Imagining Heavenly Mother
A few years back, when I felt greatly estranged from God the Father, I began trying to picture Heavenly Mother. I’m not much of an artist (if I paint, it’s with words), but I sketched the following scene. I hope you all don’t mind if I share it with you:
Picture a young mother in a student apartment. Her husband is a pre-med student and in addition to carrying a full load of classes, he stocks groceries late into the night. He comes home late, gets a few hours of exhausted sleep before heading off for class the next morning. All day long she carries the newborn girl while chasing her toddler boy around. She is away from extended family, spends Sundays in the nursery, and doesn’t really know any of the sisters her age in the ward. She hasn’t felt the Spirit for a long time. What she feels is tired, alone, numb. She doesn’t know it, but she is also struggling with post-partum depression.
One night she nearly snaps. Her husband has been gone since breakfast, and won’t be back for hours. Her girl is colicky and her boy spent the last two hours throwing a tamtrum. She is afraid that her neighbors think she’s abusing her children and are going to call the police. She kneels by the bed, begins to pray in desperation, and in her exhaustion, dozes off.
She wakes suddenly and realizes that there is a light next to her, hovering near the nightstand. It grows brighter and brighter, filling the whole room. There is a curvy silhouette in the middle of the light, a woman. The light leaves the corners and coalesces about this glorified being. Her hair and robe are so white that they appear to be glowing softly.
The heavenly woman sits down on the edge of the bed. She cradles the young mother’s chin in her fingertips and calls her by name, saying, “You are my beloved daughter. I will hear you.” The young mother says nothing, but embraces her Mother, burying her face in her breasts and crying, crying until there’s nothing left to give. Mother strokes her young daughter’s hair, and tells her how she had carried her and the toddler and the newborn in her belly and nursed them and taught them before sending them into this harsh world. She tells the young woman that she’s experienced all of this before, the dread and excitement when she her missed period, weeks of nausea and not keeping anything down, the ugly, bloated feeling of pregnancy, the tired, disinterested husband, the pains of childbirth, and so much more. She understands.
The young woman looks up into the royal, careworn face of her Mother, and sees a tired smile, the wrinkles just beginning. She knows now that she has someone she can turn to, that the days will be difficult, but that she sees that like her Mother, she too has been anointed by sanctified women to someday rule as a queen and priestess. She falls asleep there, at peace for the moment.
I know that Mother in Heaven is a touchy subject. I sincerely hope this doesn’t seem sacrilegious or offensive to anyone. I certainly felt nothing but reverence (and sadness) when writing it. It left me feeling like I was away from home for a long time and had all these great pictures to remember my family, but somehow Mom didn’t make it into any of them. And when I called, only Dad could come to the phone.
Can you picture Heavenly Mother? What is she like? Do you look forward to meeting her? Can you imagine your reunion? Have you experienced a sense of connection with her? If so, how has this helped you? If possible, I’d like to avoid discussing the doctrine of Heavenly Mother and instead to focus more on your personal thoughts, experiences and feelings.
“It left me feeling like I was away from home for a long time and had all these great pictures to remember my family, but somehow Mom didn’t make it into any of them. And when I called, only Dad could come to the phone.”
Exactly how I feel. Great post
Comment by sophia*rising — January 8, 2007 @ 1:59 am
John, this is actually a subject I’ve been giving a lot of thought to in the last few days especially. Right now, I really don’t know what I think she’s like. It’s a connection I’d like to have, but never have had.
I’m really interested to hear other people’s thoughts as my mind is completely open on MiH, since we have so very little to go on.
Comment by Rebecca — January 8, 2007 @ 2:37 am
That’s an interesting thought. The Mother in Heaven as the “Third Comforter”?
Comment by Peter — January 8, 2007 @ 6:06 am
I think one of the problems with visualizations of HF and HM are their gender-specific appeal. I don’t like to think of either HF or HM as being specialized to the needs of either men or women. I realize that puts me a bit at odds with the idea of gender being an eternal characteristic. I would like to think that HM understands and can help me just as effectively as HF.
Comment by Matthew — January 8, 2007 @ 6:47 am
Wow, I was just thinking about visualizing the heavenly parents this morning on the drive to work.
All my life, I believe I have been told what the heavenly parents must be like–so at my core, I visualize these people: HF–an old white man with a full beard in a robe, generally pissed. HM–an old white woman, looking somewhat senile, always vague. If I put them in a modern context, they look like a typical GA and a GA-wife–boring suit, old, white, conservative, bald (HF), bouffant hair (HM), rigid. I believe I have received this message from church culture and my family of origin–all the subtle worship of church leaders, and emphasis on conditional love led to this image.
However, only within the last few months have I thought about revisualizing them. Here is what I come up with (and please don’t laugh): HF– Alan Alda. Not Hawkeye, necessarily, but someone who is gentle, open-minded, life-loving, funny, creative, sensitive, women- & men-loving, stands up for what he believes in, not perfect. HM–Meryl Streep. Someone who is physically beautiful, intelligent, wise, funny, nurturing, warm, open, honest, creative, and gets pissed at injustices. In my visualizations, Alan Alda/HM and Meryl Streep/HF accept and love the iron rodders for who they are, and the Liahonas for who they are, and don’t try to change either of us.
(I realize these two people are just actors, and could very easily not have any of these attributes. But I am projecting what I hope HF and HM are like onto them, images that I am already familiar with.)
Still, when I pray or otherwise think of the heavenly parents, I still see the core images that I’ve been ingrained with–so it will take some work to overcome them.
Comment by janescott — January 8, 2007 @ 9:05 am
that was beautiful and i really felt the spirit as i read it. thank you
Debra Uk
Comment by debra — January 8, 2007 @ 9:11 am
The statements to the effect that there is a Mother in Heaven, but she is so Sacred that God has chosen to hide her in secrecy do not make any sense to me except as the rationalization of a patriarchal hierarchy that admits that there must be a Mother for God to be the Father. To complicate things, on The Churches side, there is the fact that the original concept of Heavenly Parents sprung from doctrine of Polygamy so that, doctrinally, there is not a Mother in Heaven, but a multiplicity of Heavenly Wives. I think that that historical aspect will be a serious road block for The Church’s ever expanding the concept of Heavenly Mother.
I was still fairly young, but remember when I heard about members of the church (women) who were praying to the Mother in Heaven, and being excommunicated for it. That made a lasting impression on me, viewing the leaders of the church as acting in God’s name, The Father, forbidding access to The Mother. It has taken me a while to overcome that fear of offending God, but as my desire grew to seek The Mother I finally decided to take it to The Father in prayer, since He had answered prayers before. The answer was immediate and unmistakable in the affirmative and I have been praying to The Mother ever since (but only in private). My concept of the Godhead has changed a bit, I view the Mother and the Father as being One, like husband and wife are said to be, and like the Godhead is said to be… I also tend to experience the Holy Spirit as feminine, kind of like Peter mentioned in #3. But overall my understanding of God is much more fluid than the cut and dry way He is defined and explained by Church doctrine.
All this is very interesting as I will be teaching Gospel Essentials on Sunday and the Topic is “The Heavenly Family.” In the manual Heavenly Parents are mentioned a couple of times, but NEVER Heavenly Mother.
Comment by G — January 8, 2007 @ 9:18 am
Janescott (#5) that is awesome! (sorry, I cross posted and didnt see your comment until just now)
Comment by G — January 8, 2007 @ 9:21 am
Thank you! That is beautiful!
Comment by purplesandel — January 8, 2007 @ 10:06 am
I hate to rain on the parade, but the problem that I have with the scenario you present is that the subtext is that God the Father could not comfort the young mother in the same way that God the Mother could. In other words, God the Father is lacking and imperfect in His ability to comfort this woman and, presumably, God the Mother would be similarly unable to comfort a man frustrated by whatever stereotypically male things are making him seek divine comfort.
I realize that the image you wrote will be powerful to some women (and perhaps men), but I still think we are better off conceptualizing “God” as male+female, even if we sometimes use masculine language to describe “God.”
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 8, 2007 @ 10:16 am
Julie #10, you always say things better than I can. I have been comforted by Heavenly Father so many times in my life that I know He can comfort a woman. I believe that Jesus taught us to pray to Heavenly Father so that is what I do. I guess if I was visualizing I would picture my Heavenly Mother listening in on the conversation, with Father’s permission, and possibly adding Her advice to His (kind of like when my husband and I are both on the phone with our kids, I do most of the talking but he is there and caring). I don’t know why we aren’t taught a lot about our Heavenly Mother but I must admit it has never bothered me.
Comment by Dianna H. — January 8, 2007 @ 11:12 am
Julie, I think you raise a good point–naturally either heavenly parent must be perfectly (wholly) capable of comforting both men and women. But as I think that God (male+female) speaks to us in our own tongue, as it were, I could definitely believe that S/He would choose to appear to a beleagered woman as a female, if that were the manifestation that would best reach and comfort her.
I think this is beautiful, and it really resonated with me, as I imagined myself in this mother’s place.
Comment by Justin H — January 8, 2007 @ 11:20 am
Julie (#10), I appreciate your comment. Conceptualizing God as Mother can bring up many of the same problems as conceptualizing God as Father. Inevitably, our cultural upbringing and personal experiences of gendered authority figures are wrapped up in our ability to relate to God (esp. when God is described in terms like father or mother).
I wrote this at a time when I was dealing with issues in my relationship with my dad and with male authority in general, and this was a welcome image at the time. It also helped me to understand a difficult time in my marriage when Jana was struggling with young children and I was both working and going to school full time.
Perhaps thinking of God as beyond gender is the better way to go, but how much room is there in Mormon doctrine to go down that path? (I ask this sincerely, and not rhetorically.)
Comment by John Remy — January 8, 2007 @ 11:39 am
JaneScott (#5), I love your comparison. For some reason, I want my Heavenly Parents to speak with British accents (royalty association?), so Emma Thompson (but less skinny) and Patrick Stewart (with a beard and a full head of hair) come to mind.
Comment by John Remy — January 8, 2007 @ 11:52 am
I am not LDS, so I believe that the fatherly and motherly aspects of God are united in one being, but I found the Mother Bunny in children’s story “The Runaway Bunny” to be a great illustration of what I think God is like.
Comment by Vg — January 8, 2007 @ 11:53 am
A couple of years ago, after reading The Secret Life of Bees (fabulous book!) I composed a poem for our Mormon women’s reading/writing group about Heavenly Mother. A lot of the ideas and images I used are meant to be an antithesis to traditional ideas about God the Father. (i.e. many of us think of him as white clothed, white haired. I make my Goddess colorful. Many of us think of God as unchanging, I make Goddess fluid and evolving.)
Here’s the poem:
The Goddess
Her eyes the green of growth,
Her robe the red of blood,
Her hair the black of night.
She is earth, air, fire, and water.
Waxing and waning,
She is the power of transformation and change,
the elements of life.
Patroness of prophecy, inspiration and power,
She is wisdom, independence, personal strength, and self.
Passion and emotion emanate,
As she savors imagination, creativity, and experimentation.
A beneficent and autonomous power,
She gives just law, heals, writes and takes action.
As giver and nurturer of life
Dispenser of wholeness and happiness,
healing love and service to all
She is Goddess.
Comment by Caroline — January 8, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
#10 and #11–Have to agree with everything said. I don’t feel I’m “missing out” because HM is not mentioned very often (and sometimes not at all). Yet, I do believe She’s there.
Comment by cheryl — January 8, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Very intriguing post as I’ve so often forgot of my HM. There are times I just needed to hear it from a woman’s point of view, never to take from what HF and I have going on. I’ve appreciated the reassurance from females in my life. I’ve personally never heard of the He+She idea about HF and I agree with John, how far will anyone let us think in those terms.
Comment by LAGirrrl — January 8, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Thank you so much for this.
Comment by Susanne in KY — January 8, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
Heavenly Mother is right there in the temple ceremony (in the form of Eve).
Or so believed Eliza R. Snow.
Comment by Mark N. — January 8, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
#20:
Do you find that somewhat problematic, though, when you think of Eve/HM being wed to Adam? Or maybe not so problematic if you believe in the God-Adam theory (which is pretty out of vogue in contemporary Mormonism)?
Comment by jana — January 8, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
alan alda! i love it! looking the way he does now. his somewhat recent “er” appearances came to mind when i read about him from janescott.
but meryl streep? gives me the willies!
i was raised catholic and my mom had a small jewelry box with the pope on it. it wasn’t until i was old enough to know better that i realized that wasn’t a picture of god.
Comment by just me — January 8, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
20) but Mark, then you’d have to accept HF as Adam and it would screw up most of my personal interpretation
Comment by cchrissyy — January 8, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Or maybe not so problematic if you believe in the God-Adam theory (which is pretty out of vogue in contemporary Mormonism)?
My understanding is that going with the A/G flow is how E.R.S. resolved the question for herself.
To my understanding, “O My Father” is Eliza’s “tribute” (or maybe “acknowledgment” is a better word) to A/G doctrine.
Comment by Mark N. — January 8, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
I dont like how Eve is protrayed in the Temple, definately doesn’t do any thing for me to have her also represent God the Mother.
Comment by G — January 8, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
I was still fairly young, but remember when I heard about members of the church (women) who were praying to the Mother in Heaven, and being excommunicated for it. ”
How horrific , i can hardly believe that.
Comment by Lovely.Ishtar — January 8, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
I think many women struggle with the HM situation,
because i think they desperately want some feminine
comfort-but can only find themselves surriounded
in a male dominated realm.
They want some justification that someday they
will be more than what they are now, and that
they will finally be able to come out what they feel is
their cocoon and become a buttefly.
I know not all women feel this way, but i have
felt very unimportant int the church, and almost
dare i say ” second class citizen” im not trying
to bash the church but i think some women
are so thirsty for knowlege about her to
reinforce their own place and importance
in the world.
I have become so depressed at times by
the fact i was born a woman that
i have been near suicide many times.
Comment by Lovely.Ishtar — January 8, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Perhaps thinking of God as beyond gender is the better way to go, but how much room is there in Mormon doctrine to go down that path? (I ask this sincerely, and not rhetorically.) /
I think Julie was saying to think of God as a combination of both genders, not beyond gender.
I thought the discussion was going to stay away from attempting to address doctrine (which doesn’t really give specifics about heavenly mother in particulars) and share personal experiences and points of view….???
Jesus is one who helps me understand the chacteristics of God (both Father and Mother) …loving, serving, patient, kind, respectful, unselfish…. There, ready and willing to help if I will turn to Them. Powerful and perfect, knowing me and my heart and life. Ready to comfort, available, ready to listen, sad when I choose wrong, happy when I choose right, ready to forgive when I want to change. Wanting what is best for me, even if I don’t always understand what that is.
Comment by sadnconfused — January 8, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
I think Julie was saying to think of God as a combination of both genders, not beyond gender.
Yes.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 8, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
Caroline, I love the imagery in your poem. Thank you for sharing it with us.
sadnconfused, thanks for keeping me on track.
Many Christian women, in and out of the Church, focus on Jesus rather than HF as the most accessible member of the Godhead to women, as the one who they feel can relate to them. I’m not talking doctrine here, but how women experience God. And Julie, by saying this, I’m not implying that God the Father cannot console, only that there are women (and men) who find his divine fatherhood an obstacle to getting close.
Divine consolation is only half of the scenario above–there’s also the young mother’s ability to conceive of herself in her divine Mother’s place. Mormon men have an explicit example of divine fatherhood, but do LDS women have a comparable example of divine motherhood? I realize that for most female members, God the Father and God the Son and earthly mothers are examples enough, and I respect those who do not feel any lack. I do want to acknowledge, however, that there are true believing Mormon women who struggle with the seclusion of God the Mother (like LovelyIshtar, who is definitely not alone!).
How best then to console them, to turn their despair, to create an environment in which they can foster a more positive experience of the divine? Is it best to highlight the femininity that also exists in the Godhead (as sadnconfused did)? You said that we “sometimes use masculine language to describe ‘God’”, but it seems to me to be the dominant idiom. Consider how God is addressed in LDS prayer. What are ways to refer to God in ways that acknowledge both God’s male and female aspects?
Comment by JohnR — January 8, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
Yeah, the appearance of a Heavenly Mother to Her daughter does smack at sacrilige to me. On the other hand, discussing Her or visualizing Her is not.
To stir the pot further, why when we do refer to God’s wife and our Heavenly mother do we only refer to one? I’m in the camp that strongly leans towards believing in the existance of multiple Heavenly Mothers.
Comment by Janell the Great — January 8, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
JohnR,
While I realize I am out of the LDS mainstream on this one, I never use gendered language for God in speaking or writing. (I occassionally slip when my sentence constructions get too awkward, however. . .)
I think your #30 re: the woman’s ability to see the divinity in herself and/or her role is another matter entirely. But I worry, again, that we end up reifying earthly gender roles onto eternal beings (”Mother . . . tells her how she had carried her and the toddler and the newborn in her belly and nursed them and taught them before sending them into this harsh world.”). I can’t think why God the Mother would be able to show our hypothetical young mother the divinity of parenting any more than God the Father could–I hear he spends a lot of time dealing with whiny kids, too.
I would worry that God the Mother would become “ghettoized” in the same way that we sometimes ghettoize the stories about women in the scriptures and read them as “women’s stories”: solely for women.
I would hope our young mother would come to understand the divinity of parenthood by realizing that it is the task that God, even God the Father, chose for eternity.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 8, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Julie, how do you handle this in public prayer? I’ve been thinking a lot about this recently and would love to hear how you handle it.
Comment by claire — January 8, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
I used to trot out the “we believe in a Mother God” line whenever I wanted to impress progressive friends. Then it occurred to me that western culture seems to frequently deal with binaries not only by elevating the one over the other, but oft times by defining the former in terms of what the latter is not (in the case of Heavenly Mother and LDS culture, she is simply not present.). I think it stems from Hegel’s really horrific concept of subject formation and is now Derrida’s violent literary binary. To be honest, all that academic schmaltz had never touched my spiritual life until it occurred to me that cultures which conceptualize God as genderless spare themselves this problem. Neither the human male nor female gets to resemble God more via default. Not a bad gig, really.
I don’t think this nasty elevation of one half of The Holy Couple need be (although the “holy coupleS” makes it hairy), but that’s how it is right now. I believe in a literal Holy Mother and I don’t want to further erase her in what would amount to an ironic bid for gender neutrality, but sometimes i wonder if there’s a planet where all the men feel slightly puzzled that they are told they have a Father in Heaven but must only talk to their Mother.
As for vizualization? In my head Heavenly Father looks more or less like Professor Dumbledore (from the 1st film) but has Morgan Freeman’s voice. Heavenly Mother looks like Oprah in *Beloved* and has some serious sass. (And sometimes she looks like Margaret Young, complete with all the red hair)
Comment by Janet — January 8, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
I like to think that many of the “revelations” recieved by prophets and so forth actually do come from Mother, maybe She has her pet issues that she talks to her children about and Father has his pet issues that he talks to his children about. And on the recieving end of this, the “prophet” only percieves being spoken to by God.
Comment by G — January 8, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
Oh yeah, and Mother frequently gives her revelations to women here on earth, and that is why so few of them have been preserved for posterity.
Comment by G — January 8, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
claire, I just say “Dear God” when I pray.
It seems more often than not when people visualize a female deity that She has red hair. (I do the same.) What’s up with that?
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 8, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
Julie, wow. That’s really cool. I have started to think the standard invocation is “Our dear most kind and gracious heavenly father/father in heaven…”
God is always just “God” in my personal prayers. Usually, I don’t say “Dear,” but “Hello.” I don’t do that in my (rare) public prayers, though. I feel like I’m riding the edge of acceptable by using standard vs. archaic English pronouns.
Comment by Ann — January 8, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
Julie-
that’s beautiful… do people ever comment on it when you pray like that in public? it seems so different from what is usually heard from public prayers in the church?
Comment by G — January 8, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
uh . . .
*blushes*
. . . I guess I hadn’t realized I was doing anything unusual, but now y’all are making me self conscious.
No, no one has ever commented on it.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 8, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
Julie, That’s what I was considering. Do you mind providing details about what you teach your children, and whether you and/or them have been called on it before, like in Primary? I’ve taken to referring to HF and HM when discussing what I think “GOD” would want them to know or do, but haven’t changed the formalities of prayer in our family and am considering how to go about it. Your experience would be appreciated.
Comment by claire — January 8, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
claire, as I said, I never use gendered language to refer to God. Other than that, I would not take this issue up in Primary as I refrain from discussing my pet issues there in hopes that others will do the same. At home, it hasn’t come up, but I would tell my kids that we believe that one cannot become God unless one is married and that ‘God’ means male+female and that every time you refer to God–or even to Heavenly Father–you are really referring to both because they are one.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 8, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
I once heard someone say that in Mormonism, “God is a couple.”
I wish that there were better neutral or multi-gendered pronouns in the English language. I can understand how referring to God w/o mentioning gender can get unwieldy sometimes. I’m glad that you make the effort.
Comment by JohnR — January 8, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
I just wish I was NOT so self-conscious when I pray in public… I think that is great, Julie, that it is so natural for you to talk to God in your terms.
Comment by G — January 8, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
How best then to console them, to turn their despair, to create an environment in which they can foster a more positive experience of the divine?
At some point, I think it’s up to the individual to build a more positive relationship with the divine, to trust in what we do know and the love that can be accessed from God and the SAvior, our advocate with heaven. I also can’t help but feel a bit like we impose cultural constructs and expectations on heavenly things with some of our demands and that seems a bit out of place to me. I think this may be one of them. perhaps God expects that the “He”s in the scriptures are sufficient to give us the guidance we need. besides, i don’t buy the idea that we have some really clear idea of what Father really does…we know more about His characteristics. That is why I commented on how Jesus (someone about whom we have information and records of action, behavior, words, teachings, etc. from scripture) helps us understand more about our Heavenly Parents. His characteristics seem to me to be, using John’s words, “beyond gender.”
Comment by sadnconfused — January 8, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
Julie,
I believe that, too. I was told that Elohim is plural for that very reason.
But, how can that be true if God the Father has a physical body? Maybe the answer is obvious, in the same way that the Father and the Son are one.
John,
I have enjoyed your posts, they have been interesting and thought provoking. However, I have to admit that I felt cold inside when I read your story about Heavenly Mother. I don’t know why, and I usually find myself crying when I read stories like that (about women being comforted in times of great need). But, for some reason I didn’t feel the way I expected to feel. It was really strange.
I think I’m may be the only person on the bloggernacle who considers herself a feminist and doesn’t believe in a Heavenly Mother. It’s not that I don’t want to, but that I think the evidence is in such short supply (help, if you have more info than I do!)
I almost think sometimes she is a figment of our collective imaginations, a woman we tie to our eternal future. On Sunday I looked all through my scriptures looking for a reference in the BD or TG to Heavenly Mother: nothing.
Anyway, sorry to be so negative, but I have thought a lot about this subject and I am hoping for more revelation in the future (for me or for the church).
Comment by jessawhy — January 8, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
Jessawhy- you dont believe in a Heavenly Mother at all? Or just not a being that we can have a relationship with like Heavenly Father?
this is a little confusing to me, she is refered to occasionally in General Conference talks, her existance is not denied by The Church.
Maybe you are saying you believe in God, who surpasses our gender descriptions?
Comment by G — January 8, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
P.S. for references to “Heavenly Mother” in GA talks go to
lds.org and do an advance search on the phrase. sorry- I dont know how to do the link thing, but I was just there, I found 8 references.
Comment by G — January 8, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
Over the past couple of years as I have thought more about HM, this is how I have felt, too. I don’t feel quite 100% about Heavenly Father sometimes, honestly, as I can’t see why He won’t let me know HM, and I blame Him for polygamy…
but my faith in and love for Jesus has kept me in the Gospel path. I actually “blame” Joseph Smith for polygamy, too, so Jesus has also been my point of resolution in that aspect as well.
And Julie, I love your practice of praying to God. I think it would be a hard practice for me to get used to, as “Dear God” has always been how I’ve heard non-LDS people pray, whereas I think I’ve almost never heard LDS prayers open that way. Did your family pray that way growing up, or was it something you decided to do consciously at some point? (If I missed this already in the comments, just direct me to the appropriate spot.)
Comment by Mindy — January 9, 2007 @ 12:03 am
self correction - (RE #48) not all the references I just mentioned are in GA talks, some are just in simple Ensign articles (Elder Maxwell, Pres Kimball, and Elder Featherstone are the GA’s who mention her.)
Comment by G — January 9, 2007 @ 12:11 am
These are my general thoughts on HM, too. The only way I can make sense of a Heavenly Mother as a distinct and separate entity from Heavenly Father is to hypothesize that she did the heavy parental lifting in the pre-existence and now it’s Heavenly Father’s turn to take care of the kids. Perhaps she’s having a Goddess’s Morning Out. That’s the only way I can both believe in her and not resent her.
Mostly, though, I just don’t believe in her.
Comment by madhousewife — January 9, 2007 @ 12:33 am
she’s not a mormon, but I really liked Sue Monk Kidd’s writtings about finding the Goddess (Dance of the Dissidante Daughter). And she started out traditional”Christian”, as in no HM in sight anywhere.
Comment by G — January 9, 2007 @ 12:43 am
Julie,
I always associate you with the NT, and so I’m interested to know what you do with all the NT teachings from the Savior about praying to the Father, as well as His consistent teachings about the Father. It seems to me He wanted us to focus on the Father specifically. In scripture, He is our Advocate with the Father, not with both Parents. Why? I have no idea, but don’t you think there is value in following the Savior’s and prophets’ teachings on this? I’m a bit surprised, actually, that you take this approach. Frankly, I have not been comfortable with this idea of not praying as the Savior and the prophets today direct us to pray. It feels like veiled rebellion when I have personally heard it done, not a higher way to pray. I am not saying rebellion is what is in your heart, but I think this isn’t something we should encourage because it’s inconsistent with the Savior’s teaching. He could have pointed us to the plural, married Gods in His teaching and commands when He taught us, but did not. I believe there must be a reason for this.
Comment by m&m — January 9, 2007 @ 1:02 am
Mark N (#24),
To my understanding, “O My Father” is Eliza’s “tribute” (or maybe “acknowledgment” is a better word) to A/G doctrine.
“O My Father” was published in 1845. Brigham Young did not start advancing the A/G stuff until the 1850s. I have yet to see any evidence that Eliza believed in A/G back in 1845 when she wrote “O My Father.”
Comment by Jacob — January 9, 2007 @ 1:39 am
m&m,
I don’t think you have interpreted me correctly here. I don’t see anything in the NT or current church practice that requires us to address God as father. Most people (but not all) interpret Jesus’ use of abba as something like “Daddy” but I don’t think that that means we are required to address our prayers to “Daddy” (but I’d paypal $10 anyone who has the nerve to do that in a church meeting
) ; by the same token, the fact that most of his prayers in the NT use “Father” doesn’t require me to use it either.
I do not think it is appropriate to address prayers to God the Mother or to any plural configuration of Gods.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 9, 2007 @ 1:58 am
Julie, I strongly disagree. Consider the following scriptures, from the NT and BoM.
Matt. 6: 6, 9
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name….
Luke 11: 2
2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven….
From the BOM as well:
2 Ne. 32: 9
9 But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul.
3 Ne. 18:18 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, ye must watch and pray always lest ye enter into temptation; for Satan desireth to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.
19 Therefore ye must always pray unto the Father in my name;
20 And whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is right, believing that ye shall receive, behold it shall be given unto you.
21 Pray in your families unto the Father, always in my name, that your wives and your children may be blessed.
…
24 Therefore, hold up your light that it may shine unto the world. Behold I am the light which ye shall hold up—that which ye have seen me do. Behold ye see that I have prayed unto the Father, and ye all have witnessed.
3 Ne. 19: 6-7
6 And the twelve did teach the multitude; and behold, they did cause that the multitude should kneel down upon the face of the earth, and should pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus.
7 And the disciples did pray unto the Father also in the name of Jesus. And it came to pass that they arose and ministered unto the people.
This specific concept of praying to the Father is found repeatedly especially in the BoM (moreso than I had really realized until doing a little searching…there are plenty more scriptures with this phrase in them). Might that be yet another plain and precious truth the BoM gives us?
It seems to me that the command to pray to the Father is as prevalent as the command to pray in Jesus’ name. Again, do I know why this is? No. But I think there is a lot of evidence in the scriptures that it’s a commandment, not just a nice thing, to pray to the Father. I find that interesting, actually.
You will also find in Church publications very specific teachings about how we should pray. Praying to Father in Heaven is not optional. It’s a required part of prayer. Take, for example, the Family Guidebook:
We need to remember four important principles when we pray:
1. We begin our prayers by speaking to our Father in Heaven: “Our Father in Heaven …”
2. We thank our Father in Heaven for the things He gives us: “We thank Thee …”
3. We ask Him for the help we need: “We ask Thee …”
4. We close our prayer in the name of the Savior: “In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.”
… We should always begin and end our prayers with the first and last steps but what we say in the middle will depend on what we feel is important.
(Interestingly, this is completely consistent with the scriptures that include the first and last steps almost without exception — pray unto the Father, always in the name of the Savior.)
And, from True to the Faith:
You are a child of God. Your Heavenly Father loves you and knows your needs, and He wants you to communicate with Him through prayer. Pray to Him and no one else. The Lord Jesus Christ commanded, “Ye must always pray unto the Father in my name” (3 Nephi 18:19).
Here’s something from Elder Perry, giving us specific direction on how to teach our children to pray.
“Prayer endows us with the power to draw near to our Eternal Father. How important it is, then, that one of our fundamental teachings to our children is how to pray.
Could I encourage you to consider the subject of prayer in your discussions as you hold family home evenings? Could I direct your teaching of prayer to at least four main areas of emphasis?
First, the way we address our Father in Heaven in prayer….
When the Lord instructed His disciples on how to pray, He said:
…“’After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.’ (Matt. 6:5, 9.)
“In the words of other prayers given to us by the Savior, the term Father is also used. ‘O God, the Eternal Father’ is the way the Lord instructed us to bless the sacrament. (See D&C 20:77.) By use of the word Father, we understand our relationship to Him. He is our Eternal Father, and we are His children. Teach your children how to address the Lord in prayer.”
See also, for example, Elder Oaks’ talk on the language of prayer. He makes it very clear that we are to pray to Father.
I’m confident I could find more such quotes, but I need to go to bed.
I think it’s clear there IS a definite and clear requirement to pray to the Father, as taught by the Savior in ancient and modern times, and by His prophets, ancient and modern. Sorry for the long comment, but I think this is worth really fleshing out.
Comment by m&m — January 9, 2007 @ 2:55 am
I pray to the very same person that your list of quotes refers to, but praying to the Father does not require you to call him father. By your logic, the Mormonism “most kind and gracious Father in Heaven” is sinful since Jesus never used that exact language. (But it is not sinful–it is just overused.) If you push this “Jesus’ exact language” issue too far, we’ll all have to learn Aramaic. I think you are in danger of slipping into some serious Pharasiticalism (if that’s a word) on this one.
And: your blogging style of piling up bolded scriptures and GA quotes is annoying at best.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 9, 2007 @ 10:31 am
m&m
I think you have hit the nail on the head precisely as to why the idea of having a relationship with our Heavenly Mother feels so difficult within the mainstream of the church.
Comment by G — January 9, 2007 @ 10:43 am
I find it funny that a few of you think it’s strange or sacrilegious to pray to God. I (lifelong LDS) often address my prayers to God, and I’ve heard several other Mormons do this as well. When I’ve used “Dear God” I’ve not generally envisioned that as a term that incapsulates both male and female. But I like that approach, Julie.
Comment by Caroline — January 9, 2007 @ 10:55 am
I just found a cool visual image for a Heavenly Mother. At the gym I go to there is this tall strong black woman- a lean muscular whip of a woman in her 40’s who looks like she could physically take on anyone who gave her or her family trouble. But she is also one of the funniest, sassiest, friendliest people at the gym, when she is the locker room no one is a stranger.
Comment by G — January 9, 2007 @ 11:03 am
Re #57:
You just can’t win around here. Surely if m&m weren’t quoting scriptures, GAs, etc., someone would be criticizing her for not supporting her claims.
Julie, I have tremendous respect for your knowledge of the scriptures, and I’m sure your expertise has come at great cost in time and effort. Would that we were all at that point! But we’re not…and, at least for me personally, it’s nice to have someone actually pull out the original reference and remind us of specifically what it says. Disagree with m&m’s argument if you like, but give her style a break!
Comment by Melanie — January 9, 2007 @ 11:39 am
Melanie, I can think of two ways to read m&m,
(1) You are unfamiliar with this material so I will make it known to you.
(2) You are familiar with this material but are ignoring it.
If you can think of another way to read her, I’d love to hear it. Even if she would so much as say “I am wondering how you reconcile your position with ____” I wouldn’t be annoyed, but her current approach of lengthy cut-and-paste always leaves me with the impression that she thinks I am either an idiot (1) or an apostate (2).
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 9, 2007 @ 11:47 am
I should clarify: I am sure that neither of these is m&m’s intention, but it doesn’t change the actual effect that it has on me and others.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 9, 2007 @ 11:50 am
I can’t pray using the term “God” because it ALWAYS reminds me of Judy Blume’s *Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret*. And let’s face it, that’s not the tone I want!
What I like most about the references M&M pulls is their conveyance of our need to address divinity with respect. Obviously, as Julie implies, language is a slippery thing and the term “Father” isn’t a perfect translation from Greek or Reformed Egyptian because in this imperfect world, no such thing as “perfect” translations exist. I DO think we can translate the sentiment perfectly in our hearts, whether we use the term “God” or “Papi.” Ever since my mission I tend to offer personal prayers in Spanish, both because I have to give my words more thought and because the language seems quite warm and intimate to me. I feel it best approximates the sort of thing M&M’s quotations convey. I can’t imagine God cares that (primarily) English speaking me uses “Padre en Cielo” rather than “Father.”
I do think the sources she pulls show that the institutional church prefers we not pray in the name of The Mother. I follow that direction, But I’m not sure using “God” as a form of address necessarily violates it. Even within a language, you’ve still got the whole quesiton of synonyms.
Comment by Janet — January 9, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Julie–I don’t know that I could use “Daddy” for your paypal bet, but “Papa” wouldn’t vary much from my already existing routine. What do you say? A little wager
Of course, we live in Utah and probably won’t be asked to pray in church again for another year since we just prayed a month ago….
Comment by Janet — January 9, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
Julie, you often leave the impression that people are apostates or idiots, when I’m sure that isn’t your intent. Leave m&m alone.
The simple fact is, we don’t know anything about HM. We don’t know who she is (Mary? Martha? Someone else entirely?) or what she does - running her own universe perhaps? Who knows? It simply hasn’t been revealed. I would love such revelations, but I’m not stopping giving service or studying scriptures or reading Ensigns because it hasn’t come yet.
Also, the fact is, we have been commanded by Christ to pray to the Father. I have actually used Daddy frequently in my private prayers. If the language we have is wrong, well, it’s what we have right now. I would rather get to heaven and say “Look, I did what Christ commanded to the best of my ability” then say “I didn’t pray because I didn’t understand the Aramaic/Greek/something else.”
I will accept that the Father and Mother are one, just as the Father and the Son are one. Together with the Holy Ghost, they make a formidable team. And I want all of them by my side. The best way I know to do that is to follow the commandments, and so I contiue to pray to the Father.
Comment by anon for this one — January 9, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
M & M, if you don’t mind me asking, how do you reconcile your quotes with temple instruction on prayer?
Comment by claire — January 9, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
Whoa, claire, I had completely never, ever thought of that. Whoa. That’s a pretty dang good defense of my position–wish I’d thought of it. Now I really feel like an idiot.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 9, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
I’m interested to note that I made almost exactly the same observation as Julie did in #62 and it was expunged by one or another of the moderators (as were some follow-on comments disagreeing with me, in order to make it look like the comment was never made at all).
I’m waiting to see if the comments from about 57 on are going to be censored, or if some of us just get special treatment.
Comment by obi-wan — January 9, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Julie,
I think one of blogging’s main limitations is its lack of interpersonal audiovisual cues to signal tone and intent. Combine that with our human propensity to take offense, and it’s a combustible combo. You’re able to see past your initial reaction and realize that m&m didn’t mean to call you an idiot or an apostate–why not just let go of your irritation?
As for the actual argument here, I agree with anon for this one (66). I tend to think it’s generally in our best interest to stick with what we know, and if we are doing that and striving to have the Spirit, we’ll be impressed as to when to take a leap beyond what is suggested explicitly in our commandments. I’m certainly not going to presume to judge what inspiration you or m&m or anyone else has on that matter . . . for me, right now, the answer is to pray to the Father. Masculine. Singular.
In general, I think that “God” can refer to either the Father or to Father and Mother. It is both a name (Father) and title/office/condition (Father and Mother together). Given the other instruction on prayer, I interpret the temple instruction to be the first, that is, to use the name of God the Father. Other scriptures, references, etc. certainly point to both Heavenly Parents, together.
Comment by Melanie — January 9, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
Melanie, I’ll let go of my irritation as soon as you let go of the need to keep telling me to let it go.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 9, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Julie: That’s a deal.
Comment by Melanie — January 9, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
Julie,
I think we are talking past each other (again). Sigh. Let me try to explain what it felt like you were saying. You said, “While I realize I am out of the LDS mainstream on this one, I never use gendered language for God in speaking or writing.” You then proceed to explain that you never pray to Father, but to God. Put both of those comments together and then consider how excited people got when you said all of this, like, “you actually DO that? How BRAVE!”
When I have run into this approach of not praying to Father before, it’s usually someone trying to find a veiled way to pray to “Both Parents’ or perhaps even to One (Mother), without doing it directly or obviously. That may not be your intent, as you later say that “I do not think it is appropriate to address prayers to God the Mother or to any plural configuration of Gods.” But frankly, it’s not clear from your comments that your not praying to Father as Father isn’t designed to leave one of those options as a possibility.
So maybe you can clarify what point there is of NOT just addressing Father by that name if you don’t have some purpose to remove the gender from your prayers?. Do you see how the combination of your comments could be (mis?)understood as tacitly giving approval to some to pray to HM or some “plural configuration of Gods?” (the things you say you think aren’t appropriate)?
As to my long response, it was to your comment that you “don’t see anything in the NT or current church practice that requires us to address God as father.” My interpretation of all of those scriptures and quotes is that there ARE things in scripture and Church practice that teach us we should specifically pray to Father, using that name, and teach our children specifically to do that. Elder Perry said that so doing reminds us of our relationship with Him as His children. You can’t say there isn’t ANYTHING on this topic, because there is. (Janet, “Padre en el cielo” still reinforces that relationship, so the language per se isn’t the issue…I think it’s that Father-child relationship that is so important to all of this. At church, that also reinforces our brother-sister relationship…that we are all part of a heavenly family.)
Caroline, I am not saying that referring to Father as God on occasion is necessarily apostate. As Janet said, what’s in our hearts matters a great deal. But public variations are easily misinterpreted as a way to avoid addressing our Father because of the whole gender thing, leaving room somehow for “less gendered” (or even female-gendered) prayer. Because of that, it personally makes me uncomfortable when I hear of someone using such an approach.
All of that said, I’m sure Heavenly Father would much rather have us pray in a way that works for us than not pray at all!
Comment by m&m — January 9, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
m&m
I think you have hit the nail on the head precisely as to why the idea of having a relationship with our Heavenly Mother feels so difficult within the mainstream of the church.
I understand that, and I know for some it is painful. Nevertheless, the point is that for now, we are supposed to build our relationship with the SAvior and the Father, with faith that somehow, someday, we will understand how our Mother has fit into the picture. With how involved mothers are in this life, I imagine we will be thrilled to see how involved She was. Like anon said, the best way for us to get the most out of our relationships with heaven is to follow the commandments on earth.
Comment by m&m — January 9, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
obi-wan, in my email to you, I explained why I deleted your comment. I made a judgment call–I felt that the tone of your comment was more confrontational than the exchange between Julie and m&m. This was supported when it immediately elicited two responses that questioned not the content of your comment but your tone. Your observations may have been similar, but Julie, while voicing frustration, still managed to promote respectful discussion with how she addressed the issue.
Since I agreed with your critique, I can tell you that you were not censored for your view, but in the interest of heading off a non-productive, disrespectful exchange (i.e. flame war). Please feel free to email me if you want to continue this discussion.
Comment by JohnR — January 9, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
amen.
Comment by Caroline — January 9, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
This was supported when it immediately elicited two responses that questioned not the content of your comment but your tone.
And of course Julie’s didn’t, right? Except for the ones in comments 61, 66, etc.
Please feel free to email me if you want to continue this discussion.
No, since we are both guests here I think you should take up your censorship standards with the permabloggers.
Comment by obi-wan — January 9, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
M & M, if you don’t mind me asking, how do you reconcile your quotes with temple instruction on prayer?
Claire, you know as well as I do that most of what happens in the temple is not indicative of or instruction about what should be done in public or even outside the temple at all, nor what should be discussed outside the temple. All I will say is that when I put names on the prayer roll, the prayer that is offered in behalf of those people is addressed to Father and closed in the name of the Savior, as the scriptures instruct.
Comment by m&m — January 9, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
obi-wan, if you have something you want to take up with me, you can email me. mullingandmusing at hotmail d’ com. I appreciate John’s effort to keep this from dissolving into personal attacks. I know my comment was way long and believe it or not, I have really tried to steer away from lengthy quotes and such in my comments because I know they bug people. But in this case, I did think that the nature of this discussion merited bringing scriptures and such to the forefront. Sorry to all who feel that was a blunder.
Comment by m&m — January 9, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
#76
Amen and amen.
another thought- alot of what we consider to be set-in-stone doctrine is actually just a perpetuation of the traditions of the Fathers.
Comment by G — January 9, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Obi-wan, since you are pressing the case, I will post all of the original comment text below:
Here’s yours:
And the two follow up comments:
I apologize to everyone else for dragging this out and distracting you from the real discussion. Comment moderation is a dicey thing, and I’m trying to balance adhering to fMh’s mission and comment policy, fostering an environment for a respectful discussion and allowing for open expression of ideas. I’ve seen too many discussion threads turn into threadjacks or flame wars. Blogs like fMh are successful only because all of you do such a good job of juggling these various aspects and because you maintain a healthy respect for each other.
If the other two commenters want their names reattached to their comments, please let me know privately.
And now back to our regularly scheduled program.
Comment by JohnR — January 9, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Shoot, I just cross-posted with m&m. Thanks, m&m for your support. I don’t always agree with you, but I appreciate your contributions to fMh and to other forums in the Bloggernaccle.
Comment by JohnR — January 9, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
obi-wan, if you have something you want to take up with me, you can email me.
Any comments that I have about your public statements will also be posted in public, because you have chosen to make them public.
One of the (many) admirable features that I have noticed the past several years at FMH has been a tacit policy by the permabloggers of publicly letting commentors know when they are over the line, rather than adopting John’s method of expunging and backchannel silencing. The FMH approach seems to me the proper approach to any public comment. I assume that the current departure from that norm is a temporary aberration by a visiting blogger.
Comment by obi-wan — January 9, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
Obi-wan, I agree with you that fMh’s public airing approach is the best, and I apologize if I’ve disrupted the expectations here in my eagerness to head off a disruptive exchange. I have a few more posts here as a guest blogger, so I’ll try to adhere to these guidelines (unless I hear otherwise from fMhLisa and the others).
Once again, apologies to all for the threadjack.
Comment by JohnR — January 9, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
Speaking of the God/Heavenly Father thing,
I prayed at the dinner table at a cousin’s house, saying, “Dear God…” (I am not LDS and they are) and the pre-school son who is a regular, fluent pray-er looked up afterward and said, “Who’s God?”
Comment by Vg — January 9, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Ah, Heavenly Mother. Such an interesting topic.
As a final project for my Sociology degree, I conducted a survey of college students views of the feminine divine. I asked questions about Mary and various other interpretations of feminine deity. I surveyed a wide range of people, but a goodly chunk of the respondents were Catholics and LDS. ‘Twas quite interesting. The Catholics were quick to support the idea of Mother in Heaven=Mary, but shied away from saying she had any sort of authority equal to that of God. The LDS unanimously agreed that Heavenly Mother exists. But most of them, when asked if they believed that a goddess exists–answered with a resounding no. One person even scrawled on the side “what is THAT supposed to mean?” I was utterly flabbergasted at the results. They had all checked yes to the question “does God have a wife?” They had 100% sustained a belief in Heavenly Mother. But then they claimed there is no goddess! My conclusion was that the term “goddess” has developed such pagan connotations that it turns off many people who follow more mainstream faith traditions, i.e. Christianity. People also tended to fumble on the authority question. God the Mother exists, all the LDS said, but people were divided when I asked “does She have equal authority with God the Father?” I found an interesting quote in an article that I read as part of my research where the author claims that most people today would rather call God “it” or nothing at all before they would dare to call God “She.”
Around the same time while I was working on this project, I finally got my hands on a video of Carol Lyn Pearson’s one-woman theatrical production, “Mother Wove the Morning.” I cannot praise this woman and her masterpiece enough. Read it, watch it, experience it. NOW. (Her memoir “Goodbye I Love You,” while it isn’t directly focused on the HM question, also provides some lovely personal insights.) Someone earlier in the thread mentions the whole “HM concept stemmed out of the polygamy era” idea. Pearson’s play addresses this issue during the Emma Smith monologue. (I was interested/bothered to note that a recent production of this play by a women’s theatre troupe cut this monologue out.) Emma Smith talks about her troubles with polygamy and concludes that if what Joseph teaches is true that there must be several Mothers in Heaven. I just about exploded into tears when she says “I want to talk to His first wife and ask how did She do it.” For me it forced me to really think about polygamy and feminism.
Comment by Marie — January 9, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Oh la, take a nap and look what happens.
I think you all did just fine without me though. Please continue.
Comment by fMhLisa — January 9, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
ya know, I have a hard time using the term “Goddess.”
I use the term “God the Mother” and “The Mother”
is it that it has pagan connotations, or is just such a blatant female replacement for the term “God” and as such seems so subversive in our patriarchal society?.
I am still working out my own thoughts on the term. (you think it would follow, title-wise: kings and queens, priests and priestesses, Gods and Goddess… )
Comment by G — January 9, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
Oh, and perhaps I should add my HM ideas.
I don’t have many really. My areas of faith are pretty compact. And the whole how what and why of HM is one of those areas of doctrine that exists on the periphery of my faith, but has not come into the gravitational pull of my faith black hole yet.
But I do want to believe in a solid present heavenly Mother like John’s. But greatly abhor the idea of heavenly Mothers (which as many people have pointed out is ironically the genesis of our HM doctrine.) I actually find Julies approach rather comforting, though I’m not sure if I buy it totally. I find m&m insistance that ” with faith that somehow, someday, we will understand how our Mother has fit into the picture.” deeply disturbing. Tired of the”somehow someday” thing entirely. As with so many issues of gender in the church, all the arguements feel like flat and empty excuses.
Comment by fMhLisa — January 9, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
It’s been a long time since I thought of this topic. It used to really be important for me I don’t have a mother; I have a misogynist father, who has used the church doctrine to prop up his theories. Thus, I felt the need for a female divine.
There are others, who, for totally different reasons, have difficulties with a masculine god. thus, torespond to the Julie line of though [i.e. one can feel comfort from heavenly father]yes, some can. others cannot.
Comment by natasha — January 9, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
wow, I step away from the computer for a day and 50 comments come and go. . .
I wrote comment #46 and was asked
Here’s my beef:
As far as I can tell from what little research I have done, the idea of HM in Mormonism came about through Joseph Smith not through direct revelation but more through an inferrence. “Well, if we have a Father in heaven, we must have a Mother.” This inferrence seems to have been perpetuated and incorporated into our Mormon culture, though not much of our doctrine (with a few notable exceptions, ei: Family Proclamation).
Perhaps this is strange, but I don’t think this is enough to gain a testimony of HM in any real sense. (and I agree with others that it is inappropriate to pray to a HM as we have been commanded to pray to HF)
I also think that the King Follett sermon (which isn’t doctrine, of course) discusses what I consider to be asexual creation of our spirits. (as opposed to thinking of our spiritual creation as “spirit sex” requiring father and mother) In the sermon, Joseph Smith describes God the Father as being the most intelligent of all and organizing other intelligences. Tthe idea of organizing intelligence doesn’t seem like “spirit sex” either. In my mind, the temple leaves out of the creation process any potential feminie references. It seems like a chain of command creation story rather than anything we would think of as creation a la procreation (male and female).
It seems to me that without definitive revelation on the concept of HM (and I”m not saying it doesn’t exist, but I don’t know about it) that the discussion of Her existence can be seen as an attempt to pacify the feminists of the church clamoring for a divine feminine.
Lastly, here is the idea that I’ve been playing in my head today: Perhaps the male (God the father) is somehow all about spiritual creation and the female (women here on this earth) are all about physical creation. Maybe there is the balance I’ve been looking for. (if this doesn’t make much sense it’s because I’ve just barely started thinking about it)
I welcome any info that may lead me to a stronger belief in a HM as I think that there is much more to the divine feminine than I currently understand.
Comment by jessawhy — January 9, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
I actually find Julies approach rather comforting, though I’m not sure if I buy it totally.
What exactly is Julie’s approach again? She says she prays to Father, doesn’t believe that praying to Mother or “plural configuration of Gods” is appropriate. I’m trying honestly to understand what is comforting about “her approach” if the latter is indeed true, or what is different except in her choice of the name she uses in prayer.
I find m&m insistance that ” with faith that somehow, someday, we will understand how our Mother has fit into the picture.” deeply disturbing. Tired of the”somehow someday” thing entirely
This isn’t just “my insistence,” Lisa. I’m just trying to restate what the prophets say about some of the struggles and questions we have, and it’s most certainly not just applicable to issues surrounding gender.This is an element of what faith is (holding on to the hope that all things will be clear and right someday, and that God knows what is best), and it’s something we all have to deal with at some level, with some concern we might have. Feminists aren’t any different than anyone else, really. When I talk about “somehow someday” that’s for me and my questions and struggles as much as it is related to the topic at hand. The specific questions may differ, but the purpose of faith is the same. (Incidentally, I would like to understand these things, too, just so you know. And I have other questions that I sometimes struggle with that end up in the “someday, somehow” category. Who doesn’t?)
I think, too, that we should not forget that it is possible that “somehow someday” can come sooner than in the next life. We are told the Spirit can teach us ALL things and bring things to our remembrance and teach us the mysteries. It’s not just the job of the institution to teach us things. It’s our job to work toward a pure enough life that the “mysteries of godliness can be unfolded to [our] view.” And we need to be trustworthy enough to keep them to ourselves when they come. I suspect God has His reasons for not revealing these things generally, and yet I’m sure that if we were pure and humble enough, we could learn more than what is taught at the general level.
Comment by m&m — January 9, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
can feel comfort from heavenly father
Lisa, is that what you meant by “Julie’s approach”?
Comment by m&m — January 9, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
Jessawhy, yeah, it does seem like references in church about a Heavenly Mother are conciliatory at best. I have to admit that my belief in Her is maybe more of just a really strong hope (ya know, faith and the evidence of things not seen and all that) for an egalitarian heaven.
Comment by G — January 9, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
jessawhy,
Can’t we also come at it from the other way and say since we know that the highest degree of glory, which means being like God, can only be obtained by a married couple,, that there has to be a Mother in the picture? I dunno…sometimes that helps me at least understand some of the reality of the organization of things.
I also take the Proclamation as more than just tradition. I take it as revelation, and it mentions Heavenly Parents. FWIW.
p.s. There’s an interesting discussion on blogger of jared you might like.
Comment by m&m — January 9, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
The word of God…
A lot of my questions deal with the fact that the bible is the word of almost exclusively men recording their experiences and messages from God, and it went through so many layers of transcriptions and translations and rewritings (all of this taking place in times and places where woman had very little recognition) before becoming what we have today as the bible… it is easy for me to see how any concept of feminine divinity would not survive the process.
And when it comes to the Restoration and the translation of the BofM, JS was heavily influenced by the biblical writings in his own search for God, so it makes sense that it’s language is how he would understand the impressions and revelations he received. And so those traditions of the fathers are perpetuated on and on, even in the church today, in spite of continuing revelation.
Comment by G — January 9, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
The Family Proclamation says this:
Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
I guess I’m having a hard time seeing how if this is so, a gendered God be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Would that not indicate that He has risen above gender, so that even if he is male, it doesn’t matter that he is? The Family Proclamation is saying that it does.
I guess what I’m saying is, that if the purpose of a man is so different than the purpose of a woman, how can the eternal role of a man give him a perfect understanding of a woman. Doesn’t that indicate a defiance of the eternal gendered roles?
I haven’t ever really thought about it before, and now that I do, it does seem like a very mixed message. I haven’t thought much about our Heavenly Mother, but I can understand how when women are told that they are so inherently different than men, and will be in the eternities, and that God is a man, there is something there that doesn’t make perfect sense.
If the genders really are as different as the Family Proclamation seems to claim, if gender really is an eternal role, then doesn’t that eliminate the possibility of perfect knowledge that we believe God has? I mean, if we all, men and women, have the potential to achieve this, wouldn’t we all be then be the same in our infinite knowledge, infinite presence, and infinite power?
I don’t have answers, just questions. It’s something to think about.
Comment by M — January 9, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Ah, Heavenly Mother. Such an interesting topic.
As a final project for my Sociology degree, I conducted a survey of college students views of the feminine divine. I asked questions about Mary and various other interpretations of feminine deity. I surveyed a wide range of people, but a goodly chunk of the respondents were Catholics and LDS. ‘Twas quite interesting. The Catholics were quick to support the idea of Mother in Heaven=Mary, but shied away from saying she had any sort of authority equal to that of God. The LDS unanimously agreed that Heavenly Mother exists. But most of them, when asked if they believed that a goddess exists–answered with a resounding no. One person even scrawled on the side “what is THAT supposed to mean?” I was utterly flabbergasted at the results. They had all checked yes to the question “does God have a wife?” They had 100% sustained a belief in Heavenly Mother. But then they claimed there is no goddess! My conclusion was that the term “goddess” has developed such pagan connotations that it turns off many people who follow more mainstream faith traditions, i.e. Christianity. People also tended to fumble on the authority question. God the Mother exists, all the LDS said, but people were divided when I asked “does She have equal authority with God the Father?” I found an interesting quote in an article that I read as part of my research where the author claims that most people today would rather call God “it” or nothing at all before they would dare to call God “She.”
Around the same time while I was working on this project, I finally got my hands on a video of Carol Lyn Pearson’s one-woman theatrical production, “Mother Wove the Morning.” I cannot praise this woman and her masterpiece enough. Read it, watch it, experience it. NOW. (Her memoir “Goodbye I Love You,” while it isn’t directly focused on the HM question, also provides some lovely personal insights.) Someone earlier in the thread mentions the whole “HM concept stemmed out of the polygamy era” idea. Pearson’s play addresses this issue during the Emma Smith monologue. (I was interested/bothered to note that a recent production of this play by a women’s theatre troupe cut this monologue out.) Emma Smith talks about her troubles with polygamy and concludes that if what Joseph teaches is true that there must be several Mothers in Heaven. I just about exploded into tears when she says “I want to talk to His first wife and ask how did She do it.” For me it forced me to really think about polygamy and feminism.
Marie i would like to hear more on this subject, it makes
me very sad and even depressed that people of our own faith
do not see Heavenly Mother as an Equal to heavenly father.
I also see how that manifests to our current state on earth.
Women will always be seen as lesser beings. Always
have and always will be.
We are kidding ourselves if we think that will change in heaven.
Comment by Lovely.Ishtar — January 9, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
M,
I think “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose” means that you will be a girl/boy forever, not that you will forever have the role that the church is currently teaching is best for your gender. Not that I think there is anything wrong with that role as currently taught–just that it is a reaction to societal conditions. Roles were very different before industrialization (i.e., most parents were “stay at home”) and presumably will be very different when no one needs to leave the family unit for most of his waking hours to earn money.
Note also that the proc doesn’t say that men and women are very different, just that they are always men or women. When you think about it, virtually everything (i.e., prayer, fasting, service, scripture study, baptism, etc.) is equally incumbent on men and women. They have slightly different roles, and really only during certain seasons of their lives at that.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 9, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
m&m, for as long as I can remember, almost every time you post something you get so much hassle for it, from so many angles. You always take the time to respond and try and explain yourself. I really respect that you continue to put yourself out there like that- but what makes me sad is that, it seems that your answers follow doctrine and teachings of the church, backed by scripture and quotes and such, yet you are usually treated so harshly as a result… I don’t get it, because you are stating opinions that follow teachings of a church that most people on here are members of.
Just an observation from a non-LDS faithful reader. Sorry for the random comment, but it’s been on my mind for more than a year.
Comment by sophia*rising — January 10, 2007 @ 12:10 am
Julie -
I would like to think that it is that simple - that it just meant that you were forever male or forever female in a more physical sense.
But then I was thinking - what if God was, say, racialized.
If God were Black, or Hispanic, or Asian, well, who cares? To me that would never matter, to me it is people that want to see the difference between races; it is human experience, human imperfection that has created a racial divide. My understanding would be that if race is eternal (I like to think that it is, but I’m not sure if there is any doctrine on this), it doesn’t matter in the eternities because it is a difference that creates diversity only outwardly, and that if we were perfect, no one would think that it mattered.
This doesn’t translate to gender as well. Can we say that the differences between the genders, while an eternal difference doesn’t REALLY matter in the eternities because it was only human imperfection that shaped the divide and that really, all it means is that physically, we are different, and that that stays with us for eternity? If I thought that we were just being told that gender is a physical difference for the eternities, the question wouldn’t nag at me so much, but if it is an emotional difference, I don’t how that wouldn’t disqualify someone from omniscience.
Comment by M — January 10, 2007 @ 1:06 am
sophia*rising,
Thanks for your kind words. I share your confusion and frankly, it breaks my heart. I think perhaps people don’t want to hear “typical” responses when they come here. I also wonder if some people have had doctrine thrown in their face as a weapon by someone who didn’t know how to deal with their questions and concerns. This dynamic is one of the things about the bloggernacle I may never fully get, though, because the doctrine is so much a part of what the church is about. I see it as something that is supposed to bring us together, not separate us. And it’s obvious that I believe the key to finding the peace that people seek is in the doctrine, not around it.
If it means anything, church usually isn’t like the ‘nacle.
People actually like sharing quotes and scriptures and stuff. 
But I suppose many who congregate here want something different than what they get at church.
I can’t help but wonder what it would be like if there was an fmh ward for a month or two. Would people still be annoyed by me or would they see that I’m not half bad?
I would hope for the latter.
Comment by m&m — January 10, 2007 @ 1:36 am
p.s. A couple of other things to keep in mind…probably obvious but I still think it’s good for all to remember (myself included). People here are at different places in regards to their faith and membership. It runs the gamut…from people who have left the church angry and frustrated, to some who aren’t sure if they want to stay, to others who stay but have major doubts and questions, to others who had them but are fine now, to others who don’t really have the questions but like to engage in conversation, etc. etc.
I also think that some people automatically assume that if someone is sharing quotes or whatever, it’s in a spirit of self-righteousness and condescension. It’s hard in a medium like this to know intent. For what it is worth, how I write is essentially how I approach life… I measure basically any philosophy or approach against scripture and prophetic counsel. I don’t know if that makes any difference to anyone, but….
I have learned a lot about different perspectives and struggles from participating here. I have learned more about my own faith in my faith as well. And I care about understanding others, even if that doesn’t always come through. Just because I love quotes and scriptures doesn’t mean I don’t care about people. I do. Deeply. This medium IS so limited. It’s hard to give the benefit of the doubt when all we see is words in black and white.
sophia*rising, in the end, I do hope you don’t judge the church by what you see here.
(You’re probably well aware of what blogs are out there, but if you ever want to know some of the blogs that might give you a different reading experience, feel free to email me at mullingandmusing at hotmail d’com) ) 
Comment by m&m — January 10, 2007 @ 2:22 am
And so, like all the threads that m&m turns into her personal soapboxes, this one too ends in I’m Righteous and You Hurt My Feelings.
Pity. It was a really interesting discussion for awhile.
Comment by Dora — January 10, 2007 @ 9:02 am
M,
It is hard for me to imagine that “emotional differences” exist between the genders in eternity–how could we say that God the Mother is “more nurturing” say without implying that God the Father is less nurturing? I’m open to the possibility of having my mind changed on this one, but I can’t see emotional differences being eternal. Or perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by emotional differences.
Re #102–
I’m not sure if you saw this comment, m&m, but I am wondering how you would respond to it:
I can think of two ways to read m&m,
(1) You are unfamiliar with this material so I will make it known to you.
(2) You are familiar with this material but are ignoring it.
If you can think of another way to read her, I’d love to hear it. Even if she would so much as say “I am wondering how you reconcile your position with ____” I wouldn’t be annoyed, but her current approach of lengthy cut-and-paste always leaves me with the impression that she thinks I am either an idiot (1) or an apostate (2).
I should clarify: I am sure that neither of these is m&m’s intention, but it doesn’t change the actual effect that it has on me and others.
To emphasize: it isn’t the fact that you defend (what you perceive to be) the orthodox position of the church or that you cite official sources, it is the way that you do it that implies to me (and, as I recall from other threads, many others as well) that you think us either ignorant or apostate. Something as simple as the way claire posed her question to you (”How do you reconcile your position with ___?”) would go a long, long way to making me think that you didn’t think I was an idiot or renegade.
“For what it is worth, how I write is essentially how I approach life… I measure basically any philosophy or approach against scripture and prophetic counsel.”
Again: do you think I don’t? Maybe the problem is that you don’t realize that other people can weigh everything you weigh and come to a different conclusion.
(All that said, I think Dora was rude.)
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 10, 2007 @ 11:02 am
I think this deserves reiteration. Not knowing everything right now - especially doctrinely sensitive topics such as Heavenly Mother - is part of our earthly experience. I also would submit that discussing it in this way cheapens the concept. Perhaps this is why complete understanding of Heavenly Mother is restricted to the very few who have reached the necessary spiritual maturity.
Comment by UnicornMom — January 10, 2007 @ 11:06 am
I also would submit that discussing it in this way cheapens the concept.
Do you think this just applies to this topic? Does it cheaper the concept of, say, the atonement to ponder it? While we know more about the atonement than we do about God the Mother, we certainly don’t know everything about either. So I’m wondering what kind of criteria you would use to determine under what circumstances pondering something cheapens it.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 10, 2007 @ 11:11 am
No doubt–but then this is completely true at church as well. At church, however, most people who struggle don’t speak up and in fact often get dismissed caustically when they share a bit of doctrinal pondering–much the way some people here dismiss M&M. I’d really like to see the “speak only surfaces” attitude at church change so that the community can work together–in a physical rather than internet capacity–to lift each others’ burdens when those burdens include doubt as well as illness or leaky roofs. Doctrine isn’t always crystal clear and as a church community–both on and off the internet–we could all “live into the answers” a little more gracefully. But I don’t think that excludes lively discussion. Probably requires it!
When I taught gospel doctrine I asked difficult (and doctrinal) questions all the time. More often than not, the congregation delighted me with their honest, heartfelt engagement with the issues–and I found that those who struggled were more likely to join the discussion when I managed to pose questions which went beyond, “So, did Nephi love his brothers? Why did they make him angry?” Fine question, but limited.
All that said, I only had the cajones to teach about HM once (it was part of the teaching material, actually, for a RS lesson). My bishop sat in and kept chiming in with all sorts of evocative and cool things. The rest of the class sat silent. And I’d probably be too chicken to say much about her now that I like in Utah.
Comment by Janet — January 10, 2007 @ 11:48 am
thankyou janet-
I am teaching gospel essentials this sunday, and it is on “Our Heavenly Family.” The manual never mentions HM, it sidesteps that one by using the term “Heavenly Parents.”
My views on her go beyond what I feel comfortable openly talk about in class, but I do hope to engage the class in some level on her existence. thanks for the example, hope mine goes a bit like yours did.
Comment by G — January 10, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
I think it would be different if a man brought it up, but i think its very common subject for women, and not so much men.
Comment by Lovely.Ishtar — January 10, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Dora,
I was actually trying to give sophia*rising some possible reasons why my comments sometimes get the reactions they do. This isn’t about me. If I cared only about my feelings, I wouldn’t ever be here.
Julie,
I’m sending you an email.
Janet,
I realize people at church are also at different places. I agree that it would be nice if people could receive help with their doctrinal burdens. I’m just not sure that the 30-minute classes are the place that can really be done. Maybe through VT? Building relationships outside of class? I would love to figure out how to build bridges and reach out to those who may struggle with doctrinal issues. I think it would take a personal relationship and a lot more time than a class period or two could offer, however.
Comment by m&m — January 10, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
#107 -
Yes, discussing the Atonement in this way would cheapen it. I feel that there is little point anytime sacred subjects are discussed with anger, hard feelings and aimless conjecture.
Comment by UnicornMom — January 10, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
One of the difficulties with this sort of forum is that we mix the sharing of personal experience with what I call “authoritative discourse.” M&M, I think that the result of heavy-handedly submitting a bunch of proof-texts turns this conversation into more of a “I’m right and you’re wrong” debate rather than one where people can be vulnerable and share based on their experience. It’s one reason why I suggested that we focus on experience and not on doctrine in the main post.
And I have to say that I disagree wholeheartedly (but respectfully) with UnicornMom’s last comment. Discussing things openly is risky, but is not automatically cheapening (and that the conjecture is aimless is completely subjective–obviously it is very important to some commenters here). There is a good chance that one’s cherished conceptions will be challenged (which is threatening to many) but there is also the possibility that they will be magnified and deepened.
Comment by JohnR — January 10, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
m&m - #111
I’m intrigued by what this means. If you’re not here for you and/or to work out your own thoughts and feelings about things related to feminism and the LDS church, then why else would you be here? I don’t want to read too much into it, but there could be inferred a martyr-like element here, where you’re not here for you, but to make sure the gospel and/or scriptures and/or words of the prophets are being properly represented amongst this crowd that is “disgruntled” (from a thread yesterday) and that one “shouldn’t judge the church from what you read here.” Which, to me, implies that you don’t think that you’re among very good company. And I also agree with Julie Smith’s assessment that you can come across as seeing people here as uninformed or sinful/apostate. Are you a feminist? Do you have any feminist concerns you want to resolve? Or are you here to help those that you perceive as lost or worse?
I’m not trying to be provocative, I really want to understand.
Comment by RE — January 10, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
M&M, I think that the result of heavy-handedly submitting a bunch of proof-texts turns this conversation into more of a “I’m right and you’re wrong” debate rather than one where people can be vulnerable and share based on their experience.
I give up. I’m sorry I goofed for the purposes of this forum.
Comment by m&m — January 10, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
John - by “aimless conjecture” I meant that it cannot be proven or even supported - we just have too little information. Although conjecture - perceived as aimless or not - has its place, it is not in the realms of anger. “Open” discussion is not the problem - angry discussion is. The only way these sorts of things can be discussed with any sort of purpose is if the Spirit is present to testify to the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of the statements. Conceptions cannot be deepened or magnified within the spirit of contention.
Comment by UnicornMom — January 10, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
LovelyIshtar (#98), I’ve been meaning to respond to your the finding in your study:
Fascinating. I’m tempted to say that this is an example of the human ability to adhere to two completely contradictory beliefs, but maybe you’re right about the pagan association. It also shows how little room Mormons have for Heavenly Mother in their minds (the Church, if it made it a priority, could create a much broader cognitive and experiential space). By contrast, we have at least a dozen masculine conceptions for God the Father.
Comment by JohnR — January 10, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
I truly believe that The Divine is beyond our ken. I also believe that The Divine takes an active, personal interest in every person. I find it easier to relate to the Heavenly Mother than to the Heavenly Father. I understand that for others, it’s the other way. I think that speaking of The Divine in gendered terms frequently limits us, both in spiritual growth and in social equality. Your story of the Heavenly Mother, John is beautiful and moved me to tears. I identify with the aspects of The Divine that are emphasized in it. I think we need more stories of the Heavenly Mother to balance the stories of the Heavenly Father. And more still of The ungendered Divine.
Comment by Reg-o-rama — January 10, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Hey, I thought of another fun visualization for HM: she looks and talks like Judi Dench!
And a HF resembling Nelson Mandela works nicely in my head. Especially those extremely kind eyes of his…
Comment by Janet — January 10, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Umm….JohnR…in regards to your comment #117 about #98…LovelyIshtar was quoting me in an earlier comment. My original comment that was quoted is #86. Not trying to sound like a diva here, and thanks LovelyIshtar for quoting me, but that was MY study. Hence questions about it should be addressed to me (Marie).
Comment by Marie — January 10, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
114
I didn’t see this comment before. I have participated in discussions for various reasons.
-I won’t use the word feminist because it’s so charged and laden with baggage, but I’m passionate about women and feel myself an advocate for women, even if I don’t fit a “typical” profile of a Mormon feminist. I’m still not convinced there is a typical profile.
-I am Mormon.
-I’m a housewife.
-I like blogging, conversing and chewing on lots of different ideas with people.
-I like to understand where those who struggle are coming from (and realize that I need to do a better job of seeking for understanding before just jumping in with my point of view or with scriptures or whatever that have helped me with questions or issues that people raise…sorry that I sometimes goof on that!) Engaging in conversations about issues has helped me understand better.
-I do like to share a point of view that isn’t necessarily from a place of struggle to bring a different point of view to the table.
Additionally, I would like to share this:
I have spent most of my day pondering about how I have come across here in this thread and I have come to realize some of the mistakes I made and I just wanted to say that I am sorry. I jumped in too soon and too “bold and italics” ish. It would take a document to try to explain where I am coming from in a way that might help you understand that I’m really not meaning to sound condescending or dismissive, but I understand that sometimes I might come across that way to some. I need to learn to seek to understand more and preface my comments more with phrases that can help my approach and perspective and intent perhaps be misunderstood less. I realize that my approach to working through a different idea and sharing my thoughts in response just sometimes doesn’t fly here very well. To any I have offended, I truly am sorry. To any who may have a bad taste in their mouth about the church because of what I have said, please don’t judge the church by me or my weaknesses! Judge it by the doctrine and what it might mean for and to you. The members, all of us, are imperfect. It’s a journey for everyone. I wish everyone the best in their journeys. I still have a long way to go in mine, but I am trying.
I have gotten some specific feedback from Julie about how I might improve my approach (since the altercation began with our interchange, I have had a discussion off line with her), and as I have tried to do in the past with other feedback, I will try to take her input to heart if and when I do comment again. Again, I am sorry.
Comment by m&m — January 11, 2007 @ 12:30 am
m&m - Thanks for your thoughtful response. I personally don’t believe you need to feel so bad or make such an abject apology - it was a minor bump in the road, not a referendum on you and your character. Don’t take it too much to heart, you know?
I can understand your wanting to have the non-struggling perspective on the table, I don’t see anything wrong in that. What I think would be very interesting as well, is to hear sometimes about some of the things you do still struggle with (you sometimes just barely allude to these things in passing). I think John’s point about being vulnerable and sharing is a powerful one - we’re all better off for becoming more human and open to each other (even online). I personally would not be pleased to have you decide not to comment anymore. And I would enjoy it if you would also open up a different side of yourself every now and then as well. Not just the non-struggling side with loads of faith and answers you’ve earnestly sought and found, but also the places where you’re still seeking. Sometimes even the best adviser needs some advice too, KWIM?
Anyhow, best to you, and from my perspective, you were already totally “forgiven” (as there was no “offense” to be forgiven in the first place - getting minorly annoyed doesn’t rise to the level of forgiveable offense, to me ;-). You enjoy the bloggernacle, and commenting and interacting, and you should keep on enjoying it!
Comment by RE — January 11, 2007 @ 1:27 am
RE, thanks. Let me just say that to some, my comments and style are not simply a minor bump in the road.
As to the rest of your comment, I have tried to open up and be vulnerable at ZD, I believe it was. Either that or ExII. I think it was ZD. And I do a little of that at my own blog. What I have found, however, is that ultimately, things end up at these bumps and it all gets a bit too exhausting for me. There are too many people too on edge when I’m around, or too many topics about which I end up saying the wrong thing in the wrong way. So, if you are interested in a bit of me beyond my comments here, stop by at my blog sometime. Maybe there will be more dimension you can find there? You will catch a glimpse of my health struggles and the feelings of inadequacy as a mother that creep in from time to time. Feel free to ask questions there. I believe in the value of opening up and being vulnerable and I am trying to do more of that in my real life, and a bit on blogs as well. I just don’t know if this is the right place for me to do that. I’m just like anyone else. I need a soft place to fall if I’m going to be vulnerable and really “be me.” This isn’t exactly that place for me.
Incidentally, I wanted to apologize like I did because I have been essentially told that I make this not a safe place for others in whatever they need. And I feel bad about that because I do care and do want to understand and want to help and really want us all to just get along…but I can’t keep my emouth shut and by so doing seem to create too many bumps for the rules of the road here.
Anyway, c’mon by my blog. You are welcome anytime.
Comment by m&m — January 11, 2007 @ 2:03 am
It’s after 4:00 am, and I’m still up because of this fascinating and bizarre exchange. I don’t post a ton on any blogs, but I read a lot. Frankly, I found the responses to m&m’s post surprising after finding hers simply addressing past statements with authoritative sources.
I particularly enjoyed (or something) obi-wan’s condemnation of John for condemning hiim/her for condemning m&m–all the while declaring permabloggers (which s/he is not) to have sole sovereign power over condemnation.
Anyway, I’m all for emoting and exposing online. (Personally, I don’t think I have a single secret anymore.) But, ultimately, don’t we want our hearts to align with the word of God? Amidst all the gut-wrenching confessions, don’t we (at least as Mormons) hope to turn our weaknesses into strengths, to become more like Christ? And if we do, then shouldn’t God’s actual direction be included in the discussion of our worries and doubts and insecurities?
Maybe I’m just really tired and not thinking too clearly. But I had the same confusion about Julie’s statements that m&m did. It read to me that she prayed to “God” intentionally because it was gender neutral (in fact, she deemed using gender a “slip”) and she also said that God is both genders. While she did seem to contradict that elsewhere, there were multiple statements that could reasonably be thought to mean that she intentionally forms her prayers to address both Father and Mother. It also seems reasonable to state that praying to both Mother and Father counters multiple gospel teachings.
And if she wasn’t doing what this seemed to imply, then what is “cool,” “beautiful,” “great,” etc. about it? If she’s just saying “God” instead of “Heavenly Father” or “Father in Heaven” or “Our Father in Heaven” or “Our dear, loving, gracious, omnipotent, kind, generous…” but she MEANS the same thing, why the reaction? (In other words, it seems many folks read this as a brave and bold move by NOT just praying to the Father.)
This stood out to me because, generally speaking I have agreed with Julie’s positions, particularly when they have addressed a gender issues. So my thought to the “nothing in the NT” statement was a giant “huh?” BECAUSE I know Julie’s expertise.
Of course the scriptures don’t say “you must begin your prayers only with the exact words ‘Heavenly Father,” but they do say, repeatedly, that we are to pray to Him. So, is using the term “God” to MEAN mother+father (albeit privately), following the command to pray to the Father? I think it’s worth addressing.
If I’m utterly off-track, I apologize. It’s nearly 5:00 and the FMH edit box is so painfully slow that editing my response to be readable would take until 6:00. What’s up with that?
FWIW, Julie, I think it speaks to your great wisdom that you see the divine in red hair. We all should be so wise.
Comment by Alison Moore Smith — January 11, 2007 @ 6:00 am
For what it’s worth, I don’t think m&m was unduly rude in the disputed post. In contrast, the post seemed rather polite. I do think it’s important to know if FMH is intended to help people discuss issues, or if it is a place to simply vent.
I may have been under the wrong impression, myself.
Comment by UnicornMom — January 11, 2007 @ 7:22 am
UM #125:
I’m not in a position, certainly, to give any official line on this, but I see a whole lot of discussing of issues here, from a variety of perspectives, with surprisingly little friction resulting. I’ve seen very little of what I’d call straight-up venting. (Venting may be in the eye of the beholder? I don’t know.) It seems like a great forum to me, that manages to successfully incorporate a lot of different views - I really dig that. Kudos to the owners/moderators, who use a light touch and allow people to be themselves, and to the participants, who clearly behave in a way as to make any heavy-handed moderation unnecessary.
Comment by RE — January 11, 2007 @ 8:01 am
Maybe we should all reread Elder Bednar’s conference talk about taking offense.
Comment by Patti — January 11, 2007 @ 10:17 am
Maybe we should all reread Elder Bednar’s conference talk about taking offense.
No. Really. It’s offensive.
Comment by diogenes — January 11, 2007 @ 10:23 am
just last night spoke to a friend who is a convert, and had the experience of having her prayers continually corrected… she wasn’t “doing it right.”
it offended and hurt her and just caused her to stop praying in public (ie in the church).
the prescribed formula that members are taught does not work for her, though she has a very close relationship with God.
for all who reiterated the church’s stand on HF and how to pray to him… if that is what works for you, GREAT.
but be sensitive to the fact that it does not work for everyone.
Comment by G — January 11, 2007 @ 11:55 am
I, too, was surprised by the “wow, that’s amazing” response. I didn’t expect it and it struck me as a little off. Maybe that’s why position seems confusing.
I’ll say again what I said above: I believe that “God” is an office (sorta) that is held jointly by a perfected man and woman. I’m praying to the same God that all of you are praying to, I just choose to avoid gendered language. I think addressing prayers to God the Mother is incorrect. I don’t think there is anything wrong with addressing prayers to “Heavenly Father”, I just choose not to do it. And you’ll never hear a “most kind and gracious” outta me.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 11, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
. . . not that there is anything wrong with that.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 11, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
A couple thoughts on this interesting topic:
1. A bishop once told me that several sisters who had been molested or abused by men in their youth, had a very difficult time feeling that HF can be a loving god, or at least in feeling loved by Him. As mortals, we think in mortal frameworks, based on our individual experiences. I had a mother who had issues with men, and so was did not grow up feeling loved by women as other children. My father felt much more loving. So my frame of perception is that fathers are the loving parent. Yours frame of perception is yours. But whatever we are able to comprehend of Heavenly beings, they are whom they are.
2. Joseph Smith said that a man had to have at least three wives to be assured of celestial glory. The church now says that a celestial marriage can be of only one wife, whenever more are not possible (legal). It is not clear that Joseph Smith meant that.
This doctrine makes me think that all this discussion of a singular HM is rather narrow. Most likely we have several. We might feel closer to one among them, but children in poly families today feel nearly as much love for each of their mothers.
Comment by Dale Kemp — January 12, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
three wives!!!!
is there a reference for that, I want to write it in my journal
Comment by G — January 12, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
I understand that the current policy of temple sealings is that a man can be sealed to many woman, if his living wife dies he can be sealed to another woman… and so forth.
is it correct that a woman must have her first sealing annuled in order to be sealed to someone else (in the case of the death of her husband)?
Comment by G — January 12, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Marie (#120), apologies! I redirect all my fascination and curiosity towards your study.
Comment by JohnR — January 12, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
Wow, Dale! I hope JS had his wires crossed on the 3 wives thing–or I guess my DH will just have to resign himself to lesser glory, hee heee. I tell him he can take another wife when she can be my wife too.
Comment by Janet — January 12, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
Dear G #133,
I saw that qoute recently, but don’t remember just where. One lengthy list of quotes on the subject, though, is at: http://www.4thefamily.us/files/active/1/plural%20marriage%20references%20long.txt
Enjoy.
I believe that Brigham Young, besides for being the Lord’s prophet, was very respectful of women and could be called a feminist. But he was clearly not a modern day feminist. Today Brigham’s sayings are very politically incorrect.
Comment by Trueheart — January 16, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
I’d beg your pardon for my long-windedness, but I am addressing upwards of 100 comments
Actually, I have more to say but this might suffice for now.
It seems everyone here is concieving of Heavenly Father and Mother as being like older people. Granted, they have as near as we know an infinite age, but wouldn’t Gods, Eternal Beings, wellsprings of eternal life, never aging - wouldn’t they be youthful? I had thought it was somewhere in the D&C or in Joseph Smith’s teachings that it is said resurrected beings are in their prime, which I would think to mean a very healthy, whole, fit ~30 year old. I personally concieve of Heavenly Father and Mother as youthful, and very heatlhy, powerful, and strong. I also imagine Heavenly Mother to be very wise, kind, compassionate, beautiful, and strong.
Also, has anyone heard the usage of opening prayers “Dear Heavenly Father” in Mormon prayers? That has been widely the practice in my Mormon experience. I’m confused that it seems not to be common to the experiences here.
Diana H., (#11),
I wouldn’t think Heavenly Mother needs Heavenly Father’s permission to “listen in” on a prayer. I think, G and as Julie M. Smith (#7 and #10) that, just as the Father and the Son are one, so surely are the Son and the Mother, or the Son and the Father/Mother. I believe they are completely united in power, purpose, ability, compassion, justice - all things. I feel that the Father/Mother, the Son, and the Spirit all know each other’s thoughts on a level deeper than words, before speech, and they all have the same thoughts, being all One - as is the Spirit with all of them - The Father and Mother, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I feel that when we pray to Heavenly Father, we are also praying to Heavenly Mother - and praying to the Son as well - as He must also be completely in on every prayer if He is One with God the Father; while we are taught to pray to Father just as Jesus did.
Caroline (#16), I think there may be a great deal of truth of character in your words (your poem). Maybe even truth of physicality
we don’t know. I believe it applies to God the Father/Mother.
Julie @ #37 & Ann @ #38,
In this address, Elder Holland made it clear that Jesus’ language with his Father was very familiar and intimate. I highly recommend listening to the speech:
“In that most burdensome moment of all human history, with blood appearing at every pore and an anguished cry upon His lips, Christ sought Him whom He had always sought—His Father. ‘Abba,’ He cried, ‘Papa,’ or from the lips of a younger child, ‘Daddy.’”
Also, I would like to say that this other address of Elder Holland’s (which I also recommend listening to), applies very much to this discussion, I think, particularly of how some find it difficult to concieve of God the Father as emotionally warm and accessible; or how so many feel distant from Him through erroneous conceptions of Him. I am among these; I have more emotional gravitation towards Jesus and Heavenly Mother. That is why I love this address: it conjoins a love for Jesus with the Father and directs it, I think properly, to the Father, whose loving, kind glory and will was Jesus’ sole focus. I feel that Jesus would be the easiest for me to “speak to” directly, and not in any formal language, only common every day first person addresses and pronouns - but I know that addressing Father formally accomplishes exactly the same thing. I feel certain that the very same can be done with regards to placing divine and kind conceptions of our Heavenly Mother into affections for our Heavenly Father.
jessawhy at #46,
Joseph Smith told Zina D. H. Young that she has a Mother in Heaven: “..in 1839, Joseph Smith had told Zina Diantha Huntington, one of Smith’s plural wives, after the death of her mother, that “not only would she know her mother again on the other side, but ‘more than that, you will meet and become acquainted with your eternal Mother, the wife of your Father in Heaven’.” - The Mormon Concept of a Mother in Heaven, Sisters in Spirit: Mormon Women in Historical and Cultural Perspective, by Linda P. Wilcox (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987), p 65.
Comment by Joseph Salazar — January 18, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Comment on Joseph Salazar, #138, in turn commenting on Diana H., (#11):
My Stake President in the Santa Fe, NM Stake told us that we pray to HF, as JC commanded, but that every prayer is first screened or reviewed by JC. He explained that “no unclean thing” can enter the presence of HF (or HM, I presume). So there must needs be a filter, even on prayer, from entering His (or Her) holy presence. As the scriptures say, “or else they would cease to be God.”
JC provides that filtering, in His role as “our advocate with the Father.” He intercedes, or makes sure that every prayer that proceeds to HF, is worthy, ie, lacking in any uncleanness. Thus, when we feel as though our prayers are bouncing off the ceiling, because they are unworthy, they are not bouncing off the ceiling, but are likely bouncing off of JC.
Once passed on from JC, to HF, I presume HM can hear them also. I presume that She likewise cannot have any unclean thing enter into Her exalted presence.
No, I don’t have scriptural references handy to prove that teaching. Just think about it. How could G*d continue to be G*d, if our unworthy thoughts entered into His mind? Why must all who reach that degree of glory be perfected beings? One reason that comes to mind is because no one there can be capable of having an unclean thought. He couldn’t risk it.
Comment by Trueheart — January 22, 2007 @ 10:53 am
Re: #139–wow, I really *hope* that that is not true doctrine. I really hope that my prayers go straight to God the Father–some of my most emotional/effective prayers have been when I have literally been cussing God out. I would hate to think that they are being censored. FWIW, I no longer buy into doctrinal statements made by anyone, unless they are backed up by actual doctrine–for example, I had a stake president comment in a stake conference that the game Dungeons & Dragons and soap operas were of the devil since they involved role-playing and/or coveting other people’s roles. (He has since been found guilty of sex abuse, but that’s another story.) IOW, there’s lots of pseudo-doctrine out there, usually made by people who aren’t content with the existing doctrine.
Comment by janescott — January 22, 2007 @ 11:45 am
My Stake President in the Santa Fe, NM Stake told us that we pray to HF, as JC commanded, but that every prayer is first screened or reviewed by JC.
This is not doctrine, and is just plain silly. As a perfect, resurrected being, Jesus Christ has the same attributes as the Father. So who filters our unclean thoughts from his presence? Oh, the Holy Ghost, I suppose. Except he also has the attributes of the godhead, who is his filter? Ah, I know, we need some canonized saints, or maybe the Virgin Mary to filter stuff before it gets to him.
It’s not at all difficult to see how things slide into apostasy — at any given time any given stake president already has us 3/4 of the way there.
Comment by obi-wan — January 22, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
If Christ could keep God from knowing what is in our prayers then God could not be all knowing.
Comment by Starfoxy — January 22, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
I’m not reading out of the Handbook of Instructions or anything, but I don’t think you can get a cancellation of sealing if your husband is dead.
My MIL was widowed at 26 (married in the temple, 3 children), and while she’s very active and orthodox, etc., she’s a little bitter about not being able to remarry in the temple. (She ended up not remarrying at all.) It significantly redcuced the number of men who would seriously court her. (Did I just say “court her”? You know what I mean.) I’ve known a couple of other women who were widowed in their 20’s before they had any children, and I think their dating/remarrying prospects in the Church seem limited at best.
That’s another topic for another time, of course.
Re #139 - Somehow, the idea of Jesus Christ as a Divine Filter is not so poetic to me. I think I’m even less likely to pray to somebody who won’t answer his own phone. To take this metaphor much too far, is it possible that God has Prayer ID, and that’s why I’m not getting any answers?
Two points, both off topic.
Comment by madhousewife — January 22, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
Re #139 - I think your Stake President’s interpretation of Christ’s role is flawed. When the scriptures teach that “no unclean thing can dwell in His presence” (see Moses 6:57), it is out of protection to us, not Heavenly Father. If we are unclean,
can not endure his presence - not the other way around. If we are not sanctified, we cannot see the face of God and live. See D&C 84:22-24.
The idea that Jesus protects Heavenly Father from our unclean thoughts by filtering them doesn’t ring true to me. Its like saying a faithful police officer will lose the guidance of the Spirit by entering a seedy nightclub to do undercover work. Ordinarilly, we would say that the Spirit could not accompany someone in such a place, but it depends on the circumstances and intentions of the individual. Certainly Father knows us and our weaknesses - he’s omniscient after all! He can certainly know our innermost thoughts without being contaminated by them.
As our mediator, Christ’s role is to bring us unto the Father and advocate on our behalf. It is out of recognition of Christ’s central role in our salvation that we are commanded to pray in His name. It is so we may remember “to what source [we] may look for a remission of [our] sins.”
I think this is a clear example of the philosophy of man mingled with scripture - certainly not sound doctrine.
Comment by Patti — January 22, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
I guess I never really considered Heavenly Mother to be *too* much of a “touchy subject” - at least not since I got my patriarchal blessing. Mine specifically mentions her - twice. And the above post is lovely, and very much how I have imagined her as well.
Comment by Megan — January 31, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
Re #143 - My mother obtained a temple divorce after my dad died. She had to jump through a lot of hoops - we (the children) had to write letters confirming her narrative about the marriage, the bishop had to write one, etc. But it was granted…
Comment by Sue — February 1, 2007 @ 1:37 am
madhousewife 139, I have a very good friend who was married in the temple and had a two year old son when her husband died of brain cancer. She was 24 years old.
She ended up remarrying, and it was decided that the sealing to her first husband would be broken, and she was sealed to her second husband. I think different priesthood leaders have different take on some things, but in her case it came from the 1st presidency that she could be sealed to #2.
I know another woman who wasin a similar boat…widowed 8 months after marriage. She later married a man and they’ve spent the last 40+ years raising their family. She hardly even remembers #1…they knew each other less than a year when he died…but thankfully she was able to be sealed to #2 as well. I don’t know why sometimes this happends and sometimes it doesn’t, but someday maybe I’ll understand.
Comment by Blue — February 1, 2007 @ 8:15 am
Whew!!! i just finished reading all these posts about HM. i just got baptized 2 months ago…..i am feeling confused. what exactly is feminism? is it wrong? where do we go to find true doctrine?
i’ve heard some strange things come out of different priesthood holder’s mouths.
i’m feeling a bit lost,depressed and sad. like i could cry. would anyone be willing to email me and help me?
thanks
Nita
i’m not too keen on the idea of polygamy….i guess i’m feeling like i can’t feel what i feel……..sigh.
Comment by Nita Lightell — April 26, 2007 @ 3:25 am
Nita, you can feel what you feel. It’s okay. We’re all in this together. Lots of us hate the idea of polygamy. Lots of us don’t think it’s inspired of God. Lots of us get frustrated with what comes out of priesthood holders’ mouths.
I can’t answer your question, “What is feminism?” because I think it’s different for every woman. Obviously I don’t think there’s anything wrong with feminism; I proudly call myself a feminist. But sometimes, it is a struggle to be a feminist in the LDS church. Historically, there is a fairly strong tradition of LDS feminism; but as the church has moved to the right, that tradition has lessened.
Where do you find true doctrine - with Heavenly Father. That’s one of the things that I cling to in my LDS faith. I don’t have to have any man (or woman) interpret doctrine for me. I can go to my Heavenly Father directly. What comes out of the mouths of men doesn’t count for two bits if you can’t go to Heavenly Father and have it confirmed for you.
There are lots of idiots in the church and out of it. The trick is learning to ignore them. (And I’m sure there are lots of people who think I’m an idiot, and I don’t mind them ignoring me one bit, because usually, the feeling is mutual.)
Comment by Quimby — April 26, 2007 @ 5:34 am
Nita, there are very few doctrinal points that we must all agree upon; that is one of hte unique things about the LDS faith. We do not have creeds and councils that dictate an exact faith in God.
First and foremost, you must come to understand that priesthoo leaders are just men. As members we must learn to understand when do they speak as men of God and when are th speaking as just men. Many LDS assume that if they say it over the pulpit, then it is truth. I am a bit more circumspect in being so blind in my faith. This is a two edged sword and we walk a delicate path; I do believe that we may be blessed in having blind faith, but for those of us who do not have that ability, we must walk in the Light of Christ, led by the Holy Spirit to recognize and know what is truth.
Second, the vast majority of P. leaders strive to do their best, but some, at all levels, forget they are just men and their personal ideas and beliefs are just that personal. They forget that they are not the fount of doctrine in the church. We are lead by the Jesus Christ through his prophet and other leaders.
Third, do not despair or feel uncomfortabel wiht no knowing or believing in certain doctrines. If you know that Jesus is your Savior, that the Church is a divinely inspired institution, and that we all are committed to being His disciples, then you are on the path. Remember that to partake of the Sacrament, we must only be “willing”. Never lose Hope. Bless you, Storm
Comment by Michael Storm — July 7, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
For some unknown reason I have always felt connected to Heavenly Parents and when I went into Lds therapy sessions with a Church approved therapist he encouraged as a part of my healing to close my eyes and to think or imagine upon a vision of my Heavenly Mother! Now , I never saw her as an old white haired woman but rather in my minds’ eye she was young, beautiful and full of color, loving comforting and compassionate the things that I feel for my Father I feel for my Mother and there is something to be said about the fact I realize we have more than one Mother since we know that plural marriage, although not practiced and approved of here at this time , it can and may very well be a serious part of our future progression in the eternities!. I know as a female I wouldn’t want the sole burden of bringing to the eternities spirit children to live on worlds without number without number, and raising them alone but would rather have an army of sister wives helping me accomplish the heavenly tasks of bringing forth and raising a royal brood to the point of moving on into mortality. Isn’t that what this lands up becoming in the end? An endless cycle of Family and progression of spirits to that of Godhood experiencing all that this would entail?? I’ve always felt connected to the my heavenly Parents and felt that my mother walks with me in this earthly journey side by side with my father and their Son Jesus Christ? How could it be any other way? Is their even a question of this as an unendening senerio being an n endles enternal round of possbile united connection one in mind and in purpose to bring to pass the eternal life of all of us in joy and happiness and unitedness? It’s just never been a question for me just a simple understanding that they are all conected and therefore why would we go through all of this here which a is a mere simple reflection of what is there? I realize there are no gospel doctrines or scripture references I can quote to but isn’t this just something we know deep within our spirits and when you pray upon it is in your heart it is just so . No man needs to give me the references or his approval that what I go through here on this earth is just a dry run for perfecting myself for the eternities to live in the next world under even more divine laws and principles will require an even greater commitment of faith love and understanding to achieve that level to move forward.
Comment by JoAnn Grant — July 16, 2007 @ 4:03 am
Hey ladies, i just realized I might have confused people even more…lol…. sorry about that ,but the owner of the site can delete my piece in this site, it’s fine with me. I haven’t loved the idea of plural marriage. But when I think upon moving on to the eternities and becoming a mother to children who will populate worlds with out number it boggles my mind and it’s a job I really would not take on as a solo flight! I hope you understand where I’m coming from. I think together is better than a solo event when it come to the eternites….lol I do trust my Father and believe in Him and his ways are perfect and it is not given for us to know all things at this time but rather we will be given what we need to know to progress where we want to go this I strongly do believe! Sorry it’s late and I need to sleep…so hopefully I’ll check back and find some interesting feed back love to all of you out there. i don’t think I’m into praying to a HM but I do certainly love to pry to HF anytime and i have found that He loves to answer me and He is my comfort in all things.
Comment by JoAnn Grant — July 16, 2007 @ 4:17 am
Has anyone out there of thought of the possibility that HM might be on earth at this time and that she has been kept secret because God has not wanted anything to interfere with her progress?
I am sure that the most common response to this would be that she is already a glorified being in heaven, and you would be right, BUT our linear concept of time is not the same as God’s overview.
I would pose one interesting comparison. Jesus said that the HG was not available while he was on earth. If it was not available until after he was glorified, then how could it have been available before he was here? Yet, it was available before he came to earth, as stated in Mosiah 27: 24-27.
Time is different from a heavenly perspective.
Comment by B' Mary — November 2, 2007 @ 11:17 am
The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost have one mind and one purpose, and yet individually, they have separate roles. I’m not sure how you could be OK with the godhead, and yet stumble over the language of the Proclamation on the family.
It is difficult for me to suppress my contempt for the assumption that women somehow have more of a need than men for a mother in heaven. All I can say for those that assume this is that I feel sorry for their boys.
I agree. And the fact that someone doesn’t specifically use the word “goddess” does not necessarily imply a being of lesser power, authority or cosmic importance. We just don’t know enough about her, other than the strong implication at the end of the Hymn O My Father, that our Father and Mother in Heaven share authority in “the royal courts on high,” and jointly decide, who shall “come to live with [them]” after this life runs its course.
In the 1990s, after President Hinckley offered a rather tentatively worded suggestion that it seemed innapropriate to pray to Heavenly Mother (based on the lack of scriptural precedent), I overreacted like a lot of other people did. I privately offered a fairly sulky and resentful prayer, something to the effect of “I guess I can’t pray to you anymore because the prophet said it was innapropriate.” I experienced an interesting response.
I won’t try to imagine Her face any more than I’d try to imagine the Father’s face, but I will always remember the sound of her laughter. Divine laughter that reassured me that I did not need to worry myself about steadying Her ark.
Comment by Christian — November 2, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
Hello all,
I would like to thank you for the topic, Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are the result of exhaltation. Meaning they together attained Godhood as eternal man and wife,cleaving as one. Together holding the eternal priesthood and together making decisions, together making our brothers and sisters and together helping you and I progress to the same sphere. I look at my lovely wife, she is perfect whilst I am not, she is honest whilst I am not, she is what I aspire to be, and she is the perfect role model for me to become. She alone is the one that will pull me over the line to progress to Godhood. I have no doubt in my mind that my wife’s attitude is similar to how our heavenly Mother’s would have been before her exhaltation. Heavenly Mother gave birth to us all, she is our mother and loves us like a mother I am sure of this…Why Heavenly Mother is not at the fore as Heavenly Father, is a mystery to me, but whatever the reason, it is a good reason, for she has the agency to choose, and maybe she has exercised that eternal right not to recieve the glory attained to such a noble position. If anything her free agency inspires me greatly. All of must have a companion to gain exhaltation and I am of the firm belief that Jesus Christ himself was married and I believe that Mary Magadalene is his eternal companion. Together and only together do they cleave to become the one God…Gods who exercise freedom, in using their agency.
Comment by Ray — January 30, 2008 @ 9:41 am
Wow, is this an anti-mormon thread? I am an active, temple worthy mormon, and I firmly believe what m&m has posted, and all of the doctrine behind each of m&m’s posts. It makes me sad to read what Sophia (a non-mormon) posted on this site. She noticed how many on here who are members of the LDS church are disagreeing with doctrines taught by our church and coming up with their own interpretations of doctrine. That is just plain sad. Free agency and the freedom to think for one’s self are one thing, but this thread is getting a little too anti. Julie, as M&M tried to explain, I’m pretty sure that, in the LDS faith, calling Heavenly Father “God” is fine, it’s when you start to pray to a non-gender specific god (to infer to Heavenly Mother or both) that is gets a little… out there. It’s the meaning behind your wording that is concerning, Julie, not the name of God. And yes, I believe that God and Heavenly Mother are one in purpose, as married couples should be, but in our church we are taught that she is not mentioned much because she is SACRED, remember? You are LDS, right?
Comment by Kelli — February 10, 2008 @ 12:02 am
M&M- I love your style- your posts are my thoughts exactly.
Kelli- you took the words right outta my mouth.
Comment by Spunky — February 10, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
actuallly, Kelli, the doctrines of the church are not all spelled out so unchanging and clearly as we might think - and we can see many cases where changes and modifications are made, as we progress and need “more light and knowledge”. there are still many gray areas where we can either choose not to think at all, or we may have the right to personal revelation - I think many of the posts here are people trying to move forward to some sort of reconciliation with doctrines of the church which are either not clearly elucidated, or are somewhat contradictory. This doesn’t mean they are apostates or are anti-mormon.
I think it is somewhat sad we don’t have as good understanding of Heavenly Mother as we do of Father. It just seems vaguely lopsided to me. Frankly, I think that just like the revelation on the priesthood being extended to all - we will not know more about her until we are actively seeking. And no revelation will be given until the first presidency and apostles put the same amount of time and effort and earnest prayer into this issue that they put into the revelation on the priesthood.
Comment by susan — February 11, 2008 @ 10:59 am
People like Kelli have got to chill out a bit. In the end, the issue of Heavenly Mother is a fascinated, but not necessarily the most critical issue of Mormon doctrine. It is interesting to muse and see how others view Her but I think Kelli’s claim of this post being “anti-Mormon” is naive at best.
Comment by Jacob — February 19, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
I envision God as Michaelangelo did on the ceiling of the Systine (sp?) Chapel. His body, hair, eyes and face are magnificant. God, the Father is as this great artist genius imagined and painted him. So is Heavenly Mother. She is gorgeous, beautiful, serene, powerful and all woman with beautiful, voluptuous curves that only women possess.
Her Spirit is even more beautiful than her body. She is kind, patient, intelligent, brilliant, supportive, empathetic and powerful in her own right. She is all things beautiful combined into one distinctly feminine being. I know her because I am a part of her as my children are a part of me. She is familiar and constant. I know Heavenly Mother at once because I came from her and am waiting for the day when I can recall being held close to her once again.
I yearn to hear her voice and my own name come from her lips as she soothes my troubled soul. She knows my plight of being a mother because she is all-knowing Mother in Heaven and perfect in every way. I cherish our relationship and want to hold her hand, my earthly mother’s hand and my daughter’s hands in a grand circle of feminity with perfect understanding.
I love Heavenly Mother. I know she exists. I am a part of her just as I am a part of Heavenly Father. But, she knows me better than any being and this “knowing” of me results in feelings of instant and abiding love.
I have always known her. She has always known me. We are mother and daughter — eternal and all knowing feminine divinity intelligence, Goddess and Goddess-heir.
Comment by Adele Connell — September 2, 2009 @ 12:46 am