- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Just wondering what the average StayLDS member thinks of this topic. Since we have virtually no revealed doctrine about our Heavenly Mother(s), there is a lot of speculation, and this has been on my mind lately. 1. Do you think Heavenly Mother(s) participated in the creation of the earth?
2. If yes, how do you reconcile that with the fact that the creation is depicted in the temple as being an all male endeavor?
I have thoughts (don’t I always), but I’m interested to hear what others think.
I try not to deal in speculation, so my short answer is I don’t know and I don’t think anybody knows (including Joseph Smith, Bruce McConkie, Cleon Skousen and Thomas Monson). I actually think the Big Bang is a plausible explanation of how the universe was created, similar to how I believe evolution is plausible. I don’t know how God did it, I only (barely) believe they did. Hence, I’m not sure how much “participation” there was if all it took was the snap of God’s fingers or the push of a button. If we take the temple version more literally (I don’t take it literally at all) then HM did not participate. If we allow some leeway to be a bit figurative or symbolic, then she could have. If we are very open to thinking outside the tiny little Mormon shoebox, she probably did.
I agree that we need to be clear this is speculation, but to me I feel that the beauty in the world leads me to say yes. That is a bit of my marriage is I am more worried about the structural integrity and insulation properties of the walls of our home and my wife does 99% of the decoration as I have very little skill in that area. Joni wrote:1. Do you think Heavenly Mother(s) participated in the creation of the earth?
Yes, of course.
Joni wrote:2. If yes, how do you reconcile that with the fact that the creation is depicted in the temple as being an all male endeavor?
The temple is symbolic, meant to point us toward deeper truths. All scripture and revelation is subject to the understanding and interpretation of men, who see through a glass darkly. God cannot reveal to man more than he is able to accept or comprehend.
I believe science can help reveal details of the creation and the state of our universe.
Orson wrote:All scripture and revelation is subject to the understanding and interpretation of men, who see through a glass darkly. God cannot reveal to man more than he is able to accept or comprehend.
In 2017, shouldn’t we be able to accept and comprehend the idea that a woman (or some number of women) participated in the creation? If our current depiction is incorrect, God can correct it any time He chooses. Then again, if God had been more forthright about Her participation
in the first place, maybe mortal man wouldn’t have ever developed the idea that the really important work of creation can’t be done by women. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Joni wrote:Orson wrote:All scripture and revelation is subject to the understanding and interpretation of men, who see through a glass darkly. God cannot reveal to man more than he is able to accept or comprehend.
In 2017, shouldn’t we be able to accept and comprehend the idea that a woman (or some number of women) participated in the creation? If our current depiction is incorrect, God can correct it any time He chooses. Then again, if God had been more forthright about Her participation
in the first place, maybe mortal man wouldn’t have ever developed the idea that the really important work of creation can’t be done by women. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It is also possible that our understanding of gender is incorrect or that there actually is no gender beyond earth. That is, it is possible that spirits and Gods are genderless. If that’s the case, HM had as much role in the creation as HF because there would be neither father nor mother in that sense. “Father” could be a misinterpretation of early prophets which has been perpetuated over time. I agree that God could fix such a misunderstanding but God does not seem to do much (if any) of that sort of thing.
DarkJedi wrote:Hence, I’m not sure how much “participation” there was if all it took was the snap of God’s fingers or the push of a button.
Probably something along the lines of:
“Hey honey, hold My beer and watch this.”
“Finish your beer, I’ll try to make something useful out of this mess.”
I don’t believe the creation story is literal at all. I view it as a completely symbolic story. Viewing it as a symbolic story, takes the gender inequality out of the whole thing. I don’t believe Adam represents all men, and Eve represents all women. I believe Adam represents Christ, and Eve represents mankind. Wives don’t submit to their husbands, as their husbands submit to God. Mankind is asked to follow Christ, as he follows God. He came to the earth to give mankind an example to follow. The serpent was unsuccessful in beguiling Christ, so he beguiles us to try to separate us from Christ and God. Read through the Adam/Eve story again sometime, or think about the temple story, but instead of thinking about Adam and Eve as representing men and women, think about them representing Christ and mankind. It puts a different spin on things. I don’t think anybody knows anything about the actual creation, and the creation story is simply a symbolic story written by the jews to explain our relationship with God and the savior that they were waiting for. Just my opinion. Joni wrote:
2. If yes, how do you reconcile that with the fact that the creation is depicted in the temple as being an all male endeavor?
By remembering that I don’t believe a single thing that JS or BY taught about women specifically. Whenever they single women out, I’m off their doctrinal bus. When they talk about humankind, I listen to see if it rings true.And what DJ says about creation itself.
1 – Yes, if it was “created / organized” by beings rather than some other non-interventionist process. 2 – Because it behooves men who love patriarchy to convince women that their role is supportive and ancillary to men, not equal contributors beloved for their wisdom and intelligence. Men have a hard time seeing past our boobies and uteri.
If you’re interested in hearing more about why I think this, you should read this post I did several years ago:
https://wheatandtares.org/2013/01/22/the-plan-of-asherah/ The “council of Gods” was never an all male panel. That’s a modern invention. Archaeology confirms that there were always both men & women in the pantheons of ancient cultures.
So here are the possible conclusions I’ve come to: 1) It’s possible that God did not allow his wife to participate in the Creation. In this case, God is a sexist jerk.
2) It’s possible that God DID allow his wife to participate in the Creation, but He does not have a problem with taking the credit for Her work. He demands that we
never stopgiving praise and gratitude to Him for the awesome world we live in, but He is not troubled when His wife is given neither. In this case, God is a sexist jerk. 3) It’s possible that Heavenly Mother did not participate in the Creation because She was busy doing a different, equally important thing. However, God does not want us to know what this was, instead preferring that all our praise and gratitude be directed towards Him and Him alone. In this case, God is a sexist jerk.
I think about this in the context of my own marriage. If my husband was required to create something big, say an earth, he would want my participation even if nobody was requiring it. (I am way more creative than him, and even if I wasn’t, my husband tends to be very humble about his own skills and seeks out the input of others.) Later, if people praised him for creating this awesome thing, my husband would insist that I received my fair share of the praise – probably
morethan my fair share, knowing him. A man who takes credit and accepts praise for his wife’s work isn’t really any more enlightened than a man who doesn’t let his wife participate in the first place. I can accept that the creation story in the endowment is wrong (I struggle to understand why God hasn’t seen fit to correct the sexism, but okay). I can accept that a lot of the more troubling aspects of the endowment are wrong. But where does that leave us? Doesn’t the majority of our exclusive truth claim hang on the temple?
Quote:Doesn’t the majority of our exclusive truth claim hang on the temple?
No, I don’t think so. Exclusive truth claims are about revelation being ongoing (God being at the head of the church), but the temple is about humans making covenants.
Joni wrote:So here are the possible conclusions I’ve come to:
1) It’s possible that God did not allow his wife to participate in the Creation. In this case, God is a sexist jerk.
2) It’s possible that God DID allow his wife to participate in the Creation, but He does not have a problem with taking the credit for Her work. He demands that we
never stopgiving praise and gratitude to Him for the awesome world we live in, but He is not troubled when His wife is given neither. In this case, God is a sexist jerk. 3) It’s possible that Heavenly Mother did not participate in the Creation because She was busy doing a different, equally important thing. However, God does not want us to know what this was, instead preferring that all our praise and gratitude be directed towards Him and Him alone. In this case, God is a sexist jerk.
Joni, I think you’re missing one HUGE conclusion:
4) None of the above. The stories we’re told about the creation were written thousands of years ago by people who really had no idea about the actual creation. The story is symbolic and has nothing to do with a male/female hierarchy. And the temple ceremony was written in a sexist time by sexist men. None of it actually came directly from God’s (male or female) mouth. I know there’s a lot of sexist nonsense in the church, but you don’t have to believe that any of it came from God.
Joni wrote:1. Do you think Heavenly Mother(s) participated in the creation of the earth?
2. If yes, how do you reconcile that with the fact that the creation is depicted in the temple as being an all male endeavor?
1. I think the creation story is probably just a story, like the creation stories of many other cultural traditions. The actual literal Creation could’ve happened in countless ways. As a kid, in the Church, my mom and various Primary teachers taught me that Heavenly Mother did help create the earth, so I always accepted it as a given even though it isn’t in the official story.
2. I think the creation is depicted in the temple as an all-male endeavor because our culture for many centuries has been patriarchal, and that’s the lens through which we’ve traditionally viewed everything. The scriptures are mostly full of stories about men with I’d say <10% of the material being about women. It doesn't mean women weren't around or that they weren't doing anything important. It just means there's a longstanding tradition of not bothering to mention them when they do important stuff. Kinda like the "King James" translation of the Bible wasn't exactly King James sitting there at a desk, translating away; it was a whole bunch of dudes working together on the translation, and then presenting it to the King and slapping his name on it. I assume the king commissioned it. Maybe Heavenly Father commissioned Heavenly Mother to make a world. Maybe she did all the work. Maybe it was totally fun and she was happy to do it by herself. Maybe she's miffed about not getting credited. Maybe she doesn't even care whether she gets credit or not; she's busy making even cooler worlds, now.
Holy Cow wrote:
Joni, I think you’re missing one HUGE conclusion:4) None of the above. The stories we’re told about the creation were written thousands of years ago by people who really had no idea about the actual creation. The story is symbolic and has nothing to do with a male/female hierarchy. And the temple ceremony was written in a sexist time by sexist men. None of it actually came directly from God’s (male or female) mouth. I know there’s a lot of sexist nonsense in the church, but you don’t have to believe that any of it came from God.
This. I don’t believe in a bigoted god, but a lot of church leaders, past and present, are bigoted jerks.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.