Seek

First Vision; Second Personage: Heavenly Mother?

Recommended Posts

Just to be clear, I am not judging any of you. For example, when I practiced Islam, I argued against Christianity and Christ. But then, through the process, I became a Christian, because I learned by seeing Christ’s wisdom revealed. I am a seeker, who argues a point in order that he may learn from the opposing side. If you cannot handle this style of education then please do not participate; your participation does nothing for either of us. 

I get that others may come here to bash on your beliefs and persecute you, in their judgments upon you. But make no mistake, that is not me. So please, do not lay upon me your own judgments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2019 at 9:17 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

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.

Although we agree more than not, this is one teaching we wouldn't find unity with.

Individually, God is able to reveal all his mysteries if a person is able to receive them and has the faith to receive them. As an individual we can receive revelation pertaining to any mystery of the Kingdom, including Heavenly Mother, if we have the faith to receive it.  When God reveals mysteries that have not yet been revealed, it is our responsibility to keep those sacred as it isn't our responsibility to reveal new doctrine, that is the role and stewardship of the prophets.

The statement "We are not meant to know Her" would be a personal interpretation, as I have never read any statement from scripture that states God will not reveal truth to his children on Heavenly Mother or any other doctrine (from a prophet or scripture).

Quote

 

And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. (emphasis mine)

 

Collectively, we agree, God will reveal his will to the Church through his prophets. Remember, Nephi wasn't the prophet (his father was) when he was being shown mysteries of the Kingdom. So, when God want to reveal Heavenly Mother (to the whole body of the Church) it will be through the prophet's collectively to the Church.

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2019 at 7:01 PM, Seek said:

The reason why I’m asking is rather a complicated one.  To be simple and brief, I’ll state my train of thought, below:

Yahweh and His Asherah > God and His Spirit > The Lord and His Wisdom > Man and His Woman > Man and His Wisdom

I hope this makes sense. 

This assumes that man is not wise, but woman is.

This assumes that The Father is not wise, but Heavenly Mother is.

Excuse me if I outright reject this notion.

On 8/18/2019 at 8:55 PM, Seek said:

The root of this thread has nothing to do with feminism. 

Uh-huh...

Perhaps... YOU are not wise without your wife...  I could believe that...  Hence the feminsim...  You don't really have a choice.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2019 at 7:47 AM, Mores said:

This assumes that man is not wise, but woman is.

Not at all.

On 8/23/2019 at 7:47 AM, Mores said:

This assumes that The Father is not wise, but Heavenly Mother is.

Nope. This assumes they are one “flesh”.

On 8/23/2019 at 7:47 AM, Mores said:

Perhaps... YOU are not wise without your wife...  I could believe that...  Hence the feminsim...  You don't really have a choice.

Insist on there being a feminist angle in order to deliver a cheap shot.... nice!

What if I am a widower?  

Too personal of a comment.  

Share this post


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

Insist on there being a feminist angle in order to deliver a cheap shot.... nice!

Wait, you lost me.  I thought you said the reason you believe the personage to be Heavenly Mother because it solves the feminist "issue" (which I don't believe exists, but that's me)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2019 at 5:06 AM, Seek said:

But let us suppose, for example, that God revealed himself to someone, knowing they would perceive and disseminate a less than ideal notion of his glory. Would that not be possible for God to do, according to his purposes? My point is that, perhaps a less than ideal notion of God was revealed; to be disseminated amongst a less than ideal generation. 

I don’t think Jesus ever appeared as a woman. I’m supposing that Jesus appeared to Joseph with Heavenly Mother, instead of with Heavenly Father.

It is my experience that G-d does not deal with mortals at all in the way you are suggesting.  The reason is that G-d (as with all divine beings of light and truth) is a being of light and truth and as such it is impossible for them to lie, deceive, beguile or in any way convey something that is not light and truth (I can through symbolism explain this in greater detail if you wish).  So profound and powerful is the light and truth of such a being that a fallen mortal cannot endure their presents.  Therefore, it is necessary that the Holy Ghost protect the individual and act as a conduit for the light and truth.  During such time a person can see into eternity and understand a great many things but after words retain only a remnant of that light and truth according to their mortal position. 

I am one that has experienced a spiritual influence of my "mother" in heaven.  However, I am not sure I can explain enough in the present to add to any profound doctrine.  I can, through clarity of the holy spirit, testify that the first vision is not a testament of a heavenly mother - that it is a witness of our heavenly Father.  There are also at least 2 or 3 other occasions that the Father has appeared (or made himself known) to witness of the Son in this dispensation.  A witness of our mother in heaven is of personal and individual nature and is not given for doctrine nor public spectacle nor public ridicule but to be kept sacred within an individual's heart. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2019 at 8:22 PM, Seek said:

Nope. This assumes they are one “flesh”.

I am inclined to think that the divine covenant that defines "one flesh" is not what you think it is.  The ancient Hebrew word for "One" in reference to one flesh is "ehad".  In the context of one flesh - ehad is not singular but is plural.  You seem to have this confused and thinking only in the singular - which would be incorrect.  As as side note the ancient Hebrew word for singular (as in one singular flesh) is "Yhead".

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the heart of my question is this @Traveler . . .

If Joseph did see Heavenly Father in flesh and bone, as an exalted man that is blessed with eternal increase, then Heavenly Father would be no more than an angel of sorts, according to the universal, catholic/ orthodox understanding.  For the Bible has traditionally been interpreted to depict God as a being which is greater than the angelic beings.  Nevertheless, to the exalted man—there is no god greater than himself, since every god is as exalted as he is.  The exalted man is an angel among angels... without a lord, above.  

And that is my trouble.  For I have been walking unto God, growing in goodness and grace, all the while having been persuaded to believe in a lord, who is above them all.  And yet I am drawn to the Church. 

😕

Share this post


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

I am inclined to think that the divine covenant that defines "one flesh" is not what you think it is.  The ancient Hebrew word for "One" in reference to one flesh is "ehad".  In the context of one flesh - ehad is not singular but is plural.  You seem to have this confused and thinking only in the singular - which would be incorrect.  As as side note the ancient Hebrew word for singular (as in one singular flesh) is "Yhead".

 

The Traveler

So, man and woman are “one” in a Trinitarian sense, only rather Binitarian, right? in the Hebrew.  Two-in-one?  Maybe I’m not seeing the forest through the trees, here.

Edit:  Clarification

Edited by Seek

Share this post


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

If Joseph did see Heavenly Father in flesh and bone, as an exalted man that is blessed with eternal increase, then Heavenly Father would be no more than an angel of sorts, according to the universal, catholic/ orthodox understanding.

This is the core of your problem...  Joseph Smith blew that understanding out of the water, burned its corpse, and salted the ashes...  And you keep trying to make us fit back in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

Joseph Smith blew that understanding out of the water, burned its corpse, and salted the ashes...

Please edify me. How so?

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

And you keep trying to make us fit back in.

Can you elaborate... please?

Share this post


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

So, it is “one” in a Trinitarian sense, only rather Binitarian, right?  Maybe I’m not seeing the forest through the trees, here.

An explanation could be simple but not necessarily sufficient for what appears to me to be your background.  Perhaps I should introduce myself.  Besides being a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and an amature student of ancient history - I am, by profession an engineer and scientist actively working in the field of industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.  I have posted scientific theory of intelligence before - I will try again to create a short summary. 

Scientifically we define intelligence as the ability to learn and change behavior.  In applying artificial intelligence there are three approaches - Two classical ways and one new or modern way.  The two classical ways are #1. The superior centralized intelligence.  This is the standard religious model with a brilliant all knowing G-d controlling everything from the top down.  #2. is what we call distributed intelligence.  In this model there is a supervisory intelligence that oversees the "big picture" and communicates with distributed intelligence that operate somewhat on their own but often quarry the overseeing intelligence when needed.  It does not take an expert to realize that distributed intelligence is far more efficient - especially when communications are limited.

The third approach is called "The Hive Mind".  In this model all individual intelligences are independent but are considered "equal" contributors.  Each are connected via a node so that each intelligence can communicate what it has learned as well as create inquiry for what other intelligent entities have learned.  This is somewhat similar to the internet.

But there is one other element in this discussion - it is the unification of the plural (many) independent intelligence.  This is called becoming "one".  The idea of many individuals working together to unite as one in purpose.  The validity or strength of the intelligence is not so much the knowledge of individuals as much as it is their ability to communicate and work together. 

I would also say that scientifically we look at intelligence as the ability to access and interpret information (possibilities).  We also need to recognize that it is not just information but truthful (applicable) information.  Some that I have conversed with at the religious level are concerned that we can become "equal" to G-d.  But if we have the same access to light and truth we must be equal.  So they argue that if we become equal we will not need G-d anymore.  This is an aberration assumed from the type 1 superior centralized intelligent model that fails if there are two masters so to speak.  In the case of the internet model all are made better by the communications.  And like any team sport - the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

The Traveler 

Share this post


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

Please edify me. How so?

Can you elaborate... please?

Sure... but first lets make sure we are talking about the same thing...  Because if I misunderstood what you meant by 'the universal, catholic/ orthodox understanding' then I could have been wrong.

I understand that the "universal, catholic/ orthodox understanding" is the Trinitarian Creedal understanding of God.  A God without Parts or Passions.. A God with three 'personalities' but one 'substance'  A substance that uniquely and distinctly God and is found no were else.  Not in angels, not in humans, not in animals, not in anything anywhere but God.  Is this a reasonably correct understanding of what you were meaning?

 

 

Edited by estradling75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Traveler

I am curious to know what exactly it is that exalted men worship—that is, if we assume there is ultimately no Lord, above.  Do they even worship as they once did, or still harbor faith as before?  

I suppose that exalted men worship each other as members of the one....  And put their faith in each other, as members of the one....  Worshiping the glory of their own.  This is what you were alluding to, correct?

Perhaps the reason that many at the religious level are hesitant to adopt the notion of equality with God, is that, they recognize the implications of mere belief; and they see how various notions of deity alter the disposition of our spirit in various ways when worshiped.

Share this post


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

@Traveler

I am curious to know what exactly it is that exalted men worship

 I have a sure fire, absolutely bulletproof two-step process for finding out:

1. Be a man

2. Gain exaltation

24 minutes ago, Seek said:

I suppose that exalted men worship each other as members of the one....

This is why we can't have nice things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed.. when the poster ignores basic questions asked of them... but demands answers to the for the most absurdly sensationalist shock questions they can think of...  Well they make it very easy us to reach consultations about their motivations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not ignoring you @estradling75 or anyone else.  In fact, I am in the process of responding to you, and others.  It can take me a while to formulate a response.  

If someone feels that I have ignored them, please send a PM and let me know. 😊

I am curious to know what all of you think, as to my purpose in being here and asking questions.  Perhaps I have no use for youthful responses from youthful missionaries, or the like.  That I am needing to explore a deeper and more mystical side of things.

Share this post


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

I am not ignoring you @estradling75 or anyone else.  In fact, I am in the process of responding to you, and others.  It can take me a while to formulate a response.  

If someone feels that I have ignored them, please send a PM and let me know. 😊

I am curious to know what all of you think, as to my purpose in being here and asking questions.  Perhaps I have no use for youthful responses from youthful missionaries, or the like.  That I am needing to explore a deeper and more mystical side of things.

Read this https://magazine.byu.edu/article/our-identity-and-destiny/

Share this post


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

I am curious to know what all of you think, as to my purpose in being here and asking questions.

To find an outlet for affirmation, especially by sharing your pseudo-theories in hopes to simulate a desired response from others.

Share this post


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

I am curious to know what all of you think, as to my purpose in being here and asking questions.  Perhaps I have no use for youthful responses from youthful missionaries, or the like.  That I am needing to explore a deeper and more mystical side of things.

I think you are being a bit deceitful (if only to yourself)  You say you want deeper stuff but you show a profound lack of understanding the basics..  What you discard as "youthful"  we would call basic.  Its like how one needs to learn how to add, subtract, multiply and divide before moving on to algebra.  You want to talk about algebra but your questions show you do not know how to add.  We can answer your questions but you will not understand them... and then you will blame us.. all because you lack the basics that you "have no use for"

 

Share this post


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

@Traveler

I am curious to know what exactly it is that exalted men worship—that is, if we assume there is ultimately no Lord, above.  Do they even worship as they once did, or still harbor faith as before?  

I suppose that exalted men worship each other as members of the one....  And put their faith in each other, as members of the one....  Worshiping the glory of their own.  This is what you were alluding to, correct?

Perhaps the reason that many at the religious level are hesitant to adopt the notion of equality with God, is that, they recognize the implications of mere belief; and they see how various notions of deity alter the disposition of our spirit in various ways when worshiped.

I would think that your question is about worship.  What does it mean to worship?  What is the best example we have in the religious community of worship?  It would seem that the Apostle Paul tackles this specific question in his first letter to the Corinthians in chapter 13.  In short Paul reduces all the popular notions of his culture to worthless and meaningless expressions unless one emulates and incorporates divine love.  Indeed Jesus taught that the greatest good that anyone can do is to love G-d and their "neighbor" (fellow man).

Can we agree and conclude that love is the single most important element of worship?  And that without love all other forms of worship are completely ineffective and totally worthless?  If we agree then I believe we have come to a understanding of what it means to worship.  If you do not agree - I am most interested in why you think something more important and by what logic you came to that conclusion.

Now that we have a solid definition of worship - if indeed we agree - what then is the perfect example of worship?  The obvious answer is the circular logic that centers on G-d's love and once again we realize that to love as G-d loves (becoming like him - or as you reference as an exalted man) is the key.  And so it appears the a great portion of the religious community has the whole paradigm of worship completely wrong when it is thought that worship is somehow diminished by seeking that which is good and taking upon one's self the very nature of what most accurately defines G-d and why we should (must) correctly worship him - which is his LOVE!

 

The Traveler

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