Mother in Heaven — a tricky pseudo doctrine thing…

[Anonymous]

With all this Kate Kelly stuff and LGBT and so forth, and the Van Allen’s deal with section 132,…I have been a little more hyper-sensitive to the “Mother in Heaven” (MIH) thing.

For a long time, I felt LDS teachings were in many ways, basically misogynistic, both in doctrine and practice/policy. After listening to the Van Allens with regards to section 132, I see no reason to change that perspective in many respects.

I recently heard a pod-cast from a BYU professor who, during her graduate degree program, took a feminist issues course or something. Their topic of discussion during a particular assignment was “Mother in Heaven”. This BYU lady found during her research (so she claims) what she believes is the source of why we don’t talk about MIH that much.

Have any of you been taught that the reason we don’t talk about MIH is because she is so precious and sacred to FIH that He doesn’t want anything said about Her? He protects Her, and out of reverence for Her, there is nothing hardly written or revealed about Her?

OK, here is where it gets fun. This BYU lady said the source of that “doctrine” (pseudo doctrine?) was a footnote that appeared in like a seminary/institute lesson manual or something. (There is a chance I might be able to find out more about that, and put in a reference for the claim). But this lady believes that this WAS the source of that, and because there was so little about the teachings of MIH in the first place, the idea caught on like wild fire, spread out like crazy, and has become a type of doctrinal approach to the whole topic.

Making sense so far?

OK…I am putting this out there. Anyone know more about this whole topic?

[Anonymous]

There is no clear revelation within our scriptural canon, although there is lots of Old Testament stuff about the divine feminine, so it all relies on statements by modern church leaders over the years.

It is concept that resonates 🙂 with a lot of members, including me, so it has become generally accepted. I love it, even though I dislike a lot of the peripheral explanations and justifications that have grown around it. (like the too sacred nonsense or the never ending pregnancy silliness)

Why isn’t it in our scriptures? It was defeated in the Old Testament time period by those who espoused a male-focused monotheism – since one God, to them, meant one personage – and because of the sexuality involved in the goddess worship of that time. Add that to the exclusive male authorship of the scriptures, and I see a giant “as far as it is translated (or transmitted) correctly” issue.

[Anonymous]

This really isn’t a cop out. In our last high council meeting we had a discussion about helping those in faith crisis. One of the major points was to focus on core gospel principles. Things like April 6 being the birthdate of Jesus and speculation about the pre and post earth life were specifically mentioned. From my point of view, Heavenly Mother fits the things to avoid focusing on.

I do believe there is a divine feminine, a feminine God and I have heard speculation like you mention as well as other speculations (like that she is the Holy Ghost). But it is indeed all speculation and supposition and we are better off focusing our efforts on that which we have much more information about.

[Anonymous]

A good thread from last year about this topic:

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5583

Here’s what I said about it then:

On Own Now wrote:

There was some sidebar discussion on this topic back in January.

The first reference to Heavenly Mother in LDS literature was in the poem “My Father in Heaven”, by Eliza R Snow. It was written in October, 1845 and published a month later in the Church’s Times and Seasons. The poem was written almost a year and a half after the death of JS. This poem was later put to music and re-titled “Oh My Father”.

There isn’t any reference to a teaching by JS that there is a Heavenly Mother, so best we can tell, ERS postulated the existence of a HM by sheer logic:

Quote:

In the heav’ns are parents single?

No, the thought makes reason stare.

Truth is reason; truth eternal

Tells me I’ve a mother there.

The only thing we can say for sure is that it’s a natural extension from JS’s teachings of both sealing for time and eternity and of eternal progression.

Today, there remains no clear doctrine from scripture or revelation. However the Church has recently asserted as de facto doctrine, the concept of “heavenly parents”. In all honesty, I believe the Church is overstepping to declare this as doctrine without a specific accepted-by-vote revelation or declaration, but hey, that’s another story. Besides, if such a doctrine were presented to the general membership, it would be unanimously accepted, so OK. Doctrine or no, it is clearly a teaching of the Church.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World states,

Quote:

Each [person] is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents.

A recent essay, entitled “Becoming Like God”, published on lds.org, https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng, reiterated the concept, though in slightly guarded terms:

Quote:

Latter-day Saints have also been moved by the knowledge that their divine parentage includes a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father. Expressing that truth, Eliza R. Snow asked, “In the heav’ns are parents single?” and answered with a resounding no: “Truth eternal / Tells me I’ve a mother there.” That knowledge plays an important role in Latter-day Saint belief.

Dallin H Oaks said in GC in April, 1995,

Quote:

Our theology begins with heavenly parents. Our highest aspiration is to be like them.

But with all that in mind, let me reiterate what I said back in our own discussions in January:

On Own Now wrote:

In strict LDS theology, there is not a clear concept of Heavenly Mother. It’s more like circumstantial evidence… there must be one, or some.

The reality is that although “God” is central to Judeo-Christian religion, we don’t know that much about Him either. We are taught that He has a body of flesh and bone, that He was once as we are, and that He is our spiritual parent. If we assume a Heavenly Mother, then we know exactly those same things about Her. Things that we know about God that we don’t know about Heavenly Mother: He listens to our prayers, He set forth the Plan of Salvation, He directed the creation, He appeared to JS… and we know His name. That’s an awfully small canon of information about the being that we worship and in whom we put our trust.

Yet LDS theology isn’t focused on God (or Mrs. God), but on US. That’s one of the most important elements of our Church, IMO. This is all about US, not about God.

[Anonymous]

Here’s more about what Ray mentioned about God the Mother being deliberately erased from the Hebrew record:

http://www.wheatandtares.org/10529/the-plan-of-asherah/

and another: http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/god-wife-yahweh-asherah-110318.htm

[Anonymous]

This is one of the head-scratchers for me. How did a beautiful idea – and for me it rings completely true – like Mother in Heaven get resurrected by a people living the insidious Law of Sarah?

I think one reason the church doesn’t “go there” much anymore is that it lives too close to polygamy and no one wants to unpack that mess. (Is our Mother an equal, valued partner and creator with our Father, or Wife #32 assigned to planet Earth?)

[Anonymous]

Quote:

OK, here is where it gets fun. This BYU lady said the source of that “doctrine” (pseudo doctrine?) was a footnote that appeared in like a seminary/institute lesson manual or something. (There is a chance I might be able to find out more about that, and put in a reference for the claim). But this lady believes that this WAS the source of that, and because there was so little about the teachings of MIH in the first place, the idea caught on like wild fire, spread out like crazy, and has become a type of doctrinal approach to the whole topic.

I’m not clear on this. Is the BYU lady saying that the source, the footnote, is just someone’s speculation? If so, yes, I think she’s 100% right. The truth is, whenever we come up against an uncomfortable doctrine, mental gymnastics leads to speculation, leads to folklore, leads to de facto doctrine. This is how it happens every time.

The idea that God is a benevolent sexist, one who thinks Heavenly Mother is fragile and in need of protection from her own children, is a mighty convenient way to look at it, particularly convenient since it’s how benevolent sexism works in recent contemporary western society: women are placed on a pedestal and protected from anything unpleasant because they can’t handle it and stay pure and sweet. That doesn’t make this thinking eternal. On the contrary, it points to its transitory, temporary, cultural nature. It also assumes that Heavenly Mother is a whole different type of creature from Heavenly Father, not an equal, not even really a God in any real sense. She’s fragile and can’t handle the tough stuff. I don’t know a lot of women who are actually like that, but I do unfortunately know plenty of men, particularly from older generations, who think women are like that.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

This really isn’t a cop out. In our last high council meeting we had a discussion about helping those in faith crisis. One of the major points was to focus on core gospel principles. Things like April 6 being the birthdate of Jesus and speculation about the pre and post earth life were specifically mentioned. From my point of view, Heavenly Mother fits the things to avoid focusing on.

I do believe there is a divine feminine, a feminine God and I have heard speculation like you mention as well as other speculations (like that she is the Holy Ghost). But it is indeed all speculation and supposition and we are better off focusing our efforts on that which we have much more information about.

I used to just say, “Oh, please, spare me,” when I would hear terribly earnest, usually young-ish women say things like, “Where’s my Mother? I want to speak with her.” That was back when I believed all kinds of damaging things about a woman’s place in the gospel, but I didn’t recognize that my acceptance of all that was fueling my dissmissiveness of those women. (DJ – I’m not saying you’re doing that. )

What if according Heavenly Mother a real live identity is going to be our way out and forward through a lot of our current problems? To just say that our hands are tied because she’s not in the scriptures is a very un-LDS thing, isn’t it? We’re chock full of things that aren’t in the scriptures.

I’m not one of those young, terribly earnest Mormon feminists who occasionally gets yanked from a podium for praying to Father and Mother in Heaven, but the church has less influence on my life and thinking the longer it is uninterested in a concept that now really speaks to me. That’s just natural, I guess.

[Anonymous]

I think they’re more worried with her being confused with this personally.

[img]http://cathoolic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/HeartOfMary01_20-25_300dpi_02-819×1024.jpg[/img]

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

The first reference to Heavenly Mother in LDS literature was in the poem “My Father in Heaven”, by Eliza R Snow. It was written in October, 1845 and published a month later in the Church’s Times and Seasons.

W. W. Phelps composed a hymn titled “A Voice from the Prophet ‘Come to Me'” in 1844. It contains the words:

Quote:

Come to me; here’s the myst’ry that man hath not seen;

Here’s our Father in heaven, and Mother, the Queen

See History of the Church, Volume 7, Chapter 26.

[Anonymous]

Ann, Heavenly Mother does not have to be associated with polygamy at all. I urge you to separate the two so you can find joy in the “beautiful idea” of Heavenly Mother.

I also do not believe that the idea of Heavenly Father protecting Her is necessarily sexist. Spouses protect each other. Maybe Heavenly Mother presides over worlds to which She does not reveal details about Heavenly Father.

While it doesn’t do much good to speculate, maybe it’s good to wonder. It is a wonderful thing to think about having a Mother in Heaven.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

On Own Now wrote:

The first reference to Heavenly Mother in LDS literature was in the poem “My Father in Heaven”, by Eliza R Snow. It was written in October, 1845 and published a month later in the Church’s Times and Seasons.

W. W. Phelps composed a hymn titled “A Voice from the Prophet ‘Come to Me'” in 1844. It contains the words:

Quote:

Come to me; here’s the myst’ry that man hath not seen;

Here’s our Father in heaven, and Mother, the Queen

See History of the Church, Volume 7, Chapter 26.

Wow, great find, Shawn. Indeed, that does predate ERS’s poem. After a bit of research, though, I will point out that it also was written after the death of JS. It was published in the Times and Seasons in January, 1845 and the same poem/hymn declares that JS is with God in the hereafter, along with Adam and Eve and all the other saints that have died. Because of that, it’s not anything that can be directly attributed to JS.

In addition, I’m not totally sure who Phelps meant by “Mother, the Queen”. Here are the first lines:

Quote:

Come to me, will ye come to the saints that have died-

Come to me, here are Adam and Eve at the head

To the next better world, where the righteous reside;

Of a multitude, quicken’d and rais’d from the dead:

Where the angels and spirits in harmony be

Here’s the knowledge that was, or that is, or will be-

In the joys of a vast Paradise? Come to me.

In the gen’ral assembly of worlds: Come to me

Come to me where the truth and the virtues prevails;

Come to me, here’s the myst’ry that man hath not seen;

Where the union is one, and the years never fail;

Here’s our Father in heaven, and Mother, the Queen…

Did he mean Father and Mother in Heaven (God and wife)? Was that the mystery? Or did he mean that our father Adam and our mother Eve are in heaven, still sealed in an eternal marriage (where the union is one and the years never fail)? This would also qualify as a mystery that man hath not seen. In that light, it’s easy to see a possible foreshadowing of Adam-God. Part of the difficulty is that in this poem, it’s hard to tell who is talking. The voice keeps repeating the phrase, “Come to me”. Yet, Adam, Eve, “Father in heaven”, “Mother, the Queen”, the lord, and JS are all mentioned in the third person by the same voice.

My guess is that he’s talking about MIH, not Eve, but it’s pretty unclear in context.

As I’ve always said, while we don’t have any recorded statement or writing from JS about the topic, it is completely consistent with his teachings and if he didn’t say it himself, it was an unavoidable conclusion from his teachings.

[Anonymous]

The speaker in the hymn is Joseph Smith. You probably lost view of the title (A Voice from the Prophet ‘Come to Me’) as you studied the content . He refers to himself in the third person at the end, but I think it’s saying “Here I am, your Prophet and Seer, Joseph Smith: Come to me.”

I have no doubt that “Mother, the Queen” refers to Heavenly Mother.

Anyway, parts of the hymn are kind of creepy and I don’t like it.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

Ann, Heavenly Mother does not have to be associated with polygamy at all. I urge you to separate the two so you can find joy in the “beautiful idea” of Heavenly Mother.

Thanks, Shawn. Unfortunately, I’m very impressionable, and the times I did hear it associated with Heavenly Mother (when I was young) really stuck with me. Time has gone on, and there’s been no “official” further light and knowledge on the subject, so we’re all left with whatever input we’ve received from each other over the years. And that little voice inside that “tells me I’ve a Mother there.”

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Quote:

OK, here is where it gets fun. This BYU lady said the source of that “doctrine” (pseudo doctrine?) was a footnote that appeared in like a seminary/institute lesson manual or something. (There is a chance I might be able to find out more about that, and put in a reference for the claim). But this lady believes that this WAS the source of that, and because there was so little about the teachings of MIH in the first place, the idea caught on like wild fire, spread out like crazy, and has become a type of doctrinal approach to the whole topic.

I’m not clear on this. Is the BYU lady saying that the source, the footnote, is just someone’s speculation? If so, yes, I think she’s 100% right. The truth is, whenever we come up against an uncomfortable doctrine, mental gymnastics leads to speculation, leads to folklore, leads to de facto doctrine. This is how it happens every time.

Hi HG. I did some checking, looked her in the eyeballs actually and asked her point blank, and she was quite certain that the doctrine, from the graduate class she attended at BYU, traced the source to a footnote in an instructors manual at the CES level. That was the first occurrence found, with nothing they could find proceeding it. It appeared to have been a rumored folklore idea, like you suggested HG, that spread and become doctrinal (in the culture anyway).

So, I challenge anyone out there to find an original source about this if possible. I would be very interested…but I’m not sure such exists.

hawkgrrrl wrote:

The idea that God is a benevolent sexist, one who thinks Heavenly Mother is fragile and in need of protection from her own children, is a mighty convenient way to look at it, particularly convenient since it’s how benevolent sexism works in recent contemporary western society: women are placed on a pedestal and protected from anything unpleasant because they can’t handle it and stay pure and sweet. That doesn’t make this thinking eternal. On the contrary, it points to its transitory, temporary, cultural nature. It also assumes that Heavenly Mother is a whole different type of creature from Heavenly Father, not an equal, not even really a God in any real sense. She’s fragile and can’t handle the tough stuff. I don’t know a lot of women who are actually like that, but I do unfortunately know plenty of men, particularly from older generations, who think women are like that.

I LOVE THIS! What you said here in particular: “…women are placed on a pedestal and protected from anything unpleasant because they can’t handle it and stay pure and sweet” is quite interesting because, from my perspective, it messes with, among other things, the dynamics of marriage at a fundamental level. It makes women passive, subservient, submissive, and fragile. And, it seems to do it in the quest to protect their purity. This is offensive to me, and yet I see it happen all over the place. I have often wondered?…is this done to protect women, or to control them? In some situations, I am sure I have seen it done for the subtle and cunning purpose of control.

[Author]

Posts