Seek

First Vision; Second Personage: Heavenly Mother?

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Seek said:

There are many males in the Church who believe that, because they are the priests, they are the authority in the marriage

Well, I’m not one of them.

The priesthood’s power is ultimately service.  

I am sorry if you have been hurt by unrighteousness dominion.

 

Please go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Seek you can believe whatever it is according to the dictates of your own conscious (Article of Faith 11).  

But for orthodox members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the two being involved in the First Vision are clearly the Father and the Son.  This isn't a discussion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Ahhh.  Feminists.  Now this thread makes sense.  

Please. Don’t get the wrong idea. The root of this thread has nothing to do with feminism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

@Seek you can believe whatever it is according to the dictates of your own conscious (Article of Faith 11).  

But for orthodox members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the two being involved in the First Vision are clearly the Father and the Son.  This isn't a discussion.  

I would characterize the nature of this thread as being heterodox, even by the title alone.... And, as you reference, there are also the orthodox members. 

My aim is to discuss the implications of holding this particular heterodox belief; the theological implications as well as the social implications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Seek said:

But let me say that I’ve studied most of the critics’ points, as well as the apologists’ 

Don’t pretend there are critics and apologists discussing this. The amount of critics and apologists arguing Against your claim is exactly 0. Why? Because it is completely ridiculous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2019 at 7:14 PM, Seek said:

The Godhead subjects everyone and everything to the works of Satan, which are nothing more than deceptions and lies.  

Truth.  

Because truth is wisdom, and wisdom is peace; and peace is the love of God. 

The feminine pronoun was the original form, in use in the land of Galilee and elsewhere during the time of Jesus.  The first Christians used the feminine, because that was prevalent among Jews of their day. 

God gave for Joseph to see that which he did, and Joseph perceived it by the lens of his spiritual eyes.  Like any other man, Joseph saw what he wanted to see.  He gave an interpretation thereof. 

Good souls, indeed; even saintly.  

But Satan is the most cunning of them all, who leaves no soul untouched.

Sounds like you've got the theory all set up to believe whatever you feel like and cast off anything you don't like, even consistent teachings from the mouths of the prophets.

Good luck.

Since you claim your motivation is truth, maybe you should do some basic review on the pattern the Lord has established for revealing truth to mankind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Seek said:

I would characterize the nature of this thread as being heterodox, even by the title alone.... And, as you reference, there are also the orthodox members. 

My aim is to discuss the implications of holding this particular heterodox belief; the theological implications as well as the social implications.

So... you want to discuss whether or not you would be held for apostasy for this belief?  

I don't mean to be rude, but that's the only implications really to be had.   Again, you're welcome to believe whatever (again, Article of Faith 11), but runs directly contrary to  to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  

Edited by Jane_Doe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I think that when God and Jesus choose to reveal themselves to Their children, They will be seen as they want to be seen,

Why wouldn't they appear as they really are? And why wouldn't we see them as they are?

Some people have some strange ideas about God's interactions with His children. (Note: I'm meaning others, such as the OP.)

He's not the great and powerful Oz.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fether said:

Don’t pretend there are critics and apologists discussing this. The amount of critics and apologists arguing Against your claim is exactly 0. Why? Because it is completely ridiculous

Right. They aren’t talking about it. And I don’t mean to say they are.

I was baptized in 2013 after being fed some milk, as they say. However, if I had been fed some meat (which is what I really craved) then I probably wouldn’t have chosen to be baptized in the first place. Only months later did I really begin to understand the “fullness of the gospel.” Soon after I stopped participating.

Long story short... 

Over the years, I’ve wrestled with the notion of participating again, as I never really lost the testimony I had at my baptism. Wherefore, at times, I would read the critics, and based upon their assertions, convince myself that I shouldn’t participate. And, at other times, I would read the apologists and convince myself that I should participate. I’ve certainly spent thousands of hours dwelling on these things. 

The topic of this thread is a result of this back-and-forth, debating myself, about the assertions of the critics and apologists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Seek said:

the culture which the Church cultivates; which is fostering oppression in the home

Garbage.

No one who understands the teachings of the church could possible think the church cultivates anything even close to oppression in the home.

2 hours ago, Seek said:

Many [A very minor few] feel and even call for females to be admitted to the priesthood, in rejection of this culture.

Fixed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

So... you want to discuss whether or not you would be held for apostasy for this belief?  

I don't mean to be rude, but that's the only implications really to be had.   Again, you're welcome to believe whatever (again, Article of Faith 11), but runs directly contrary to  to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  

Indeed she is free to believe whatever it is that she wants...  However everyone else had been instructed to accept truth only from two sources... God's appointed oracles.  And the Holy Spirit.  She is neither.  Thus for any faithful member of the church her teachings are out of bounds and to be summarily rejected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Seek said:

I was baptized in 2013 after being fed some milk, as they say. However, if I had been fed some meat (which is what I really craved) then I probably wouldn’t have chosen to be baptized in the first place. Only months later did I really begin to understand the “fullness of the gospel.” Soon after I stopped participating.

You very clearly have never actually had the meat. You don't understand the gospel or even what the meat actually is.

You will never find the meat going down these arm-of-flesh notions about truth. This is not God's pattern or way. He does not reveal himself to individuals in opposition to His anointed authorized leaders who are specifically called to reveal that truth to His church. He does NOT.

I fully reject even @Just_A_Guy's implication that God might reveal some deep truth about Heavenly Mother, or the like, to an individual that is outside the pattern He has established for providing those types of truths.

That is not how it works. God reveals His gospel truths and teachings to the prophets.

I don't care about examples such as Lorenzo Snow (who was Foreordained to become the prophet anyhow). There is no pattern where God is secretly revealing greater truths to individuals than can be found in common among the faithful. There is no secret truth about Heavenly Mother that is revealed to some to be held in secret and never shared. This is not God's way. I fully and entirely reject the notion.

We are not meant to know of Her. When we are, that knowledge will be given us by our prophet.

God works within stewardships. This is not yours. You are flat, dead, absolutely, unequivocally, WRONG on this matter.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Seek said:

Right. They aren’t talking about it. And I don’t mean to say they are.

I was baptized in 2013 after being fed some milk, as they say. However, if I had been fed some meat (which is what I really craved) then I probably wouldn’t have chosen to be baptized in the first place. Only months later did I really begin to understand the “fullness of the gospel.” Soon after I stopped participating.

Long story short... 

Over the years, I’ve wrestled with the notion of participating again, as I never really lost the testimony I had at my baptism. Wherefore, at times, I would read the critics, and based upon their assertions, convince myself that I shouldn’t participate. And, at other times, I would read the apologists and convince myself that I should participate. I’ve certainly spent thousands of hours dwelling on these things. 

The topic of this thread is a result of this back-and-forth, debating myself, about the assertions of the critics and apologists. 

@Seek, may I suggest that a better way of going about things would be to talk about things that are of real importance to YOU.  Not random critics, or apologists, but the things weighing on your heart.  We can explain fully views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is, any areas of "we don't know", etc.  

Edited by Jane_Doe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 9:16 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

2.  I may eventually be persuaded otherwise, but the analyses of the archaeological record that I’ve seen thus far strike me primarily as a case of the authors seeing what they want to see.  Explicit mentions of Asherah in scripture—whether by name, or in reference to the “groves” dedicated to her worship—are, so far as I recall, universally negative.

 

Not entirely, but in a different manner.

In regards to fertility and forest worship...yes...the same as it is in regards to idolatry with regards to Baal and others.

However, in regards to groves or more specifically the cedar forests and groves of Lebanon and other areas as that, at times it holds them in reverence or regard.  Many times this is with building materials, though the aspect of holiness is in regards to their historical religious aspects and the reverence in which they would have been held by the local people.

As such, there is reference or a side track of many individuals that feel that in HISTORIC Judaic religion (as opposed to the more recent Judaic practices and beleifs) that there probably WAS a spouse or wife of the Most High.  (and in fact, there are many historic Judaic/Hebraic ideas that are thought to have been historically held in the past that are considered heretical today...one which is somewhat persistent in some Jewish sects is also the eternal aspect of the soul, or that spirit existed PRIOR to this life, and will exist after, but of that is of no concern as it is THIS life of which to be concerned).  

It can be felt among some that this reverence of trees drew many of the Jews to the idolatry which is mentioned in the Bible of their worship of groves and Asteroth/Asherah. 

If we apply this to LDS belief, we could say reasonably that if they had the revelations and High Priesthood that we do, that they probably did have a belief in a divine mother, but that as per the Order of the Priesthood, we see that the First Presidency of Heaven would still be the ones to lead and be adhered to in that regards.  Thus it would be the MOST HIGH whom should be worshipped, and his son, Jehovah, who would be the one discussed for the most part in the Bible with the organizing of the religion and church in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

This, obviously is not how the Jews today see it, but it could be a way that Latter-day Saints could recognize similarities of thought and belief between what is seen by some historically, and what some believe in today.

 

PS: It is this holy association that some would say is the reason why the Sacred Grove was the spot that the First Vision occurred, in relation to the special location of groves and woods in relation to the ancient beliefs of Husband and Wives and what was or is holy or sacred.  The same type of association can be given to Mountains...though we do not worship mountains, in many instances their significance from ancient beliefs indicate that the tops of Mountains may have some special holy symbolism that is lost to many in our modern beliefs. 

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Seek said:

For the past five years or so I’ve been investigating the Church. Everything I’ve learned about the Church during that time has led me to reach various conclusions. This is one such conclusion. 

It's a wrong one.

14 hours ago, Seek said:

I don’t know that it would be appropriate to continue this part of the conversation in this forum. But let me say that I’ve studied most of the critics’ points, as well as the apologists’ over the years; and I’ve tried to remain more or less impartial. I’m fortunate enough that I harbor no feelings of resentment towards the Church. 

One implication might be a resolution to the feminism problem. There are many males in the Church who believe that, because they are the priests, they are the authority in the marriage; and there are many females who feel this particular mindset is being caused by the culture which the Church cultivates; which is fostering oppression in the home. Many feel and even call for females to be admitted to the priesthood, in rejection of this culture. The resolution comes by way of reimagining the role of the female, in contrast to her priestly male counterpart. There is Man, and His Wisdom; His Asherah. What is a priest without wisdom?

I could go on.

Please don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

This seems especially relevant.

How so?

It implies that God is incapable of actually revealing truth to mankind, including the prophets, because mankind will just see/hear what they want anyhow, which entirely defeats the purpose of revelation even existing. It renders the entire premise upon which the Gospel of Christ is founded entirely moot.

It's not relevant to anything but those who have agendas to state the church is wrong on some issue or another. But if accepted it destroys all confidence in God's process for teaching truth to mankind. Revelation, personal and prophetic, becomes entirely meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

How so?

It implies that God is incapable of actually revealing truth to mankind, including the prophets, because mankind will just see/hear what they want anyhow, which entirely defeats the purpose of revelation even existing. It renders the entire premise upon which the Gospel of Christ is founded entirely moot.

It's not relevant to anything but those who have agendas to state the church is wrong on some issue or another. But if accepted it destroys all confidence in God's process for teaching truth to mankind. Revelation, personal and prophetic, becomes entirely meaningless.

I guess my point was too obscure.

"Like any other man, Joseph saw what he wanted to see.  He gave an interpretation thereof. "

can just as easily be written 

Like any other man, Seek saw what he wanted to see.  He gave an interpretation thereof. "

If Seek wants the second personage to be a woman, he'll find the evidence to make her that.  It doesn't matter if the evidence is consistent, persuasive, or objective...it just has to agree with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

I guess my point was too obscure.

"Like any other man, Joseph saw what he wanted to see.  He gave an interpretation thereof. "

can just as easily be written 

Like any other man, Seek saw what he wanted to see.  He gave an interpretation thereof. "

If Seek wants the second personage to be a woman, he'll find the evidence to make her that.  It doesn't matter if the evidence is consistent, persuasive, or objective...it just has to agree with him.

That answers "how so" very well. So much for the big debate I was prepping for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now