What if Heavenly Mother is the Holy Ghost?

[Anonymous]

Always Thinking wrote:

I couldn’t find the scripture where it says the Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead, I know I’ve heard it before, but is it possible it simply means it’s one of the three, and not that its rank is 3rd place?

This is a really good point. Just because I’ve heard the Holy Ghost referred to as “3rd member” of the Godhead, does not mean it was meant to be taught as 3rd place, although the order it is always said in, including baptisms and such can imply that, you are correct it doesn’t necessarily mean that.

Good point.

Something new for me to consider.

Always Thinking wrote:

our church says that the holy ghost had to be a spirit to be with so many people at once. But isn’t God said to always be with us? And isn’t He able to answer many many prayers at once through the HG? So why can’t the HG have a body if God has one and can do.all of those things? Who decided that was how it had to work?

Exactly, good questions…because honestly, does it make any more sense that it works that way for a holy spirit without a body than for an omnipotent god with a body? How it works is likely a mystery we won’t ever understand. But my son and I shared a nice experience this past Sunday, and so…however it works…I’m grateful for it to guide us towards truth.

Something tells me it is more about feelings inside of us, as we are all gods. More about tuning our spirits to the frequency that is all around us.

It just would be nice to have more doctrine on our Heavenly Mother and have her talked about so we can ascribe mysterious god stuff to her, and have mutual support on those feelings. But…looks like we have to do as Ray says…just frame it and see it our way and mostly keep it to ourselves because it can’t be talked about openly at church.

[Anonymous]

One of the more common speculations I’ve heard is that Heavenly Mother doesn’t interact with us because She is busy with other things. Maybe She is off creating worlds of her own and left Her husband in charge of the kids for a few dispensations. But I really can’t get behind that. We are told again and again and again that nothing a woman can do is more important than nurturing her children. I don’t see why that would stop being true when a woman is elevated to wife-of-God status.

If my husband ends up becoming like God and having his own worlds to create, he doesn’t want to do that work without me. (I have a way better understanding of the natural world, for one thing, due to having a science degree.) But if Heavenly Mother was in any way involved with the creation of this world, it doesn’t come up in the creation account in the temple.

[Anonymous]

Everything we have scripturally is told from the viewpoint of the men who wrote it, including the play that is the endowment.

Scripture is the recorded views of the authors, but our own Bible Dictionary says revelation is available to all of us – so write your own “scripture” from your own viewpoint.

Just don’t teach it as doctrine. Talk about it as your own faith and heart’s desire. It doesn’t get more Mormon than that.

[Anonymous]

Disclaimer: people both create symbols and give them meaning. That’s what I’m doing here… I’m not saying that I’m original in my thinking, just that symbols can have deep meaning or be a bunch of hooey. Your call.

You ever see a painting where Jesus is throwing gang signs? Often along these lines.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/SpjFpIy.png[/img]

Some people interpret the three fingers pointing upwards (heavenward) as the father (middle), the son (index) and the holy ghost (thumb).

Now to jump shark/nuke fridge. Palmistry symbolism:

Middle finger: Associated with Saturn/Cronus. First/father of the gods. Tallest finger.

Index finger: Associated with Jupiter/Zeus. Son of Cronus and Rhea.

Thumb: Associated with Venus/Aphrodite. More notably, female.

So there’s another “mapping” between the holy ghost and the feminine divine. The thumb is unique when compared with the other fingers. If one wanted to make the HG more like the other fingers in the divine trio (i.e. masculine?) Jesus’ hand gesture could have just as easily included the ring finger (Apollo) instead of the thumb, similar to a boy scout salute.

So every time you see a painting of Jesus, remember he’s communicating the secret of the feminine divine… if you want to believe that’s what he’s doing.

[Anonymous]

Thank you so much for posting your thoughts on the Heavenly Mother!

Your ideas, clearly explained, are consistent with what I’ve been thinking for years. What I’ve read about the Holy Ghost always seemed incomplete to me and never really resonated. It makes so much more sense to complete the Godhead with inclusion of the Mother. Now the actions and roles of the HG help form a coherent Godhead.

[Anonymous]

I had a leader of some kind on my mission a long time ago theorize the HG was not a person but an office, held by different individuals at different times before the came to mortality. He loved to say Joseph Smith filled the position for a time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

I have heard the office theory before and it resonates with me. Sometimes if the Bishop does something, it is not so important who the actual person in the office is. Two thoughts come to mind. First, the Church is all about delegating. “ …whether by my own voice or the voice of my prophets, it is the same” – or something like that. So suppose the Holy Ghost office is held by Heavenly Mother, and She delegates the specific tasks to pre or post mortal beings?

The second thought is that, what if the delegates are members of our family groups? Personally I have felt very strong affinities to particular passed on members of my family as I have sought for divine answers to prayers. I know that those that have passed on are very interested in us and would not be a bit surprised to learn that some of those that have lent me strength have yet to be born. I have felt the strength of these family members and not just I think from reading their writings and the stories I know about them (although those stories have been a huge benefit to me as well). Just sayin.

[Anonymous]

I like for our conception of God and the Godhead to be pliable enough to take on the form that is most needed by the individual.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I like for our conception of God and the Godhead to be pliable enough to take on the form that is most needed by the individual.

I like that idea also, Roy. My concept of God/the Godhead has changed many times over the years and I’m still not sure what I think. I’ve been leaning a lot toward unitarian ideas of late, but I’m not always there and I’m very open to other explanations. (For the record I do believe Jesus could be a/the “son of God” and a Savior without necessarily being a God/God himself.)

[Anonymous]

The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I like for our conception of God and the Godhead to be pliable enough to take on the form that is most needed by the individual.

I also like that thought. As someone who was much closer to his mother than his father, the thought of there being a Heavenly Mother up there hits differently for me than having a father in Heaven.

[Anonymous]

Joni wrote:

I did a double take when I saw this interview with Fiona Givens on Flunking Sainthood, because I honestly thought I was the only one! 😯

I wouldn’t say that I believe for sure that HM = the HG, and I certainly wouldn’t teach it to anyone (I’m in no hurry to get excommunicated, thanks) but it definitely seems plausible to me. A couple of reasons why:

– it makes more sense to think of the Godhead as consisting of a nuclear family – mother, father, child – rather than father, son, and unrelated male person.

– while we insist the Holy Ghost is male, I don’t see any reason why that has to be. We freely admit that we know next to nothing about the HG so why are we so sure about His/Her gender?

– the roles of the Holy Ghost (comfort; help make decisions; testify of truth) sound an awful lot like the things that I do for my children

– if Heavenly Father is worried about people disrespecting His wife, He does not show respect for Her by locking Her away in a closet and never speaking of Her again. I like the idea that She has been hiding in plain sight all this time, and we will recognize Her when we see Her again.

On the flip side, there are a couple of things I don’t like about this theory:

– the Holy Ghost is barely mentioned in the temple. (Yes, this is in contrast to the way Heavenly Mother is not mentioned, but still.) The Holy Ghost does not appear to have participated in the creation of the earth or the decision to send Jesus to earth as the Savior. If She is Jesus’ mom, you better believe She had an opinion on that!

– the Holy Ghost cannot act independently; it can only do Heavenly Father’s bidding. So a person prays to Heavenly Father, in Jesus’ name, and HF sends the HG to answer that person’s prayer. While the idea of spending all of my eternity carrying out my husband’s directions to bless our children’s lives is a LOT more appealing than being forbidden to contact them at all, I would still rather be equal partners. It would appear that the relationship between Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost, whoever that is, is a preside/hearken relationship rather than an equal partnership.

Thoughts?

I cannot say that I agree with much of what you have posted but I like the idea of bringing more to the forefront concerning our Mother in Heaven. In essence, I am of the notion that the Holy Ghost is the same individual and is male. I am open to logic but I see the problem as a matter of two little information to be able to draw any meaningful conclusion.

It is interesting that in virtually all ancient cultures and language the references to “G-d” are by title and not specific name and then again there are multiple references. This is including ancient Hebrew as well. The oneness of G-d in Hebrew is the term “ehad” which is a plural term designating multiple individuals bound by covenant. I very much am drawn to this multiple of individuals bound by covenant concept. During the creation epoch in scripture, we are told that man was created in the image of G-d as male and female.

I am of the notion that G-d as a Celestial being is not an individual – and at minimum a male and female that are in essence a husband and wife bound by an “everlasting covenant”. I have speculated that this could include a male and multiple females bound by a Celestial marriage covenant, but I do not know – not from studies nor from personal revelation. Thus, I see that our Father in Heaven does not reside alone as G-d but that He is G-d by and through the covenant of marriage. That in essence when we address G-d or that individual that is our Father in Heaven that we also address His wife(s) or our Mother(s) in heaven as well. That it is impossible to separate the power and glory of G-d outside of the marriage covenant. I give this as opinion applying the logic as I understand given us in scripture – particularly in the Doctrine and Covenants.

[Anonymous]

Watcher wrote:

It is interesting that in virtually all ancient cultures and language the references to “G-d” are by title and not specific name and then again there are multiple references. This is including ancient Hebrew as well. The oneness of G-d in Hebrew is the term “ehad” which is a plural term designating multiple individuals bound by covenant. I very much am drawn to this multiple of individuals bound by covenant concept. During the creation epoch in scripture, we are told that man was created in the image of G-d as male and female.

My understanding of “ehad” (or echad – spelling is somewhat fluid with Hebrew because old Hebrew didn’t have vowels) is “one made up of components.” It is almost always translated as one. It was once explained to me that it’s sort of how we describe a car. A car is made of many components but is only a car when all of the components are assembled – but then it is a car. Otherwise, it’s just car parts or pieces of metal and plastic. Deuteronomy 6:4 is an important scripture to Jews, repeated often by practicing Jews and is known as the “shema” or profession of faith. As repeated in Hebrew it is “Shema’ Yisra’el, Adonai ‘Elohenu, Adonai ‘echad” The KJV translates it as such: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” which lines up with other translations as well, although, others such as the NRSV use “the Lord alone” as the last phrase. (I happen to favor the NRSV, but I also believe overall the King James translators did very well at the translation and mostly just suffers from being written in older English.) The point here being that when this is repeated by observant Jews personally/privately and in synagogue it is done so as a profession/testimony that there is one God – the God (Adonai echad). It is a profession of monotheism and is never interpreted by Jews as having a plural meaning or as a Trinity or anything else (just like a car).

Christians use Deut. 6:4 as evidence of the Trinity. I think this a perfect example of the difference in interpretation of the same passage of scripture by Jews and Christians – a singularity vs. a trinity. From their own points of view neither is wrong, but from the other’s point of view they are wrong. A third point of view could be that neither are wrong – not “or” but “and.”

While on the topic, members of the church like to also use Elohim in this sense, saying that the word in Hebrew is plural. That is absolutely correct, the dictionary definition of Elohim is plural. It can be plural in the same way deer or shrimp are plural – one deer or many deer. When Jews use it, it is one God and again observant Jews will clarify that if you ask. Elohim in Jewish scripture is referring to one monotheistic God, not a Trinity or plurality of Gods. (They are mostly unaware that Mormons use it in this sense, but find it a bit amusing and/or mildly offensive. They also don’t use Elohim as God’s name, rather they use it as we use the word God or the God.)

[Anonymous]

I personally love the concept of a Council of Gods – for multiple reasons. It solves a lot of issues for me and is uniquely Mormon within Christianity, while fitting in nicely with other religious traditions, diverging through cultural and evolving modifications throughout history.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I personally love the concept of a Council of Gods – for multiple reasons. It solves a lot of issues for me and is uniquely Mormon within Christianity, while fitting in nicely with other religious traditions, diverging through cultural and evolving modifications throughout history.

I do too, and that’s why even though I lean unitarian at the moment I can’t totally sort that out in my head yet. There are possible explanations both ways though and and as I study and ponder my personal point of view will continue to evolve.

Above I was simply saying that Christians, and especially Mormons, tend to use definitions of some Hebrew words that Jews do not use in the same way and thus they see the same passage differently. We need to be careful not to reflect our own interpretations on to other belief systems, especially when in Judaism monotheism is the core tenet of their beliefs. As I have said elsewhere I believe many scriptures have multiple meanings and interpretations and I also believe that’s on purpose and part of the plan. Isaiah is a great example of this. Read in historical context and without any Messianic bias, Isaiah is talking about current events of the time (Assyrian invasion) and things that are going to happen in the very near future regarding war and the future of Judah. That reading and interpretation is correct but it’s not necessarily the only reading and interpretation – the Messianic interpretation can also be correct (and not or).

[Author]

Posts