The Shoutout to Heavenly Mother You’ve Been Missing in 1 Nephi Chapter 11

[Third Hour]

Most of us in the Church know that we have a Heavenly Mother. After that, things get a little murky. There’s a lot of myths concerning her, and one of those is that there are just not a lot of direct references to her as an individual. Actually, that’s not true. But if you’re just looking at things on a surface level, it’s easy to get the wrong idea since a lot of these references, such as 1 Nephi 11, are hidden under layers of cultural nuances that we just aren’t familiar with as modern readers. Appreciating How Ancient Israel Helps Us Understand Heavenly Mother If you want to pick up on some of the references to Heavenly Mother in the scriptures, then we’re going to have to go back in time a little bit. Well a lot actually, all the way back to ancient Israel. The first thing you should know about the ancient Israelites is that they were actually a lot more polytheistic than we’re probably comfortable...

View the full article

[Guest]

OK.  So now Third Hour articles are promoting Asherah worship?

WHAT THE DEVIL IS GOING ON?

[Just_A_Guy]

It’s one thing to acknowledge ancient Israel’s flirtation with Canaanite deities, and even to suggest that the Lord borrowed from Canaanite imagery occasionally in order to better teach His people.

It’s quite another thing to suggest, as the article seems to, that God and His prophets were ever OK with outright worship of Asherah.

And lest our lusting for the intellectual fleshpots of second-wave feminism lead us to glory too much in the halcyon days of ancient Israel’s Asherah obsession, let’s remember how ancient Israel—and the broader collection of Canaanite peoples—treated women generally.

[estradling75]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s one thing to acknowledge ancient Israel’s flirtation with Canaanite deities, and even to suggest that the Lord borrowed from Canaanite imagery occasionally in order to better teach His people.

I think you might have that reversed...  Canaanites borrowing the imagery of the Heavenly Mother to create Asherah.. I think there are alot of pagan mythology that are distorted and twisted 'truths.' 

Having said that I think one of the reason we do not know more about subjects such as Heavenly Mother, is that the Path is through Christ. (not anyone else, including Heavenly Mother).  Sadly the moment some people learn of her, they throw Christ under the bus and focus on her.

 

 

Edited January 30, 2019 by estradling75

[Just_A_Guy]

20 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I think you might have that reversed...  Canaanites borrowing the imagery of the Heavy Mother to create Asherah.. I think there are alot of pagan mythology that are distorted and twisted 'truths.' 

 

Possibly.  But I daresay that once you’ve embraced a certain set of values, the concept of a divine feminine is something so useful that ancient sex cults and modern radical feminists (is there really a palpable difference between those two groups, intellectually speaking?) would have invented it from scratch.

[Vort]

Just because some idea pops into your head and you perceive a doctrinal connection that seems to make sense, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to write and publish an article about it. Getting past that sort of off-the-cuff writing before embarrassing yourself on a public stage is why small discussion lists were invented.

ThirdHour seems to need a little help with their editorial duties, especially in selecting which pieces ought to see the light of day. Helpful rule of thumb: If the topic of a column is "Heavenly Mother", then don't publish it.

[unixknight]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

OK.  So now Third Hour articles are promoting Asherah worship?

 

55 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s one thing to acknowledge ancient Israel’s flirtation with Canaanite deities, and even to suggest that the Lord borrowed from Canaanite imagery occasionally in order to better teach His people.

It’s quite another thing to suggest, as the article seems to, that God and His prophets were ever OK with outright worship of Asherah.

And lest our lusting for the intellectual fleshpots of second-wave feminism lead us to glory too much in the halcyon days of ancient Israel’s Asherah obsession, let’s remember how ancient Israel—and the broader collection of Canaanite peoples—treated women generally.

Guys that's... not what the article said.

My takeaway from the article was that there is imagery going as far back as 1 Nephi that seems to be a reference to Heavenly Mother.  It builds its case and... that's it.  None of it seems to me to be promoting worship of anybody.  It also doesn't say the Lord borrowed from Canaanite imagery, only that the ancient Israelites had a belief that had some similarities to it.  

Don't read too much into it, fellas.

Edited January 30, 2019 by unixknight

[zil]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

WHAT THE DEVIL IS GOING ON?

What's going on is that certain individuals are too impatient to wait for either post-mortal recollection / revelation or revelation to the Church through the one with keys (whichever comes first), and in their impatience they grasp at straws and declare said straws to be clear references (if only one chooses to see them).  I tend to think this whole line of reasoning (by this article and the ones referenced and others like it) is an act of desperation on the part of some individuals who simply cannot stand the wait.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Guys that's... not what the article said.

When the author references "How to Worship Heavenly Mother..." yes, it is.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s one thing to acknowledge ancient Israel’s flirtation with Canaanite deities, and even to suggest that the Lord borrowed from Canaanite imagery occasionally in order to better teach His people.

It’s quite another thing to suggest, as the article seems to, that God and His prophets were ever OK with outright worship of Asherah.

And lest our lusting for the intellectual fleshpots of second-wave feminism lead us to glory too much in the halcyon days of ancient Israel’s Asherah obsession, let’s remember how ancient Israel—and the broader collection of Canaanite peoples—treated women generally.

2 minutes ago, zil said:

What's going on is that certain individuals are too impatient to wait for either post-mortal recollection / revelation or revelation to the Church through the one with keys (whichever comes first), and in their impatience they grasp at straws and declare said straws to be clear references (if only one chooses to see them).  I tend to think this whole line of reasoning (by this article and the ones referenced and others like it) is an act of desperation on the part of some individuals who simply cannot stand the wait.

Is this entire thread going "Vort" on me?  Look at this vocabulary.

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

When the author references "How to Worship Heavenly Mother..." yes, it is.

That's a separate essay, not the article.

[Guest]

Just now, unixknight said:

That's a separate essay, not the article.

Like I said -- "References"

[zil]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Is this entire thread going "Vort" on me?  Look at this vocabulary.

Are you saying you don't read the dictionary during breakfast?

[unixknight]

 

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Like I said -- "References"

You originally said:

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

OK.  So now Third Hour articles are promoting Asherah worship?

The article does not do so, in my take on it.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

the imagery of the Heavy Mother

Typo or "yo' mama" joke? We may never know.

[Vort]

I'm actually pretty uncomfortable with her citing Kevin Barney as any type of authority on LDS doctrinal matters. I have no beef with Brother Barney, whom I consider intelligent and informed. But he is often decidedly, shall we say, non-orthodox in his predilections—which I suspect he himself would be only too happy to admit.

For the record, I would be uncomfortable with anyone citing Vort as any type of authority on LDS doctrinal matters, and I happen to know that my own opinions closely parallel his.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Vort

[Vort]

BTW, referencing Dialogue articles is another tip-off that maybe this is not a column you want to publish under the ThirdHour banner.

[zil]

A quote used in the article suggests that most members believe that in Nephi's vision of the Tree of Life, when he says the tree represents the love of God, he means (nothing more than) "God's feelings of love for us" - do you suppose that's true?  I've always understood that everything about the tree and its fruit is about Christ, the Atonement, the Plan of Redemption/Salvation/Happiness, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Surely I'm not the only one?

Therefore, it makes me uncomfortable when someone wants to take that away and claim the tree means something else.  Sure, as soon as one says it - [tree = mother, fruit = child] - the symbolism becomes obvious, but that isn't the same is it being intended or correct.  Christ is the light and life of man.  He is the living representation of the love of God.  He is the only way.  Whether you like that or not, taking bits and pieces away and saying, "No, this doesn't represent Christ, it's something else" just seems like a bad (and dangerous) idea to me.

The word "gnostic" keeps popping into my mind as I think about this stuff.  (Apparently that word has yet to pop into Firefox's dictionary.)

[Just_A_Guy]

54 minutes ago, unixknight said:

 

Guys that's... not what the article said.

My takeaway from the article was that there is imagery going as far back as 1 Nephi that seems to be a reference to Heavenly Mother.  It builds its case and... that's it.  None of it seems to me to be promoting worship of anybody.  It also doesn't say the Lord borrowed from Canaanite imagery, only that the ancient Israelites had a belief that had some similarities to it.  

Don't read too much into it, fellas.

But you never know.  President Nelson is just full of surprises, doncha know?  

The fact that something theoretically *can* happen does not mean that we should expend time and energy preparing for the time when it *will* happen; and I grow weary of those who use the concept of modern revelation to justify a sort of theological/moral nihilism.  That reference to President Nelson, probably more than anything else, is what irritated me about the article.  

By the way, I have no problem with the idea of the Lord appropriating secular or even pagan symbols for pedagogical purposes.  It’s when people suggest that through doing so, the Lord is endorsing (or at least winking at) paganism itself; that I get a little tetchy.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, zil said:

A quote used in the article suggests that most members believe that in Nephi's vision of the Tree of Life, when he says the tree represents the love of God, he means (nothing more than) "God's feelings of love for us" - do you suppose that's true?  I've always understood that everything about the tree and its fruit is about Christ, the Atonement, the Plan of Redemption/Salvation/Happiness, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Surely I'm not the only one?

Therefore, it makes me uncomfortable when someone wants to take that away and claim the tree means something else.  Sure, as soon as one says it - [tree = mother, fruit = child] - the symbolism becomes obvious, but that isn't the same is it being intended or correct.  Christ is the light and life of man.  He is the living representation of the love of God.  He is the only way.  Whether you like that or not, taking bits and pieces away and saying, "No, this doesn't represent Christ, it's something else" just seems like a bad (and dangerous) idea to me.

The word "gnostic" keeps popping into my mind as I think about this stuff.  (Apparently that word has yet to pop into Firefox's dictionary.)

Excellent point. I would extend it a bit by pointing out that even if a given interpretation is plausible—even if it is in fact correct—the duty to define doctrine belongs to the leaders in God's kingdom. There is a point beyond which it is simply unwise to go, even if you're sure you're right. Our leaders have never taught that Nephi's/Lehi's tree of life symbolizes the Mother in heaven. God's Consort is nowhere mentioned in any scripture that I am aware of, certainly not explicitly. I think we are foolish to believe we know better than God does, or than his anointed leaders do, on such matters.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Vort

[Just_A_Guy]

38 minutes ago, zil said:

Are you saying you don't read the dictionary during breakfast?

I had heard such cretins exist, but I never thought I’d actually meet one.

Color me “triggered” . . .

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

40 minutes ago, zil said:

Are you saying you don't read the dictionary during breakfast?

I had heard such cretins exist, but I never thought I’d actually meet one.

Color me “triggered” . . .

For sure. ThirdHour is for breakfast. Dinner is when the dictionary comes out.

[unixknight]

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But you never know.  President Nelson is just full of surprises, doncha know?  

The fact that something theoretically *can* happen does not mean that we should expend time and energy preparing for the time when it *will* happen; and I grow weary of those who use the concept of modern revelation to justify a sort of theological/moral nihilism. 

Yeah I don't disagree.  I think we have to be super careful not to start going off into the reeds, acting as if this is all stuff that will happen, but we're the ones smart enough to see it coming.

To me, the article itself is fairly bland.  The essay it references seems meatier but I haven't finished reading it yet.  The problem is it all comes back to the simple fact that we don't have much at all revealed about Heavenly Mother, to the point where it's understandable to not accept Her existence at all.

That said, and maybe this is the former Catholic in me, I do find the idea compelling, because one of the justifications in Catholicism for the heavy emphasis on Mary is that she sort of serves as a mother figure for the Church, particularly for those who have no mother of their own, they can connect to her.  I grew up on that idea so there is a space in my mind for Heavenly Mother to fit that sort of role.  I suppose one could characterize that as an advantage or a defect, depending on point of view.

Personally, I hope that more will be revealed.  Maybe it will never happen, or maybe it will be at the next General Conference.  Until then, we have to just keep on as before.

[estradling75]

58 minutes ago, Vort said:

Typo or "yo' mama" joke? We may never know.

Some typos are just embarrassing

 

41 minutes ago, zil said:

A quote used in the article suggests that most members believe that in Nephi's vision of the Tree of Life, when he says the tree represents the love of God, he means (nothing more than) "God's feelings of love for us" - do you suppose that's true?  I've always understood that everything about the tree and its fruit is about Christ, the Atonement, the Plan of Redemption/Salvation/Happiness, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Surely I'm not the only one?

 

 

 I think part of the difficultly lies with how Nephi tells the story.

Nephi:  "I want to know what the tree means/stands for"

Angel: <Shows the Mother of the Son of God>  "Now do you know what the tree means?"

Nephi: "The Love of God"

Me: "Say what?  How did you get to that?  Clearly there is context here that Nephi knew and that I do not...  Because that is a huge leap from what I see and Nephi gets it right.."

If we are pondering and likening the scriptures that can be a bit of a puzzler

[Guest]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Are you saying you don't read the dictionary during breakfast?

Not until second breakfast.