer of his physical body). I posted a bit more about that sentiment in an earlier thread.

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The only interpreter of Scripture is the Holy Spirit.  To every individual.  Presidents Young and Cannon insisted on this.  The New Testament insisted on that as a basic principle.  And Joseph Smith jr followed that advice into the Sacred Grove.

Prophets and Scripture can only give us guidance.  If the Holy Spirit does not confirm it, it has no value -- except for dry, scholarly commentary.  Logic and reason certainly have their place.  God presumably gave us a brain for a reason.  However, nothing a prophet says is automatically official church doctrine in the absence of the witness of the Holy Spirit.  That is the primary reason why mainstream christianity hates the LDS faith and vilifies us.  Continuing revelation scares them.

I can understand that, from a certain point of view!

Were the rebellions of Martin Luther and Henry VIII revelations or apostasy? They better not have been the former, because if they were continuing revelation then the framework of the left-behind church is shattered beyond repair. Which Pope would like that? And who would want a new true church every few years, with the prophets John Wesley, John Calvin, and Mary Baker Eddy? 

No, stick to the tried and true, sola scriptura, and all that. There's the safe path! Supposedly.

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

If we are intent on sharing our beliefs, with nonmembers or members rather than showing how knowledgeable we are, we should avoid saying things like “it is obvious” imo.

I believe you're right to not want to make a test of intelligence out of it. But to someone for whom that doctrine immediately resonated, it must seem blazingly obvious -- at least in retrospect.

In my early days after my conversion at age 14, being told there was a Mother in Heaven came as a wonderful and comforting principle -- probably because I lost my earthly mother to cancer when I was just 7 years old. To others, it might be a harder sell.

But it makes perfect sense. And balances the equation!

Reminds me of that time I finally grasped algebra. I had been struggling mightily trying to "get" the principle involved, without success. And was made to attend a summer school class on the subject. I can still vividly recall where and when I was sitting in the classroom when the teacher explained about keeping an equation balanced as a way to solve it. E.g., if you subtract something from one side, you must subtract it from the other as well. Leading to the solution. In another thread Robert L. Smith was talking about the definition of revelation, that it must reveal something new, not merely be the explanation of something already fairly well understood. Well, that class on that day was a revelation to me! It changed mathematics forever for me.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

But to someone for whom that doctrine immediately resonated, it must seem blazingly obvious -- at least in retrospect.

A recognition that something may be obvious to oneself because of one’s personal experiences and filters while not being obvious to another and therefore is not inherently obvious is a sign of empathy and self awareness, imo. 

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

A recognition that something may be obvious to oneself because of one’s personal experiences and filters while not being obvious to another and therefore is not inherently obvious is a sign of empathy and self awareness, imo. 

Though to be a little charitable, it is a common phenomena known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. In its negative aspect it's usually phrased that when someone is not competent they are often ill equipped to recognize their own incompetence and will overestimate their skill/knowledge. The lesser known opposite side of the coin exists too. When one is competent, it is not always easy for the individual to recognize that the same skill/knowledge is not easy for others. One of the marks of a good teacher is the ability to be self-aware of this phenomena (named or not named) and move past it without judgment. Most people aren't good teachers.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Though to be a little charitable, it is a common phenomena known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. In its negative aspect it's usually phrased that when someone is not competent they are often ill equipped to recognize their own incompetence and will overestimate their skill/knowledge. The lesser known opposite side of the coin exists too. When one is competent, it is not always easy for the individual to recognize that the same skill/knowledge is not easy for others. One of the marks of a good teacher is the ability to be self-aware of this phenomena (named or not named) and move past it without judgment. Most people aren't good teachers.

I'm going to steal this quote, hope that's ok.   

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Nofear said:

The lesser known opposite side of the coin exists too

Any chance that has a label as well?

My older brother was taking Differential Equations in the same class I was and being engaged, he missed some classes.  So I was helping him catch up…the text was quite slim, so not great for studying on your own.  I wrote out an example with a few steps and then the answer, thinking I had shown all that was needed.  But he gave me a look and asked how I got from one step to the next.  My first response was ‘I just did’ as I hadn’t really thought about it and I asked him can’t you see the one follows from the other.  No, no he couldn’t.  It was not obvious to him.  I was dumbfounded, how could it not be.  He was good at math and science, so the usual math blocks wouldn’t apply in his case.  Took me looking at the two a bit to realize there were actually a couple of more steps between them and my brain was just capable of proceeding with the calculation without thinking about it.  I think it likely the only time a sibling looked at me in awe, lol.  Once I broke it down to the simplest elements, he caught on just fine.  It had never occurred to me I thought differently than others before, I just thought I was faster and had a better memory.  Not bragging because it was a gift, not a skill.  And I am so not gifted in music, language, or sports, so plenty to be humble about.

When you view something in a fundamentally different way than someone else, what is obvious to you will often not be obvious to them no matter how simple it appears to be.  It is like expecting someone colorblind to be able to recognize color, while they may be expecting you to appreciate what they are seeing.

Quote

Red-green color blindness can give people certain advantages over normal-sighted individuals. For example, those with this vision deficiency can better distinguish textures and patterns.

A hunter might be better equipped to detect camouflaged prey in nature due to their ability to see the subtle changes in texture. Even jobs in the fashion industry, graphic design, or visual arts fields can prove fruitful for someone with color blindness. Color often plays a large role in these positions, but someone with a discerning eye can make a big difference when examining varying patterns and textures for new designs or pieces.

Coming to terms with a vision deficiency can be difficult for those with color blindness, but it shouldn’t be considered a disabling characteristic. Living with colorblindness has its own unique benefits of which to take advantage.

https://thezebra.org/2020/10/19/the-hidden-benefits-of-being-colorblind/

Edited April 11, 2022 by Calm

[Nofear]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

Any chance that has a label as well?

I've always called it the other side of the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is an image related to the original study.

Society has mostly focused mostly on the bottom quartile and not the top quartile. Other related ideas are imposter syndrome or false consensus effect.
https://www.byrdseed.com/dunning-kruger/

As a bit of a disclaimer, this effect is not without criticism or danger of over use. Not everybody all the time is subject to it and it can be selectively applied to topics. I think of it as one of several cognitive biases (e.g. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/11-cognitive-biases-influence-politics/).

 

Quote

My older brother was taking Differential Equations in the same class I was and being engaged, he missed some classes.  So I was helping him catch up…the text was quite slim, so not great for studying on your own.  I wrote out an example with a few steps and then the answer, thinking I had shown all that was needed.  But he gave me a look and asked how I got from one step to the next.  My first response was ‘I just did’ as I hadn’t really thought about it and I asked him can’t you see the one follows from the other.  No, no he couldn’t.  It was not obvious to him.  I was dumbfounded, how could it not be.  He was good at math and science, so the usual math blocks wouldn’t apply in his case.  Took me looking at the two a bit to realize there were actually a couple of more steps between them and my brain was just capable of proceeding with the calculation without thinking about it.  I think it likely the only time a sibling looked at me in awe, lol.  Once I broke it down to the simplest elements, he caught on just fine.  It had never occurred to me I thought differently than others before, I just thought I was faster and had a better memory.  Not bragging because it was a gift, not a skill.  And I am so not gifted in music, language, or sports, so plenty to be humble about.

While not exactly related to your comment, I sometimes have difficulty with dual-credit courses in high school. The teenage-early 20's brain is still actively developing and it's possible for a 16 year old's brain to simply not be quite wired yet for understanding Calculus (while another individual of the same age is) and so they struggle. But, given another year or two "suddenly" the same topic could be approached and their brain is ready to learn it.

 

Quote

When you view something in a fundamentally different way than someone else, what is obvious to you will often not be obvious to them no matter how simple it appears to be.  It is like expecting someone colorblind to be able to recognize color, while they may be expecting you to appreciate what they are seeing.

https://thezebra.org/2020/10/19/the-hidden-benefits-of-being-colorblind/

Or, if a woman, one could be lucky enough to be a tetrachromat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy).

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Nofear

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

A recognition that something may be obvious to oneself because of one’s personal experiences and filters while not being obvious to another and therefore is not inherently obvious is a sign of empathy and self awareness, imo. 

I've read this over several times, and still can't quite parse out what you mean.

But maybe that's the point? 🤨

 

[Nofear]

19 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I've read this over several times, and still can't quite parse out what you mean.

But maybe that's the point? 🤨

I don't know. I thought her comment was pretty self-explanatory, even obvious in nature.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I can understand that, from a certain point of view!

Were the rebellions of Martin Luther and Henry VIII revelations or apostasy? They better not have been the former, because if they were continuing revelation then the framework of the left-behind church is shattered beyond repair. Which Pope would like that? And who would want a new true church every few years, with the prophets John Wesley, John Calvin, and Mary Baker Eddy? 

No, stick to the tried and true, sola scriptura, and all that. There's the safe path! Supposedly.

Exactly.  At the same time, the Reformation was actually a good thing for the Roman Catholic Church:  It led to the Counter-Reformation, which dealt directly with accurate complaints of corruption.