PDA

View Full Version : KD and 7up on Heavenly Mother



Kind Debater
12-06-2014, 12:43 PM
So we can have a civil, constructive conversation about Heavenly Mother I am restricting this thread to 7up and me.

ETA: Actually this is open to any other LDS who happen to come here, there just don't seem to be any others except occasionally Carbon Dioxide.

7up, some questions for you:

1. How does Heavenly Mother fit into the Trinity? Or Heavenly Grandfather? Why even continue to use the word "Trinity," which implies three and only three divine Persons?

2. If men and women have to be married to be exalted, are the Holy Spirit and Jesus married? Were they or Heavenly Father ever divine but single?

3. We are supposed to know God/Heavenly Father. There are numerous verses that talk about God making his name known, about the need to evangelize, etc. Why, then, is there no mention until Smith of Heavenly Mother, Heavenly Grandfather, etc?

Wouldn't knowing more about Heavenly Mother and being able to pray to her be of particular benefit to LDS women? If they're equal to men and can be exalted too, why don't they have access to their spiritual mother and divine role model?

The silence seems especially strange as the LDS church emphasizes the importance of mothers staying home to rear their children. Why does Heavenly Father discipline us, teach us, comfort us, etc. while Heavenly Mother does nothing? Why the total lack of communication between Latter-Day Saints and their Heavenly Mother, as if HF and HM were in a particularly nasty divorce and HF no longer even mentions HM?

4. Is there more than one Heavenly Mother? If so, are Christians really half-brothers and half-sisters?

5. Why is God described as a mother and the one who comforts us, if there is a separate Heavenly Mother who is supposedly equally divine? E.g. Isaiah 66:13, Rev 21:3-4.

6. "For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever." (Heb 7:1-3) So how does Melchizedek fit into your theology, where everyone has a father and mother, even God?

7. How does Jesus fit into creation, specifically the creation of people and inhabitants of heaven?

"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him." (Col 1:16)

"All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:3)

So how were people created in LDS theology? Some part of them pre-existed; some part of them was created by Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother; some part of them Jesus had a hand in creating. What part did Jesus do? How did Jesus get here, if he plays some role in the creation of HF and HM's offspring, and he himself is their offspring?

8. Why/how is Jesus the only Son of God (e.g. John 1:14), if all people are the offspring of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother?

Cow Poke
12-06-2014, 02:08 PM
:popcorn: (subscribing to observe, but will not participate)

Kind Debater
12-14-2014, 06:05 PM
On #7, seriously, I would like an explanation of your (whether personal or churchwide) theology here. I would guess that you would say the accounts in Genesis and elsewhere of God creating man out of dust/by his "great power and outstretched arm" are referring to the physical body only (but haven't you said before that Gen 1:26-27 shows there is a Heavenly Mother?). Is creation of physical bodies what Heavenly Father did through Jesus? What part of people pre-existed as intelligences and what part required Heavenly Mother's help/input?

Bill the Cat
01-07-2015, 10:49 AM
I think he is no longer interested in us...

Christianbookworm
01-07-2015, 12:05 PM
AWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:sad:

One Bad Pig
01-07-2015, 12:56 PM
:popcorn: (subscribing to observe, but will not participate)
Did you have to tell that to the whole world? You skeered him away! :glare:

seven7up
01-23-2015, 01:12 AM
So we can have a civil, constructive conversation about Heavenly Mother I am restricting this thread to 7up and me.

Sorry. I have been busy. I had a baby girl; born in October.


ETA: Actually this is open to any other LDS who happen to come here, there just don't seem to be any others except occasionally Carbon Dioxide.

7up, some questions for you:

I would be happy to answer your questions.


1. How does Heavenly Mother fit into the Trinity? Or Heavenly Grandfather? Why even continue to use the word "Trinity," which implies three and only three divine Persons?

LDS historically preferred the term "Godhead" which is translated from theios, a term found in Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9. Colossians 2:9.

We prefer it more than "Trinity" which is a term not actually found in scripture. I also like the term "Deity". However, since people so frequently refer to the members of the Godhead which are specifically mentioned as 1) God the Father 2) God the Son 3) the Holy Spirit , those are easily referred to as "Trinity" for convenience because so many people are familiar with the term, which refers to these three persons.

However, when referring to the "Trinity", LDS/Mormons do not believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are literally a single being/substance. The Bible does not teach that concept. So, our understanding of Deity is different than yours.


2. If men and women have to be married to be exalted, are the Holy Spirit and Jesus married? Were they or Heavenly Father ever divine but single?

Let's look at the example of Jesus Christ. He was Divine/Deity before even entering mortality. Clearly being married is not a requirement in order to be Deity. However, the New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus was "exalted" after his mortal life. So, even though he was already Deity, He could still be exalted. The point about eternal marriage is this: If in eternity to come (after the millennial reign of Christ and after the "final judgement"), one is to live the same kind of life that God lives, then eternal marriage is going to be a part of it.

Are Jesus or the Holy Spirit married? Many LDS have speculated that Jesus was in fact married during mortality. I am sure that you have heard the arguments for this position, like:

"If Jesus taught marriage (as he clearly did), why didn't the scribes and Pharisees criticize Jesus for not practicing what he preached?" etc. etc. etc.

Anyways, it does not matter if he was or wasn't married in mortality, because many of those arrangements will be finalized during the Millennium. Some have even speculated that the Holy Spirit is female and after she has finished her work with humanity, she will receive a body and be the wife of Jesus Christ. The Hebrew word for "spirit" (ruach) is feminine in Genesis 1:2. However, the Holy Spirit is masculine throughout the New Testament. The word for "spirit" by itself (pneuma) is gender-neutral. But the gender of a word in Greek or Hebrew has nothing to do with gender identity anyways, so the writers of the text may have never meant one gender or another by any of the terms that they used in the first place. Either way, when or how or to whom Jesus is or will be married is nothing more than speculation.

The bottom line is that we do expect those exalted to exist in eternity as married. The organization of husband and wife and children that was set up by God in the Garden of Eden is a reflection of the relationships that exist in Heaven. God's creation of the physical world is a reflection of the spiritual existence and Heavenly organization. We are created in God's image.


3. We are supposed to know God/Heavenly Father. There are numerous verses that talk about God making his name known, about the need to evangelize, etc. Why, then, is there no mention until Smith of Heavenly Mother, Heavenly Grandfather, etc?

There are also many verses which speak about the "mysteries of godliness", learning "line upon line and precept upon precept" and teaching the gospel by giving "milk before meat".


Wouldn't knowing more about Heavenly Mother and being able to pray to her be of particular benefit to LDS women? If they're equal to men and can be exalted too, why don't they have access to their spiritual mother and divine role model?

Erastus Snow, an early Mormon apostle, wrote “’do you mean we should understand that Deity consists of a man and woman?’ Most certainly I do. If I believe anything that God has ever said about himself .… I must believe that deity consists of a man and woman.”

In 1995 with "The Family: A Proclamation to the World", the church officially stated that each person is a "spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents".

M. Russell Ballard taught, "we are part of a divine plan designed by Heavenly Parents who love us" in his book When Thou Art Converted.

“You are daughters of God. … You are made in the image of our heavenly mother. … Your body is sacred to you and precious” (in Conference Report, Mexico City and Central America Area Conference 1973, 108).

B. H. Roberts pointed out that the Heavenly Mother doctrine presents a “conception of the nobility of women and of motherhood and of wife-hood—placing her side by side with the Divine Father.”

Apostle John A. Widtsoe, a contemporary of Roberts, wrote that the afterlife “is given radiant warmth by the thought that … [we have] a mother who possesses the attributes of Godhood.”

In 1894, Juvenile Instructor, an official publication of the LDS Church, published a hymn entitled "Our Mother in Heaven."

Referring to the song in our hymn books which mentions Heavenly Mother, prophet Spencer W. Kimball wrote, "we get a sense of the ultimate in maternal modesty, of the restrained, queenly elegance of our Heavenly Mother, and knowing how profoundly our mortal mothers have shaped us here, do we suppose her influence on us as individuals to be less if we live so as to return there?"

In a speech given at BYU in 2010, Glenn L. Pace, a member of the LDS Church's First Quorum of the Seventy, said, “Sisters, I testify that when you stand in front of your heavenly parents in those royal courts on high and look into Her eyes and behold Her countenance, any question you ever had about the role of women in the kingdom will evaporate into the rich celestial air, because at that moment you will see standing directly in front of you, your divine nature and destiny.”


The silence seems especially strange as the LDS church emphasizes the importance of mothers staying home to rear their children. Why does Heavenly Father discipline us, teach us, comfort us, etc. while Heavenly Mother does nothing? Why the total lack of communication between Latter-Day Saints and their Heavenly Mother, as if HF and HM were in a particularly nasty divorce and HF no longer even mentions HM?

If there are Mormons out there who think that "Heavenly Mother does nothing", then I think those Mormons don't understand their own theology. It is just as ludicrous and insulting as claiming that our earthly mothers "do nothing."


4. Is there more than one Heavenly Mother? If so, are Christians really half-brothers and half-sisters?

We don't know. The exact organization of the spiritual realm in relation to Earth and the Cosmos has not been revealed.


5. Why is God described as a mother and the one who comforts us, if there is a separate Heavenly Mother who is supposedly equally divine? E.g. Isaiah 66:13, Rev 21:3-4.

What do you mean by "separate"? Do you think that Jesus Christ and God the Father and the Holy Spirit are "separate"? Clearly LDS do not believe that they are a single being/substance, but that doesn't make them "separate" either.


6. "For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever." (Heb 7:1-3) So, how does Melchizedek fit into your theology, where everyone has a father and mother, even God?

Melchizedek was an actual man who Abraham gave a tithe/tenth of the loot (ie the spoils of war). Paul specifically calls Melchizedek a "man". Paul was contrasting the Levitical priesthood with the priesthood that Christ held, which is "after the order of Melchizedek". The argument was being made by the Jews that Jesus could not be a priest because he was not a Levite, and did not have the correct lineage to be a priest. Paul points out that before the Law of Moses and the Levitical priesthood was set up, genealogy was not required to be a priest. Paul is not literally saying that Melchizedek has no father or mother. The Hebrew Bible held no record of his birth or death or lineage. He is saying that the genealogy for Melchizedek wasn't recorded, we don't have it, and it doesn't matter because the priesthood held by Melchizedek was not Levitical, and neither is the priesthood that Christ held. It is a superior order of priesthood which does not depend on lineage. Since, Melchizedek was the King of Salem, Paul expanded on the parallel by saying that Jesus is the King of Peace.


7. How does Jesus fit into creation, specifically the creation of people and inhabitants of heaven?

"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him." (Col 1:16)

"All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:3)

So how were people created in LDS theology? Some part of them pre-existed; some part of them was created by Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother; some part of them Jesus had a hand in creating. What part did Jesus do? How did Jesus get here, if he plays some role in the creation of HF and HM's offspring, and he himself is their offspring?

Jesus did not create our spiritual bodies. He created the physical Universe, which includes things we can see "visible" (like the Earth, trees, our sun, etc.) and things we cannot see "invisible" (like air, or atomic particles, or distant planets on the other side of the Universe that are unseen by us). However, in eternity past, he was given authority over the "heavenly hosts" and organized them in their hierarchy, being "thrones, principalities, dominions".


8. Why/how is Jesus the only Son of God (e.g. John 1:14), if all people are the offspring of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother?

Jesus Christ is sometimes called the "Firstbegotten" and sometimes called the "Only Begotten".

First Begotten designates his "preeminence" from among the other "sons of God". Jesus is the Firstbegotten according to the spirit. Before the physical creation, Jesus was chosen by God to be the Creator/Savior/King and as such was entitled to inherit the kingdom of God and be the first fruit of the resurrection. He was chosen from among his "fellows" (Heb 1:9), i.e. the other "sons of God". (The other terms used in scripture are the "morning stars" or the "sons of the morning". Angels like Jesus, Lucifer and Michael , etc. held this same title because they are spiritual offspring existing prior to the "dawn of creation"). As Paul admits, ALL of the human race ("all nations") are the "offspring" of God.

"Only Begotten" refers to Jesus being the ONLY son who was begotten by God the Father into mortality. Thus, Jesus is the Only Begotten according to the flesh. The mother of Jesus was Mary. Mary had an egg, like any other mother has. This egg had only half of the genetic information that was needed in order to create another human being. Where did the other genetic information (DNA/chromosomes) come from in order to conceive a child? Answer: The source of that genetic information (DNA/chromosomes or whatever you want to call it) were from God the Father, and they were provided to Mary by means of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father. (Note: With our modern scientific knowledge, we understand that personal and intimate sexual intercourse is not necessary in order for this fertilization to occur.)

-7up

Kind Debater
01-23-2015, 03:53 PM
Sorry. I have been busy. I had a baby girl; born in October.


Congratulations!



I would be happy to answer your questions.


Thanks.



LDS historically preferred the term "Godhead" which is translated from theios, a term found in Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9. Colossians 2:9.

We prefer it more than "Trinity" which is a term not actually found in scripture. I also like the term "Deity". However, since people so frequently refer to the members of the Godhead which are specifically mentioned as 1) God the Father 2) God the Son 3) the Holy Spirit , those are easily referred to as "Trinity" for convenience because so many people are familiar with the term, which refers to these three persons.


So are Heavenly Mother, Heavenly Grandfather, etc. also part of the Godhead?



KD: We are supposed to know God/Heavenly Father. There are numerous verses that talk about God making his name known, about the need to evangelize, etc. Why, then, is there no mention until Smith of Heavenly Mother, Heavenly Grandfather, etc?

7up: There are also many verses which speak about the "mysteries of godliness", learning "line upon line and precept upon precept" and teaching the gospel by giving "milk before meat".


"Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about {baptisms}, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment." (Heb 6:1-2)

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." (Rom 1:19-20)

What everyone is expected to know: God exists and is eternal, omnipotent and divine.

What is considered "milk" for new believers: repentance, faith in God the Father and his Son, baptism, prayer, resurrection, eternal judgment

What is considered "meat" for mature believers, and is not revealed even to Jesus' apostles: There is a Mother God.

Does this honestly make sense to you? It's revealed that God has a Son -- God even announces this audibly and publicly at Jesus' baptism -- but the existence of a Mother is kept hidden for another 1800 years?

Meanwhile, people throughout history have come up with the idea of husband/wife, mother/father gods (Zeus and Hera, Shu and Tefnut, etc.). As Eliza Snow wrote:

In the heav'ns are parents single?
No, the thought makes reason stare!
Truth is reason; truth eternal
Tells me I've a mother there.
--Eliza Snow

And you yourself said: "The organization of husband and wife and children that was set up by God in the Garden of Eden is a reflection of the relationships that exist in Heaven. God's creation of the physical world is a reflection of the spiritual existence and Heavenly organization. We are created in God's image."

So again, how can the existence of Heavenly Mother be considered "meat" when people have been guessing at her existence all along?



KD: The silence seems especially strange as the LDS church emphasizes the importance of mothers staying home to rear their children. Why does Heavenly Father discipline us, teach us, comfort us, etc. while Heavenly Mother does nothing? Why the total lack of communication between Latter-Day Saints and their Heavenly Mother, as if HF and HM were in a particularly nasty divorce and HF no longer even mentions HM?

7up: If there are Mormons out there who think that "Heavenly Mother does nothing", then I think those Mormons don't understand their own theology. It is just as ludicrous and insulting as claiming that our earthly mothers "do nothing."


So what does Heavenly Mother do? Do you have a relationship with your Heavenly Mother? You aren't supposed to pray to her, correct? Has she spoken to her earthly children? How do you have a relationship with her, if you can't talk to her and she hasn't spoken to you? If you don't have a relationship with her, but you do with Heavenly Father, then what's up with that?



KD: Why is God described as a mother and the one who comforts us, if there is a separate Heavenly Mother who is supposedly equally divine?
7up: What do you mean by "separate"? Do you think that Jesus Christ and God the Father and the Holy Spirit are "separate"? Clearly LDS do not believe that they are a single being/substance, but that doesn't make them "separate" either.


I mean "separate" as in fathers are not mothers, Jesus is not God the Father and Heavenly Mother is not Heavenly Father.

You said on the Mormon Trinity thread:


In the Trinity, the same Being is appointing itself, sending itself, and inheriting from itself.

So in the sense that the Father is not appointing himself, sending himself, etc. the Father, Son and Mother must be separate to some degree.



Jesus did not create our spiritual bodies.


But according to Moses 3, God created things spiritually before he created them physically. So are you saying, in contradiction to John 1:3, that Jesus did not create spiritual bodies but God the Father did?



"Only Begotten" refers to Jesus being the ONLY son who was begotten by God the Father into mortality. Thus, Jesus is the Only Begotten according to the flesh. The mother of Jesus was Mary. Mary had an egg, like any other mother has. This egg had only half of the genetic information that was needed in order to create another human being. Where did the other genetic information (DNA/chromosomes) come from in order to conceive a child? Answer: The source of that genetic information (DNA/chromosomes or whatever you want to call it) were from God the Father, and they were provided to Mary by means of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father. (Note: With our modern scientific knowledge, we understand that personal and intimate sexual intercourse is not necessary in order for this fertilization to occur.)


But wouldn't Adam and/or Eve be "begotten" in the sense of God providing genetic material?

As for the phrase "only begotten", I like what one of my systematic theology textbooks has to say about it. It argues that the correct interpretation of the Greek word translated "only begotten" is "one of a kind" or "unique".

seven7up
01-23-2015, 10:29 PM
So are Heavenly Mother, Heavenly Grandfather, etc. also part of the Godhead?

As a normal standard, the relationship that one has with one's parents (Mother and Father) is special and unique. Likewise, we have a special and unique relationship with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

While certainly the "Grandfather" you mention would be Deity, it isn't the same as the relationship that we have with our Heavenly Parents.


quotes

"Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about {baptisms}, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment." (Heb 6:1-2)

And so on and so on and so on. Is it the Christian position to say that God has revealed absolutely everything having to do with the mysteries of godliness and eternity? I listen to Christian radio every day and I can assure you that nobody I listen to makes such a claim.


quotes:

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." (Rom 1:19-20)

What everyone is expected to know: God exists and is eternal, omnipotent and divine.

What is considered "milk" for new believers: repentance, faith in God the Father and his Son, baptism, prayer, resurrection, eternal judgment

What is considered "meat" for mature believers, and is not revealed even to Jesus' apostles: There is a Mother God.

So, you think all the truths about God , the Kingdom, and Eternity are revealed in just a couple of passages? They are revealed simply in the "general revelation" of God's creation?

Furthermore, you cannot make the claim what was and what wasn't revealed to Jesus' apostles. You only know what we have in the New Testament. Jesus told his Apostles that He had "many things" more to teach them that they were not yet able to receive (John 16:12). Some teachings include what He taught them during His 40-day ministry after the Resurrection. Of that ministry, all we have recorded is thee statement in Acts 1:1-3 that He showed Himself alive to the apostles after the Crucifixion "by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of he things pertaining to the kingdom of God." This ministry and Christ's words are not available to us at this time KD. Even the New Testament says that

John 21:25 "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written"

One of the criticisms that LDS have about other Christian traditions is that they appear to be trying to keep God quiet. They seem to be insisting that God has revealed all that God will ever reveal about Divinity, and if God has something else to reveal, then they don't want to hear it.


Does this honestly make sense to you? It's revealed that God has a Son -- God even announces this audibly and publicly at Jesus' baptism -- but the existence of a Mother is kept hidden for another 1800 years?

What about the 5000 years before Christ was even born KD? Try applying your arguments toward your own theology before you attempt to use it against mine. The greatest revelation that God gave concerning the nature of Deity was through the incarnation and mortal ministry of Jesus Christ, which happened thousands of years after Adam.


Meanwhile, people throughout history have come up with the idea of husband/wife, mother/father gods (Zeus and Hera, Shu and Tefnut, etc.).

You are suggesting that man has created gods in man's image. (Of course, the greeks and egyptians did imagine the gods to be very flawed and sinful, like humans.) I am suggesting the opposite. My position is what the scriptures teach, that man and woman are created in the image of God. Furthermore, the family organization that God set up for humanity is a reflection of the Heavenly organization.


As Eliza Snow wrote:

In the heav'ns are parents single?
No, the thought makes reason stare!
Truth is reason; truth eternal
Tells me I've a mother there.
--Eliza Snow

And you yourself said: "The organization of husband and wife and children that was set up by God in the Garden of Eden is a reflection of the relationships that exist in Heaven. God's creation of the physical world is a reflection of the spiritual existence and Heavenly organization. We are created in God's image."

So again, how can the existence of Heavenly Mother be considered "meat" when people have been guessing at her existence all along?

It is "meat" for those who are under the impression that God is some kind of static, changeless, incorporeal spirit substance that is literally omnipresent.


So what does Heavenly Mother do? Do you have a relationship with your Heavenly Mother? You aren't supposed to pray to her, correct? Has she spoken to her earthly children? How do you have a relationship with her, if you can't talk to her and she hasn't spoken to you? If you don't have a relationship with her, but you do with Heavenly Father, then what's up with that?

Our Earthly life is a blink of an eye when compared to our entire existence. The fact that we are dwelling here without the full view of Deity does not mean that Deity hasn't done anything, isn't doing anything, or will not do anything. My wife is intimately involved with the decisions and workings of our family. Again, what you are implying is something akin to saying that you cannot worship Jesus Christ or have a relationship with Jesus, if you are praying to God the Father. These relationships are intertwined. The worship of one implies the worship of the other. The reason why LDS pray to the Father is simple: That is what Jesus taught us to do, but we are still worshiping Jesus. In fact, the very idea that we strictly do what Jesus taught us to do is a demonstration of that worship.


I mean "separate" as in fathers are not mothers, Jesus is not God the Father and Heavenly Mother is not Heavenly Father.

You said on the Mormon Trinity thread:

7up wrote: In the Trinity, the same Being is appointing itself, sending itself, and inheriting from itself.


So in the sense that the Father is not appointing himself, sending himself, etc. the Father, Son and Mother must be separate to some degree.

Yes, they are separate in the sense that they are not a "single substance/being", which is what Trinitarians teach. However, their lives are intimately intertwined and in a spiritual harmony which makes them "one" in the Biblical sense. A couple examples to remind you:

Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soul

Rom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ

2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mind

Gal. 3:28 ye are all one in Christ

Philip. 1:27 one spirit, with one mind striving together

And of course in marriage, we are encouraged to be "one flesh".


But according to Moses 3, God created things spiritually before he created them physically. So are you saying, in contradiction to John 1:3, that Jesus did not create spiritual bodies but God the Father did?

No. The Earth , for example, was created spiritually before physically.


But wouldn't Adam and/or Eve be "begotten" in the sense of God providing genetic material?

We have not been given the details on how Adam and Eve got their genetic material.


As for the phrase "only begotten", I like what one of my systematic theology textbooks has to say about it. It argues that the correct interpretation of the Greek word translated "only begotten" is "one of a kind" or "unique".

Jesus Christ is no doubt unique. Not only was He Deity prior to entering mortality, the only one to pay for our sins etc., but he is the Only Begotten Son according to the flesh.

-7up

37818
01-25-2015, 09:59 AM
I do not think this question has been well thought out.

". . . But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." -- Galatians 4:26.

One Bad Pig
01-25-2015, 04:19 PM
I do not think this question has been well thought out.

". . . But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." -- Galatians 4:26.
:huh: That's pretty obviously a metaphor. The LDS concept of heavenly mother is not, AFAIK.

37818
01-25-2015, 06:19 PM
:huh: That's pretty obviously a metaphor. A metaphor meaning what?

The LDS concept of heavenly mother is not, AFAIK.

Kind Debater
01-29-2015, 04:45 PM
I will probably not be able to respond until Sunday at the earliest.

Kind Debater
02-10-2015, 11:21 AM
As a normal standard, the relationship that one has with one's parents (Mother and Father) is special and unique. Likewise, we have a special and unique relationship with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

While certainly the "Grandfather" you mention would be Deity, it isn't the same as the relationship that we have with our Heavenly Parents.


Okay, but I don't see how that answers my original question. Is the Godhead specifically God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit only, and if so, why? Are there beings who are deities who are not part of the Godhead?



Is it the Christian position to say that God has revealed absolutely everything having to do with the mysteries of godliness and eternity?
...
So, you think all the truths about God , the Kingdom, and Eternity are revealed in just a couple of passages? They are revealed simply in the "general revelation" of God's creation?


No. You appear to be assuming I'm making an argument that I'm not making, and consequently you're missing my actual argument.

What I'm saying is, based on the sorts of things that people in general and new believers are expected to know, why is Heavenly Mother's very existence reserved for mature believers?



Furthermore, you cannot make the claim what was and what wasn't revealed to Jesus' apostles. You only know what we have in the New Testament. Jesus told his Apostles that He had "many things" more to teach them that they were not yet able to receive (John 16:12).


Point taken, but I still find it very hard to believe that with all the talk of the Father and the Son in the NT, no one bothered to mention the Mother. Especially given your argument that "the family organization that God set up for humanity is a reflection of the Heavenly organization." But more on that below.



What about the 5000 years before Christ was even born KD?


Jesus himself said that the law and the prophets all spoke about him (Lk 24:25-27, 44-47, John 5:39, 46). Then there are the obvious passages like Isaiah 9 and the one you're fond of quoting, Gen 1:26, that indicate God is something "more".



You are suggesting that man has created gods in man's image. (Of course, the greeks and egyptians did imagine the gods to be very flawed and sinful, like humans.) I am suggesting the opposite. My position is what the scriptures teach, that man and woman are created in the image of God.


Well, let's see what the scriptures teach, then.


For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. (1 Cor 11:7)


Now that, by itself, ought to be enough to prove that your line of reasoning is wrong. But let's look at some other relevant passages.


But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor 11:3)

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
(Eph 5:22-24)

For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. (1 Peter 3:5-6)


1. Where does HM fit in the hierarchy of authority? We have God -> Christ -> man -> woman and God -> Christ -> church. We know Jesus is at the right hand of the Father (Matt 26:64, Lk 22:69, Heb 8:1); meanwhile, in all the visions that are recorded of heaven and the Father's throne, there is no mention of Heavenly Mother. 1 Cor 15:27-28, Heb 2:6-8 and 1 Pet 3:22 say that everything, with the sole exception of the Father, is subjected to Jesus. So it would seem that Christ comes before HM, even though she is his spiritual mother/spiritual creator and divine in her own right and thus should have precedence over him (as opposed to Mary, his earthly mother, who is merely human). Which seems contradictory in and of itself, and would certainly contradict the picture you have presented, via your quotes, of HF and HM side-by-side as co-regents.

2. Here -- when Peter and Paul are talking about marriage, the role of wives, and drawing parallels to the Godhead -- would be an excellent time to talk about HM. If, as you say, human marriage reflects the relationship between HF and HM, then why is there no mention of HM in these passages? Why not talk about HF's love for HM and HM's devotion to HF? Why not refer to HM as a role model for the wife's role in marriage, since as a divine being she would surely be an even better role model than Sarah (and since we would really be HM's children)?

I think Paul answers those questions here:


Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
(Eph 5:25)

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Eph 5:31-32)


That is, marriage is an earthly representation of the future relationship between Christ and his Bride, the church (2 Cor 11:2, Rev 19:7-8).


For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. (1 Cor 11:7-12)


1. "Man was not made from woman" - the order of creation emphasizes the God -> man -> woman hierarchy. I don't think Heavenly Mother fits in there too well. If there were a HM, then Adam would have come from a woman -- both physically and spiritually, for wouldn't you say HM was involved in the spiritual and physical aspects of creation?

Going along with this, if man and woman were created as counterparts to HF and HM, what's with Eve being created from Adam? Did Heavenly Grandfather take a piece of Heavenly Father and then create Heavenly Mother?

2. "Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" -- and why was woman created? “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” (Gen 2:18) Does this correspond to HF and HM, i.e. was it "not good" for HF to be without HM?

3. "woman is not independent of man nor man of woman" -- is Heavenly Father not independent? Does he depend on Heavenly Mother for anything?


I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim 2:12-14)


What does this mean for Heavenly Mother? The implication here is that there is something inherent in women that disqualifies them from leadership over men. If women are made specifically in Heavenly Mother's image, and Heavenly Father has headship over Heavenly Mother just as husbands are given headship in marriage, then the implication is there is something about HM (and any other female divinities) that is less worthy than HF (as opposed to Christ and the Holy Spirit, who are fully divine but submit to the Father out of obedience and humility rather than any actual inferiority).


Furthermore, the family organization that God set up for humanity is a reflection of the Heavenly organization.


Oh, so that's why children are raised by their fathers and are only introduced to their mothers after reaching adulthood, and don't meet their grandparents until they become parents themselves.



It is "meat" for those who are under the impression that God is some kind of static, changeless, incorporeal spirit substance that is literally omnipresent.


It seems to me that you're not really answering the question here. Even if we suppose for the sake of argument that evangelicals are wrong about God being unchanging, etc., why would those errors be a reason for us to not know about HM when we know about the Father and the Son, and that they are Father and Son to each other?



KD: So what does Heavenly Mother do? Do you have a relationship with your Heavenly Mother? You aren't supposed to pray to her, correct? Has she spoken to her earthly children? How do you have a relationship with her, if you can't talk to her and she hasn't spoken to you? If you don't have a relationship with her, but you do with Heavenly Father, then what's up with that?

7up: Our Earthly life is a blink of an eye when compared to our entire existence. The fact that we are dwelling here without the full view of Deity does not mean that Deity hasn't done anything, isn't doing anything, or will not do anything.


Sure, I don't dispute that.


Again, what you are implying is something akin to saying that you cannot worship Jesus Christ or have a relationship with Jesus, if you are praying to God the Father. These relationships are intertwined. The worship of one implies the worship of the other. The reason why LDS pray to the Father is simple: That is what Jesus taught us to do, but we are still worshiping Jesus. In fact, the very idea that we strictly do what Jesus taught us to do is a demonstration of that worship.


Again, you are misunderstanding my point. You can have a relationship* with Jesus in that you believe he is real, you try to honor him, you believe that the Gospels contain his words, etc. There is some form of communication there in that his words in the Bible were also meant for you and you are seeking to please him with your actions.

What I'm saying is, the LDS have no words from HM, no vision of her or even a direct confirmation from an authoritative source (Jesus, an angel, a prophet, etc.) that she exists. It appears from this speech (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1991/10/daughters-of-god?lang=eng) that the doctrine of HM is based on Eliza Snow's hymn, which itself says it's her inference. And LDS are discouraged from praying to HM, per the same speech. So how much of a relationship can you possibly have with HM? That's like saying that an adopted child, who knows he's adopted but has zero contact with or even knowledge of his birthmother, has a relationship with his bio mom simply because he can infer she must have existed.

(For the record, I sincerely hope you don't have a personal relationship with a Heavenly Mother and aren't trying to pray to her as I consider that to be idolatry.)

* I am using "relationship" in a strictly technical sense of two sentient beings having a relationship and not implying saving faith.



Yes, they are separate in the sense that they are not a "single substance/being", which is what Trinitarians teach. However, their lives are intimately intertwined and in a spiritual harmony which makes them "one" in the Biblical sense.

Well, now that you presumably understand what I mean by "separate", how about addressing my original question: Why is God described as a mother and the one who comforts us, if there is a separate Heavenly Mother who is supposedly equally divine?



7up: Jesus did not create our spiritual bodies. He created the physical Universe, which includes things we can see "visible" (like the Earth, trees, our sun, etc.) and things we cannot see "invisible" (like air, or atomic particles, or distant planets on the other side of the Universe that are unseen by us).

KD: But according to Moses 3, God created things spiritually before he created them physically. So are you saying, in contradiction to John 1:3, that Jesus did not create spiritual bodies but God the Father did?

7up: No. The Earth, for example, was created spiritually before physically.


What? I don't even understand what you're saying. How can inanimate objects be created "spiritually" -- what does that even mean? How is your second sentence an answer to the question, "So are you saying that Jesus did not create spiritual bodies but God the Father did?"

How can Jesus not have been involved in the creation of something, spiritual or otherwise, when Col 1:16 and John 1:3 say that all things were created through him?

How can people, the earth, etc. be created spiritually before physically when 1 Cor 15:46-49 says the physical comes first?

seven7up
02-11-2015, 11:51 PM
7up wrote: As a normal standard, the relationship that one has with one's parents (Mother and Father) is special and unique. ... While certainly the "Grandfather" you mention would be Deity, it isn't the same as the relationship that we have with our Heavenly Parents.


Okay, but I don't see how that answers my original question. Is the Godhead specifically God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit only, and if so, why? Are there beings who are deities who are not part of the Godhead?

In the entire Old Testament, which includes MOST of scriptural history, the idea that God consisted of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (three distinct personages) was not made entirely clear. Yet it is true. The idea that God/Elohim consists of multiple persons does not escape the realm of possibility, and yes, a Heavenly Mother may be a part of that.

7up wrote: Is it the Christian position to say that God has revealed absolutely everything having to do with the mysteries of godliness and eternity?... So, you think all the truths about God , the Kingdom, and Eternity are revealed in just a couple of passages? They are revealed simply in the "general revelation" of God's creation?


No. You appear to be assuming I'm making an argument that I'm not making, and consequently you're missing my actual argument.

What I'm saying is, based on the sorts of things that people in general and new believers are expected to know, why is Heavenly Mother's very existence reserved for mature believers?

Because humans tend to be very immature, I suppose.

Do you want my speculation about God's reasoning behind not explaining Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the Old Testament as well?

7up wrote: Furthermore, you cannot make the claim what was and what wasn't revealed to Jesus' apostles. You only know what we have in the New Testament. Jesus told his Apostles that He had "many things" more to teach them that they were not yet able to receive (John 16:12).


Point taken, but I still find it very hard to believe that with all the talk of the Father and the Son in the NT, no one bothered to mention the Mother. Especially given your argument that "the family organization that God set up for humanity is a reflection of the Heavenly organization." But more on that below.

Again, I'm sure that Jews wonder the same thing about the "Trinity" not being revealed clearly in the Old Testament. I'm sure that they would consider the references you provide to them as being veiled or vague.

7up wrote: What about the 5000 years before Christ was even born KD?


Jesus himself said that the law and the prophets all spoke about him (Lk 24:25-27, 44-47, John 5:39, 46). Then there are the obvious passages like Isaiah 9 ....

Yes, and Christians understand this. Jews do not. Likewise, LDS understand the scriptures differently than you do. Our understanding of God, creation, the cosmos and humanity is far different than yours, thus the interpretation is different.


... and the one you're fond of quoting, Gen 1:26, that indicate God is something "more".

Yes, it indicates that God created man AND woman in the image of God. (Created them male and female).

7up wrote: You are suggesting that man has created gods in man's image. (Of course, the greeks and egyptians did imagine the gods to be very flawed and sinful, like humans.) I am suggesting the opposite. My position is what the scriptures teach, that man and woman are created in the image of God.


Well, let's see what the scriptures teach, then.

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. (1 Cor 11:7)

Now that, by itself, ought to be enough to prove that your line of reasoning is wrong. But let's look at some other relevant passages.

If anything, it indicates that women were more "covered" or "hidden". Is that your complaint about Heavenly Mother? She is too "covered" or "hidden" for you? Don't take it up with me, God is running the show, not me.


But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor 11:3)

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
(Eph 5:22-24)

For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. (1 Peter 3:5-6)

1. Where does HM fit in the hierarchy of authority? We have God -> Christ -> man -> woman and God -> Christ -> church.

If you have a problem with the order as described in the scriptures you quoted, again, you need to take it up with God, not me. If you have an issue with God not explaining everything at once, then again, I cannot help you. God reveals "line upon line and precept upon precept". He reveals the "mysteries of godliness" when God sees fit to do so, when God feels the world should face it.

Consider this: We have God (Elohim, which is plural) -> Christ -> man -> woman and God -> Christ -> church.


We know Jesus is at the right hand of the Father (Matt 26:64, Lk 22:69, Heb 8:1); meanwhile, in all the visions that are recorded of heaven and the Father's throne, there is no mention of Heavenly Mother.

Again, throughout most of recorded scriptural history, there is no details given about many, many things. God reveals things in His due time.


2. Here -- when Peter and Paul are talking about marriage, the role of wives, and drawing parallels to the Godhead -- would be an excellent time to talk about HM.

Maybe Genesis 1, would have been an excellent time to talk about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But it didn't. This "Trinity" concept you hold to is important, isn't it? Why not lay it out from the beginning?


If, as you say, human marriage reflects the relationship between HF and HM, then why is there no mention of HM in these passages? Why not talk about HF's love for HM and HM's devotion to HF? Why not refer to HM as a role model for the wife's role in marriage, since as a divine being she would surely be an even better role model than Sarah (and since we would really be HM's children)?

You are asking why God does not provide an example from a concept which they had not yet been given yet?

That is like saying that Noah should have explained to people how the Earth would be baptized just like people are supposed to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They wouldn't know what Noah was talking about.


I think Paul answers those questions here:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
(Eph 5:25)

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Eph 5:31-32)

That is, marriage is an earthly representation of the future relationship between Christ and his Bride, the church (2 Cor 11:2, Rev 19:7-8).

It is true that the concept of faithful marriage is given as a parallel to the faithfulness between Christ and the Church, but that doesn't mean that marriage between man and woman (which goes all the way back to Adam and Eve) isn't real. The New Testament is giving characteristics of the church (faithulness, devotion, love, etc.) which exist in marriage. That doesn't discount actual marriage.



1. "Man was not made from woman" - the order of creation emphasizes the God -> man -> woman hierarchy. I don't think Heavenly Mother fits in there too well.

If Elohim is truly plural, and Elohim includes HF and HM, then she fits right there at the beginning.


If there were a HM, then Adam would have come from a woman

Not just a woman. Women do not create children entirely on their own.


If there were a HM, then Adam would have come from a woman -- both physically and spiritually, for wouldn't you say HM was involved in the spiritual and physical aspects of creation?

BOTH Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother would be involved in the spiritual creation of spiritual children. The physical creation was performed "through Jesus Christ".


Going along with this, if man and woman were created as counterparts to HF and HM, what's with Eve being created from Adam? Did Heavenly Grandfather take a piece of Heavenly Father and then create Heavenly Mother?

I wouldn't even take the "rib" or "side" being used to create Eve literally. It is generally understood that woman was to be at Adam's side, from the side, means that they are meant to be partners. While they are different, and they have different roles, one is not meant to be above, below, in front, or behind the other. You are taking the analogy too far.


2. "Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" -- and why was woman created? “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” (Gen 2:18) Does this correspond to HF and HM, i.e. was it "not good" for HF to be without HM?

Correct. If the created physical order is to match the pre-existing spiritual order, would not be good for a man to be without a woman, just like it is not good for HF to be without HM.


3. "woman is not independent of man nor man of woman" -- is Heavenly Father not independent? Does he depend on Heavenly Mother for anything?

Of course they love and depend on each other. Why wouldn't they? Does the Son depend on the Father? The Father on the Son?



I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim 2:12-14)

What does this mean for Heavenly Mother? The implication here is that there is something inherent in women that disqualifies them from leadership over men. If women are made specifically in Heavenly Mother's image, and Heavenly Father has headship over Heavenly Mother just as husbands are given headship in marriage, then the implication is there is something about HM (and any other female divinities) that is less worthy than HF (as opposed to Christ and the Holy Spirit, who are fully divine but submit to the Father out of obedience and humility rather than any actual inferiority).

Maybe there is something like this to it. Perhaps Heavenly Mother is not exercising authority over Heavenly Father. But "less worthy" certainly isn't the phrasing used to describe it. You are the one who came up with that, and I guarantee that this isn't how you view women either, so why would you try to impose a twisted view you don't even accept yourself onto the LDS view of Deity?

And you forget that men are supposed to submit to their wives as well.

7up: Furthermore, the family organization that God set up for humanity is a reflection of the Heavenly organization.


Oh, so that's why children are raised by their fathers and are only introduced to their mothers after reaching adulthood,...

Are you trying to suggest that LDS believe that we were created out of nothing for mortality? If that is the case, then you haven't learned anything from our discussions. Who do you think the LDS believe we were with prior to being born into mortality?

Again, mortality is a blink of an eye compared to eternity from the LDS point of view. Not knowing details about eternity past or eternity future is just part of the deal. This is a short trial period whereby we live by faith with very limited information and perspective. This is a very temporary situation.

7up: It is "meat" for those who are under the impression that God is some kind of static, changeless, incorporeal spirit substance that is literally omnipresent.


It seems to me that you're not really answering the question here. Even if we suppose for the sake of argument that evangelicals are wrong about God being unchanging, etc., why would those errors be a reason for us to not know about HM when we know about the Father and the Son, and that they are Father and Son to each other?

But you don't believe that Jesus is literally God's Son. We do.

You believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are that single static, changeless, incorporeal spirit substance that is literally omnipresent and existed as this substance from all eternity past. Therefore, from your point of view, It is neither male nor female, and from that preconceived notion, you would have no reason to come to the conclusion that we truly are made in God's image, both male and female.


KD: So what does Heavenly Mother do? Do you have a relationship with your Heavenly Mother? You aren't supposed to pray to her, correct? Has she spoken to her earthly children? How do you have a relationship with her, if you can't talk to her and she hasn't spoken to you? If you don't have a relationship with her, but you do with Heavenly Father, then what's up with that?

7up wrote: Our Earthly life is a blink of an eye when compared to our entire existence. The fact that we are dwelling here without the full view of Deity does not mean that Deity hasn't done anything, isn't doing anything, or will not do anything.


Sure, I don't dispute that.

7up: Again, what you are implying is something akin to saying that you cannot worship Jesus Christ or have a relationship with Jesus, if you are praying to God the Father. These relationships are intertwined. The worship of one implies the worship of the other. The reason why LDS pray to the Father is simple: That is what Jesus taught us to do, but we are still worshiping Jesus. In fact, the very idea that we strictly do what Jesus taught us to do is a demonstration of that worship.


Again, you are misunderstanding my point. You can have a relationship* with Jesus in that you believe he is real, you try to honor him, you believe that the Gospels contain his words, etc. There is some form of communication there in that his words in the Bible were also meant for you and you are seeking to please him with your actions.

What I'm saying is, the LDS have no words from HM, no vision of her or even a direct confirmation from an authoritative source (Jesus, an angel, a prophet, etc.) that she exists. It appears from this speech that the doctrine of HM is based on Eliza Snow's hymn, which itself says it's her inference. And LDS are discouraged from praying to HM, per the same speech. So how much of a relationship can you possibly have with HM? That's like saying that an adopted child, who knows he's adopted but has zero contact with or even knowledge of his birthmother, has a relationship with his bio mom simply because he can infer she must have existed.

What I am saying is this, as an answer to you: Does Jesus say or do anything that God the Father does not want Jesus to say or do? No. Their wills are in perfect harmony and their words are the same. Their lives are absolutely intertwined such that you cannot have a relationship with one without having a relationship with another. They are "one". You cannot possibly have a relationship with one without the other.


(For the record, I sincerely hope you don't have a personal relationship with a Heavenly Mother and aren't trying to pray to her as I consider that to be idolatry.)

Above you quoted my very words about how LDS are taught to worship. I will cut and paste it for you in case you missed it:

"The reason why LDS pray to the Father is simple: That is what Jesus taught us to do, but we are still worshiping Jesus. In fact, the very idea that we strictly do what Jesus taught us to do is a demonstration of that worship."

7up wrote: Yes, they are separate in the sense that they are not a "single substance/being", which is what Trinitarians teach. However, their lives are intimately intertwined and in a spiritual harmony which makes them "one" in the Biblical sense.


Well, now that you presumably understand what I mean by "separate", how about addressing my original question: Why is God described as a mother and the one who comforts us, if there is a separate Heavenly Mother who is supposedly equally divine?

Are you suggesting that only one parent comforts their children, the other parent does not or cannot? Or they cannot comfort their children together?

I don't see what you are trying to get at here. I think I gave you the answer already.

7up: Jesus did not create our spiritual bodies. He created the physical Universe, which includes things we can see "visible" (like the Earth, trees, our sun, etc.) and things we cannot see "invisible" (like air, or atomic particles, or distant planets on the other side of the Universe that are unseen by us).


KD: But according to Moses 3, God created things spiritually before he created them physically. So are you saying, in contradiction to John 1:3, that Jesus did not create spiritual bodies but God the Father did?

7up:... The Earth, for example, was created spiritually before physically.


What? I don't even understand what you're saying. How can inanimate objects be created "spiritually" -- what does that even mean? How is your second sentence an answer to the question, "So are you saying that Jesus did not create spiritual bodies but God the Father did?"

I am saying that John 1:3 is referring to the physical creation.


1 Cor 15:27-28, Heb 2:6-8 and 1 Pet 3:22 say that everything, with the sole exception of the Father, is subjected to Jesus. ....
....
How can Jesus not have been involved in the creation of something, spiritual or otherwise, when Col 1:16 and John 1:3 say that all things were created through him?

Jesus created "from things which are unseen". These are spiritual things. He did not create from nothing. "By faith we understand that the universe was created by God's command, so that what is seen has been made from things that are not seen" (Heb 11:3). The spiritual things ALREADY existed.

There is a problem with the extreme way that you try to interpret scripture, and "all things" when you assume creation "ex nihilo". I explained how your attempt to interpret in this way is problematic in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFST2-vfIY


How can people, the earth, etc. be created spiritually before physically when 1 Cor 15:46-49 says the physical comes first?

The context of that passage is entirely different than what we are discussing. I will provide you the context of that passage, which refers to our PHYSICAL bodies and does not really refer to our spirits at all. As you know, Paul refers to the resurrected body as a SPIRITUAL BODY (even though it is physical). He is talking about the resurrection of the physical body to an immortal/spiritual body of flesh and bone:

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

So clearly, Paul is not referring to the spirit that dwells in our bodies or the origin of that spirit; Not even close. Here he is talking about the "flesh and blood" (natural) body which will become a new "heavenly" body in the resurrection.

-7up

Kind Debater
02-27-2015, 03:57 PM
The idea that God/Elohim consists of multiple persons does not escape the realm of possibility, and yes, a Heavenly Mother may be a part of that.

You say "may" -- so if she isn't a part of the Godhead, what is she? Not a deity? A deity who submits to the Godhead, as the Son submits to the Father within the Godhead? What's your definition of "Godhead," and what does it mean if that definition doesn't apply to HM?



Do you want my speculation about God's reasoning behind not explaining Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the Old Testament as well?

Sure, why not. Speculation's fun too, just like entirely invented concepts. :smile:



For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. (1 Cor 11:7)

If anything, it indicates that women were more "covered" or "hidden".


Really? "...he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man." If woman is the glory of God exactly as man is, then this sentence doesn't make sense.



Is that your complaint about Heavenly Mother? She is too "covered" or "hidden" for you? Don't take it up with me, God is running the show, not me.


But you are the one who is hypothesizing that Heavenly Mother is being "covered" or "hidden," not God. Where did God say that knowledge of Heavenly Mother, specifically, is for the mature? Where did God say anything about Heavenly Mother?

You are the one who is saying this, and you are not making sense when you argue that HM's existence is "hidden" because it's for the mature, yet a) reason supposedly tells us she exists, b) HM is supposedly a model for women and HF and HM are supposedly models for human marriages, c) HF has publicly announced that Jesus is his Son and told people to make sure the whole world knows about him (which again, according to Eliza Snow and friends, makes it obvious there is a Mother), d) HF has bent over backwards from the creation of the world onward to proclaim his name -- so many times in the OT, there are variations of the phrase "...so that they will know that I am the Lord." The "hiding" contradicts one of her purposes; it is the exact opposite of God's treatment of himself, Jesus and the Holy Spirit; and it's not even done well, so it's like you're making God out to be incompetent.



If you have a problem with the order as described in the scriptures you quoted, again, you need to take it up with God, not me. If you have an issue with God not explaining everything at once, then again, I cannot help you. God reveals "line upon line and precept upon precept". He reveals the "mysteries of godliness" when God sees fit to do so, when God feels the world should face it.


7up, I understand what your position is here. If God has said that something is off limits, or isn't to be revealed to everyone, or something else that we don't really like or understand, then yes, we have to submit to what he says. And to the extent that you and I are on the same wavelength concerning respecting God and his sovereignty, I agree with you and respect your position.

The problem is that God never actually said anything about Heavenly Mother. There is nothing about Heavenly Mother in the Bible. There isn't even anything about her in your additional scriptures. What is your doctrine of Heavenly Mother based on? I looked it up at FAIR, which referred to this article (http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Heavenly_Mother):


As early as 1839 the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the concept of an eternal mother, as reported in several accounts from that period. Out of his teaching came a hymn that Latter-day Saints learn, sing, quote, and cherish, "O My Father," by Eliza R. Snow. President Wilford Woodruff called it a revelation (Woodruff, p. 62). In the heav'ns are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason; truth eternal Tells me I've a mother there. When I leave this frail existence, When I lay this mortal by, Father, Mother, may I meet you In your royal courts on high? [Hymn no. 292]

In 1909 the First Presidency, under Joseph F. Smith, issued a statement on the origin of man that teaches that "man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father," as an "offspring of celestial parentage," and further teaches that "all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity" (Smith, pp. 199-205).

...

Today the belief in a living Mother in Heaven is implicit in Latter-day Saint thought. Though the scriptures contain only hints, statements from presidents of the church over the years indicate that human beings have a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father.


So Joseph Smith taught it (which means what to you, exactly? Do you believe everything he taught was true?), Eliza Snow decided it made sense and wrote a hymn about it, and Woodruff called it a revelation. But none of this is on the same level as God the Father making himself known, declaring Jesus to be his Son, etc.

My point is that God makes a very big deal about people worshiping him and not false gods. When Jesus started his ministry, IMO the Jews were right to be agitated about his statements that implied equality with God -- and that's one reason why Jesus did so many miracles, why God spoke audibly at different times during his ministry, etc. Without that direct confirmation, it would have been idolatry to worship Jesus. And IMO that's why so many Muslims who become Christians see visions of Jesus -- because they don't want to worship a false god and they need confirmation that Jesus is God.

God the Father has spoken directly to people. Jesus was on earth and spoke directly to people. God the Father spoke directly about the Son, and the Son spoke directly about the Holy Spirit. But when a mere mortal says, "There's another divine being named so-and-so," that's where we are supposed to say, "Whoa, I can't accept that."

So what confirmation do you have that Heavenly Mother exists and is God in her own right? How do you know for sure that this is not false teaching?



Consider this: We have God (Elohim, which is plural) -> Christ -> man -> woman and God -> Christ -> church.


Are you saying the hierarchy is HF + HM -> Christ -> church? In 1 Cor 15:27-28, do you think HF and HM are together putting all other things in subjection to Christ?



Maybe Genesis 1, would have been an excellent time to talk about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But it didn't. This "Trinity" concept you hold to is important, isn't it? Why not lay it out from the beginning?


I would have liked it if God did that, and if he explained the doctrine of the Trinity more fully. Why didn't he do it that way? I don't know. :shrug:



You are asking why God does not provide an example from a concept which they had not yet been given yet?


I am asking how you make sense of saying that HM is a role model, etc. when she is not mentioned in the Bible when the roles of women and wives are discussed and examples of role models are given. If your answer is, "I don't know why, God did it that way and I have to accept it," then just say that.





If there were a HM, then Adam would have come from a woman

Not just a woman. Women do not create children entirely on their own.


But he would have come from a woman, which contradicts Paul's statement, "Man was not made from woman".



BOTH Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother would be involved in the spiritual creation of spiritual children. The physical creation was performed "through Jesus Christ".

...

I am saying that John 1:3 is referring to the physical creation...Jesus created "from things which are unseen". These are spiritual things. He did not create from nothing. "By faith we understand that the universe was created by God's command, so that what is seen has been made from things that are not seen" (Heb 11:3). The spiritual things ALREADY existed.


Please explain how our spirits were both created and eternally pre-existing. This reminds me of your chicken-and-egg dilemma on the ex nihilo thread.



Correct. If the created physical order is to match the pre-existing spiritual order, would not be good for a man to be without a woman, just like it is not good for HF to be without HM.

Of course they love and depend on each other. Why wouldn't they? Does the Son depend on the Father? The Father on the Son?


It has already taken me too long to write this response and I don't think I have any chance of changing your mind here. So I'm just going to say I disagree and leave it at that.





I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim 2:12-14)

What does this mean for Heavenly Mother? The implication here is that there is something inherent in women that disqualifies them from leadership over men. If women are made specifically in Heavenly Mother's image, and Heavenly Father has headship over Heavenly Mother just as husbands are given headship in marriage, then the implication is there is something about HM (and any other female divinities) that is less worthy than HF (as opposed to Christ and the Holy Spirit, who are fully divine but submit to the Father out of obedience and humility rather than any actual inferiority).

Maybe there is something like this to it. Perhaps Heavenly Mother is not exercising authority over Heavenly Father. But "less worthy" certainly isn't the phrasing used to describe it. You are the one who came up with that, and I guarantee that this isn't how you view women either, so why would you try to impose a twisted view you don't even accept yourself onto the LDS view of Deity?


Given the track record of your assumptions of what I believe, I suggest you stop making assumptions.

Do you think that there are roles, specifically leadership/headship roles, that are restricted to men? If so, do you think that God made this distinction between men and women arbitrarily, or for a reason? I'm guessing you don't think it was arbitrary since you just used that as an argument against Calvinism. So, if it's for a reason, what's the reason? It has something to do with men and women being different, yes? And it's God's reason, so whatever the reason is, it's a good reason, yes?

So what I'm saying is, if there is some reason for why women are excluded from being pastors, heads of families, etc., and women are made specifically in Heavenly Mother's image, then it is logical to ask if Heavenly Mother has the same issue that the women created in her image have.



And you forget that men are supposed to submit to their wives as well.


I don't see that in the Bible. I see that Christians are to submit to one another generally, and wives are to submit to husbands specifically (and servants to masters, etc.). Men are supposed to love their wives and care for them and do all sorts of great things for them, but submitting to them in the way that wives are supposed to submit to husbands would undermine their position as head of the family. Someone has to be the head, and God said it's supposed to be the husband.



Are you trying to suggest that LDS believe that we were created out of nothing for mortality? If that is the case, then you haven't learned anything from our discussions. Who do you think the LDS believe we were with prior to being born into mortality?


Relax. I still have not wrapped my brain around your beliefs about pre-earth existence.



KD: So again, how can the existence of Heavenly Mother be considered "meat" when people have been guessing at her existence all along?

7up: It is "meat" for those who are under the impression that God is some kind of static, changeless, incorporeal spirit substance that is literally omnipresent.

KD: It seems to me that you're not really answering the question here. Even if we suppose for the sake of argument that evangelicals are wrong about God being unchanging, etc., why would those errors be a reason for us to not know about HM when we know about the Father and the Son, and that they are Father and Son to each other?

7up: But you don't believe that Jesus is literally God's Son. We do.

You believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are that single static, changeless, incorporeal spirit substance that is literally omnipresent and existed as this substance from all eternity past. Therefore, from your point of view, It is neither male nor female, and from that preconceived notion, you would have no reason to come to the conclusion that we truly are made in God's image, both male and female.


Well...yes and no. Yes, I don't believe God is "really male," but God has described himself as a "he" and "Father" and Jesus was incarnated as a man, so I don't truly think of God as a gender-neutral It either.

I believe my point still stands, however. People have not always believed in the orthodox concept of God, even if they were supposed to, and there is some speculation that some Israelites worshiped Asherah as God's female consort. If God was "hiding" HM, he wasn't doing it very well.





Why is God described as a mother and the one who comforts us, if there is a separate Heavenly Mother who is supposedly equally divine?

Are you suggesting that only one parent comforts their children, the other parent does not or cannot? Or they cannot comfort their children together?

I don't see what you are trying to get at here. I think I gave you the answer already.


I'm saying that it doesn't make sense for Heavenly Father to say he comforts us as a mother comforts her children if he is really a father in the fullest sense of being male and we actually have a Heavenly Mother who is likewise fully female and fully our mother.

And yes, I'm saying men and women are different, and have different roles as parents, and provide different things to their children. Of course fathers can and do comfort their children. But in my experience there is something different in comforting coming from a man and from a woman.

In my view, whatever it may be that is typically present in female comforting but not male comforting -- whatever it is that is a good difference -- is a good trait that a perfect God would possess to an infinite degree. If men have certain strengths and women have certain other strengths, God has all strengths to the utmost degree.



BOTH Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother would be involved in the spiritual creation of spiritual children.

...

There is a problem with the extreme way that you try to interpret scripture, and "all things" when you assume creation "ex nihilo".

I explained how your attempt to interpret in this way is problematic in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFST2-vfIY


So I watched your video. Please, please get rid of the blurring/dissolving text effects.

Any word or phrase that uses "all" or "every" can be meant literally or figuratively, it depends on context. IMO John spelled it out very explicitly in John 1:3: "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." In case someone has trouble understanding "Through him all things were made," he turns it around and says that there are no created things that were created without Jesus. How much clearer was John supposed to be? Why do you think he added the second phrase if he wasn't trying to be clear that Jesus made ALL things?

If you want to believe that there was pre-existing matter or quarks or whatever that God didn't make, and that the Father through Jesus created everything from whatever was pre-existing and "unseen," I don't think it's necessarily worth arguing about. But you are saying that there are spiritual things that were created, but weren't created through Jesus, and that completely goes against what John said. Without Jesus, NOTHING was made that has been made. Not "spiritual things" or "invisible things," NO THINGS.

Looking at Col 1:16, which you discuss in the video:

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

Now you said in your post:



Jesus created "from things which are unseen". These are spiritual things.


But Col 1:16 says Jesus created both the visible and the invisible.

I understand your thinking that "heaven and earth" is emphasizing the physical universe, but consider:

- The things that Col 1:16 refers to aren't necessarily physical things, but include abstract concepts like thrones. Obviously Paul is not saying that any literal throne that a ruler sits on was made directly by Jesus, but rather that a ruler's power and area of dominion is granted him by God.

- "Heaven" can refer to what we would say is the physical heavens (the sky, space, etc.) or spiritual heaven with angels, etc. You appear to be assuming that "heaven" here refers to physical heaven and not spiritual heaven -- why? Do you think all of spiritual heaven is pre-existing?

- Paul uses "all things in heaven and on earth" again in 1:19-20: "For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." Do you really suppose that Paul is referring to physical things only? Didn't Jesus' death reconcile our spirits to God, including the spirits of believers who had died before his time on earth?

- If you are correct and "all things in heaven and on earth" refers to physical things only, what language would Paul use to refer to spiritual things? Where are the spiritual things, if they're not in heaven or on earth? Are our spirits spiritual things? Are they not currently present on earth, in our bodies?

- If "all things" in this passage explicitly refers to physical things only and not spiritual things, then how do you make sense of 17-18: "And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent." Is Jesus before all physical things, but not before spiritual things? Is Jesus not spiritually preeminent? Is the church held together by Jesus physically, but not spiritually? Is Jesus literally the physical head of the church, not the spiritual head?