Gaia

In another thread, MOksha raised some questions about the "Adam-God" docttrine, and i thought it deserved its own thread -- As i said, Moksha, yes indeed, what is now referred to as the "Adam-God" doctrine or theory, certainly was taught -- not just by Brigham Young, nor just a couple of times; - It was taught over a period of between 25-35+ years, by nearly all the General Authorities of the period, (with the notable exception of Apostle Orson Pratt, who ran afoul of Brigham for disagreeing with him on it), both here and abroad, over the pulpit in official meetings -- including General Conferences and Priesthood Conferences; - It was taught in official publications of the Church -- including the Deseret News, the Millennial Star, The Women's Exponent, The Juvenile Instructor, the Elders' Journal and the Hymnbook; - It was taught in the Temple as part of the "Veil Lecure" throughout the presidences of FOUR presidents of the Church, including Brigham Young, JOhn Taylor, Lorenzo Snow and Wilford Woodruff; - There were people brought up on charges before High Council Church courts for REFUSING to accept/ beleive in it. - The fact that it was taught in such (official) publications as the Juvenile INstructor and the Millennial Star indicate that it was considered appropriate material / doctrine for children, investigators, and new members. - There are strong hints that Joseph Smith himself was planning to introduce the doctrine into the Church, as Brigham Young claimed. WHAT IS THE "ADAM-GOD DOCTRINE"? We should probably define just what is meant by the "Adam-God Docttrine", and perhaps the best way to do that is to quote some of the statements that referred to it and introduced it to the Saints: Brigham Young, 1854: "He is the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, both body and spirit: and he is the father of our spirits, and the father of our flesh in the beginning. You will not dispute the words of an Apostle, that he is actually the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the father of our spirits . . . I tell you simply he is our father; the God and father of our Lords Jesus Christ, and the father of our spirits . . . I say he was not made of the dust of the ground of this earth, but he was made of the dust of the earth where he lived, where he honored his calling, believed in his Savior, or elder brother, and by his faithfulness, was redeemed and got a glorious resurrection . . . Our spirits and the spirts of all the human family were begotten by Adam and born of Eve . . . I tell you, when you see your Father in heaven, you will see Adam; when you see your mother that bore your spirit, you will see mother Eve. " (Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young, Oct. 8, 1854) "Adam was an immortal being when he came to this earth. He had lived on an earth similar to ours. He had received the priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things, and had gained his resurrection, and his exaltation and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods, for such he became through his faithfulness. (Brigham Young quoted in the Journal of L. John Nuttall, Feb 7, 1887) Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten of the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven . . . Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation. (Journal of Discourses, 1:50-51 1854) Who did beget him? His Father, and his father is our God, and the father of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam; Michael: The Ancient of Days. (Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young Feb 19, 1854) Prior to 1900, the LDS temple ceremony taught this doctine in explicit terms. If the endowment recipient had not received this knowledge in symbolic form by the time s/he reached the veil, it was given in the "lecture before the veil." That lecture was introduced by Brigham Young on February 1, 1877, in the St. George temple and was intended to be the pattern for all lectures before the veil. L. John Nuttall, acting as the temple recorder under Brigham Young's direction, recorded and helped prepare its final form. The following is taken from his journal and represents the substance of the lecture: "In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth, and putting Michael or Adam upon it. These things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness.... . . . Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; he had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness. And had begotten all the spirits that was to come to this earth. And Eve our common mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celstial world. And when this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, who is Adam our common father, Adam and Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression. Consequently they came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in. And when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this kingdom, our earth, he came to it, and slept and forgot all and became like an infant child . . . . . . Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews. But upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life. . . Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Savior), who is the heir of the family, is father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit world, and came in the spriit to Mary and she conceived.) For when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came." (Diary of L. John Nuttall, Feb. 7, 1877) This lecture *remained* part of the temple ceremony under the direction of Presidents Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow. This may sound pretty far-out to those who either have never heard of it, or have only heard it negatively spoken of; but many feel there are doctrinal, scriptural supports for this doctrine, for example: ADAM-GOD REFERENCES: From STandard Works: Jesus says to the brother of Jared: “Never have I showed myself unto man whom I created”. Did Adam see Jesus? Daniel 7:9-10; 13-14 9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. 10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. ... 13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. Daniel 2:44 44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. 1 Corinthians 15:24 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. In Daniel 2, who was it that set up the kingdom? God [Elohim]. In Corinthians, who shall "put down all rule"? God [the Father]. And in DANIEL 7, who was it? The Ancient of Days [Adam]. Consider in the following who will be taking over whose throne, and compare that with Dan. 7:9,13-14. Acts 2:30 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; In describing God's throne Ezekiel uses the exact same imagery to describe it (burning fire with lightening and and especially intricate description of the wheels) as Daniel describes the throne of the ancient of Days. All of these verses fit very well with statements made by the Prophet Brigham Young: Brigham Young, JD 13:327, Feb 10, 1867 (emphasis mine) So it was with Israel, in the days of their obedience they were commanded to take partners in their own families; but Israel was finally divided up into twelve parts, and they will be brought up so. They will come up tribe by tribe, and the ANCIENT OF DAYS, HE WHO LED ABRAHAM, and talked to NOAH, ENOCH, ISAAC, and JACOB, that VERY BEING will come and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Conclusion: Adam, the Ancient of Days, is one and the same Being as the God whom we worship. There are so many more quotes over the period of quarter-century or more that this doctrine was taught, that it would be impossible to list all the quotes/ references. Here are just a few refrences from the JD: ADAM-GOD REFERENCES, From JOurnal of Discourses (PLease note, the JD is NOT currently considered official doctrine ) JD 1:50 Adam ... came into [Garden] with a celestial body JD 1:50 Adam ... brought Eve, one of his wives, with him[which] JD 1:50 Adam ... is our GOD and the only one with which WE have do JD 1:50 Adam ... [is the Father of the child Jesus, not Holy Ghost JD 1:51 who is the Father? He is the first of the human family JD 2:6 if Adam was made out of clay, he would be an adobe to this day JD 3:90 Adam and his wife Eve came here upon this planet JD 3:319 Adam was made out of dust, but it was dust from anotherworld JD 3:319 Adam helped make the world and was the chief manager of it JD 3:319 Adam brought the seeds and animals to earth JD 3:319 Adam brought his wife to earth JD 3:319 Adam was made as you and I are made JD 3:344 Adam and Eve were immortal, same as resurrected beings (OP) JD 4:1 God is the "first man", "first man" sent his Son Jesus (HCK) JD 4:215 God is the Father of our spirits and our bodies JD 4:218 Father ... partook of elements until his system was changed JD 4:218 Man created precisely as we all are created JD 4:271 we will get the privilege of being an Adam on earth JD 5:331 I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. JD 5:331 There are many that know that Adam being our God is true JD 5:332 glad to see the white locks of Father Adam ... only true God JD 6:31 Father of our spirits, is the Father of our bodies JD 6:101 Did God produce us. ... upon same principle that we produce JD 6:275 Gods create spirits, then become Adams&Eves, JD 6:275 All Adams and Eve's have celestialized bodies JD 7:285 Adam being made of the dust is but an idle tale JD 7:288 Adam & Eve came from another planet JD 7:290 Adam & Eve parents of our flesh and our spirits JD 8:208 Faithful women to become Eves to worlds in hereafter JD 8:152 God is our Father, the offspring of Adam are our siblings. JD 11:81 We are sons of God through generation same as our children from us JD 11:122 God created man as we created our children JD 11:122 As Paul said we are the offspring of God JD 11:327 Ancient of Days led Abraham, talked to Noah,Enoch,Isaac, Jacob JD 12:97 Women, if righteous, may be Eves to their own worlds someday JD 13:187 Some angels are Gods,still possess lower office of angel JD 13:187 Adam is called an Archangel, yet he is a God. JD 13:263 Father Adam gave up considerable knowledge to come to earth JD 13:263 Adam reduced himself to the capacity of corruptable being JD 14:111 we are children of the Almighty, or Adam/Eve JD 16:167 No doubt but that Adam left many wives in heaven ORSON PRATT'S DISPUTE OVER ADAM-GOD: Orson Pratt, LDS apostle, steadfastly refused to accept the doctrine, and carried on a running dispute with Brigham Young over the course of many years. In 1875, about two years before Brigham Young's death, he rearranged the seniority in the Quorum of the Twelve, placing three others before Orson Pratt. Pratt did not succeed to the presidency as would have otherwise occurred without the change. In 1860, the Quorum of the twelve met to consider Pratt's opposition to Brigham Young's teachings: O. Pratt: In regard to Adam being our Father and our God; I have not published it, although I frankly say I have no confidence in it, although advocated by Bro. Kimball in the stand, and afterwards affirmed by Bro. Brigham. I have heard Brother Brigham say that Adam is the Father of our Spirits and he came here with a resurrected body to fall for his own children; and I said to him, it leads to an endless number of falls, which leads to sorrow and death; that is revolting to my feelings . . . O. Hyde: (President of the Quorum): To acknowledge that this is the Kingdom of God and that there is a presiding power, and to admit that he can advance incorrect doctrine is to lay the ax at the root of the tree. ... Bro. Brigham may err in the price of a horse or a house and lot, but in the revelations from God, where is the man that has given thus saith the Lord when it was not so? I cannot find one instance. Who is our Heavenly Father? I would as soon it was Father Adam or any other good and lawful being. I shall see him sometime, if I do right. J. Taylor: When Bro. Brigham tells me a thing, I receive it as revelation. Some things may be apparently contradictory but are not really contradictory. G. A. Smith: [it is] for him [Orson] to acknowledge Brigham Young as President of the Church, in the exercise of his calling, but he [Orson] only acknowledges him as a poor driveling fool, he [Orson] preaches doctrines opposed to Joseph, and all other revelations. OTHER RESOURCES: There is an excellent book available (the best, most thorough and complete resource i've ever found on it) for anyone who might be interested -- "_Adam-God : Doctrines Of The Restorations Volume I_" by Craig L. Tholson; Publishment: P.O. Box 151, Payson, UT 84651-0151 However, please note, i in no way portray or suggest that this book is official LDS Doctrine; i present it as information for those interested in exploring this very interesting issue in LDS history and doctrine, only: MOKSHA's QUESTION: Now, your question MOksha, was: However, this was in vogue for a lot of years. How does this stuff get winnowed out from better doctrine? Is it by continuing revelation? I guess i have to say that there are many people today -- and not all of them are "apostates" or "Fundamentalists" *g* -- who believe that it IS "good" doctrine; that it is quite consistent with several other important doctrines of the Gospel, and that it was set aside because: 1. some of the members of the Church just couldn't handle it; 2. The "gentile world" was so aghast at this doctrine that they would have made even more trouble for the church. By that time the church was fighting for its life over polygamy; the leaders had to make decisons about whether it was better to hold to these strange, even troubling doctrines and perhaps be destroyed, or to set them aside and (hopefully) ensure the continuation of the Church; 3. There are many who feel that this and related doctrines in fact belong NOT to the "LDS Church", but to the "Church of the Firstborn" -- (Hebrews 12:23, D&C 76:67, D&C 77, D&C 78:21, ) -- those who have made their Calling and Election to Eternal Life SURE, and have received the Second Comforter..... AT any rate, it was gradually phased out, denied, and then eventually was labelled heresy. (One might be forgiven for wondering how the Prophet Brigham Young could call it "one of the most glorious revealments ever given to men" while later prophets could call it "heresy"....) (Gaia ducks and waits for the explosion that is sure to come.....*g*

GAIA: Well, now you've done it! *g* You've mentioned the one topic guaranteed to make some folks see red Yes, indeed -- what is now frequently referred to as the "Adam-God Doctrine" or "Adam-God Theory" certainly was taught as doctrine for many years -- and NOT , as some folks erroneously think, by just Brigham Young, nor just once or twice or a few times. I think it best to give this topic its own thread, don't you? I'll start one now -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Wow, i just can't get used to your perpetually negative "take" on everything -- I was not trying to be "dismissive"; i did not want anyone to think i was simply ignoring you, and neither was i saying that i couldn't "rebut" your points. I was trying to let you know -- as respectfully and cordially as possible -- that i think this discussion has gone as far as it can go (at least with you), and remain positive and respectful. As i've said several times, i'm not trying to "convince" you of anything, and i don't care to argue. Your position is clear and i think i've made mine clear. ~GAia

GAIA: LOL - Well, i've been challenged so frequently to provide "official" sources that i guess i'm a bit "gunshy" about just posting my personal thoughts. I will try to do as you ask here -- "state an argument, use a few relevant quotes and link to additional supporting material" -- ~Gaia

Thank you Snow, for your ideas and discussion -- Blessings - ~Gaia

I found an article that i thought some here might be interested in. Please note, it is NOT LDS doctrine, but i think it does have some interesting things to tell us about scripture, scriptural interpretation, and Heavenly Mother, -- From: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mormon-mystic/message/22791 From: "Kerry Shirts" <shirtail@...> Date: Tue Jan 4, 2005 10:03 am Subject: Praying to Heavenly Mother Article by Kerry Shirts: On How Praying to Heavenly MOther IS Scriptural, -- according to the original Scriptures -- I found it. In fact, I think I posted this here a few months back, but here is the majority of the post again. Notice it is indeed quite scriptural to pray to Heavenly Mother. Just because we in this church refuse to learn Hebrew, and hence see just WHO is being prayed to, does not make it right or correct or accurate to say we are not to pray to Heavenly Mother. Not that I am advocating such, but I dang sure can show it is very scriptural. Kerry In conjunction with "Eloah," is the name "El-Shadday" which is also mostly used by Job, interestingly enough. In fact of the 48 times Shadday is mentioned in the Bible, 31 of them are in Job! So a look into this is in high order I believe. Fascinating insights can be gleaned from the Hebrew of Job. The feminine imagery is powerfully depicted in Job 38:8."Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, [leapt tumultuously or burst forth energetically] as if it had issued out of the womb?" Yahweh also asks rhetorically at Job 38:29 - "Out of whose womb came the ice?" These are feminine characteristics. And what's more, they are the feminine characteristics of the Goddess Eloah since Job describes her further in other places. Job 11:5 laments "Oh that God would speak." God here being the Goddess Eloah. The next verse is a desire for God(dess) (Eloah) to show the secrets of Wisdom. ("weyagged-leka ta' alumot Hokmah" - the Hebrew "ta' alumot" being the feminine noun in the plural construct, while "Hokmah," is of course, the singular feminine noun for Wisdom, another name for the Mother Goddess, especially in Proverbs, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach and later Rabbinic, Kabbalistic traditions). Notice the remainder of this verse 6, how it shows a Mother's mercy!, ".that they [the secrets of the Wisdom] are double to that which is! Know therefore that God exacteth of thee less than thine iniquity deserveth." There is no eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth justice here being described, but a loving tender mercy with less punishment and ignorance than is deserved, a very "motherly" trait. Verse 7 continues with more information of the God(dess) - Job 11:7: "Canst thou by searching find out God? [Hebrew "Eloah"] canst thou find out the Almighty [Hebrew Shadday] unto perfection?" Another way to translate this is "can you reach the limit or find the extremities to the ultimate Almighty?" The Hebrew "Takliyth" is the feminine singular construct. The HALOT Lexicon indicates that the Neo-Punic word "ts't watkl't" means the outermost or the furthest parts. This description of Eloah/Shadday (they are used synonymously in many places in Job and the Hebrew scriptures) indicates the majesty and power of the Goddess. She is, after all, the "Almighty"! The Hebrew is El-Shadday," which in Hebrew can translate as "the many breasted God," or "the God with breasts," since Hebrew "Shad" means a woman's breasts. And furthermore, considering El-Shadday, it is utterly incredibly fascinating to realize that it was as this Goddess, El-Shadday, that God was known to the Patriarchs before she was known as Yahweh! Exodus 6:3 notes this plainly. In the previous verse [2], God said He was Yhwh, and in verse 3, God was known as El-Shadday, the Hebrew word used for "appeared" in the English translation is actually "'erah' from the root "ra'ah" which can mean to "understand," to "realize," to "learn how someone is," etc. (HALOT Lexicon). It means a lot more than simply seeing God, but also in understand what and how God is, in this case, that God is the Mother, Shadday, the breasted one. Hence the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is the Mother, Shadday! Now that is simply stunning. In conjunction with this, we read at Psalm 114:7, that the earth trembles at the presence of the God of Jacob. Here she is again as Eloah. That Shadday meaning the Breasted One, is a correct translation and interpretation, is also seen in the parallelism in Jacob's blessing in Genesis 49:25-26, where she is mentioned, as well as the blessings being of the womb, the breasts, as well as the family, father and mother, and child. (see the analysis of this in David Noel Freedman, Frank Moore Cross, Jr., "Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry," William B. Eerdmann's Publishing, Biblical Resource Series, reprint, 1997: 53-63.) The blessing of Jacob also mentions the blessings of the deep. The Deep is the Hebrew, "Tehom" - of which perhaps the Goddess Tiamat is derived. The "tehom" is the "deep", symbolizing, the womb, the Mother of creation, of course. At Ebla the word is "ti'a-'a-ma-tum," which corresponds also with the Akkadian "tiamtu(m)," "tamtu(m)," the deep, sea (HALOT Lexicon). An older treatment of Gen 1:2 found a similarity between "tehom" in Genesis and the Enuma Elish story in which Tiamat was vanquished by Marduk and from her body earth and heaven were made. Genesis also reflects a fight in which the spirit of God rushed on the chaos monster and thus made the ordered universe. "Tiamat" and "tehom" come from the same root. The root referred to deep waters and Hebrew used this root as well as a noun for water in the deep ocean and deep in the ground. But in the animistic thought of Akkadian it became divinized into the goddess of the ocean, Tiamat. In Ugaritic the "h" is preserved ( thm) as in Hebrew and the ocean is sometimes divinized as in Akkadian. E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., in his Doctoral Dissertation, "The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature," Scholars press, 1980: 13, noted that creation itself, is not necessarily a battle against the sea, (the "Deep," in the Bible) so much as it is containment. It is the restricting of the bounds of the sea that is what caused Creation. A god or Goddess can contain the boundless deep, but humans cannot. This is why El-Shadday is noted as being the Almighty, she is the boundless ocean. The ocean, the deep (read womb), is the ocean of life, not literal physical waters incidentally. It is interesting to note in Ulf Oldenburg's dissertation (The Conflict Between El and Baal in Canaanite Religion," (1969): 134), that the battle of Yamm (the Sea) and the other Gods, is held back by two goddesses, and that Yamm is considered male. Anyway, back to Job. Job 22:26 For then shalt thou have thy delight in the Almighty, [El-Shadday] and shalt lift up thy face unto God [Eloah]. It is interesting that these are the names of the Goddess being talked of. In another verse, speaking of the hypocrit, Job is asked rhetorically, "Will he delight himself in the Almighty [El-Shadday]? will he always call upon God [Eloah]?" (Job 27:10). Here again, we have the Goddess. Amazing also is when we realize that Job understands that the Goddess will be his judge! Job 31:6 "Let me be weighed in an even balance, that God [Eloah] may know mine integrity." Three times Eloah occurs in parallel to "rock" as a descriptive term for God (Deut 32:15; Psa 18:31 [Hebrew 32]; Isa 44:8). Once it is found in a context in which God is described as a shield to those who take refuge in him (Prov 30:5). Three times it is used in a context of terror for sinners (Psa 50:22; Psa 114:7; Psa 139:19). This would suggest that the term conveyed to God's people comfort and assurance while conveying fear to their enemies. This is how a Mother would be with her children, a source of comfort. The concepts of strength and might conveyed by Eloah are further seen in the three successive verses of Daniel's vision about the great foreign god (Dan 11:37-39). Here the foreign god's god (Eloah) seems to be "strength" itself. In Habakkuk 1:11 the term is used similarly. This term for God, Eloah, was usually clearly used for Israel's God, the true God. This is evident from the fact that the Levites in the postexilic period used the term in quoting the descriptive revelation of God given in Exo 34:6-7, where the original revelation to Moses had used El and Yahweh (Nehemiah 9:17). In fact here at Nehemiah we find many of the Goddess attributes for which the feminine is known - ".but thou art a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and forsookest them not." This recalls what I noted about Gesenius' description based on the Hebrew vorlage of the feminine, ". while the feminine aspect involves motherly, productive, sustaining, nourishing, gentle, etc." (Gesenius, "Grammar"). Perhaps the most staggering place that Eloah is used in the Hebrew Bible, is in Isaiah. In his great argument against the idolatry of the nations, Here is what the Goddess says: Isaiah 44:8 - "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God [Eloah] beside me? yea, there is no God [Eloah]; I know not any." Eloah is also found on the Great Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah manuscript as well, as I have personally been able to look it up and see the spelling. This is the very famous verse used by literally all Christian to declare the idea of monotheism in ancient Israel. It is, indeed, rather shocking to find our beloved Mother Goddess in this verse! The Mother is also associated and indeed, identified with the "Holy Spirit," the Ruach ha Qadosh. Interestingly, in the New Testament, the Holy Spirit is associated with the Second Comforter, especially in John chapters 14-16. The idea and role of comforting is found quite strongly as mothering in Isaiah 66:13. "As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem." This comforting, nurturing aspect is important as indicating the feminine goddess aspects. The Pi'el meaning of nakhum is "to comfort" or "to be comforted" (Niphal, Pual, and Hithpael). This Hebrew word was well known to every pious Jew living in exile as he recalled the opening words of Isaiah's "Book of Consolation, "nahammu, nahammu ammi" - "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people" (Isa 40:1). The same word occurs in Psa 23:4, where David says of his heavenly Shepherd, "Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me." A mother might comfort her child (Isa 66:13 above) but it is God who comforts his people (Psalm 71:21 [here using Elohim]; Psalm 86:17; Psalm 119:82; Isa 12:1; Isa 49:13; Isa 52:9). More to the point, at Isaiah 11:2, the Spirit of Wisdom is called the Spirit of Yahweh. The interesting thing here is in this verse, the words "to rest upon," "Wisdom," "Counsel," "might," "knowledge," and finally, "fear" are all feminine. It is understood that Wisdom personified is the female Deity involved in the creation of the universe with God, as God. The Shekhinah is also the female aspect of Deity, strongly elaborated on in the Kabbalah. Yet the idea is also found in the Old Testament and quite strongly. The Shekhinah means "dwelling" or "presence" of God. Interestingly the "mishkhan" a form of the word "shakan" to dwell, means the Tabernacle. Shikhinah is a feminine Hebrew noun and Isaiah 51 uses this feminine noun along with the feminine pronouns, particularly verses 9 and 10. Isaiah 57:15 says the Shekhinah "inhabits," (Hebrew, Shokeyn) eternity, the high and lofty one. Gerschom Scholem, "The Mystical Shape of the Godhead," Schocken Books, 1991: 143f, noted that Philo described the Father Creator of All, and the Mother, the Mother of all, including the Son. This Father is described as the "Husband of Wisdom." She is the radiant emanation of the Glory of God, the Holy One. And the Holy One is one of the main epithets which Isaiah uses to describe the Goddess and Mother. The Hebrew "Qadosh" is used to describe the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, which was sent to Israel during the Exodus, to lead them. (See Jacobus A. Naude, "Holiness in the Dead Sea Scrolls," in James C. Vanderkam, Peter W. Flint, eds., "The Dead Sea Scrolls After 50 Years," E.J. Brill, 1999: 171-199 for excellent analytical treatment of Qadosh) It was this same Spirit who was the Mother in the Hebrew Scriptures, which we have been exploring. The Marriage of the Father and Mother, and the birth of their Son, the Logos, is discussed by Margaret Barker in good detail in her book "The Great High Priest," pp. 237f. In fact, when God said let us make mankind in OUR image, (used at the beginning of this research) it was Wisdom, the Mother, to whom he was talking to! (Barker, p. 237). In the Gospel of the Hebrews, as Jerome, the early Church father quoted it, Jesus described the Holy Spirit as "My Mother." (See Barker, p. 243). So we actually see then that the Spirit, the Ruach, the Mother, Sheikhinah, Wisdom, Holy One of Israel, Eloah, Elah, appears in the scripture from the very beginning right through to today. There is much more to this than what I have slapped together so speedily, but you get the idea. ~End article.

GAIA: Hi there, Hoosierbear -- The problem is not that God isn't "sending", the problem is with your "receiver" -- Evidently, it's damaged, y'see. God can try to "break through" as much as possible, but if you don't allow it to GET through, there's not much God can do about that. YOU have to learn how to "repair" your damaged "receiver", and heal from your Mother's -- and any other --negative influences that have made it difficult for you to trust and accept love. That's not easy, but it is possible. It may sound counter-intuitive, but one of the best ways to learn to accept love, is to GIVE love. Think of a muscle -- when it's been bruised, you need to rest and heal it, but then eventually you need to begin exercising it, to get back the loss of muscle tone and strength. Same thing with emotions, esp love. Also, you need to be sure you're not shutting down your emotions -- a lot of people do so, becaues they've been hurt. Emotions come as a "packaged deal" -- you get one, you get 'em all. You can't say, "I want the 'nice' ones -- love, happiness, joy, etc, but i don't want the 'bad' ones, like anger, jealousy, etc." They come alltogether. If you try to shut down your experience of one, you begin to loose the ability to experience them ALL. Emotions exist to give us helpful information about how our lives are, from minute to minute. If you're feeling unhappy, that's a MESSAGE to you to take a look at what's going on in your life and what you need to do to change the circumstances that are making you unhappy. Seewhutimean? So don't look at emotions as a negative; look at them as helpful resources in creating a happy, fulfilling life. Pay attention to them, use them appropriately -- without letting them "use" YOU -- and youll find that they become helpful aids. Find some way to contribute -- volunteer at your local hospital, with a youth group, at church, etc -- anywhere you can offer from your heart, to those who need it and who will appreciate it. You wll begin to feel your heart opening, and learning how to care and trust and even love again -- I promise. Good luck -- ~Gaia

Well - no. None of your sources was officially doctrinal in nature. In fact the one that is quasi-doctrinal, the Encylopedia of Mormonism summed it up correctly: "Latter-day Saints infer from authoritative sources of scripture and modern prophecy that there is a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father." ... that is WE INFER. Official doctrinal sources do not make it explicit. We only interpret or infer what the doctrine implies. Do you have any official sources I could turn to for doctrinal reference? GAIA: I'm sorry but with all due respect, that is simply not true. I quoted both scripture (D&C 76 and 132) and a very long list of current General Authorities - Prophets/ presidents and Apostles, including the "Proclamation on the Family" which has the official signature of the First Presidency -- -- And that's about as "official" and "authoritiative" as one can get. I can understand if you don't want to accept the doctrine, but for whatever reason, it's certainly not because i haven't presented "official", "authoritative" backing for it. Blessings -- ~Gaia GAIA: Thank you -- I've been blessed to have some of the best experts on LDS history and doctrine, as my teachers and mentors. I was baptized on Easter Sunday at BYU many years ago, and i retain my membership in the Church, although i have studied a number of other spiritual systems as well --Including for example, the Kabbalah, the Jewish mystical system, which Joseph Smith is supposed to have studied (See for example, "Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection" -- www.gnosis.org/jskabb1.htm ) Blessings -- ~Gaia .

Hi Andy -- I really understand how you feel -- when my family disowned me, for doing what i thought was such a good, righteous thing, it completely broke my heart. But beleive me, nothing you ever do out of love, or trying to restore your relationship, is ever "pointless". You have no idea and cannot know, how the slightest thing you might say or do, will impact the situation and touch their hearts. So do everythng you can, always, to let them know you love them and want them in your life. Remember what's at the base of all this negativity is FEAR -- fear that they will lose you, fear that the church will change you, fear that you will be somehow hurt by the chuch..... -- And remember: "Perfect love casteth out fear" (1 John 4:18). So Love the Lord, Love your family, love your SELF, and know that (Romans 8:28) -- "...All things work together for good, to them that love God..." Blessings-- ~Gaia

GAIA: Well, That's the entire reason for the Gospel -- to prepare and teach us how to access the things of Eternity, directly, with no middle person at all -- That is essentially the meaning of receiving the SEcond Comforter -

GAIA: Hi Sixpack -- I'm afraid you misunderstood me, or perhaps i didn't make myself clear. I'm not "looking for" much of anything. In a discussion, i raised the idea / topic of Heavenly Mother; you and a few others questioned the legitimacy of the topic as a "doctrine" of the Church, and asked me to provide some references on that. I did so. If i have any "goal" in presenting these quotes, it would probably be to have there be more understanding, patience and respect for those who do consider Her a topic worth raising and discussing, and for those who do admit to feeling a yearning for their Divine Mother. However, as i said before, i wouldn't ask anybody else to do anything against their own personal values or beliefs. Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hello Andy -- I'm so sorry to hear how things have gone. But beleive me, that does not necessarily discount any of the things i said about how to make peace with your family. I have been in the very same position. I would like to (respectfully) challenge your statement above -- With all due respect to your feelings right now, and your enthusiasm about having found "the true church" and all -- THAT is NOT "all that matters", and if you don't understand that now, i guarantee you will as time goes on and you get a bit of perspective and maturity. your FAMILY MATTERS; PEOPLE matter; RELATIONSHIPS matter; your parents' FEELINGS matter! Please don't make the mistake of thinking that just becuase you've found "the Truth" and your parents disagree or disapprove, that they cannot understand, or that they are not worth your respect, consideration and honor. In my experience, PEOPLE matter a whole lot more than lofty ideas, Andy. Jesus loves and died for your parents, every bit as much as He does/ did for you. I think He expects you to find a way to make peace with them, even if that means you have to back off a bit from your certainty of being "right". Please consider how yo might try to make peace with your parents, and give them the love and respect they deserve -- - Or you will regret this time and your behavior, more than you can imagine. Blessings -- ~Gaia

Hello All -- Especially MadHatter, Sixpack, etc -- I must apologise for my previous laziness in failing to look up and provide good, authoritative references on Heavenly Mother.....I thought it would be sufficient to provide the two links where some of those references are offered. However, i decided that was lazy and i did some research and found the following quotes. I'm quite sure they are only a mere smattering; but i think they do help us get a sense of who has taught this doctrine, and the confidence wit which they have taught it -- President Spencer W Kimball: You women are daughters of God. You are precious. You are made in the image of our Heavenly Mother. (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982], 25.) President Spencer W Kimball: "Finally, when we sing that doctrinal hymn and anthem of affection, 'O My Father,' we get a sense of the ultimate in maternal modesty, of the restrained, queenly elegance of our Heavenly Mother, and knowing how profoundly our mortal mothers have shaped us here, do we suppose her influence on us as individuals to be less if we live so as to return there?" (Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, May 1978, p.6.) President Harold B Lee: Now, the fact that you and I are here in mortal bodies is evidence that we were among those who were in that great concourse of organized intelligences; we knew God, our Father. He was our Heavenly Father; we were sired by Him. We had a Heavenly Mother—can you think of having a father without a mother? That great hymn "O My Father" puts it correctly when Eliza R. Snow wrote, "In the heav'ns are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason; truth eternal tells me I've a mother there." Born of a Heavenly Mother, sired by a Heavenly Father, we knew Him, we were in His house, and we knew His illustrious Son, who was to come here and redeem mankind as a part of the plan of salvation. What did He mean, then, when He said, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent"? (John 17:3.) It is to regain that knowledge, then, and to go back where we once were that becomes the great quest of all of us. (Harold B. Lee, The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, edited by Clyde J. Williams [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996], 22.) President Spencer W Kimball: Men and women in the image of heavenly parents. God made man in his own image and certainly he made woman in the image of his wife-partner. (72-02) Heavenly MotherDaughters of GodMan, Physical Creation ofa-Kimball, Spencer W.TPYou [women] are daughters of God. You are precious. You are made in the image of our heavenly Mother. (72-08) (Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982], 25.) Apostle George Q Cannon: I heard President Smith say that he attended a concert given by our Tabernacle choir at the World's fair, in Chicago; and one of the songs, "O My Father," was sung by Robert C. Easton. When it came to the part, "Truth is reason, truth eternal, Tells me I've a mother there," a man sitting by, said, "I have believed that all my life, but I daren't say so." Well, we dare say it and have said it all over the world. The sister who, by the inspiration of the Spirit of God, wrote that hymn, gave to each one of the good sisters in that Relief society meeting a blessing. Zina D. Young gave the interpretation. After this blessing had been given to each of the good sisters, Sister Snow turned to the child on the floor and gave him a blessing, and Aunt Zina interpreted it, and the blessing was a prediction that I should live to occupy the position that I am occupying here today as one of the leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am the recipient of a blessing predicted by the gift of tongues and fulfilled twenty years afterward. I could go on and relate incident after incident of a like character. (George C. Lambert [George Q. Cannon], Gems of Reminiscence: Faith-Promoting Series, no. 17 [salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1915], 102.) Apostle Milton R Hunter: When light burst forth from heaven in revelations to the Prophet Joseph Smith, a more complete understanding of man—especially regarding his personal relationship to Deity—was received than could be found in all of the holy scriptures combined. The stupendous truth of the existence of a Heavenly Mother, as well as a Heavenly Father, became established facts in Mormon theology. A complete realization that we are the offspring of Heavenly Parents—that we were begotten and born into the spirit world and grew to maturity in that realm—became an integral part of Mormon philosophy. Those verities are basic in the Gospel plan of eternal progression. The prophets of our dispensation have clearly explained the doctrine of heavenly parenthood. In the words of President Joseph F. Smith, and his counselors, John R. Winder and Anthon H. Lund: "Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of Heavenly Parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality." fn President Brigham Young read the two verses in Genesis 1:26-27, which declared that God created man, and then he told the congregation: I believe that the declaration made in these scriptures is literally true. God has made His children like Himself to stand erect, and has endowed them with intelligence and power and dominion over all His works, and given them the same attributes which He Himself possesses. He created men, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven or on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be. fn (Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel through the Ages [salt Lake City: Stevens & Wallis, Inc., 1945], 98 - 99.) Apstle Milton R Hunter: Later Joseph explained what the revelation meant by the statement, "Which glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever." He explained that the Gods were to be parents of spirit children just as our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother were the parents of the people of this earth. To quote his own words: Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection. But those who are married by the power and authority of the Priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory. fn Thus we see that celestial marriage is the crowning Gospel ordinance. If men and women have obeyed this holy ordinance and all the other principles of the Gospel, following the resurrection and the great judgment day, "then shall they be Gods." (Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel through the Ages [salt Lake City: Stevens & Wallis, Inc., 1945], 120.) Apostle Neal Maxwell - Ensign: When we return to our real home, it will be with the "mutual approbation" of those who reign in the "royal courts on high." There we will find beauty such as mortal "eye hath not seen"; we will hear sounds of surpassing music which mortal "ear hath not heard." Could such a regal homecoming be possible without the anticipatory arrangements of a Heavenly Mother? (Ensign, May 1978, p. 11.) (Cory H. Maxwell, ed., The Neal A. Maxwell Quote Book [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997], 238.) Elder Eldred G Smith - BYU Speeches of the Year: Of course I did not say someone resurrected from this earth. The only one I know of who has been resurrected and had children-that I know of-is my Father in heaven and my Mother in heaven. You could not have a Father in heaven without a Mother in heaven. So our Father in heaven must have gone through a life of mortality and become resurrected, and we have to have a Mother in heaven, because we could not have a Father without a Mother at any time, in any life. We were their children born after their resurrection. Before we came on this earth, we were personages of spirit. (Elder Eldred G. Smith, March 10, 1964, BYU Speeches of the Year, 1964 6.) Apostle JOseph Fielding Smith: A Mother in Heaven Question: "Will you please give us the background of the 'theory' advanced of 'a Mother in Heaven'? Some feel that God is great enough to create spirits without any assistance, and if not, why then was not a Mother mentioned among the Godhead?" Mother in Heaven/It may be true that the Bible does not speak of a mother in heaven, nor does the Doctrine and Covenants when speaking of the revelations of the Lord to the Church. Permit me to call attention to the fact that mothers and wives are seldom mentioned in the Bible, although they are on certain occasions. The fact that there is no reference to a mother in heaven either in the Bible, Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants, is not sufficient proof that no such thing as a mother did exist there. If we had a Father, which we did, for all of these records speak of him, then does not good common sense tell us that we must have had a mother there also? Mother in Heaven/When we stop to think of it, there are passages which strongly imply that we did have a mother there. Let me call your attention to some passages of scripture. First, Paul speaking to the Greeks on Mars Hill had this to say: Mother in Heaven/For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Acts 17:28.) (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 3: 144.) JOseph Fielding McConkie and Robert Millet: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fielding_McConkie Eve was chosen to stand at Michael's side. She was a companion of "like stature, capacity, and intelligence," as Elder McConkie wrote.fn Through the extended schooling of eternity, Eve had proven herself worthy in every particular. Though we have not been given her premortal name, we know she was one like unto or after the pattern of the heavenly mother. We conclude, then, that Eve, by endowment and preparation, corresponded in all things to Michael. She was his completion. (Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, eds., The Man Adam [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1990], 91.) Apostle Jeffrey HOlland - (BYU President): - See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffery_R._Holland I have heard it said by some that the reason women in the Church struggle somewhat to know themselves is because they don't have a divine female role model. But we do. We believe we have a mother in heaven. President Spencer W. Kimball declared in a general conference address: "When we sing that doctrinal hymn . . . 'O My Father,' we get a sense of the ultimate in maternal modesty, of the restrained, queenly elegance of our heavenly mother, and, knowing how profoundly our mortal mothers have shaped us here, do we suppose her influence on us as individuals to be less?" (Ensign, May 1978, p. 4.) (Jeffrey R. Holland and Patricia T. Holland, On Earth As It Is in Heaven [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1989], 91.) Apostle Russell M Ballard -- See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Russell_Ballard "Families on earth are an extension of the family of God. According to the LDS concept of the family, every person is a child of heavenly parents as well as mortal parents. Each individual was created spiritually and physically in the image of God and Christ (Moses 2:27; 3:5). The First Presidency has declared, 'All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity' (Messages of the First Presidency, 4:203). Everyone, before coming to this earth, lived with Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, and each was loved and taught by them as a member of their eternal family." (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:486-87.) Our Heavenly Parents' love and concern for us continues to this very moment. In our wonderful, pre-earth home we had the opportunity to learn many eternal truths. Our Heavenly Father wanted us to develop every godly quality, for He knew that although each of us is unique, we all have within us the seeds of godhood. Indeed, we yearned to be like Him. But He understood that we could only progress to a certain point without the wisdom of experience through mortality, including the trials and temptations that come to all of us as a direct result of our physical bodies. Therefore our Father's plan was created to help us reach our full potential. It would be difficult and sometimes painful—for Him, perhaps, as well as for us. But He knew it was the only way His children could grow and improve. (M. Russell Ballard, Our Search for Happiness: An Invitation to Understand The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1993], 70.) BYU Studies: While we come to Christ as individuals, the paradox is that women and men who have endured to the end and overcome the world must be exalted jointly as wives and husbands, following the pattern of our heavenly parents (D&C 131:2). The scriptural promise of exaltation to husbands and wives contained in D&C 132:19-20 is also a description of the current life of our heavenly parents, who are explicitly characterized as sharing "a fulness" (D&C 132:19): Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. (D&C 132:20; italics added) From this scripture, one may extrapolate that Heavenly Mother is a full and equal partner to Heavenly Father even though our knowledge of her is incomplete. fn Additionally, General Authorities have repeatedly spoken of the eternal relationship between husbands and wives as that of "equal partners." President Spencer W. Kimball has noted: Marriage is a partnership. Each is given a part of the work of life to do.... When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a full partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be silent partners or limited partners in the eternal assignment! Please be a contributing and full partner. fn (Feminism in the Light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, BYU Studies, vol. 36 (1996-97), Number 2--1996-97 .) (Dawn Anderson, Dlora Dalton, and Susette Green - BYU Women's Conference: See http://mormonlit.lib.byu.edu/lit_work.php?w_id=4916 Some time in the distant past, we were born spiritually. Before that we were intelligences. As spirit children, male and female, we lived with our heavenly parents in the celestial kingdom. If we were with God and our heavenly mother in the celestial kingdom, what ever would have possessed us to leave? Isn't that what we are after—to be back in the celestial kingdom with God? So why did we have to leave? This is a very important point. Most of the Christian world's idea of heaven is to return to live with God, but we believe there is something far more significant. Not only do we want to live with God, we want to be like God. That is what eternal life, God's life, means. What was God like when we were there living with him in the celestial kingdom? Three things are significant. First, he had a glorified, immortal, physical body. We did not; we were only spirits. Second, he had a divine nature, every attribute in absolute perfection. We did not. Third, he had an eternal wife, and they were able to have eternal children. Thus we were living with God in heaven, but we certainly were not like him. To move forward, to become like God, we had to have a body. Having a body is not just an incidental by-product of mortality. It is one of its central purposes. Until we can be connected with a physical, elemental body, we cannot have a fulness of joy (see D&C 93:33-34). In addition, to be like God, we have to acquire divine attributes. Those two objectives brought us to earth. As I understand it, to prove ourselves, we needed four things: first, an imperfect world; second, a mortal body that could endure sickness, irritation, tiredness, and other ills so that we could gain experience; third, agency, for without choice there is no morality; and fourth, opposition, as Lehi explained (see 2 Ne. 2:11), because we can't exercise agency with nothing to choose between and no conflicting enticements toward good or evil. The Fall was necessary to gain a battlefield, and thus began the plan of God. In scriptural terms life comes down to one word: warfare. Metaphors of war—from "put on the armor of righteousness" (2 Ne. 1:23) to "rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall arise" (Micah 7:8)—are found everywhere in scripture. The Spirit helps us in many ways—instructing, comforting, and strengthening us—but the ultimate battle is absolutely individual. It is not a team event. It is not a spectator sport. (Dawn Anderson, Dlora Dalton, and Susette Green, eds., Every Good Thing: Talks from the 1997 BYU Women’s Conference [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1998], 274.) Roy Doxey -- (ROY W. DOXEY (1908-1992) was widely known throughout the Church as a great teacher of latter-day scripture. Some of his other works include The Doctrine and Covenants Speaks (a two volume work), The Doctrine and Covenants and the Future, and Prophecies and Prophetic Promises from the Doctrine and Covenants. Doxey served as dean of Religious Instruction at BYU and as director of correlation for The Church. He presided over the Eastern States Mission and was a Regional Representative of the Council of the Twelve.) "In the premortal world the plan of salvation was formed whereby the spirit sons and daughters of God could receive an earth life necessary for eternal progression. The relationship between God and his children was a parent-child relationship because his spirit children were born of a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. (Youth and the Church, pp. 126-27.) The eternal round of spirit children being born to exalted beings and the opportunity to reach the heights of exaltation by an earth life require marriage for eternity by mortals. Faithfulness to eternal marriage covenants is a means of proving oneself as a part of the eternal plan. (Roy W. Doxey, The Doctrine and Covenants Speaks [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1964], 2: 426.) Daniel H Ludlow: (Dean of BYU Religion Department) According to the LDS concept of the family, every person is a child of heavenly parents as well as mortal parents. Each individual was created spiritually and physically in the image of God and Christ (Moses 2:27; 3:5). The First Presidency has declared, "All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity" (MFP 4:203). Everyone, before coming to this earth, lived with Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, and each was loved and taught by them as a member of their eternal family (see Premortal Life). Birth unites the spirit with a physical body so that together they can "receive a fulness of joy" (D&C 93:33; cf. 2 Ne. 2:25). (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 486.) Improvement Era: O MY FATHER," by Eliza R. Snow, is considered one of the greatest of all Latter-day Saint hymns, because of its unusual doctrinal content, especially that contained in the third stanza. This remarkable verse projects a new thought into religious philosophy; namely, that we have a heavenly mother in the courts on high. The hymn was written during a period of exciting conditions that finally had their tragic ending in the death of the Prophet and Patriarch. According to Orson F. Whitney, Eliza's marriage to the Prophet took place June 29, 1842. "O My Father" was written in 1843. So the poetess wrote it while she was the Prophet's wife. She was also a governess in his family. This close companionship gave her abundant opportunity to discuss with the Prophet many great and important things "pertaining to the kingdom of God." It was during this period that Zina D. Huntington (afterwards Zina D. Young) was grieved over an unusual circumstance. Her mother, who had died some time before, had been buried in a temporary grave and it became necessary to remove the body to a permanent resting place. When the remains were exhumed it was discovered that they were partially petrified. It seemed to Zina as if the very foundation of the doctrine of the resurrection crumbled. To the question "Shall I know my mother when I meet her in the world beyond?" the Prophet responded emphatically "Yes, you will know your mother there." A firm believer in Joseph's divine mission, Zina D. Young was comforted by the promise. From the discussions on the resurrection and the relationship of man to Deity, no doubt came the inspiration to Eliza R. Snow for the writing of "O My Father." The poem was written in the home of Stephen Markham and was penned on a wooden chest, the only table available in her meagerly furnished room. The hymn is in four stanzas and is an epitome of the great drama of eternal life as revealed by the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. (O My Father by Eliza R. Snow, Improvement Era, 1936, Vol. Xxxix. May, 1936. No. 5. .) LDS Women's Treasury: What about the concept of a divine Woman, a Heavenly Mother? Joseph Smith suggested that the logic of the revealed gospel requires a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father.<#>5 It is not surprising that Mormon women cherish the concept. A divine Mother represents a final destination for daughters, someone with whom they can identify fully and without ambiguity. But even though we have the idea of a Heavenly Mother to whom women can relate without ambiguity, we still have a problem. Our concept of the divine Woman is itself ambiguous. Our scriptural stories give no accounts of her activities, no clues to her personality. Our theology contains no doctrine about how to relate to her. We are tempted to fill the vacuum with images of a heavenly woman drawn from the earthly condition of women. We envision, perhaps, a nurturing figure devoted to innumerable spirit children but withdrawn from the wider realm of cosmic government. I remember a Primary class, in which someone asked the teacher, "If we have a Mother in Heaven, how come we never hear about her?" The teacher's reply was that God was protecting her name from the kinds of slander that human beings direct toward the names of the Father and the Son. It was a clever reply, and, at the time, we all thought it was quite satisfying. None of us realized then that this answer described a lady not quite up to taking care of herself in a tough world, an image drawn purely from certain human conventions and not from divine reality. (LDS Women’s Treasury: Insights and Inspiration for Today’s Woman [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1997], 55 - 56.) Victor Ludlow: (BYU Religion Dean) A Heavenly Mother shares parenthood with the Heavenly Father. This concept leads Latter-day Saints to believe that she is like him in glory, perfection, compassion, wisdom, and holiness." fn Premortal Life/This understanding helps explain a puzzling passage in Genesis that describes God as creating mankind "male and female" in the image of the Divine. One modern translation of the key verse reads: "God created human beings in his own image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Gen. 1:27, Revised English Bible.) A statement of the First Presidency of the Church clarifies that each spirit personage "was begotten and born of heavenly parents" as "offspring of celestial parentage." It also teaches that "all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity." fn Thus, we are all the spirit children of God. (Victor L. Ludlow, Principles and Practices of the Restored Gospel [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1992], 145.) Robert J Matthews: - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Matthews 1. Men and women are the actual spirit children of heavenly parents. We have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother who are the parents of our spirits; thus all mankind are brothers and sisters. (Robert J. Matthews, Selected Writings of Robert J. Matthews: Gospel Scholars Series [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1999], 494.) Hugh NIbley: In the Acts of Thomas: "To the wedding feast I have been invited, and I have put on white garments. May I be worthy of them. May I remember to keep my light bright that I may keep its oil," etc. fn Another very important writing is the so-called Gospel of Truth, discovered in Egypt, one of the Nag Hammadi papyri: "The word of the Father clothes everyone from top to bottom, purifies, and makes them fit to come back into the presence of their Father and their heavenly mother." fn And there are many other examples. (Hugh Nibley, Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present, edited by Don E. Norton [salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1992], 122.) Chieko Okazaki (1st Counselor in RS Presidency) - See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chieko_N._Okazaki Answers to such questions in the gospel make it easier to accept and live through our painful moments. Every human being who was ever born on the earth—you, me, all of our parents, all of our children, everyone—assembled in a great council in heaven before the creation of this earth to discuss the next step. We believe that a central core of personality, identity, and self-awareness is eternal and has always existed, but already we had experienced one major change. We had received spirit bodies by being born into the eternal family of our Heavenly Father and our Heavenly Mother as their spirit children; their firstborn in the spirit was Jesus Christ. We know that we understood more during the council in heaven than we do now. We know that we saw differently, saw with clarity how the trials of mortality were linked to a love of the Savior and of our Heavenly Father. (Chieko Okazaki, Sanctuary [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1997], 153.) Dawn Hall Anderson and Marie Cornwall: What about the concept of a divine Woman, a Heavenly Mother? Joseph Smith suggested that the logic of the revealed gospel requires a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father. fn It is not surprising that Mormon women cherish the concept. A divine Mother represents a final destination for daughters, someone with whom they can identify fully and without ambiguity. But even though we have the idea of a Heavenly Mother to whom women can relate without ambiguity, we still have a problem. Our concept of the divine Woman is itself ambiguous. Our scriptural stories give no accounts of her activities, no clues to her personality. Our theology contains no doctrine about how to relate to her. We are tempted to fill the vacuum with images of a heavenly woman drawn from the earthly condition of women. We envision, perhaps, a nurturing figure devoted to innumerable spirit children but withdrawn from the wider realm of cosmic government. I remember a Primary class, in which someone asked the teacher, "If we have a Mother in Heaven, how come we never hear about her?" The teacher's reply was that God was protecting her name from the kinds of slander that human beings direct toward the names of the Father and the Son. It was a clever reply, and, at the time, we all thought it was quite satisfying. None of us realized then that this answer described a lady not quite up to taking care of herself in a tough world, an image drawn purely from certain human conventions and not from divine reality. (Dawn Hall Anderson and Marie Cornwall, eds., Women Steadfast in Christ: Talks Selected from the 1991 Women's Conference Co-Sponsored by Brigha m Young University and the Relief Society [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1992], 95.) BYU Women's Conference: We are taught in the gospel of Jesus Christ that to achieve godhood and become like our Father and Mother in Heaven means to grow in righteousness to the point that our desires and actions have become aligned with Theirs, that we do what we do, not because we have to or because we are commanded to, but because we want to, because that is our choice! That ideal state cannot be reached without our exercising agency. (As Women of Faith: Talks Selected from the BYU Women's Conferences [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1989], 214.) Truman Madsen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_G._Madsen We have (and this is only a footnote) spoken, oh so cautiously, of a heavenly mother. Traditional Christianity, following the Romans, has placed a mother in heaven. She has been, says the dogma, assumed bodily into heaven. fn (And I said humorously to my friend, the Jesuit, "That's exactly what she was--assumed into heaven.") They have said that Mary, the mother of Christ, was in some ways co-redemptress with Christ and is the intimate Channel for out communion with the divine. fn We do not want to follow that form. But we have from the beginning said there are two, there is God and Goddess, in the ultimate scheme of things. (Are Christians Mormon? Fn by Truman G. Madsen Fn, BYU Studies, vol. 15 (1974-1975), Number 1 - Autumn 1974 89.)

GAIA: VERY true, and thanks so much for adding that, MadHatter -- IN fact, many GA's have noted their concern that LDS might become too complacent and stop questioning their leaders --- For anyoe who might be interested, here are some of those quotes and references: 1. Joseph Smith: "President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel [see, for example, verses 9-10: 'If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing ...the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him.']...said the Lord had declared by the Prophet [Ezekiel], that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on <u> no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church -- that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls -- applied it to the present state [1842] of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- -- Said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall -- that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 237-38) 2. Brigham Young: "What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150) "How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves." (JD 4:368) "I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied... Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." (JD 3:45) "...Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will NEVER be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James,Peter, [or Bruce or Gordon] or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory,immortality, and eternal lives; never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven , who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer." (JD 1:312) 3. President Joseph F. Smith: "We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Does the First Presidency require it? No, never." (Journal of Discourses (JD) 16:248) 5. Apostle Charles W. Penrose, who would later serve as counselor to President Smith, declared: "President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when 'Thus saith the Lord', comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill ." (Millennial Star 54:191) 6. "And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God... would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves." (Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp. 593-95) 7. George Q. Cannon, Counselor to three Church Presidents, expressed it thus: "Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president . If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;" (Millennial Star 53:658-59, quoted in "Gospel Truth", 1:319) These are just a few of the many such statements, but i think they serve to emphasize the principle that the Saints are to study, question, and judge everything by the HOly Spirit. ~Gaia

GAIA: Hello MadHatter -- That's an interesting and popular idea, but in fact, it is NOT doctrine, it's merely the thoughts of some folks, including some General Authorities -- but only as SPECULATION and NOT DOCTRINE. And in fact, there are several reasons why it may be a nice, romantic, sentimental notion, but with all due respect, imo it just doesn't stand up to any logical or doctrinal scrutiny -- Please go back and (prayerfully) read post # 1 in this thread, if you haven't already. Thanks and Blessings -- ~Gaia

Hi Everyone -- This is a topic that's been raised several times in several threads, so i thought it might be a good idea to address it more directly and specifically in its own thread. Here's the problem: In LDS scripture, there is the following staement: (Doctrine and Covenants 68:3-4.) 3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. 4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. However, just how we can discriminate between personal musings, beliefs, speculation, and when someone is speaking "as they are moved upon by the HOly Ghost" is a question that's not always easily answered. It's possilbe to mistake, confuse, practice self-deception, etc . Here's a relevant quote from Van Hale, in BYU STudies, regarding the King FOllet Discourse, which illustrates (part of) the problem: What constitutes an official teaching of the Church is open to debate; in fact, from one point of view, Joseph's teachings in the King Follett Discourse are not yet official LDS doctrine, never having been accepted as such by a general conference of the Church. The distinction being made in this discussion is that before the King Follett Discourse, the concept of the existence of a plurality of gods was presented as an idea, not to be considered doctrine, or to be taught by the elders, whereas, after the Discourse, it was considered "eternal truth" and part of the "Mormon Creed." (The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse by Van Hale Fn, BYU Studies, vol. 18 (1977-1978), Number 2 - Winter 1978 .) HOwever, one of the best and most thorough explanations i've heard comes from Stephen E. Robinson, in "Are Mormons Christians?": What Is Official Doctrine? So what constitutes genuine Mormon doctrine? What is the LDS equivalent of "nihil obstat" and "imprimatur"? What do the Latter-day Saints believe? Can something be said to be "Mormon" doctrine if any Latter-day Saint anywhere believes it? If my LDS grandmother believed that frogs cause warts, or that the earth is fiat, does that make those ideas LDS doctrine? If some LDS missionary somewhere believes that the earth is hollow and that the lost ten tribes are hiding inside, is his or her belief therefore LDS doctrine? Of course not. Virtually every religion has procedures for distinguishing the individual beliefs of its members from the official doctrines of the church, and so do the Latter-day Saints. In fact among the Mormons the procedure is remarkably similar to that of many Protestant denominations. An example of the procedure can be taken from the records of the Fiftieth Semiannual General Conference of the LDS church, 10 October 1880, when President George Q. Cannon addressed the conference: I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church.fn Subsequent changes of content in the standard works of the Church have been presented similarly to the membership in general conference to receive a sustaining vote. It is that sustaining vote, by the individual members or by their representatives, that makes the changes officially binding upon the membership as the doctrine of the Church. When Wilford Woodruff, as President of the Church, committed the Latter-day Saints to discontinue the practice of plural marriage, his official declaration was submitted to the Sixtieth Semiannual General Conference of the Church on 6 October 1890, which by unanimous vote accepted it "as authoritative and binding." It was that vote which made the document official (it is now printed as Official Declaration- 1 in the Doctrine and Covenants). Similarly, when President Spencer W. Kimball declared in 1978, by revelation from the Lord, that the priesthood was henceforward to be given to all worthy male members, this pronouncement became Official Declaration-2 by the sustaining vote of a general conference on 30 September 1978. B. H. Roberts, a General Authority of the LDS church, summarized the issue perhaps as well as anyone has: The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.fn Of course it is true that many Latter-day Saints, from the Presidents of the Church and members of the Quorum of the Twelve down to individual members who may write books or articles, have expressed their own opinions on doctrinal matters. Nevertheless, until such opinions are presented to the Church in general conference and sustained by vote of the conference, they are neither binding nor the official doctrine of the Church. The critics of LDS doctrine seldom recognize this vital distinction. Rather, if any Latter-day Saint, especially one of the leading Brethren, ever said a thing, these critics take it to represent "Mormonism," regardless of the context of the particular statement and regardless of whether any other Latter-day Saint ever said it or believed it. Often the Latter-day Saints themselves are guilty of this same error and search through the Journal of Discourses as if it were some sort of Mormon Talmud, looking for "new" doctrines not found in the standard works and not taught in the Church today. Usually the critics insist that the Latter-day Saints must defend as doctrine everything that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or any other General Authority ever said. But the LDS concept of doctrine simply cannot be stretched this far. The Latter-day Saints allow that sometimes the living prophet speaks in his role as prophet and sometimes he simply states his own opinions. This distinction is no different than that made in some other Christian denominations. For example, even though Roman Catholics believe in "papal infallibility," they insist that the pope is infallible only in certain clearly defined circumstances -when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. Cannot the Latter-day Saints be allowed a similar distinction? The LDS view was expressed succinctly by Joseph Smith himself: "I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such."fn Non-Mormon critics, on the other hand, often insist that the Brethren must speak and write prophetically at all times. This absolutist expectation usually flows out of an extreme inerrantist view of prophecy and of scripture that is held by the critics, but not by the Latter-day Saints. The critics' belief in the Bible as absolutely perfect, without error and inspired in every word, leads them to make the same demands of anyone claiming to be a prophet. They would impose their inerrantist view on the Latter-day Saints and their prophets (see chapter 5 herein). But the Latter-day Saints have no such inerrantist views, neither of the scriptures nor of the prophets. The scriptures are the word of God, but only as far as they are translated correctly;fn and prophets sometimes speak for the Lord, and sometimes they express their own opinions. Certainly, if the Latter-day Saints were radical inerrantists, such a view as the foregoing would be a contradiction and a scandal, but since we are not inerrantists, the view scandalizes only our inerrantist critics. B. H. Roberts expressed it in this way: It is not sufficient to quote sayings purported to come from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young upon matters of doctrine. Our own people also need instruction and correction in respect of this. It is common to hear some of our older brethren say, "But I heard Brother Joseph myself say so," or "Brother Brigham preached it; I heard him." But that is not the question. The question is has God said it? Was the prophet speaking officially?... As to the printed discourses of even leading brethren, the same principle holds. They do not constitute the court of ultimate appeal on doctrine. They may be very useful in the way of elucidation and are very generally good and sound in doctrine, but they are not the ultimate sources of the doctrines of the Church, and are not binding upon the Church. The rule in that respect is-What God has spoken, and what has been accepted by the Church as the word of God, by that, and that only, are we bound in doctrine fn In their encounters with anti-Mormon critics, quite often the Saints seem to feel constrained to defend too much. For example, the fact that Orson Pratt may have said such and such on this or that occasion does not make it a proposition that needs defending. Elder Pratt was very outspoken in his opinions, which sometimes disagreed with the opinions of other General Authorities. He was frequently instructed to make clear to his hearers or readers that his views were his own and not the doctrine of the Church; and on at least one occasion he was instructed by the President of the Church to recant publicly opinions he had represented as doctrine.fn Yet time and again the private opinions or even the half-serious speculations of Orson Pratt and others are presented in the literature of the anti-Mormons as mainstream LDS doctrine. The problem is compounded by some enthusiastic Latter-day Saints who themselves will not observe this distinction and insist on teaching the personal opinions and speculations of past leaders as though they were the official doctrines of the Church. Now, none of this should be taken to mean that in matters of administration within the LDS church the General Authorities are not inspired or that they must submit every policy decision to the members for a sustaining vote. The revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, already accepted as binding by the Church, along with the ordination to their callings give the Brethren the keys and authority to administer the affairs of the Church as the Lord may direct without their needing a sustaining vote for each individual decision.fn Thus the Church in conference sustains only the individuals who hold the keys, but does not need to sustain separately every detail of their administration. Consequently the policies and procedures of the Church are "official" and "inspired" whenever those holding the keys of that ministry unitedly declare them to be so. Similarly the revelations already accepted by the Church give to the General Authorities and to many others the right to "preach, teach, expound, exhort,"-that is, to interpret and apply existing doctrines within the context of their individual stewardships. The Brethren need no further license or sustaining vote to interpret, define, and apply the doctrines of the Church, or to administer the affairs of the Church and dictate its policies and procedures, than to be sustained in conference as prophets, seers, and revelators and as duly ordained members of their respective quorums. Latter-day Saints believe that the General Authorities receive inspiration and revelation from God constantly in the administration of the affairs of the Church. They also believe that individuals within the Church may receive personal revelation, even on doctrinal matters, for their private benefit. When doctrinal revelation is given to such individuals, however, the Lord commands them to keep it to themselves (see Alma 12:9). Such revelation is not for the Church generally, but for that individual alone. No new doctrine is binding as the official doctrine of the Church unless it has been received by the President of the Church and until it has been sustained by the Church in general conference. Finally, from an LDS point of view some things may be correct without being official Church doctrine. For example, it is probably true that the sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of its hypotenuse, but the Pythagorean theorem has never been sustained in a general conference of the Church. Similarly the doctrinal opinions of individual Latter-day Saints could very well turn out to be correct-and some such opinions are believed by many of the Saints -but that does not make them the official doctrine of the Church. This category of things that may be true and that are believed by some in the Church is confusing to members and nonmembers alike. Hence the Brethren have insisted again and again that the members avoid such speculative matters and teach only from the standard works, for only they contain the official doctrines of the Church. For all of these reasons the only valid judgments of whether or not LDS doctrine is Christian must be based on the official doctrines of the Church, interpreted as the Latter-day Saints interpret them. (Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991], 13.) I would like to add a few thoughts: There is a big difference between on the one hand, teaching a class or writing a paper or giving a talk in the context of a church meeting, or while fulfilling a church calling; and on the other hand, carrying on a discussion in a public message board. In any of the former contexts, one is expected to fulfil their responsbilities to present official church doctrine as such; in the latter context, there is not such a presumed responsibility. So it can get a bit cloudy. I think one of the ways to clarify such a situation, would be to make it clear when we intend for our readers/ listeners to understand that we are presenting approved, official church doctrine, and when we are NOT; and when someone else is the writer/ speaker, to ASK whether they intend for their remarks to be taken as official doctrine, or not; and to provide (or ask the source to provide) resources and references to back up whatever statements are made. I hope all of that is helpful -- And would like to hear anyone else's thoughts, as well. Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hello Dove -- Thanks so much for your kind words. I can't tell you how many times over the years i've heard the very same thing, from women just like you -- good, faithful women who want very much to do the right thing, who support the Brethren as they feel they should, but who at the same time, feel like Motherless children who deeply yearns for some sort of connection or communion with the other half of their (Heavenly) Parentage. I must tell you that i've shared that yearning since i was a young investigator at BYU, learning the Gospel from some of the best minds / hearts /souls in the Church, all of whom were Priesthood-holdng men whom i so admired and to whom i looked as mentors. But I began to yearn for a good, righteous example of womanhood, to balance out my understanding and experience..... I remember once saying to one of my mentors (a widely known expert in Church history and doctrine) --LONG before it became a question for the larger Church to have to address -- "Can i pray to Heavenly Mother? Sometimes i just feel like i need the Feminine perspective on things....." He smiled indulgently, patted me on the hand (we had a kind of father-daughter relationship) and said, "Oh, just pray to Heavenly FAther; if He needs it, He'll get Her perspective from Heavenly MOther." Even then, while i loved and respected the man, i felt that the depth of my meaning had been misunderstood and somehow trivialized..... I've come to understand a lot more about the dynamics of this problem, but that has not diminished my sense of often being misunderstood and trivialized whenever it's raised -- by me or someone else. I'd like to address something else you said: With all due resepect, in fact the Hymns are not necessarily official doctrine. In fact, there are several hymns which have questionable doctrine, .... I think the entire issue of what constitutes offical doctrine is an important one that deserves its own thread, so i will start one; i hope you'll check it out and contribute your thoughts there, OK? Thanks again for your kind words -- Blessings -- ~Gaia

Hello Alaskaagain -- Oh, please don't feel badly. As i've said, i realize that these are sensitive issues for many, and the sometimes initially negative response often has to do with previous negative experiences. It's no secret that LDS often (unfairly) take "hits" on their doctrine and history, from non-LDS and those who persecute the church.... I can't tell you how many times i have incurred the frustrations and denunciations of such folks, because they THINK (from reading some of my posts) that i will agree with or support such behavior, and when they discover that i don't and furthermore, that i defend the Church and Gospel when i feel it's being unfairly or inaccurately attacked, they really get unhappy *rueful grin*. So i understand that it takes some getting to know me to understand that i have a tremendous appreciation, even love, for the Church and the Gospel, while simultaneously sometimes taking issue with certain policies. I'd like to believe that it's quite possible to disagree with something, while respecting it and those who hold it dear. I do invite you all to let me know if you ever feel i fail to do that, and i promise to take your criticism seriously and prayerfully consider it, even if (at first) i disagree :) ..... Thanks for being open-minded enough to consider these things, and to respond so thoughtfully and kindly. Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hi Sixpack; thanks for reading them. There is an explanation -- I think it best to simply say here that the two different accounts of the same incident, refer to another controversial doctrine that was taught for many years from the pulpit and in official publications by most of the General Authoritie of the period, but HAS since been declared heretical by modern GA's *smile*. However, i think the fact that Joseph SMith -- the Prophet at the time -- and his counselor -- did say that the vision was of Heavenly Mother, makes it relevant to this discussion. Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hi Tex-- I think ANY time someone goes to an extreme, there can be trouble. Religion has unfortunately spawned a great deal of dangerous excess and fanaticism. Ever hear of someone who decided they, like Abraham, were commanded by God to sacrifice their children? It happened several years ago in Salt Lake..... Yknow, originally, the Feminist Movement simply advocated that men and women were of equal worth, and that they deserved equal opportunities. From that unfortunately came a lot of craziness, which troubled even many feminists. Also, yknow, the LDS church at one time supported and encouraged LDS women to join the Women's MOvement and the national women's organizations, and to fight for women's suffrage......Suffragist leaders were honored guest speakers at the Mormon TAbernace, and Relief Society leaders were honored guest speakers at Suffragist meetings; LDS women were encouraged to join with the national suffragist and women's movement leaders, in fighting for the rights of women. LDS women were encouraged from the Pulpit to go east and obtain advanced education, training and licenses to practice law, medicine, etc. Polygamy afforded unique opportunities for sister-wives who were so inclined and talented, to do so, knowing that their children would be well mothered by their "Sister-wives" at home.... LDS women were among the very first women doctors, lawyers, etc. Also, LDS women were among the first to exercise the vote -- it was only an accident of scheduling that prevented Utah women from being the first to exercise the vote -- because of scheduling, Wyoming women did so just before them. I thank you for your concern regarding my spiritual welfare. I will say that i strongly agree with the counsel we've been given: to "seek the Spririt" and it's guidance, in all things. Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hi Onyx -- Here you go -- I just posted it to the "Heavenly Mother" thread -- http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...=9972&st=15 -- Post # 24 Blessings -- ~Gaia

The Proclamation on the Family also certainly implies the existence of Heavenly Mother: The Family: A Proclamation to the World The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children. All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally. The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan. Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations. The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed. We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society. This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah. ~End. Someone asked for references to Joseph Smith's Vision of Heavenly Mother -- Here is that informaiton: Joseph Smith's Vision of Heavenly Father and Mother: The Mother was revealed in an 19 April 1834 vision in which Joseph Smith and others beheld the Father, the Mother, and the Son. This vision was given while Joseph Smith was travelling from Kirtland to New Portage, Ohio, with Zebedee Coltrin and either Sidney Rigdon or Oliver Cowdery (or possibly both). Though not reported in the _History of the Church_ (2:50), where mention was made of the New Portage trip, Zebedee Coltrin gave several accounts of this vision later in his life, one of which was recorded under the date 3 October 1883 in the Salt Lake School of the Prophets minutes, Located in archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City. "Once after returning from a mission, he [Coltrin] met Bro. Joseph in Kirtland, who asked him if he did not wish to go with him to a conference at New Portage. The party consisted of Prests. Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdry [sic] and myself [Coltrin]. Next morning at New Portage, he [Coltrin] noticed that Joseph seemed to have a far off look in his eyes, or was looking at a distance, and presently he, Joseph, stepped between Brothers Cowdry [sic], and Coltrin and taking them by the arm, said, "lets take a walk." They went to a place where there was beautiful grass, and grapevines and swampbeech interlaced. President Joseph Smith than [sic] said, "Let us pray." They all three prayed in turn-- Joseph, Oliver, and Zebedee. Brother Joseph than [sic] said, "now brethren [sic] we will see some visions." Joseph lay down on the ground on his back and stretched out his arms and the two brethren lay on them. The heavens gradually opened, and they saw a golden throne, on a circular foundation, something like a light house, and on the throne were two aged personages, having white hair, and clothed in white garments. They were the two most beautiful and perfect specimens of mankind he ever saw. Joseph said, They are our first parents, Adam and Eve. Adam was a large broadshouldered man, and Eve as a woman, was large in proportion." Another version of this vision was recorded by Abraham H. Cannon in his journal under the date 25 August 1890, Located in Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. "Pres. Petersen told of an incident which he had often heard Zebedee Coltrin relate. One day the Prophet Joseph Smith asked him [Zebedee Coltrin] and Sidney Rigdon to accompany him into the woods to pray. When they had reached a secluded spot Joseph laid down on his back and stretched out his arms. He told the brethren to lie one on each arm and then shut their eyes. After they had prayed he told them to open their eyes. They did so and they saw a brilliant light surrounding a pedestal which seemed to rest on the ground. They closed their eyes and again prayed. They then saw, on opening them, the Father seated upon a throne; they prayed again and on looking saw the Mother also; after praying and looking the fourth time they saw the Savior added to the group. He had auburn brown, rather long, wavy hair and appeared quite young." This may be the first recorded vision of the Heavenly Mother in Mormonism. In the first account she is identified as Eve. In the second account she is identified as "the Mother" and is given status with the "Father" and the "Son." ~Gaia

GAIA: Hello Alaskagain -- Hmm, using that name for your ID, are you possibly trying to entice us to come to Alaska, or something? I guess i'm surprised that anyone would be "suspicious" when they can't have any idea why such a name might have been chosen, .... FYI, here's (at least part of) the story: a) There is a Scientific principle advanced by research scientist Dr. James Lovelock called the "Gaia Hypothesis", which suggess that the Earth acts as a living organism -- "The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis that proposes that living and nonliving parts of the earth are viewed as a complex interacting system that can be thought of as a single organism. Named after the Greek earth goddess, this hypothesis postulates that all living things have a regulatory effect on the Earth's environment that promotes life overall." -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis I have a chronic illness and have lived my entire adult life in pain; the idea of the Earth as a living organism whose systems seem to regulate our environment and "promote life overall" reminded me of the notion of deliberate and conscious, overall health and wellbeing that i seek to incorporate into my daily life. B) Secondly, I had a small "cottage industry" making herbal concoctions from my garden, silk paintings, and other goodies, all natural and all Gifts of Earth. c) The idea of rebirth and renewal of Springtime, and the rebirth of the Spriit, all converged in my mind, to symbolize for me the ideas of life and renewal and opportunity which are symbolized for me, by The MOther and the Atonement of Christ. d) The name "Gaia" is one that most people recognize as one of the names for the Divine Feminie / Earth Mother. Alltogether, then, the name "Gaia" seemed appropriate for both my herbal business (Gaia's Gifts") and then, when i was looking for a name to use online, a friend suggested, "Why not use Gaia" -- which made a lot of sense and felt right. In a perhaps more serious vein, i am reminded that early Christianity incorrporated considerable Pagan influences .... And about names -- Jesus was of course never called "Jesus" during his lifetime; that's just an Anglicized version we've settled upon and become used to; History and Jewish tradition suggest that he was probably named and called somethign like "Yeshua". GAIA: That of course is your prerogative and decision; -- but i hope you'll also understand and respect that others may feel differently, and make different decisions. Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hi Sixpack. Thank you for a carefully worded, respectful reply. Again, i certainly do undersand and respect your concen, and that of others; so please don't think i don't appreciate that this is a delicate topic requiring discretion, wisdom, and discipline. Regarding the topic of Heavenly MOther specifically: 1. I did not list many references because i did link to two sites -- a.) http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/g...nly_mother.html b.) http://www.greaterthings.com/MormonGoddess/ - Which not only list but quote (official LDS) resources -- includng General Authorities -- extensively. If you have any concerns regarding the legitimacy of the *doctrine* of Heavenly Mother, i hope you will access those resources and read the many quotes and references there, from LDS General Authorities. 2. The other, non-LDS and non-official resources were provided not to offer "offiical doctrine", but rather, as general historical resources, for anyone who is interested in pursing the topic of the Divine Feminine further; whether one accesses those resources is entirely up to them. However, i must say that it's really inaccurate to dismiss them generally as "excommunicated Mo's" -- only four out of a list of TWENTY resources could be described in that manner -- But the greater problem with that view is that it is entirely ad hominem. Again, I did not use them to establish LDS doctrine; i used them as INFORMATIONAL RESOURCES, which they are -- and exceptional ones. D MIchael Quinn for example is an award-winning Historian (with awards from the MOrmon HIstory Association and the American Historical Association), and holds the position of Scholar-In-Residence at UCLA. Maxine Hanks has been researching women and the Church since 1975, and compiled and edited the book "Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism". The problem with ad hominems is that they discount, denigrate or reject material NOT on the basis of whether that material is accurate, truthful or worthwhile, but on the basis of what one has against the author, personally. We could find a lot of thngs wrong with anybody -- after all, humans are notoriously flawed; thus it's easy -- but patently unfair -- to dismiss or reject just about everything on the basis of ad hominems. But one principle often heard from the church is that we should NOT JUDGE the Gospel or the Church by the flaws, weaknesses or mistakes of the human beings who represent it. I think that argument applies here. 3. Your point about them having been " ex'd for praying, or telling others, to pray to HM" is first of all, inaccurate and questionable -- First, they did NOT "tell others to pray to Heavenly Mother"; since you've evidently accepted the rumor you've heard, i would respectfully encourage you to actually read their stories and find out exactly what they DID do. Secondly, even if they had, where in any scripture are we told that "praying to Heavenly Mother" -- or telling people to do so -- is a sin worthy of excommunication? My point here is that with all due respect, i would ask you to do some resarch and prayerfully ask the Lord whether you are making some unfair and inaccurate assumptions, based upon unfair, inaccurate rumor and hearsay, and rejecting something on erroneous bases. Please note: I am NOT saying that you should "change your position" and pray to heavenly Mother; i'm saying that if you beleive that these people were ex'd for praying to her, you beleive something that is erroneously based upon rumor and hearsay, and if you repeat it, you are spreading erroneous rumor and hearsay. Now about the rest of my list of Resources: it should also be noted that there are on my list, a number of good, honorable (NON-LDS) experts in various fields. To dismiss them all is unfair and unreasonble. For just one example, Raphael Patai -- author of "The HEbrew Goddess" -- studied at rabbinical seminaries in and at the University of Budapest and the University of Breslau, from which he received a doctorate in Semitic languages and Oriental history... He founded the Palestine Institute of Folklore and Ethnology in 1944, serving as its director of research for four years.... In 1947 Patai went to New York with a fellowship from the Viking Fund for Anthropological Research; he also studied the Jews of Mexico. ... He held visiting professorships at a number of the country's most prestigious colleges, including Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, New York University, Princeton University, and Ohio State University. He held full professorships of anthropology at Dropsie College from 1948 to 1957 and at Fairleigh Dickinson University. In 1952 he was asked by the United Nations to direct a research project on Syria, Lebanon and Jordan for the Human Relations Area Files. Patai's work was wide-ranging but focused primarily on the cultural development of the ancient Hebrews and Israelites, on Jewish history and culture, and on the anthropology of the Middle East generally. He was the author of hundreds of scholarly articles and several dozen books... (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Patai 5. I certainly respect your position of not wanting to pray to Heavenly Mother -- although i must respectfully admit that the notion that it is "dangerous" seems to me to be inconsistent with LDS doctrine, and with everything i've ever been taught about the nature of Divine Beings..... But i certainly respect your right to beleive whatever you wish. Please note that NOWHERE throughout any of this discussion, have i told ANYONE that they should "pray to Heavenly Mother"; Nor would i. I hope i would defend your right to worship as your conscience dictates, and hope you would do the same for me or anyone else. I hope that (respectfully!) clarifies my position relative to your statements; Please know that i really appreciate your efforts to make and keep this a respectful and cordial exchange. Blessings to you -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hi There, Tex -- and i think you're so right there. I think People have an internal sense of truth, and unless it's been pretty severely damaged, they seek out and know Truth when they hear it..... In fact, many of the rest of the world religions have now surpassed LDS in some aspects of understanding and accepting this truth, and incorporating it into their spirituality -- Several years ago (over 10) i attended an international "Women in Religion" conference, at which there were representatives of every possible spiritual persuasion -- all of the "regulars" and "mainstream" systems, as well as the less well known .... And one of the major topics of interest and consideration was the Divine Feminine - Not just "is there any such thing," which would in itself have been interesting; no, it was, "How can we incorporate Her into our Spiritual lives?" - And Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, Jains, assorted Native Americans, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Pagans and Neo-Pagans, New Agers, and others all sat together to discuss their thoughts and feelings and experiences on the matter! *g* It was marvelous. ~Gaia