Heavenly Mother

[NextElement]

I guess I'll be direct about this question:

Do Mormons believe in a Heavenly Mother, who is Heavenly Father's wife? I've heard that it is frowned upon to worship heavenly mother, and that there have been several issues within the LDS about the topic (like the BYU women's studies professor, who encouraged worship of Heavenly Mother).

How can you justify worshipping one but not the other?

And if Heavenly Father really came to Earth and conceived Jesus with Mary, wasn't he "cheating" on Heavenly Mother? This is a subject that's been bothering me since I found it..... Looking forward to answers!

[The Folk Prophet]

I think it needs to be clarified a bit that we do not believe in "direct" worship of our Heavenly Mother. That is to say, we do not pray to her and have been expressly told not to. In a broader sense of worship, meaning to revere, honor, etc., we do worship her. But usually worship implies praying to...so it depends on how you look at it I suppose.

 

We do not have any information on how Mary came to be with child from the Father other than what the Bible tells us. Read here on it.

[NextElement]

Why not worship her? If she is married to Heavenly Father, then isn't she of the same same substance as him and worthy of worship?

Maybe I'm looking at it from a Catholic standpoint. In Catholicism, we believe that God the Father is the unmoved mover that began the creation of the universe and is outside of our universe. He always was and always will be, and therefore wasn't once a man or anything like that. That's probably the hardest part for me of accepting LDS teachings: your definition of what a God is is so radically different from mine.

[The Folk Prophet]

Why not worship her? If she is married to Heavenly Father, then isn't she of the same same substance as him and worthy of worship?

 

We do not know. What we do know is what we have been commanded. We are commanded to worship The Father and His son. God tells us who to worship. We don't just randomly decide on our own. :) This is wherein others got themselves into some trouble -- they decided against the guidance of God's prophets, to worship differently than we have been commanded to.

 

Maybe I'm looking at it from a Catholic standpoint. In Catholicism, we believe that God the Father is the unmoved mover that began the creation of the universe and is outside of our universe. He always was and always will be, and therefore wasn't once a man or anything like that. That's probably the hardest part for me of accepting LDS teachings: your definition of what a God is is so radically different from mine.

 

I can imagine. It is radically different. I think as one explores, prays, and studies concerning it one can come to see and understand the beauty in these ideas and how much sense they make. But it can be a radical adjustment I'm sure. Perhaps others who have experience with the change of thought can give more insight into it.

[Jane_Doe]

Note: this post is 100% my personal feelings:

 

Do Mormons believe in a Heavenly Mother, who is Heavenly Father's wife?

 

Mormonism has an open theological cannon: we believe that God has yet to reveal many great and wonderful things.  Personally, I feel that Heavenly Mother is in this category.  There are a a few hintings of Her in Mormon studies (BYU published a really good survey of them if you want to read up), however, there is little substainail about Her.  She is not a universally held belief and very seldom discussed,  Personally, I look forward to a day where we could know more about Her, including properly worship Her.

 

Maybe I'm looking at it from a Catholic standpoint. In Catholicism, we believe that God the Father is the unmoved mover that began the creation of the universe and is outside of our universe. He always was and always will be, and therefore wasn't once a man or anything like that. That's probably the hardest part for me of accepting LDS teachings: your definition of what a God is is so radically different from mine.

 

Yes, the Mormon view of God is different than the Catholic.  Personally, the Mormon view is why I am a member of this church: I don't see God as some 4-demension unknowable alien outside of the universe, but rather the Ultimate Lord of this Universe and Father of us all. 

[NextElement]

Note: this post is 100% my personal feelings:

  

Yes, the Mormon view of God is different than the Catholic.  Personally, the Mormon view is why I am a member of this church: I don't see God as some 4-demension unknowable alien outside of the universe, but rather the Ultimate Lord of this Universe and Father of us all.

But wouldn't that make them not God from a philosophical standpoint? By definition, God is a being that was not created, he has always been. God also would be outside of our physical universe, by definition. If Heavenly Father was created, that would make him just a more intelligent being, not a God.

Or if you are saying that Heavenly Father's Heavenly Father created him, where does that chain end?

[The Folk Prophet]

 She is not a universally held belief...

 

Neither is home teaching, or the word of wisdom, or the law of chastity, or.....

 

It is a universal teaching of the church, regardless of what some believe.

[Jane_Doe]

But wouldn't that make them not God from a philosophical standpoint? By definition, God is a being that was not created, he has always been. God also would be outside of our physical universe, by definition. If Heavenly Father was created, that would make him just a more intelligent being, not a God.

Or if you are saying that Heavenly Father's Heavenly Father created him, where does that chain end?

 

The creator of the universe, father of our souls whom sent His son to die for our sins.  All powerful, all knowing, all loving, without whom we are powerless.  How is such a Father not worth worshipping?  The idea of my Heavenly Father possibly having a Father doesn't make Him less in my eyes.   

 

As to progression of gods, this is entering speculative territory.  Personally, I look at my daughter: in her eyes I have never changed (she's 10 wks old).  In reality I have changed, but she can't see it in her limited time frame, nor imagine it with her limited experience.  I feel the same way when I think about Father God: how could I ever grasp a fraction of anything He's been through?    

[Guest]

I can imagine. It is radically different. I think as one explores, prays, and studies concerning it one can come to see and understand the beauty in these ideas and how much sense they make. But it can be a radical adjustment I'm sure. Perhaps others who have experience with the change of thought can give more insight into it.

 

I was Catholic longer than I am LDS.

 

It may seem radical at first, but for me, once I opened my brain to the possibility that my understanding of the Triune God was incomplete, then it actually made complete sense.

 

But wouldn't that make them not God from a philosophical standpoint? By definition, God is a being that was not created, he has always been. God also would be outside of our physical universe, by definition. If Heavenly Father was created, that would make him just a more intelligent being, not a God.

Or if you are saying that Heavenly Father's Heavenly Father created him, where does that chain end?

 

Now, the thread is about Heavenly Mother... but I guess one cannot really grasp the concept of a Heavenly Mother until we understand what is a Heavenly Father - or what is God.

 

In Catholic understanding, what makes God God is his substance.  God is of a different physical property as we are.  Therefore, the only way one can be God - is if he has that physical property.  So man - even if he achieves perfection and become one with God - can never be God, because he is of human substance.  But, exactly what that substance is - is a mystery.  There is nothing like it in the entire universe (hence, One God), therefore, nobody can know what that substance is.  But, we know properties of that substance - omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent... etc. etc. and we know that somehow that substance allows God to manifest himself into 3 separate beings/persons.

 

In addition to that, in Catholic understanding, man is created ex-nihilo - from complete nothing.  Spirit and Body are created by God at birth.

 

Now, in LDS understanding, what makes God God is not his substance but his Will.  Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are One God because they have One Will.  They know the same, they think the same, they desire the same, they choose the same, their purpose is the same, they act the same.  They are One God.  Three separate beings/persons in One God.  Now, we know properties of God - same thing I learned as a Catholic...

 

Now, in LDS understanding, man is of the same substance as Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.  Our intelligence is eternal - no beginning and no end.  Heavenly Father gathered these infant intelligences and taught them and loved them and gave them spiritual bodies in His own image as they progressed.  It came to a point that we progressed so far that the next step to our progression is to develop our own individual Will - and so God gave us mortal bodies and left us on our own to make our individual Will manifest.  Our spirits, therefore, joined our mortal bodies in the process of creation.  Because man is the same substance as God, when we achieve perfection (one Will with the Father) we can be a person in that One God.

 

Now, we don't know if Heavenly Father has a Heavenly Father and even a Heavenly Grandfather... that has not been revealed.  Maybe He does, maybe He doesn't.  But, let's say for the sake of discussion that He does have a Heavenly Father and a Grandfather all the way up the chain to eternity... does that make multiple Gods?  No.  It is still One God.  Because - His Father and all the Fathers before Him would have been ONE WILL with each other.  Otherwise, they wouldn't be God.  That singularity/unity remains One God.  So that, if there is any God that has a different Will than our Father, then he is not God...

 

Make sense?

 

Why did I say that this was not a radical departure from my Catholic understanding... because as a Catholic, we don't know WHAT that substance is that makes God God.  So, I found it silly to say, I don't know what that thing is, but I know it isn't WILL.

 

So, where does Heavenly Mother fall in this picture?  Well, that has not been revealed... but we can assume that Heavenly Mother is in unity with the Father - One Will.  So, she is also God.

 

Where does Mary fall in this picture?  Mary is the vehicle that brought Jesus into mortality.  Just like our mothers are the vehicles that brought us into mortality.  Our mortal mothers are not necessarily our spiritual mothers in pre-mortal existence.

 

Did Heavenly Father cheat on Heavenly Mother?  Dude... that is such a mortal question - and a modern one - far departed from spiritual teaching.  Did Jacob cheat on Leah and Rachel when he begot sons with Bilhah?

[NextElement]

Well first, I disagree with the idea that one will = one God. To me, looking from the outside in, it appears you have multiple Gods, and that they also have Gods. If two people on Earth have the same wills that doesn't mean they are the same people. Also, it's hard for me to understand how Heavenly Father's-Fathers would've had the same wills..... That would imply that we then lose our free will when our mortal bodies die. Heavenly Father would've developed some different ideas than his Heavenly Father while he was on Kolob, since he had free will. That would mean once he got his own planet, he would institute those ideas, because he maintains his free will right?

So therefore they could have slightly different to radically different wills.

[The Folk Prophet]

Well first, I disagree with the idea that one will = one God. To me, looking from the outside in, it appears you have multiple Gods, and that they also have Gods. If two people on Earth have the same wills that doesn't mean they are the same people. Also, it's hard for me to understand how Heavenly Father's-Fathers would've had the same wills..... That would imply that we then lose our free will when our mortal bodies die. Heavenly Father would've developed some different ideas than his Heavenly Father while he was on Kolob, since he had free will. That would mean once he got his own planet, he would institute those ideas, because he maintains his free will right?

So therefore they could have slightly different to radically different wills.

 

Honestly, this post makes me question your sincerity. Are you here to argue or learn what we believe? I'm not much interested in arguing. If you disagree, fine. If you are sincere then perhaps you don't realize that you're spouting a bunch of anti-Mormon garbage that has been thoroughly dealt with and recently (God does not live on Kolob and did not "get" his own planet.)

[Guest]

Well first, I disagree with the idea that one will = one God. To me, looking from the outside in, it appears you have multiple Gods, and that they also have Gods. If two people on Earth have the same wills that doesn't mean they are the same people. Also, it's hard for me to understand how Heavenly Father's-Fathers would've had the same wills..... That would imply that we then lose our free will when our mortal bodies die. Heavenly Father would've developed some different ideas than his Heavenly Father while he was on Kolob, since he had free will. That would mean once he got his own planet, he would institute those ideas, because he maintains his free will right?

So therefore they could have slightly different to radically different wills.

 

NextElement, you are Catholic - therefore, you are taught very well that Christ's Teaching centers around us having Free Will but surrendering that Will to the Father's.  That is how we attain Heaven.  We don't lose our Free Will.  But we Freely Choose on our own accord every single thing that God desires.  That is what Jesus prayed about in John 17:19-21 - that we may also be One with the Father as Jesus Christ is One with Him.

 

So, do the Catholics teach you that when you align your Will with God's that you give up or lose your Free Will?  Of course not.

 

This is nothing different in LDS.

 

Except that - THAT SINGULARITY is what makes God GOD... not the amorphous physical substance that God is.

 

There is no other God but that which has that exact same Will - freely chosen.

 

If Christ would have chosen different ideas than that of the Father, Christ would not be God.   Lucifer tried to become God - he failed because his Will did not align with that of God.  If Heavenly Father's Father (if he has one) would have chosen different ideas, then he wouldn't be God. 

 

Because... there is One God.  One Truth.  One Will.  And every person in that Godhead freely chose that Will which qualified them to be God.

 

And that is what I tried to tell you in the post above - this concept will never be understood until you consider the possibility that what makes God GOD is not some substance... so that when you say God - you're not talking about the persons in that God - which are multiple - but that quality that makes them God - which is singular regardless of how many persons there are in that Godhead.

[NextElement]

Thank you both for your replies! Very informative. I want to make it known that I'm not here to troll or argue, I really am interested in learning more about the Church. I'm actually going back this Sunday! But these are tough questions in the back of my mind that I had to ask before taking any more steps.

[Guest]

Thank you both for your replies! Very informative. I want to make it known that I'm not here to troll or argue, I really am interested in learning more about the Church. I'm actually going back this Sunday! But these are tough questions in the back of my mind that I had to ask before taking any more steps.

 

No problem.  I've been through that road and I know how that in-between place of thinking you know one thing and turning it around on its head... can be very frustratingly confusing.

[The Folk Prophet]

Thank you both for your replies! Very informative. I want to make it known that I'm not here to troll or argue, I really am interested in learning more about the Church. I'm actually going back this Sunday! But these are tough questions in the back of my mind that I had to ask before taking any more steps.

 

I can appreciate that.

 

In that case here is my reply to your previous post:

 

 

Well first, I disagree with the idea that one will = one God. To me, looking from the outside in, it appears you have multiple Gods, and that they also have Gods. If two people on Earth have the same wills that doesn't mean they are the same people.

 

Your understand better than you think. It doesn't "look" like there are multiple gods. There are multiple gods. And Jesus Christ and God the Father are, in Mormon teachings, most certainly NOT the same person.

 

We worship one God though. God the Father. We worship Jesus as well, but that is in that He does the will of the Father and has declared that they are one God - one in purpose and one in will.

 

The distinction needs to be made. A theological understanding that there are multiple gods is not the same as polytheistic cultures that literally worship multiple gods (Ra, Zeus, Thor, what-have-you). We worship God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. But they are one and the same in will, purpose, authority, power, etc... So we understand them to be seperate individuals, but it's not like sacrificing to the rain god for rain and then praying to the sun god for sun as if they're opposing forces that are battling it out on the back of a turtle...or some such idea.

 

Also, it's hard for me to understand how Heavenly Father's-Fathers would've had the same wills..... That would imply that we then lose our free will when our mortal bodies die. Heavenly Father would've developed some different ideas than his Heavenly Father ... he would institute those ideas, because he maintains his free will right?

So therefore they could have slightly different to radically different wills.

 

Anatess has explained this fairly well but I'll throw in my thoughts.

 

Does any man who becomes truly righteous have a different will than God? That would not make sense, because if their will opposed God's then by definition they are not righteous.

 

Is it possible that God has some uniqueness to His will as to what someone else might? Sure. Maybe a different exalted being would have chosen to make zebra stripes purple. Who knows. But those things are incidental and we have no insight into them. What we do know is that one cannot be wicked and righteous at the same time. If God became wicked, he would cease to be God because being God IS being perfectly righteous in every way. This idea gives us great confidence in God. He is good and will never be wicked. He will never choose wickedness, and neither will any god. Perfection, including perfect righteousness, is what makes a god a god. 

 

...while he was on Kolob....

 

Per LDS scripture (Abraham chapter 3 - emphasis mine):

 

2 And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

 

 3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

 

God does not dwell on Kolob. It is merely a name given to a star that is shown to Abraham to be closest to where God dwells. But that means very little as to distance. For all we know, closest to God may mean billions of miles away. Or much closer, or much further. We don't know.

 

The teaching in the book of Abraham is not concerning where God dwells. That is not the point. The teaching is about order - higher to lower, etc... Read the chapter here if you're interested.

 

...once he got his own planet...

 

No one "gets their own planet". That's silly. God created the universe. All planets and stars and everything therein was created by God. The idea that someone "gave" God a planet is ridiculous.

[Jane_Doe]

Well first, I disagree with the idea that one will = one God. To me, looking from the outside in, it appears you have multiple Gods, and that they also have Gods. If two people on Earth have the same wills that doesn't mean they are the same people. Also, it's hard for me to understand how Heavenly Father's-Fathers would've had the same wills..... That would imply that we then lose our free will when our mortal bodies die. Heavenly Father would've developed some different ideas than his Heavenly Father while he was on Kolob, since he had free will. That would mean once he got his own planet, he would institute those ideas, because he maintains his free will right?

So therefore they could have slightly different to radically different wills.

Anatess already gave a really good reply to this, but I'll try to add my 2 cents too.

 

There is One Will, One Word, One Law.  Jesus Christ and God the Father play on the same team and have the same goals.  Jesus did have/has His own free will: He wasn't forced to die for us, and he wasn't looking forward to it, nonetheless He said "Thy [the Father's] will be done".   They are perfectly unified in There goals. 

 

I also try to unify my goals with the Father's.  It's very much a work in progress, but I look foward to the Millianual day when that perfection is attained.  Could I get to that glorius day and say "nevermind, I want to go kill someone"?  Yes, I'll always have that free will, but if I've lived my live that closely with God, I don't think I'll want to kill someone.  (Yeah, that's a bit of an extreme example, but hopefully you get my point).

[The Folk Prophet]

Could I get to that glorius day and say "nevermind, I want to go kill someone"?  Yes, I'll always have that free will, but if I've lived my live that closely with God, I don't think I'll want to kill someone.  (Yeah, that's a bit of an extreme example, but hopefully you get my point).

 

Actually, God kills people all the time. But...ha ha. That's not your point. Sorry.

 

You are right, but I think it could be stated more strongly. God has no desire to do evil. We will have no desire to do evil. There is no "maybe" about it. If there were a maybe we'll change our minds about it then there's a major problem. If God can abandon us all because He changed His mind then we could have no confidence or trust in Him. But we can trust Him because He will not change His mind. Evil is entirely against His nature. Were it not so, He could not be God.

[Just_A_Guy]

How can you justify worshipping one but not the other?

The same way we justify "worshipping" (what does that even mean, anyways?) the Father, but not (under most circumstances) the Son or the Holy Ghost:  Father, through His servants here on earth, has instructed that He is to be the sole object of our worship at this time.

 

I don't pretend to know why the Father has set things up the way that He has at this point in time.  Some scholars suggest it may not always have been thus--for example, the interior of the temple of Solomon had representations of trees, which may have been an allusion to "Asherah"--a female consort of El, according to some traditions.  But then again, some of the most repulsive and horrifying religious rituals ever developed were riffs on the notion of the interplay between a male and female god and/or divine procreation ("divine matings", child-sacrifice, or what-have-you).  I think the First Commandment was borne of God's knowing that, on the whole, mankind just isn't ready for an active relationship with Heavenly Mother and everything that entails.  Maybe, someday, that will change; but I think it doubtful as long as our society's values--particularly its obsession with sex, its disdain for child-rearing, and its disregard for human life generally--continue lurching towards Gomorrah.

 

And if Heavenly Father really came to Earth and conceived Jesus with Mary, wasn't he "cheating" on Heavenly Mother? This is a subject that's been bothering me since I found it..... Looking forward to answers!

 

The idea that Jesus was conceived through a physical act between the Father and Mary was taught by Brigham Young and, I think, Joseph Fielding Smith; but the Church has not formally embraced the notion and lots of (I daresay "most") Mormons just plain don't believe it. 

 

But, for discussion's sake, let's say it is in fact the case.  Well, if I marry a woman, and she dies, and I marry a second woman and conceive children with her--aren't I "cheating" on my first, deceased wife--who (per Mormon theology) is still conscious somewhere in the Spirit world, and with whom I will ultimately be reunited?

 

Mormonism claims to know more about divine family relationships than any other religious system; but we would be rash indeed to claim to know everything.  You're dealing with the religion that pioneered modern Western polygamy, for goodness' sake!  The Law of Chastity (including the current prescription for monogamy) is clear, and Mormons live it so devotedly that it's very hard to conceive of a situation where it might not be applied exactly the same way as it is in the here-and-now.  But given our history and our theology (specifically, D&C 132)--of necessity, Mormons have to keep a bit of an open mind when faced with difficult questions regarding love, marriage, fidelity, and relationships in general.

 

If two people on Earth have the same wills that doesn't mean they are the same people. Also, it's hard for me to understand how Heavenly Father's-Fathers would've had the same wills..... That would imply that we then lose our free will when our mortal bodies die. Heavenly Father would've developed some different ideas than his Heavenly Father while he was on Kolob, since he had free will. That would mean once he got his own planet, he would institute those ideas, because he maintains his free will right?

So therefore they could have slightly different to radically different wills.

 

I agree that we don't become complete carbon copies/clones with the exact same likes/dislikes/hobbies/taste in aesthetics.  On the other hand:  the only ones who attain exaltation are those who have completely and genuinely managed to subject their will to that of the Father.  The ones who would radically change the fundamentals of the Plan of Salvation once they attained exaltation (e.g., Lucifer), don't make the cut in the first place.

 

You don't "lose" your free will, under the Father's plan.  You give it to Him freely, and then He molds you into something better that you could never have become on your own.

[The Folk Prophet]

The idea that Jesus was conceived through a physical act between the Father and Mary was taught by Brigham Young and, I think, Joseph Fielding Smith;

 

Can you source this? As per what I can find, the closest I can come up with is:

 

"The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action."  

 

...which isn't talking about conception at all, but the birth itself. And:

 

"...it was begotten by his Father in Heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve."

 

I don't see these sorts of comments as clearly supporting sexual conjugality in any regard. "After the same manner" could be read as such, of course. But it certainly doesn't have to refer to a physical means of conception, but easily renders to literal paternity, which we clearly do accept.

 

That being said, it is clear that some early church members and even leaders may have thought this way, (for example, Orson Pratt justifying that Mary must have been married to the Father somehow...though this also doesn't imply sexual relations, per se, whereas the church considers even artificial insemination from a donor other than the husband inappropriate), but then again, several of Orson Pratt's theories were disavowed, so....

 

To the NextElement, I agree with Just_A_Guy on his overall point as to this matter.

[bytebear]

Here's the problem with quoting Brigham Young.  His point wasn't about the nature of conception, but on the paternity of Christ.  Most of Christianity blurred the lines of God to the point that many taught or implied that the Holy Ghost was the father of Jesus, or that God begat himself.  Young's comments were simply stating that the relationship of the Father and Son was exactly that of any Father and Son, in a very literal sense.  But it had nothing whatsoever to do with the act of conception.

[Maureen]

...Most of Christianity blurred the lines of God to the point that many taught or implied that the Holy Ghost was the father of Jesus, or that God begat himself....

Can you provide sources for this statement?

 

M.

[The Folk Prophet]

Can you provide sources for this statement?

 

M.

 

Does it really need to be sourced in light of the doctrine of the trinity? Obviously if God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are literally one then God somehow begat himself.

[mordorbund]

Does it really need to be sourced in light of the doctrine of the trinity? Obviously if God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are literally one then God somehow begat himself.

 

I don't think you understand the doctrine of the trinity. What's the difference between a being and a person?

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't think you understand the doctrine of the trinity.

 

How so? I'm not saying you are wrong. But it's pretty easy to just make a statement like that. Why don't you explain yourself.

 

What's the difference between a being and a person?

 

Person is subset of being. All persons are beings. Not all beings are persons. What's your point?

[mordorbund]

Does it really need to be sourced in light of the doctrine of the trinity? Obviously if God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are literally one then God somehow begat himself.

 

 

The Father begat the Son. The Father is not the Son. The Father did not beget the Father, nor the Son beget the Son. Nor did Father, Son, and Spirit beget the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

I can think of only two ways your statement could be accurate:

 

1. Modalism, which is largely viewed by Christian theologians as misguided in its most innocent form or heresy in its worst.

2. Your statement is using "God" as an overloaded operator and would be better read "God (the Father) somehow begat [God (the Son)]".

 

The second is nonsense because it condemns Mormons for the same kind of thinking (which can't be the case in the Brigham Young context). The first isn't viable because that's not what the majority of Trinitarians believe. It can come back into play if it can be shown that while the majority don't believe it today, it was in fact, what Trinitarian Americans believed in the mid- to late 19th century. Which brings us back to Maureen's call for citations.