Power couples

[mikbone]

I was considering how Heavenly Mother has been content to be in the background.  We don’t know any specifics about Her but we know that She is there and actively involved in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Then I thought about Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.  And if they are Gods, then it is possible that they are already married and have spouses.

If so, then Jesus’s counterpart might have been there in the pre-mortal existence working and supporting Jehovah in the background.  She might have also come to Earth in a similar manner as Jesus.  If we have no record of Jesus from age 12 until 30, it’s reasonable that we would have no record of Her either.

Jesus also seemed to disappear from time to time during His mortal ministry.  Possibly He was spending time with Her.

Same for the Holy Ghost. 

Edited December 1, 2024 by mikbone

[Jamie123]

It's often said that in Jesus' time, for a man to have reached the age of 30 without getting married would have been so unusual that it would have been remarked upon, and since it is not remarked upon we can reasonably assume that he had a wife.

One tradition is that he was married to Mary Magdalen (who may or may not have been the same person as Mary of Bethany) and had children by her, whose descendants are still alive today.

Back in the 1970s there was a big stir when Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln wrote up this theory in a book called The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail which, though it was quite famous for a while, sank into obscurity until Dan Brown resurrected the idea in The Da Vinci Code. Most people (who had never read the earlier book) then assumed it was a new and blasphemous idea.

For what its worth, it doesn't bother me one bit if Jesus' descendants are alive today. Another thought though: who's to say he - or Heavenly Father for that matter - have only one wife? There could be any number of Heavenly Mothers.

Edited December 1, 2024 by Jamie123

[JohnsonJones]

I would imagine that women and men may be of the traditional manner in heaven.  I also expect this is what we see in regards to the Lord and his ministry, as there is a tradition among many saints to the belief that he was married in mortality.

In this idea (and it is still shared traditionally in many nations, but no longer really one shared among Western Nations) is that while the man deals with what is outside the home, and is king of the land, the woman deals with what is inside the home and is queen within.  Thus, while a Father may rule outside the home, inside the home it is the Mother who rules and determines what is what. 

The Wife and Mother is given the utmost respect and regard, and to trespass her is to trespass the home.  Wars and violence go against those who offend a man's wife and home. 

In some ways it is better (if it is the more traditional roles in heaven) that we do not know much about a Heavenly Mother, for the way some would comment or disrespect her would merit a violent response from her husband...most likely.  When dealing with an omnipotent being, being subject to their direct violence and war against you is probably not a position to be found in. 

[Maverick]

On 12/1/2024 at 10:41 AM, mikbone said:

I thought about Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.  And if they are Gods, then it is possible that they are already married and have spouses.

In order to be a God Jesus would have to be married. It’s one of the requirements to become a God. See D&C 131 and 132. 

[Carborendum]

On 12/1/2024 at 11:41 AM, mikbone said:

I was considering how Heavenly Mother has been content to be in the background.  

I believe that it isn't about "being content".  But it is a necessity for some reason.

[Maverick]

 

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

On 12/1/2024 at 10:41 AM, mikbone said:

I was considering how Heavenly Mother has been content to be in the background.  

I believe that it isn't about "being content".  But it is a necessity for some reason.

If what Brigham Young and other early church leaders (including Joseph Smith) taught is true, then our Heavenly Mother is Eve.

And she has been a very active participant, who did not remain in the background. She literally came to earth after helping create all the spirits of mankind to provide physical bodies for her spirit children and set in motion the entire plan of salvation. 

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

If what Brigham Young and other early church leaders (including Joseph Smith) taught is true, then our Heavenly Mother is Eve.

It is likely the Eve is not only a name but a title. 

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

If so, Heavenly Mother fits the title.

Edited December 5, 2024 by mikbone

[Carborendum]

34 minutes ago, mikbone said:

It is likely the Eve is not only a name but a title. 

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

If so, Heavenly Mother fits the title.

This is true.

"Eve" (חַוָּה/Chavvah) is the Hebrew word for "life"/"living"/"animal" (as in "animated")/"life giver".

"Adam" is the Hebrew word for "man".  So, if "man" is not found on the earth, then we will create "man".  So, he created "man/Adam". 

Because the creation story is altered to provide allegories, we must look at multiple levels of allegory.   Be careful not to mix them up.  We don't use one part of level 1 and mix it with level 2.  Each level tells its own story.

• One level of the allegory is pointing to our first parents (whom we traditionally call "Adam and Eve"). 
• Another level of the allegory is pointing to our Heavenly Parents.  But that is where people get things mixed up.
• Another level is about all of us as if we were individually Adam and Eve.  Gee, where have we heard that before.

Bullets #1 & 2 in no way means that our first mortal parents were our Heavenly Parents.
Bullet #3 in no way means that we are literally Adam and Eve, nor are we our own Heavenly Parents.  That is absurd.

It simply means that the lessons learned from the Genesis narrative is so rich in meaning, that we can see multiple stories, multiple meanings, multiple insights.

Edited December 5, 2024 by Carborendum

[Maverick]

31 minutes ago, mikbone said:

It is likely the Eve is not only a name but a title. 

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

If so, Heavenly Mother fits the title.

Yes, indeed. Eve is a title for the mother of all living. Eve was given this name/title before she had any physical children, which relates back to her being the mother of all of our spirits. 

[mikbone]

5 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Yes, indeed. Eve is a title for the mother of all living. Eve was given this name/title before she had any physical children, which relates back to her being the mother of all of our spirits. 

I highly doubt that.

But to each his own.

[Carborendum]

7 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I highly doubt that.

But to each his own.

Some people simply don't understand how multi-tiered allegories work.

[Maverick]

20 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I highly doubt that.

But to each his own.

That's what Brigham Young and other early church leaders taught and I tend to believe them. And there's lots of compelling evidence that Joseph Smith taught this, too.

[Maverick]

19 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Some people simply don't understand how multi-tiered allegories work.

Or your interpretation is incorrect and Brigham Young and other early church leaders were, right. 🤷‍♂️

Edited December 5, 2024 by Maverick

[mikbone]

3 minutes ago, Maverick said:

That's what Brigham Young and other early church leaders taught and I tend to believe them. And there's lots of compelling evidence that Joseph Smith taught this, too.

We are aware of the so called Adam-God theory.

And there is not “lots of compelling evidence” that Joseph Smith taught this.  On the contrary, The scriptures and Joseph Smith’s recorded speeches refute Adam-God.

[Maverick]

8 minutes ago, mikbone said:

And there is not “lots of compelling evidence” that Joseph Smith taught this.

Actually, yes there is. You just may not be aware of it.
 

9 minutes ago, mikbone said:

The scriptures and Joseph Smith’s recorded speeches refute Adam-God.

No, they do not. 

[mikbone]

2 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Actually, yes there is. You just may not be aware of it.
 

No, they do not. 

I repeat, to each his own.

 

[Maverick]

10 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I repeat, to each his own.

 

Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

[Vort]

5 hours ago, Maverick said:

In order to be a God Jesus would have to be married. It’s one of the requirements to become a God. See D&C 131 and 132. 

What you say might be true insofar as we understand how things work—I happen to agree with the gist of what you wrote—but I think the expression of those ideas is completely wrong-headed. This is the kind of thing that causes other Christians to look askance at the Church and think of us as cultists. Not that I give much mind to what other demoninations think of us, unless we're giving them good reason to question our devotion, which in this case I think we are.

"God" is not a position one fills by qualifying through a checklist of requirements. God is a divine Being, Father of all, Creator of all. We reverence His name and speak of Him only in holy contexts. Disputing about whether Jesus was or was not married based on a list of sine qua nons for Godhood is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.

[Vort]

On 12/4/2024 at 7:23 AM, JohnsonJones said:

When dealing with an omnipotent being, being subject to their direct violence and war against you is probably not a position to be found in. 

To assume that the Father, the Greatest of all, Creator of the universe and all things therein, might become so blinded by rage because one of His children referred to His Consort by a nasty name that He might bring down absolute destruction upon their heads, is so absurd (and frankly bizarre) that I'm not even sure how to respond to such utter nonsense. I guess I'll write a response detailing how the idea is so bizarre and nonsensical that I can't think of how to respond. Yeah, that should do it. I'll give that a shot.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

Actually, yes there is. You just may not be aware of it.

The frustrating thing about statements like this, whether regarding Church history or "the deeper meaning of [some gospel topic]", is that the person who makes the claim never lays out their case.  When asked to, they claim it would take them too much time, or worse, that they don't have those references "handy", or worse still, that others should "find it for themselves" ("without help from me", implied).  So why make the statement at all if you're not ready, willing, and able to make the full, documented case for it?  If one can't or won't cite sources in a way that whoever wants to can go research and speak to the statement on equal footing, or lay out the scriptures and explain the thinking that led to the "insight" into "the deeper meaning of [some gospel topic]", then the only purpose for even mentioning it has to be a sort of passive-agressive I'm better than you.

If you believe you have a grasp on an important truth, why are you not prepared to teach it properly?  And whatever the "why", if you're not going to teach it properly, or if you think it's not important to teach it properly, then why bring it up at all?  If I believed I had a gospel understanding that others would benefit from, but which was out of the ordinary, you can believe I would lay out the whole course of my thinking, with citations (be it quotes from prophets or scripture).  I wouldn't just drop vague hints.

[zil2]

27 minutes ago, Vort said:

To assume that the Father, the Greatest of all, Creator of the universe and all things therein, might become so blinded by rage because one of His children referred to His Consort by a nasty name that He might bring down absolute destruction upon their heads, is so absurd (and frankly bizarre) that I'm not even sure how to respond to such utter nonsense. I guess I'll write a response detailing how the idea is so bizarre and nonsensical that I can't think of how to respond. Yeah, that should do it. I'll give that a shot.

While the idea as you phrase it is absurd, and I honestly have no idea what JJ was trying to get across in that portion of his quote (though I'm sure God would not be pleased with disrespect shown our Mother in Heaven), the idea that our Mother in Heaven is primarily responsible for things inside the "home" (as it were) and our Father in Heaven is primarily responsible for things outside the "home" (now that we're "grown up" and out here in the world), makes a sort of sense to me, and even seems probable - that their division of labor is likely similar to what the proclamation on the family describes.

As to why we don't have Heavenly Mother talked about out here?  I'm not sure more explanation is needed...

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, zil2 said:

the idea that our Mother in Heaven is primarily responsible for things inside the "home" (as it were) and our Father in Heaven is primarily responsible for things outside the "home" (now that we're "grown up" and out here in the world), makes a sort of sense to me, and even seems probable - that their division of labor is likely similar to what the proclamation on the family describes.

I thought I was being rather clever and insightful when, years ago, I came up with the model of the man as "outward-facing" and the woman as "inward-facing". In retrospect, I guess I was just giving vocal shape to an idea as old as time.

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

So why make the statement at all if you're not ready, willing, and able to make the full, documented case for it?

I'm very capable of making the strong full documented case for it and have many sources compiled and ready to go. But I do I have to be honest that I'm a bit hesitant to make the case in this venue based on the reactions some of you have made to some of my comments on deeper doctrine or church history. A few individuals have been pretty disrespectful and very quick to dismiss any evidence I have presented and then turn around and accuse me of not backing up my claims or other things that aren't true. And two of those individuals expressed support for your suggestion that I would make no attempt to provide any documentation. 

I consider Adam-God and other deeper teachings to be precious pearls that I don't want trampled on by those who aren't mature enough to respectfully discuss them. If I present the full documented case here, what outcome should I expect from all of you? Will there be a respectful discussion, where the evidence I present is actually considered and I am not treated with contempt for expressing views that may make people uncomfortable because it challenges their preconceived notions? 

Edited December 5, 2024 by Maverick

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

What you say might be true insofar as we understand how things work—I happen to agree with the gist of what you wrote—but I think the expression of those ideas is completely wrong-headed. This is the kind of thing that causes other Christians to look askance at the Church and think of us as cultists. Not that I give much mind to what other demoninations think of us, unless we're giving them good reason to question our devotion, which in this case I think we are.

"God" is not a position one fills by qualifying through a checklist of requirements. God is a divine Being, Father of all, Creator of all. We reverence His name and speak of Him only in holy contexts. Disputing about whether Jesus was or was not married based on a list of sine qua nons for Godhood is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.

Saying that being married is a requirement to become like God is not inappropriate or disrespectful towards God. The goal is to become as our Heavenly parents are and the Gods that have gone before. God has told us that one of those requirements is eternal marriage and that those who aren't married eternally do not become Gods (D&C 131 and 132). Therefore the only logical conclusion is that in order to be a God, one has to be married, and that would include Jesus Christ, who is a God. 

[mikbone]

4 minutes ago, Maverick said:

I consider Adam-God and other deeper teachings to be precious pearls that I don't want trampled on by those who aren't mature enough to respectfully discuss them. If I present the full documented case here, what outcome should I expect from all of you? Will there be a respectful discussion, where the evidence I present is actually considered and I am not treated with contempt for expressing views that may make people uncomfortable because it challenges their preconceived notions? 

Ahh, excellent question.

Some of us have been here on this forum for over a decade.  We have seen this same question too many times to count.

When we have been told by multiple living prophets to stop repeating the Adam-God theory because it is either heresy or unimportant for our exaltation we listen to the modern prophets.

One excellent article I commonly refer to people like you is:

https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-17-no-3-2016/doctrine-models-evaluate-types-sources-latter-day-saint-teachings

It describes the different types of church doctrine.

1) Eternal or Core

2) Supportive 

3) Policy

4) Esoteric

Adam-God is at best an Esoteric doctrine.  At worst it is a heresy (if you agree with Elder Bruce R. McConkie).

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/seven-deadly-heresies/

See heresy #6

You can clutch your pears all you want.  But when you start teaching doctrine as if you know you are right, regardless of modern day revelation, it borders on apostasy (imho).  Having an idea and keeping it to ones self is just fine.  Go crazy with your theories.  

You can do a google search on this website and Adam-God theory and will get pages and pages of worthless discussion.  

But I won’t fall into your trap.  You can go fishing elsewhere.