wife

[desert_fox]

Actually, it's not church doctrine. But when you realize that we believe that God is our father, then it stands to reason to accept that there must be a mother. It's implied strongly. And the reason our missionaries don't reach it is because it isn't official doctrine.

Yes, this^^ Many members tend to (whether knowingly or unknowingly) cross that 'what's doctrine and what's not' line quite often...and it's not always a good thing.

[Truegrits]

Because KNOWING and DOING are two completely different things.

Yes, but one must KNOW before one can DO. I think the song was better worded originally..."teach me all that I must know"; you cannot do without the knowing...maybe just the last verse could have been changed to "teach me all that I must do"...

[Islander]

Hi, I would like to ask a few questions about the mormon church.

first do you belief that God as a wife.

Well, it should be noted that this issue of a "Heavenly Mother" is not an official doctrine of the LDS Church. We should leave that explicitly clear, especially for the investigators. Members are free to extrapolate (speculate?) on the matter and it is certainly not in the KJV of the bible. From a purely anthropomorphic standpoint, it makes some sense since, unless anyone believes that God is hermaphrodite, He created men male and female in His own image and likeness.

It is one of those things that are really not relevant to our salvation and the earthly covenant. We concentrate on the Atonement of the Savior and His teachings. I am sure once we cross the veil and onto the eternities we will learn things that will blow our minds a galaxy away and will take an ion to fully comprehend.

[Gwen]

“Lesson 3: I Am a Child of God,” Primary 2: Choose the Right A, 11

Explain that we all lived in heaven with Heavenly Father before we came to this earth. We are his children. That is why we call him Heavenly Father. We also lived with our heavenly mother and all the rest of Heavenly Father’s children. Everyone who has been born on the earth is a child of Heavenly Father. We do not remember living with Heavenly Father, but we know we are his children because we read it in the scriptures.

if it's not church doctrine what are we teaching our children? why is there such a need to disprove the teaching of a heavenly mother? why does that concept scare so many, especially those of other faiths?

[AnthonyB]

I would like to ask some questions to the LDS folk about the assumptions made in the LDS posts above (since my questions got ignored maybe becuase of the long post here they are again)...

To speak of heavenly parents, does it necessarily mean Father and Mother. Surely it may just be refering to the multiple persons of the Godhead who were involved in our creation. The bible has both Father God and Jesus involved in creating us, in LDS thinking it was the Father that played a part in out spirit selves and Jesus who brought about the physical world we are physically born into. Both played a part in bringing us into what we are, so it would not be unreasonable (in LDS terms) to see them as our parents.

In the hymn that refers to God our Mother, could the writer have just been refering to the feminine characteristcis of the God from which women are created, rather than a seperate person of whom we know nothing? I perceive most LDS believe in a seperate person of Mother God but would it be within LDS orthodoxy to have the other veiw (or acceptable to LDS)?

[mnn727]

I'll give an 'A' for effort, but I still don't buy the concept. Hymns do not declare doctrine, although they may reflect doctrine.

I agree, Hymns contain doctrine, but they do not declare doctrine, same with Sunday School Manuals, Priesthood/ Relief Society Manuals, etc. They are all a good source to learn about doctrine, but not a place that new doctrine is declared.

Now to speak about whether we believe God has a wife, yes we do, but because it is inferred from everything else we have as doctrine.

As to whether they have sex? why not, is sex wrong? sinful? dirty?

Sex between my wife and I is not; wrong, sinful or dirty, why should it be between 2 beings with infinitly more capicity to love than we have right now?

We are created in the image of God, male and female. Why wouldn't someone assume He and His wife share themselves with each other?

[mnn727]

Making Sense and Doctrine are two different things-at least in the Catholic Church.

-I would guess in the LDS Church too.

-Carol

Actually, not in the LDS Church, its the most logical Church I have ever studied about, (and I visited and studied a lot of different Churches before joining), everything makes sense. Edited November 17, 2008 by mnn727

[mnn727]

To speak of heavenly parents, does it necessarily mean Father and Mother. Surely it may just be refering to the multiple persons of the Godhead who were involved in our creation. The bible has both Father God and Jesus involved in creating us, in LDS thinking it was the Father that played a part in out spirit selves and Jesus who brought about the physical world we are physically born into. Both played a part in bringing us into what we are, so it would not be unreasonable (in LDS terms) to see them as our parents.

Sorry Anthony, I don't buy your assumptions at all. Interesting thought though.

[skippy740]

I agree, Hymns contain doctrine, but they do not declare doctrine, same with Sunday School Manuals, Priesthood/ Relief Society Manuals, etc. They are all a good source to learn about doctrine, but not a place that new doctrine is declared.

I'm going to hijack the thread a bit here.

If a booklet is produced by the Church for the purposes of learning and instruction... isn't it considered an "Official Publication" for our edification and learning? Isn't it a source to learn more about the Gospel and our place in it?

If the Church wants us to learn about it, it has meaning and it is doctrine. Just because it isn't in the 4-standard works doesn't mean it isn't something we need to learn about.

We as LDS, believe in an open cannon of scripture:

Article of Faith #9: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

From the Primary Manual:

LDS.org - Primary Chapter Detail - I Am a Child of God

"Explain that we all lived in heaven with Heavenly Father before we came to this earth. We are his children. That is why we call him Heavenly Father. We also lived with our heavenly mother and all the rest of Heavenly Father’s children. Everyone who has been born on the earth is a child of Heavenly Father. We do not remember living with Heavenly Father, but we know we are his children because we read it in the scriptures."

If little kids can be taught it, isn't it doctrine that we can ALL learn from?

Quotations from President Lee:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - A Sure Trumpet Sound: Quotations from President Lee

Revelation

There are forces that work beyond our sight. Sometimes we think the whole job is up to us, forgetful that there are loved ones beyond our sight who are thinking about us and our children. We forget that we have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother who are even more concerned, probably, than our earthly father and mother, and that influences from beyond are constantly working to try to help us when we do all we can.

I don't know what else we need to help us learn the doctrine of the kingdom than the simplicity of teaching children and a quote from a Latter Day Prophet.

(Well, faith may help some. )

[abqfriend]

You may wish to ask the LDS Church to include it if official doctrine.

In the Catholic Church-official publications-outside The Catechism- and official pronouncements from The Vatican---are not considered as doctrine..

-Doctrine for a Catholic must be defined as such by the leaders of the Church.

I do not know the LDS Position-but with the same reasoning you give- would not everything then published in official publications-be doctrine?

-Carol

I'm going to hijack the thread a bit here.

If a booklet is produced by the Church for the purposes of learning and instruction... isn't it considered an "Official Publication" for our edification and learning? Isn't it a source to learn more about the Gospel and our place in it?

If the Church wants us to learn about it, it has meaning and it is doctrine. Just because it isn't in the 4-standard works doesn't mean it isn't something we need to learn about.

We as LDS, believe in an open cannon of scripture:

Article of Faith #9: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

From the Primary Manual:

LDS.org - Primary Chapter Detail - I Am a Child of God

"Explain that we all lived in heaven with Heavenly Father before we came to this earth. We are his children. That is why we call him Heavenly Father. We also lived with our heavenly mother and all the rest of Heavenly Father’s children. Everyone who has been born on the earth is a child of Heavenly Father. We do not remember living with Heavenly Father, but we know we are his children because we read it in the scriptures."

If little kids can be taught it, isn't it doctrine that we can ALL learn from?

Quotations from President Lee:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - A Sure Trumpet Sound: Quotations from President Lee

Revelation

There are forces that work beyond our sight. Sometimes we think the whole job is up to us, forgetful that there are loved ones beyond our sight who are thinking about us and our children. We forget that we have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother who are even more concerned, probably, than our earthly father and mother, and that influences from beyond are constantly working to try to help us when we do all we can.

I don't know what else we need to help us learn the doctrine of the kingdom than the simplicity of teaching children and a quote from a Latter Day Prophet.

(Well, faith may help some. )

Edited November 17, 2008 by abqfriend

[AnthonyB]

Would only those in the celestial kingdom get to meet Mother God? (I can't help thinking that if we did have a heavenly mother, being a mum, she would want to be with all her kids!)

[skippy740]

Would only those in the celestial kingdom get to meet Mother God? (I can't help thinking that if we did have a heavenly mother, being a mum, she would want to be with all her kids!)

Well said!

The 3 degrees of glory are structured so that those in the Celestial Kingdom can always visit those in the Terrestial and Telestial kingdoms. Those in the Terrestial can visit those in the Telestial, but are unable to visit those in the Celestial.

Basically, Heavenly Mother can visit whomever she wants at anytime. But the priviledge to LIVE with Her falls upon us to live and follow the path that our Father and Christ want for us.

[AnthonyB]

How could anyone consider being anywhere but were our Father God is (and our Mother as well, if you LDS are correct) a heavenly realm. Surely all the inhabitants of the other realms would be great anguish not to be living with them, outer darkness might well be a relief to those who could have lived with them but choose not to.

[john doe]

How could anyone consider being anywhere but were our Father God is (and our Mother as well, if you LDS are correct) a heavenly realm. Surely all the inhabitants of the other realms would be great anguish not to be living with them, outer darkness might well be a relief to those who could have lived with them but choose not to.

Yes, you hit upon it! While the other realms will be much better conditions than what we have here, the knowledge that they missed the ultimate reward will be like suffering in their own private hells.

[MarginOfError]

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. -- The Family: A Proclamation to the World

Come to think of it, John, I can't, off hand, think of any reference that states explicitly that we have a Heavenly Mother. The quote Gwen gave from the Primary manual is pretty convincing, as that had to go through the Curriculum Department (as does the hymn book) which is overseen by the Twelve. Other than that, without doing any research, the Family Proclamation is the best I can come up with. It at least mentions parents (plural) and gender in the same paragraph (although admittedly, tying them together in the context is hard to do).

Ultimately, I think there is enough evidence to justify the belief. I'm not sure I would or would not call it 'official doctrine.' What I am sure about, however, is that it is unnecessary doctrine, as our salvation is in no way tied to whether or not a Heavenly Mother exists. I would think this has more to do with why missionaries don't teach about a Heavenly Mother--she's irrelevant to us at this stage of our eternal existence.

[applepansy]

Yes, but one must KNOW before one can DO. I think the song was better worded originally..."teach me all that I must know"; you cannot do without the knowing...maybe just the last verse could have been changed to "teach me all that I must do"...

I think that the prophet asking the author to change the one word is good enough for me.

By teaching we assume knowledge is passed to the person being taught.

applepansy

[Kyra]

The only proof I need is in my patriarchal blessing. If you're not LDS then this won't hold any proof for you, but as members of the church it should be more than enough. Patriarchal blessings are definitely not considered offical church doctrine, but I guess you could consider it a testimony builder on this particular subject.

My patriarchal blessing tells me that before coming to Earth I had a very special relationship with my Mother in Heaven and she is anxiously awaiting my return.

That's the only proof I need. :)

[john doe]

I just want to be clear, I do believe in a Heavenly Mother. It makes sense to me. But our canonized scripture does not explicitly say there is one.

[abqfriend]

We have the same problem in the Catholic Church.

Some things are clearly doctrinal-and some things many believe-but it is not defined as doctrine.

Some of the Marian apparitions fall into this catagory.

Some of the prophecies given to some of the Catholic mystics fall into this catagory as well.

-Carol

I just want to be clear, I do believe in a Heavenly Mother. It makes sense to me. But our canonized scripture does not explicitly say there is one.

[Gwen]

it may not be part of our canonized scripture but it is clearly part of our doctrines.

Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone

Of the First Quorum of the Seventy

“A Champion of Youth,” Ensign, Nov 1987, 27

...Women are endowed with special traits and attributes that come trailing down through eternity from a divine mother......Theirs is a sacred, God-given role, and the traits they received from heavenly mother are equally as important as those given to the young men.

“Lesson 9: Chastity and Modesty,” The Latter-day Saint Woman: Basic Manual for Women, Part A, 60

President Spencer W. Kimball, speaking to Latter-day Saint girls in Mexico City, said: “You are daughters of God. … You are made in the image of our heavenly mother. … Your body is sacred to you and precious” (in Conference Report, Mexico City and Central America Area Conference 1973, 108).

“A Sure Trumpet Sound: Quotations from President Lee,” Ensign, Feb 1974, 77

There are forces that work beyond our sight. Sometimes we think the whole job is up to us, forgetful that there are loved ones beyond our sight who are thinking about us and our children. We forget that we have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother who are even more concerned, probably, than our earthly father and mother, and that influences from beyond are constantly working to try to help us when we do all we can.

Ida Smith, “The Lord as a Role Model for Men and Women,” Ensign, Aug 1980, 66

One newly restored truth that the Prophet taught—hard for the world to swallow in his day, and still misinterpreted by many in our own time—was the Lord’s view of women. The Prophet taught that men and women are of equal value and of equal importance in the sight of God. He preached that in order for a man to achieve his highest potential (the celestial kingdom and godhood) he must have a woman—equally exalted—by his side and sealed to him forever! (See D&C 131:1–4.) A just God would not require the yoking of two unequal beings for eternity. Building upon the foundation laid by Joseph Smith, subsequent prophets taught that God was not single, but married; that there is a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother; and that we were made in their image: male and female children. (See James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–75, 4:203, 205.)

Neal A. Maxwell, “The Women of God,” Ensign, May 1978, 10

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?

again i do not understand the need for so many to continually emphasize it's not in "canonized scripture"... to me that leaves the impression that one is trying to avoid the question and pretend the doctrine is not out there. or that the doctrine is not important.

this isn't some obscure question about time or space or where does god live that really has no bearing on our salvation... this doctrine is important. it's part of our yw's identity (as evidenced by some of the quotes). it adds clarification to the fact that we are an eternal family and that god is truely our father. it gives the obsessive need we as lds have to seal our families together meaning... if there is no heavenly mother and there is no marriage then what exactly are we doing? if gender is essential and eternal and there is no marriage and we only see god (the male) as important then what exactly is the woman's eternal purpose? the doctrine of a heavenly mother clears resolves those concerns. it's logical and makes good since. if we make this doctrine part of our yw's identity and then we dismiss it as nothing what message are we sending our yw? in my opinion it is a very important doctrine and relevant to our exaultation. so it's not in the canonized scripture... and...?

i also don't understand what it is that other faiths find so offensive about this concept.

if anyone can shed some light on this please. it really does bother me that some can be so dismissive about it. this is not directed at any particular person. this discussion has taken place here on more than one occassion.

[MarginOfError]

I hope I didn't make you feel like you were being ostracized for your comments, John. But on the bright side, we're getting Gwen to do all the research for us!

[gabelpa]

This never made any sense to me, even when I was young.

I don't know if she would be considered a goddess, or not--perhaps someone can let me know. But surely she wouldn't be offended by what mere mortals say.

I understand taking the Lord's name in vain breaks a commandment, but again, I don't think it's because He would be offended.

Elphaba

I don't personally think it is to do with Heavenly Mother being offended I think it is to do with how Heavenly Father feels - easiest way is to compare how you feel when someone offends you to how you feel when someone offends one of your children.

-Charley

[Gwen]

But on the bright side, we're getting Gwen to do all the research for us!

lol

[Heavenguard]

Please correct any flaws in my logic or understanding of LDS teaching:

My conjecture is that the idea of a Heavenly Mother is required by LDS doctrine, because it is doctrine that an exalted couple can have children after this life. If we are the spiritual children of God, then he must have a wife with which he had us, his children.

Personally, though, it seems like the wrong direction for the conclusion to be made. That is, I think it makes more sense that a doctrine concerning a Heavenly Mother would lead to a conclusion about eternal increase, rather than eternal increase leading to the conclusion of a Heavenly Mother.

But my way may not be the way the conclusion was derived, anyway, so ... meh.

However, it seems to me that we would be created in God and Heavenly Mother's images, male and female (respectively, of course ) , rather than in God's image, male and female if there is a Heavenly Mother. I do have to say it does seem a little silly for God to see that there was no suitable companion for Adam in the animals, and then create Eve of and for him afterwards if he himself has a wife. I mean ... that's got to be one of the worst wife jokes ever I'd be surprised if he wasn't put in the doghouse for a while for that one!

Edited November 17, 2008 by Heavenguard

[Wingnut]

What was the reason for changing it?

Elphaba

President Kimball, whose slogan was "Do It" (long before Nike, I believe), requested that it be changed. Even though (as Truegrits pointed out), the knowledge is important and precursory, knowledge is not enough. We must do the right things, not just know them.

Ultimately, I think there is enough evidence to justify the belief. I'm not sure I would or would not call it 'official doctrine.' What I am sure about, however, is that it is unnecessary doctrine, as our salvation is in no way tied to whether or not a Heavenly Mother exists. I would think this has more to do with why missionaries don't teach about a Heavenly Mother--she's irrelevant to us at this stage of our eternal existence.

I think this is probably the biggest reason. Frankly, it just isn't important as a key part of our doctrine and belief system. Heavenly Mother is important, but like you said, our salvation isn't tied to it.

it may not be part of our canonized scripture but it is clearly part of our doctrines.

Four out of the five quotes you gave were from the Ensign. Two of those were Conference issues. A third was from Harold B. Lee. Do we not accept the doctrine of an "open canon"? Isn't that one of the biggest things that sets us apart from so many other Christian sects -- the fact that we have continuing revelation?

In April Conference this year, Elder Holland said the following:

In general conference last October, I said there were two principal reasons The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is accused, erroneously, of not being Christian. At that time I addressed one of those doctrinal issues—our scripturally based view of the Godhead. Today I would like to address the other major doctrine which characterizes our faith but which causes concern to some, namely the bold assertion that God continues to speak His word and reveal His truth, revelations which mandate an open canon of scripture.

(The full text of that talk can be found here: LDS.org - Ensign Article - My Words...Never Cease)

Don't we consider the prophets' words in the Church magazines (and especially the Conference issues) to be part of LDS canon? I would argue, based on the references that you gave, that the Heavenly Mother teaching is part of official canon.