LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin

Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

KD and 7up on Heavenly Mother

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    The idea that God/Elohim consists of multiple persons does not escape the realm of possibility, and yes, a Heavenly Mother may be a part of that.
    You say "may" -- so if she isn't a part of the Godhead, what is she? Not a deity? A deity who submits to the Godhead, as the Son submits to the Father within the Godhead? What's your definition of "Godhead," and what does it mean if that definition doesn't apply to HM?

    Do you want my speculation about God's reasoning behind not explaining Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the Old Testament as well?
    Sure, why not. Speculation's fun too, just like entirely invented concepts.

    For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. (1 Cor 11:7)

    If anything, it indicates that women were more "covered" or "hidden".
    Really? "...he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man." If woman is the glory of God exactly as man is, then this sentence doesn't make sense.

    Is that your complaint about Heavenly Mother? She is too "covered" or "hidden" for you? Don't take it up with me, God is running the show, not me.
    But you are the one who is hypothesizing that Heavenly Mother is being "covered" or "hidden," not God. Where did God say that knowledge of Heavenly Mother, specifically, is for the mature? Where did God say anything about Heavenly Mother?

    You are the one who is saying this, and you are not making sense when you argue that HM's existence is "hidden" because it's for the mature, yet a) reason supposedly tells us she exists, b) HM is supposedly a model for women and HF and HM are supposedly models for human marriages, c) HF has publicly announced that Jesus is his Son and told people to make sure the whole world knows about him (which again, according to Eliza Snow and friends, makes it obvious there is a Mother), d) HF has bent over backwards from the creation of the world onward to proclaim his name -- so many times in the OT, there are variations of the phrase " that they will know that I am the Lord." The "hiding" contradicts one of her purposes; it is the exact opposite of God's treatment of himself, Jesus and the Holy Spirit; and it's not even done well, so it's like you're making God out to be incompetent.

    If you have a problem with the order as described in the scriptures you quoted, again, you need to take it up with God, not me. If you have an issue with God not explaining everything at once, then again, I cannot help you. God reveals "line upon line and precept upon precept". He reveals the "mysteries of godliness" when God sees fit to do so, when God feels the world should face it.
    7up, I understand what your position is here. If God has said that something is off limits, or isn't to be revealed to everyone, or something else that we don't really like or understand, then yes, we have to submit to what he says. And to the extent that you and I are on the same wavelength concerning respecting God and his sovereignty, I agree with you and respect your position.

    The problem is that God never actually said anything about Heavenly Mother. There is nothing about Heavenly Mother in the Bible. There isn't even anything about her in your additional scriptures. What is your doctrine of Heavenly Mother based on? I looked it up at FAIR, which referred to this article:

    Source: Encyclopedia of Mormonism

    As early as 1839 the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the concept of an eternal mother, as reported in several accounts from that period. Out of his teaching came a hymn that Latter-day Saints learn, sing, quote, and cherish, "O My Father," by Eliza R. Snow. President Wilford Woodruff called it a revelation (Woodruff, p. 62). 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. When I leave this frail existence, When I lay this mortal by, Father, Mother, may I meet you In your royal courts on high? [Hymn no. 292]

    In 1909 the First Presidency, under Joseph F. Smith, issued a statement on the origin of man that teaches that "man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father," as an "offspring of celestial parentage," and further teaches that "all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity" (Smith, pp. 199-205).


    Today the belief in a living Mother in Heaven is implicit in Latter-day Saint thought. Though the scriptures contain only hints, statements from presidents of the church over the years indicate that human beings have a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father.

    © Copyright Original Source

    So Joseph Smith taught it (which means what to you, exactly? Do you believe everything he taught was true?), Eliza Snow decided it made sense and wrote a hymn about it, and Woodruff called it a revelation. But none of this is on the same level as God the Father making himself known, declaring Jesus to be his Son, etc.

    My point is that God makes a very big deal about people worshiping him and not false gods. When Jesus started his ministry, IMO the Jews were right to be agitated about his statements that implied equality with God -- and that's one reason why Jesus did so many miracles, why God spoke audibly at different times during his ministry, etc. Without that direct confirmation, it would have been idolatry to worship Jesus. And IMO that's why so many Muslims who become Christians see visions of Jesus -- because they don't want to worship a false god and they need confirmation that Jesus is God.

    God the Father has spoken directly to people. Jesus was on earth and spoke directly to people. God the Father spoke directly about the Son, and the Son spoke directly about the Holy Spirit. But when a mere mortal says, "There's another divine being named so-and-so," that's where we are supposed to say, "Whoa, I can't accept that."

    So what confirmation do you have that Heavenly Mother exists and is God in her own right? How do you know for sure that this is not false teaching?

    Consider this: We have God (Elohim, which is plural) -> Christ -> man -> woman and God -> Christ -> church.
    Are you saying the hierarchy is HF + HM -> Christ -> church? In 1 Cor 15:27-28, do you think HF and HM are together putting all other things in subjection to Christ?

    Maybe Genesis 1, would have been an excellent time to talk about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But it didn't. This "Trinity" concept you hold to is important, isn't it? Why not lay it out from the beginning?
    I would have liked it if God did that, and if he explained the doctrine of the Trinity more fully. Why didn't he do it that way? I don't know.

    You are asking why God does not provide an example from a concept which they had not yet been given yet?
    I am asking how you make sense of saying that HM is a role model, etc. when she is not mentioned in the Bible when the roles of women and wives are discussed and examples of role models are given. If your answer is, "I don't know why, God did it that way and I have to accept it," then just say that.

    Originally posted by seven7up
    Originally posted by Kind Debater
    If there were a HM, then Adam would have come from a woman
    Not just a woman. Women do not create children entirely on their own.
    But he would have come from a woman, which contradicts Paul's statement, "Man was not made from woman".

    BOTH Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother would be involved in the spiritual creation of spiritual children. The physical creation was performed "through Jesus Christ".


    I am saying that John 1:3 is referring to the physical creation...Jesus created "from things which are unseen". These are spiritual things. He did not create from nothing. "By faith we understand that the universe was created by God's command, so that what is seen has been made from things that are not seen" (Heb 11:3). The spiritual things ALREADY existed.
    Please explain how our spirits were both created and eternally pre-existing. This reminds me of your chicken-and-egg dilemma on the ex nihilo thread.

    Correct. If the created physical order is to match the pre-existing spiritual order, would not be good for a man to be without a woman, just like it is not good for HF to be without HM.

    Of course they love and depend on each other. Why wouldn't they? Does the Son depend on the Father? The Father on the Son?
    It has already taken me too long to write this response and I don't think I have any chance of changing your mind here. So I'm just going to say I disagree and leave it at that.

    Originally posted by seven7up
    Originally posted by KD
    I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim 2:12-14)

    What does this mean for Heavenly Mother? The implication here is that there is something inherent in women that disqualifies them from leadership over men. If women are made specifically in Heavenly Mother's image, and Heavenly Father has headship over Heavenly Mother just as husbands are given headship in marriage, then the implication is there is something about HM (and any other female divinities) that is less worthy than HF (as opposed to Christ and the Holy Spirit, who are fully divine but submit to the Father out of obedience and humility rather than any actual inferiority).
    Maybe there is something like this to it. Perhaps Heavenly Mother is not exercising authority over Heavenly Father. But "less worthy" certainly isn't the phrasing used to describe it. You are the one who came up with that, and I guarantee that this isn't how you view women either, so why would you try to impose a twisted view you don't even accept yourself onto the LDS view of Deity?
    Given the track record of your assumptions of what I believe, I suggest you stop making assumptions.

    Do you think that there are roles, specifically leadership/headship roles, that are restricted to men? If so, do you think that God made this distinction between men and women arbitrarily, or for a reason? I'm guessing you don't think it was arbitrary since you just used that as an argument against Calvinism. So, if it's for a reason, what's the reason? It has something to do with men and women being different, yes? And it's God's reason, so whatever the reason is, it's a good reason, yes?

    So what I'm saying is, if there is some reason for why women are excluded from being pastors, heads of families, etc., and women are made specifically in Heavenly Mother's image, then it is logical to ask if Heavenly Mother has the same issue that the women created in her image have.

    And you forget that men are supposed to submit to their wives as well.
    I don't see that in the Bible. I see that Christians are to submit to one another generally, and wives are to submit to husbands specifically (and servants to masters, etc.). Men are supposed to love their wives and care for them and do all sorts of great things for them, but submitting to them in the way that wives are supposed to submit to husbands would undermine their position as head of the family. Someone has to be the head, and God said it's supposed to be the husband.

    Are you trying to suggest that LDS believe that we were created out of nothing for mortality? If that is the case, then you haven't learned anything from our discussions. Who do you think the LDS believe we were with prior to being born into mortality?
    Relax. I still have not wrapped my brain around your beliefs about pre-earth existence.

    KD: So again, how can the existence of Heavenly Mother be considered "meat" when people have been guessing at her existence all along?

    7up: It is "meat" for those who are under the impression that God is some kind of static, changeless, incorporeal spirit substance that is literally omnipresent.

    KD: It seems to me that you're not really answering the question here. Even if we suppose for the sake of argument that evangelicals are wrong about God being unchanging, etc., why would those errors be a reason for us to not know about HM when we know about the Father and the Son, and that they are Father and Son to each other?

    7up: But you don't believe that Jesus is literally God's Son. We do.

    You believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are that single static, changeless, incorporeal spirit substance that is literally omnipresent and existed as this substance from all eternity past. Therefore, from your point of view, It is neither male nor female, and from that preconceived notion, you would have no reason to come to the conclusion that we truly are made in God's image, both male and female.
    Well...yes and no. Yes, I don't believe God is "really male," but God has described himself as a "he" and "Father" and Jesus was incarnated as a man, so I don't truly think of God as a gender-neutral It either.

    I believe my point still stands, however. People have not always believed in the orthodox concept of God, even if they were supposed to, and there is some speculation that some Israelites worshiped Asherah as God's female consort. If God was "hiding" HM, he wasn't doing it very well.

    Originally posted by seven7up
    Originally posted by KD
    Why is God described as a mother and the one who comforts us, if there is a separate Heavenly Mother who is supposedly equally divine?
    Are you suggesting that only one parent comforts their children, the other parent does not or cannot? Or they cannot comfort their children together?

    I don't see what you are trying to get at here. I think I gave you the answer already.
    I'm saying that it doesn't make sense for Heavenly Father to say he comforts us as a mother comforts her children if he is really a father in the fullest sense of being male and we actually have a Heavenly Mother who is likewise fully female and fully our mother.

    And yes, I'm saying men and women are different, and have different roles as parents, and provide different things to their children. Of course fathers can and do comfort their children. But in my experience there is something different in comforting coming from a man and from a woman.

    In my view, whatever it may be that is typically present in female comforting but not male comforting -- whatever it is that is a good difference -- is a good trait that a perfect God would possess to an infinite degree. If men have certain strengths and women have certain other strengths, God has all strengths to the utmost degree.

    BOTH Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother would be involved in the spiritual creation of spiritual children.


    There is a problem with the extreme way that you try to interpret scripture, and "all things" when you assume creation "ex nihilo".

    I explained how your attempt to interpret in this way is problematic in this video.
    So I watched your video. Please, please get rid of the blurring/dissolving text effects.

    Any word or phrase that uses "all" or "every" can be meant literally or figuratively, it depends on context. IMO John spelled it out very explicitly in John 1:3: "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." In case someone has trouble understanding "Through him all things were made," he turns it around and says that there are no created things that were created without Jesus. How much clearer was John supposed to be? Why do you think he added the second phrase if he wasn't trying to be clear that Jesus made ALL things?

    If you want to believe that there was pre-existing matter or quarks or whatever that God didn't make, and that the Father through Jesus created everything from whatever was pre-existing and "unseen," I don't think it's necessarily worth arguing about. But you are saying that there are spiritual things that were created, but weren't created through Jesus, and that completely goes against what John said. Without Jesus, NOTHING was made that has been made. Not "spiritual things" or "invisible things," NO THINGS.

    Looking at Col 1:16, which you discuss in the video:

    For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

    Now you said in your post:

    Jesus created "from things which are unseen". These are spiritual things.
    But Col 1:16 says Jesus created both the visible and the invisible.

    I understand your thinking that "heaven and earth" is emphasizing the physical universe, but consider:

    - The things that Col 1:16 refers to aren't necessarily physical things, but include abstract concepts like thrones. Obviously Paul is not saying that any literal throne that a ruler sits on was made directly by Jesus, but rather that a ruler's power and area of dominion is granted him by God.

    - "Heaven" can refer to what we would say is the physical heavens (the sky, space, etc.) or spiritual heaven with angels, etc. You appear to be assuming that "heaven" here refers to physical heaven and not spiritual heaven -- why? Do you think all of spiritual heaven is pre-existing?

    - Paul uses "all things in heaven and on earth" again in 1:19-20: "For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." Do you really suppose that Paul is referring to physical things only? Didn't Jesus' death reconcile our spirits to God, including the spirits of believers who had died before his time on earth?

    - If you are correct and "all things in heaven and on earth" refers to physical things only, what language would Paul use to refer to spiritual things? Where are the spiritual things, if they're not in heaven or on earth? Are our spirits spiritual things? Are they not currently present on earth, in our bodies?

    - If "all things" in this passage explicitly refers to physical things only and not spiritual things, then how do you make sense of 17-18: "And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent." Is Jesus before all physical things, but not before spiritual things? Is Jesus not spiritually preeminent? Is the church held together by Jesus physically, but not spiritually? Is Jesus literally the physical head of the church, not the spiritual head?


    widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.