Heavenly Mother & Mother Mary

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, Jane_Doe said:

You can see it on FamilySearch.  

Again, having a sealing ordinance done doesn't automatically mean it'll be honored in the eternities.   

There is order to all things.  The original order was that whoever the woman was sealed to, until that sealing was undone, that was who she was sealed to.  This also went in order in regards to the order presented in the Bible.  In this, even if a woman married another man, all children born were to the first husband.

This was a matter of order in the Kingdom.  To change this creates chaos, and unnecessary ordinances.  It puts chaos into what was once orderly.  The excuse is to push it down the line, that such things will be cleared up in the millennium, as if making disorder and chaos now is justified by that excuse.

The easier matter would be to keep it as it was, and IF extra ordinances were needed in the millennium, then such matters would be cleared up then. 

However, this is a little item in regards to church practices overall, so it's the minutia in the details.

3 minutes ago, Maureen said:

As you can see, it says "she may be sealed". The way you've described your experience sounds like non-related members are doing proxy work for these deceased women against the requests of living family members.

M.

Yes.  ALL temple work that isn't done by my family is against any requests of the family members.  I thought it was 110 years, but I think your pdf you linked to stated it was 95 years.  Except for me, ALL of my relatives in my family line above me I were born over 95 years ago...so there's that.

I do not understand how they are allowed to do some of these things though, as it also states they are not supposed to do it for famous people they are not related to or otherwise in that manner, but apparently they do so.  I suppose they've had similar problems with other who are famous (and my relatives, though easily well known, are not famous types like listed in the document per se, but there are those that probably feel like they want to be related to my family line for various reasons).

I've talked called the phone line multiple times to clear these things up, and the basic jist I've gotten is what can be done has been done.  It is just one of those things that occur and happen with in the church in regards to temple work.  It does make me wonder how many times people are going to do Queen Elizabeth's temple work once she passes away...if it is this many for my own family, it's possible she'll have half a dozen doing hers within a decade or less.

As I said though, it's a small matter in regards to the overall whole of the gospel.  We'd rather have temple work done for those who need it than not.  I think the bigger factor that disturbs me is the sealing women to multiple husbands...and that it was done in my family line against our wishes.

[Maureen]

13 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Can a Woman Be Sealed to More Than One Husband?

A living woman may not be sealed to more than one man. A deceased woman may be

sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her life.

However, if she was sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased

before she may be sealed to a husband to whom she was not sealed during life.

 

@JohnsonJones, just to give you a better idea on how I interpret this policy - I have an LDS friend who is sealed to her late husband. She is civilly married to her 2nd husband, who I assume was sealed or may still be sealed to his ex-wife. When my friend and her 2nd husband pass away, their grandchildren (I doubt very much their children will want to do proxy work) have the choice to do proxy work for their grandparents and especially if their grandparents don't mind. This is an example of how this policy can work. Although, it is possible policies can be abused and a shame that living family members are not approached for approval.

M.

[Alex]

1 minute ago, Maureen said:

@JohnsonJones, just to give you a better idea on how I interpret this policy - I have an LDS friend who is sealed to her late husband. She is civilly married to her 2nd husband, who I assume was sealed or may still be sealed to his ex-wife. When my friend and her 2nd husband pass away, their grandchildren (I doubt very much their children will want to do proxy work) have the choice to do proxy work for their grandparents and especially if their grandparents don't mind. This is an example of how this policy can work. Although, it is possible policies can be abused and a shame that living family members are not approached for approval.

M.

Hmm, my Mum's sister was anti LDS church and she opposed my mum submitting the work of their grandmother to the temple for a sealing.

The thing that makes no sense though is that my Aunt didn't believe in the church at all- so what are her grounds for opposing it, when she didn't believe in any of it anyway?

 

Whilst I pity the the life of the woman Johnson Jones is related to, I don't know as how listening to objections of living family members is beneficial- the sealings are accepted or rejected in the after life, after all, and if you think the LDS ordinations are bunk, then what does it matter ?

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Alex said:

The thing that makes no sense though is that my Aunt didn't believe in the church at all- so what are her grounds for opposing it, when she didn't believe in any of it anyway?

My thoughts completely. 

[Blueskye2]

12 minutes ago, Alex said:

Hmm, my Mum's sister was anti LDS church and she opposed my mum submitting the work of their grandmother to the temple for a sealing.

The thing that makes no sense though is that my Aunt didn't believe in the church at all- so what are her grounds for opposing it, when she didn't believe in any of it anyway?

 

Whilst I pity the the life of the woman Johnson Jones is related to, I don't know as how listening to objections of living family members is beneficial- the sealings are accepted or rejected in the after life, after all, and if you think the LDS ordinations are bunk, then what does it matter ?

 

At the death of President Hinckley, I mentioned to LDS acquaintance that my parish prayed for his soul at Mass. I thought it was a nice thing to do but the LDS person was somewhat taken aback, and asked why would we pray for him with the assumption that his soul needed the help of our prayers. 

It’s the assumptions that get under people’s skin. 

People who are deeply committed to a religion, might view doing something that implies the deceased person’s religious commitment was for naught, as saying something very personal about the deceased and their own deeply held beliefs. 

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

 

At the death of President Hinckley, I mentioned to LDS acquaintance that my parish prayed for his soul at Mass. I thought it was a nice thing to do but the LDS person was somewhat taken aback, and asked why would we pray for him with the assumption that his soul needed the help of our prayers. 

It’s the assumptions that get under people’s skin. 

People who are deeply committed to a religion, might view doing something that implies the deceased person’s religious commitment was for naught, as saying something very personal about the deceased and their own deeply held beliefs. 

I get the statement of being set back about it (it's a natural human response), however it's unneeded.  BlueSky, if you want to show you love your President Hinkley by prayer for him at Mass, you go for it!

Edited November 29, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Alex]

3 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

 

At the death of President Hinckley, I mentioned to LDS acquaintance that my parish prayed for his soul at Mass. I thought it was a nice thing to do but the LDS person was somewhat taken aback, and asked why would we pray for him with the assumption that his soul needed the help of our prayers. 

It’s the assumptions that get under people’s skin. 

People who are deeply committed to a religion, might view doing something that implies the deceased person’s religious commitment was for naught, as saying something very personal about the deceased and their own deeply held beliefs. 

Hmm, my Aunt was sadly a godless & hedonistic lesbian. She was just plain bitter and that bitterness defined many of the choices she made in her life. She detested the LDS church and her opposition, while a deeply held belief as you say, is still pointless if she doesn't believe in what we do in LDS temples.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

20 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

This is from the LDS.org talking about this very subject, 'The Importance of Celestial Marriage' its a long talk and I'm pouring over it but it says 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/10/the-importance-of-celestial-marriage?lang=eng 

We may be angels, if we are righteous enough. Even unmarried, we may reach the celestial kingdom, but we will be ministering angels only.

So I guess I'll be a servant in the Celestial Kingdom at best - at least I'll be there, that's what matters right?

I don’t know about the “servant” stuff, but to your more general question—Yes!  Too often the question is “where will I be in the afterlife”, as if the afterlife were nothing more than some resort for which tickets are doled out as the return on some mortal investment.  The more important question is, “WHAT will I be in the afterlife?”  

To me, what we become in the hereafter and the degree of happiness we enjoy there is less a factor of what we have “earned” through our choices, and more a factor of the natural consequences of what we have allowed Christ to shape us into by virtue of our life choices and His sanctifying power.  

And I don’t get too wrapped up in whether I’ll be in the “highest” degree, either—if I am in the presence of my Maker and my Lord, and have access to my loved ones; then what does it matter of some other random guy has more eternal bling than I do?

But within those parameters, certain conditions and if-then statements do apply.  One of those conditions is that if we want to be the kind of eternal being that is capable of producing offspring, we need to (among other things) establish a particular kind of covenant with another human being; and that’s what happens in a temple sealing.  

I am pretty confident that most LDS couples who understand the theological underpinnings of their religion, have had the “would you remarry if I died?” talk and have made their sentiments known to each other.  In that sense, your hypotheticals about predeceased wives being dragged into bigamy by their surviving husbands’ choice to remarry, has less to do with either trusting God or trusting Church leadership; and more to do with trusting men to do right by their wives.  

And men who don’t do right by their wives in mortality don’t get to keep them in the hereafter; Joseph Smith was adamant about this.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Blueskye2]

29 minutes ago, Alex said:

Hmm, my Aunt was sadly a godless & hedonistic lesbian. She was just plain bitter and that bitterness defined many of the choices she made in her life. She detested the LDS church and her opposition, while a deeply held belief as you say, is still pointless if she doesn't believe in what we do in LDS temples.

 

Then there’s the judgmental aspect. 

[Vort]

46 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

At the death of President Hinckley, I mentioned to LDS acquaintance that my parish prayed for his soul at Mass. I thought it was a nice thing to do but the LDS person was somewhat taken aback, and asked why would we pray for him with the assumption that his soul needed the help of our prayers. 

It’s the assumptions that get under people’s skin. 

Then people need to get a grip and think about things just a little bit. Anyone who would take offense at a Catholic friend offering a prayer or lighting a votive candle or some such thing for the benefit of another is a fool. I think the same about supposedly religious folks who get upset that Mormons might "baptize their daddy". This is nothing more than some combination of bigotry and stupidity.

I have disagreed with much of what Alex has posted, but on this topic I agree with him wholeheartedly. If people don't believe that Mormons act with divine power, then they're idiots for taking umbrage at Mormon rites of proxy temple work.

[Alex]

Just now, Blueskye2 said:

Then there’s the judgmental aspect. 

Are you judging me?

[zil]

Regarding "other people" doing the work for deceased ancestors - if they're within one generation of you, then maybe that's an issue, but the minute you go back more than one generation, you've all of a sudden got "cousins" who are also related - and technically, there are (likely) lots of people who are related to your parents besides their children.  So, when considering who should be submitting names for temple work, please remember that we're all related somehow, and the farther back from the current generation you go, the more people there are in the current generation who are related to that person - anyone from 3 generations back probably has hundreds of living relatives right now.

[Blueskye2]

17 minutes ago, Alex said:

Are you judging me?

[Alex]

7 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

 

It's a cute cartoon but the fact is that righteous intermediate judgement is something we all have to do in this life.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/08/judge-not-and-judging?lang=eng

"...we should, if possible, refrain from judging until we have adequate knowledge of the facts... " is just one bit of advice from that talk.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

If people don't believe that Mormons act with divine power, then they're idiots for taking umbrage at Mormon rites of proxy temple work.

While I agree with this I think it is a distraction.  The church has given rules for its membership on family history work.  One of those rules is "Get permission" in certain circumstances.

It does not matter if they are "idiots for taking umbrage"  it is enough that they did.  Sadly from the stories I hear it seems that to many members are ignoring this rule.  For whatever reason they chose not to be faithful in this "little thing"  and we know what the scripture say about that.  Very likely they are justifying their disobedience, by how it doesn't hurt anyone, and it is Good work, a noble sacrifice on their part even...  But the scriptures are clear on the importance of obedience 

[Vort]

36 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

It does not matter if they are "idiots for taking umbrage"  it is enough that they did.  Sadly from the stories I hear it seems that to many members are ignoring this rule.  For whatever reason they chose not to be faithful in this "little thing"  and we know what the scripture say about that.  Very likely they are justifying their disobedience, by how it doesn't hurt anyone, and it is Good work, a noble sacrifice on their part even...  But the scriptures are clear on the importance of obedience 

Oh, I agree completely. The evils of dishonesty do not reduce the idiocy of the idiots, but we should still be honest and obedient in these matters. No argument there.

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Alex said:

You say "that isn't what the argument is about" but truly, what is your argument about?

Wait, so you're accusing me of not paying attention and you don't even know what we're arguing about?  Oooo kaaaayy

18 hours ago, Alex said:

Hmm, It's as though you are obsessed with me... sorry but, I'm a hetrosexual man- I'm not gay.

You're not my type.  But you really ought to try it some time.  Kim chee is the best condiment or side dish ever invented by man.

Not that you have to be gay to enjoy the tantilizing delight that is the scarlet cabbage.  But it helps if you give into your emotions and indulge in a potent pickle of pungency. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

20 hours ago, Maureen said:

Although, it is possible policies can be abused and a shame that living family members are not approached for approval.

 

18 hours ago, estradling75 said:

While I agree with this I think it is a distraction.  The church has given rules for its membership on family history work.  One of those rules is "Get permission" in certain circumstances.

It does not matter if they are "idiots for taking umbrage"  it is enough that they did.  Sadly from the stories I hear it seems that to many members are ignoring this rule.  For whatever reason they chose not to be faithful in this "little thing"  and we know what the scripture say about that.  Very likely they are justifying their disobedience, by how it doesn't hurt anyone, and it is Good work, a noble sacrifice on their part even...  But the scriptures are clear on the importance of obedience 

This has become harder to do if you go through Family Search.  They require proof of approval from either the living spouse or the living child.  Grandchildren can only approve if all of these guys have died.  I believe they allow exceptions only on extreme circumstances - like estrangement or some such.  So okay, I'm not sure on what the exceptions are.

Edited November 30, 2017 by anatess2

[Traveler]

On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 7:54 PM, Blossom76 said:

Hi guys, I was hoping to get some insight on Heavenly Mother (the concept is very new to me so I basically have no clue about it at all!), and also what the LDS doctrine teachings (and also your own personal views) on The Virgin Mary Mother Of Jesus, the Virgin Birth etc

Thanks for reading, appreciate all responses

 

In truth, we do not know very much about G-d our Father.  This is because of the fall of man and the need for a mediator.    I have posted before about ancient kingdoms and the interesting possible parallels with understanding the Suzerain of heaven and his chosen and appointed Vassal.  Doctrinally, man is fallen and a mediator necessary to interface with the Suzerain of heaven.  Simply put we do not have direct access but require someone to represent us – anciently this was called a mediator.  There is one other legal term of ancient kingdoms that is interesting and that is the title of “advocate”.   The term “advocate” has a companion term which is “accuser”. 

Our modern law and the concept of courts has a most interesting reflection of the terms “advocate” and “accuser”.  Anciently the “advocate” sat at the right hand of the “judge” (which BTW - was another term for g-d).  The “accuser” sat at the left hand of the judge.  We see this image in scripture as the “saved” or heirs of “salvation” being at the right hand of G-d and the condemned on the left hand.  We also see this image represented by two Cherubim at the mercy (or judgment) seat of G-d.  Most Christians are familiar with the terms advocate and accuser but I am not sure that in our modern more democratic societies we understand that concepts quite as well.  Especially that in Christ, our advocate, is the “chosen” heir or the supreme Suzerain. 

The truth is that we know precious little our about G-d our Father.  All that we do know comes through (both by doctrine and example) in Jesus the Christ or Messiah.  In our fallen state, all that we can know comes through the Mediator – Jesus Christ.  Thus, Jesus is our one and only example of anything concerning G-d our Father.

My first point is that there is very little scripture about our Father in Heaven.  Besides the title of “Father” there is nothing to distinguish him from what we understand of Jesus.  However, the title of Father leads logically to the concept of “Mother”.  We are to understand that G-d the Father exists but beyond that; all we know of divine “things” is through the example of His Son (Jesus the Christ).   Both in his role or title of the “word” expressed in scripture and his nature as the “only” begotten Son.  Because of the fall of man, Jesus is our only example of G-d the Father and our link to divine things.

Concerning Mary, the mother of Jesus; there is a most interesting ancient document text called the “Gospel of Mary”.  This text was not canonized but much of our understanding of the Nativity comes through this ancient text.  It is not difficult to understand why this text was left out of canonized texts during the first Ecumenical councils of the early Christian era and current “Catholic” doctrine.   Never-the-less I find it most interesting how much of our understanding of Mary, the mother of Jesus, comes from teachings exclusive to this text.  This particular ancient text has influenced both my personal understanding of Mary – the mother of Jesus and the possibilities that there is a Mother associated with our Father in Heaven. 

There is little doubt in my heart that mother is as much of an example of divinity and a title of G-dlyness as is father.  To me the logic is inescapable.

 

The Traveler

Edited December 12, 2017 by Traveler

[Traveler]

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 4:35 PM, Blueskye2 said:

 

It is my understanding that the term “Judgment” as in “we should not judge others” in not a complete understanding of ancient teaching.  The idea of qualifying or quantifying – sifting through things and understanding things good or evil is a very incomplete understanding or view.  I believe we would be better served instead by thinking we should not condemn rather than not judge – although sometimes it is difficult to make such a distinction.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

On 12/17/2017 at 12:02 PM, changed said:

You know how Jewish people do not say G-d's name, or how there are many different names for G-d  and the Savior (Shepherd, bread of life, the way, etc.)?  Well, I believe there are many different names for Heavenly Mother as well, such as Wisdom, Charity, the Love of G-d, tree of life - etc.  As you come to know Her names, you can read and learn about Her within the scriptures.

We don't know her name.  We've specifically been told we won't know.

And those principles you mentioned... What???  The Father isn't the epitome of wisdom?  Charity is not the pure love of CHRIST?  Love of God is not the love of Heavenly Father, but of Heavenly Mother?  The tree of life ???  Where did you get that from?

That last one really gives me pause.  It comes too close to Ashera worship.  Yes, you're beginning to worship the wife of Baal.  Cafeteria Mormon, indeed.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, changed said:

 

Heavenly Mother is not just a Mormon discovery, there are quite a few other religious faith groups who have secretly found Her.  Her journey is not for the faint of heart, she is hidden, and remains hidden, from those who are not yet able to abide in Her presence.  

And you're stating these points as if they were LDS doctrine.  As long as we're clear that what you stated was not LDS doctrine, then fine.  But many who read your post will think it is.

It is not.  If you want to worship Ashera, then let it be a public statement that the Church has spoken against it for many decades and is still against it.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, changed said:

I understand.  She is hidden that the women on the Earth can come to their true potential.  The last will be first, the greatest among you is your servant - to become as She is, one must first live the life of a servant.  

There is a story I tell my daughters, it's an expanded story of sleeping beauty.  Everyone knows the basics of sleeping beauty, how a princess was raised in the country by step-mothers - how she grew up now knowing who she really was...  the end of the story though, that she later become the most beloved leader the land had ever known, that part of the story is seldom shared.    Why did Aurora become the kingdom's most beloved queen?  because she was once a commoner like themselves, she lived and was one of her people - not above them, but with them, knowing them, one of them.  That is why they loved her, and she them.  A period of time living as a commoner, not knowing who we really are, that is what gives everyone the experience they need to become who they need to become.  

For those who need Her, She can be found.  For those who are not yet ready, there is glory in not being a leader on this earth, there is glory in being a servant.

Tell me, do you pray to Her?

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, changed said:

Not in this life, no.  It is strengthening to know who She is though, to understand the point of things like Polygamy/polyandry, to know who Mary is - Mary's support by both Heavenly Father and Joseph, to know what motherhood really is, to know what the test is for, to know the point of the pain of this life.

And on this last point, how does that perspective help you in your current trial?

[Guest]

On 12/20/2017 at 12:00 PM, changed said:

I told my LBGTQ relatives that Christianity is religion based on sacrifice - on the atonement... not sure there are words to explain, right now I am not able tp pray to g-d either, not able to pray to the being who called Judas as an apostle... I am still working through this, not to the end of it yet, but through everything, I do not blame Heavenly Mother.  She is the thread that has kept me sane.  

I've been spending time thinking about this post.  I'm really trying to understand you.  But this really makes no sense.  Then I realized you were dodging the question.

You can't find yourself praying to the Father or the Son.  But you don't blame our Heavenly Mother.  Since you didn't answer the question directly, it sure seems like you are saying that you ARE praying to Her which is what we're expressly told to NOT do.

You blame the males, but excuse the female.  Do you not realize they are ONE?  Do you honestly think that exalted beings such as they are actually going to disagree on what the correct course of action is?  You judge the males to be guilty of some sin.  Yet the female that was also participating you excuse and assume she had nothing to do with it?  Or do you characterize the males as unfeeling and uncaring, while the female may have been complicit, but feels really badly about it?

Or are you saying that even in Eternity, the male is dominating the female, and the female has no power?  If so, how does she have any power to comfort you?  Or is it just commiseration?  Do you imagine her saying to you,"I know how you feel.  I wish I could do something about it.  But, you know my husband.  He can be a real jerk sometimes."  Do you realize just how blasphemous that sounds?  But that is exactly what I'm getting from your words.

What exactly are you saying?  Am I correct in assuming you do in fact pray to our Heavenly Mother?  What exactly are you accusing God of?  And what do you think your Heavenly Mother is doing/thinking/feeling?

Edited December 22, 2017 by Guest