Heavenly Mother

[Jane_Doe]

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.

 

 

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

 

Many times I have tried (and failed) to understand the doctrine of the Trinity. But my lack of understanding doesn't invalidate another person's belief.  If a Trinitarian person says the believe that God did NOT beget himself due to reasons XYZ, then I have to acknowledge that's what they believe (even if it makes zero sense to me).

[The Folk Prophet]

 

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.

 

Hmm.  Seems like this is all trinitarian word play trying to explain the unexplainable. It doesn't make sense. It's never made sense. It cannot make sense because it is paradoxical. 

 

I think it likely that Brigham Young simply did not think in those terms. And it doesn't matter so much what Trinitarians believed in the mid to late 19th century as it does what Brigham Young thought when he explained Mormon theology as compared to the trinity (or, perhaps as compared to modalism).

 

I would think that instead of asking bytebear to source what trinitarians thought, a correction to bytebears statement might be in order along the lines of:

 

"...Brigham Young probably felt that most of Christianity blurred the lines..... " Because really all it comes down to per the thread topic is, why did Brigham Young set about to explain how Jesus is the literal, natural, physical Son of God?

 

Now.... To be fair and honest .... You're right. I was thinking more along the lines of modalism. I freely admit, when it comes to theology outside of the LDS I don't entirely know what I'm talking about.

[mordorbund]

Back on topic.

 

NextElement, would you mind including some of your LDS sources on Heavenly Mother? I'll start on my side:

 

The Proclamation on the Family:

 

 

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents

 

LDS Hymn - O My Father

 

I had learned to call thee Father, through thy Spirit from on high. But until the key of knowledge was restored, I knew not why.

In the heavens are parents single? No; the thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason, truth eternal tells me I’ve a mother there.

When I leave this frail existence, when I lay this mortal by, Father, Mother, may I meet you in your royal courts on high?

Then, at length, when I’ve completed all you sent me forth to do, With your mutual approbation let me come and dwell with you.

 

And now I'm tapped out. 

 

Let's assume that it is fitting and proper to worship a Heavenly Mother. What are we worshiping? Am I only worshiping my Heavenly Mother and you worship yours (ahh, did we allow for deific polygamy in this theology)? Or am I worshiping a collection of Heavenly Mothers? What are her attributes that make her worthy of worship? Does she have power, judgment, justice, and mercy like Heavenly Father does? How do I know (remember we have long records of God revealing Himself and His attributes to man)? So are we then worshiping in a "unity of the faith"? or are we worshiping the same Heavenly Mother in name only?

 

Should Jesus catch me in such worship, He could rightly say "ye worship, ye know not what".

[Maureen]

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.

 

If someone makes a statement of fact that can be checked to verify if it's true or not, then yes, it should be sourced.

 

Also from Folk Prophet:

 

Now.... To be fair and honest .... You're right. I was thinking more along the lines of modalism. I freely admit, when it comes to theology outside of the LDS I don't entirely know what I'm talking about.

 

It's good to see that you freely admitted that. :)

 

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

 

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.

 

One citation (from Joseph F. Smith, not Joseph Fielding Smith) is Messages of the First Presidency 4:327, the salient portions of which I've previously quoted here.  I do think Joseph Fielding Smith made similar statements; but will need to search a bit more when I have more time. 

[Jane_Doe]

BYU did a study on all the references to Heavenly Mother throughout the years. 

 

Free pdf here: https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=8669&linkURL=50.1PaulsenPulidoMother-482bf17d-bbc5-4530-a7cc-c1a1b7e5b079.pdf

[NextElement]

UPDATE: I've got my first lesson with the missionaries on Wednesday!

[Palerider]

UPDATE: I've got my first lesson with the missionaries on Wednesday!

That's great.....hope all goes well for you while you meet with the missionaries

[The Folk Prophet]

One citation (from Joseph F. Smith, not Joseph Fielding Smith) is Messages of the First Presidency 4:327, the salient portions of which I've previously quoted here.  I do think Joseph Fielding Smith made similar statements; but will need to search a bit more when I have more time. 

 

Interesting.

 

It isn't explicitly said, but I think it would be silly to argue that they didn't think along those lines. It's fairly implicit.

 

I think that it's clear that some early leaders believed this concept, but even some of the explanation is incongruent with other doctrinal ideas. A la -- "We want to try to make it appear that God does not do things in the right way, or that he has another way of doing things than what we know" is totally at odds with "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

 

Thanks!

[prisonchaplain]

Two quick thoughts after only briefly perusing the string:

 

1.  There is a religion that worships Mother God:  http://english.watv.org/intro/introduction.asp

 

It's not LDS, nor is it considered to be within traditional Christian orthodoxy.  However, they would tell you they are Christians.  Their missionaries also come by twos, and the first question they often ask householders is, "Have you heard of the Mother's love?"

 

2.  On the Trinity, suffice to say that no Trinitarian teacher I have ever heard says God begat himself.  Always it is that Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father.  This begetting is translated in the NIV as "one and Only."  Given that Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternal beings, and no one else is (not even the angels), it should be obvious that "beget" does not mean "create" or "begin."

 

There is some mystery--some matters not revealed.  However, even on the face of it, the Father begets the Son.  To say this means "God begets God" is to go beyond what is revealed. 

[Blackmarch]

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.

don't know precisely why we aren't to pray to her, however we do have someone that we do know exists who does deserve prayers being sent to but we are told to pray to the Father instead (by this Person), and this is Christ. i'd imagine the reasons would be the same or very similar.

From 3rd Nephi;

 17 And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words unto his disciples, he turned again unto the multitude and said unto them:

 18 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, ye must watch and pray always lest ye enter into temptation; for Satan desireth to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.

 19 Therefore ye must always pray unto the Father in my name;

 20 And whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is right, believing that ye shall receive, behold it shall be given unto you.

My Guess is the reason revolves around who is the highest in authority, or who presides.

[Finrock]

The reason why we don't worship Heavenly Mother as we worship and pray to the Father is because the pattern and the example that Jesus Christ gave us is that we are to worhsip and pray to the Father. Jesus Christ showed us the way to eternal life. It is straight and narrow. Not broad and all encompassing. Their is only one way and that one way is the way that Jesus showed us.

-Finrock