Today’s guest post is by long-time friend of the blog: Mary Ann.
Heavenly Mother as Lady Wisdom, Asherah and/or the Holy Ghost: What You Should Know
The recent Mother in Heaven essay sparked quite a few discussions on the nature of female deity. I’m thrilled that Heavenly Mother got her own essay, as I was never quite satisfied with the short paragraph and two footnotes in the “Becoming Like God” essay.[1] I don’t mind the essay’s brevity. We have very little doctrine on Heavenly Mother in spite of rampant speculation over the years. As the essay illustrated, we know she exists and our leaders feel it is inappropriate to pray to her. That’s pretty much it.[2]
In these discussions surrounding Heavenly Mother, I’ve noticed common theories popping up in comment threads. I’d like to point out strengths and weaknesses of three common arguments: Heavenly Mother as Lady Wisdom, Asherah, and/or the Holy Ghost.
Heavenly Mother as Lady Wisdom
Arguments:
- Interpreting Lady Wisdom in the book of Proverbs as the Divine Feminine (or a separate goddess in her own right) is well-established in academia and elsewhere. Gnostic and Eastern Orthodox teachings include Sophia (direct translation of Wisdom), the feminine aspect of God.
- Proverbs 8 presents a strong argument of Wisdom as a real figure, not just an ethereal concept.
- Symbols of Lady Wisdom, especially the tree of life, and certain key words in Proverbs 8 tie Lady Wisdom to the ancient goddess Asherah (more on that below).
- A parallel in Wisdom Literature to Israel’s Lady Wisdom is the Egyptian goddess Maat. However… Maat was viewed as an existential concept of cosmic order more than a strong individual persona. BUT… Maat’s characteristics were eventually subsumed into Isis, so there is distant association with a mother goddess.
Counterarguments:
- Personification is figurative. Mercy is personified in scripture as female, Justice as male – it doesn’t mean they refer to specific deities. The House of Israel was often personified as an unfaithful spouse to illustrate how personally God took idolatry. Lady Wisdom could be metaphorical.
- If you turn Lady Wisdom into Heavenly Mother, then who is the Strange Woman? The advice in Proverbs is of a father to his son, encouraging him to seek Lady Wisdom instead of being lured in by the Strange Woman (Prostitute or Harlot). While the Strange Woman’s reasoning (worldly wisdom) is seductive, following her leads to death. Pursuing Lady Wisdom (God’s wisdom) is the way to eternal life. The ideas are similar to Lehi’s Tree of Life vision, but different symbolism is used. If you make Lady Wisdom literal, then you need to account for the Strange Woman.
- Many people tie Lady Wisdom to Christ via the idea of “Logos” or “The Word.” The New Testament gospel of John starts out with defining Christ as “The Word” and descriptions of being with God at creation sound suspiciously like Proverbs. Col. 2:2-3 implies that all wisdom and knowledge is to be found in Christ. D&C 93 also contains similar concepts as Proverbs and John, but this time with Christ as the Spirit of Light and Truth.
- A different support for Lady Wisdom as Christ: If you see the Harlot (Mother of Abominations, Great Whore, etc.) imagery of Revelations, 1 Nephi 14, and 1 Nephi 22 as derivations of the Strange Woman figure in Proverbs, then the foil, Lady Wisdom, has morphed into Christ and his church.
Heavenly Mother as Asherah[3]
Arguments:
- The Canaanite mother goddess Asherah was originally the wife of the father god El. Yahweh (Jehovah) was their son. Eventually El’s characteristics were subsumed in Yahweh, including the relationship with Asherah. There is good archaeological evidence that Asherah was viewed as Yahweh’s consort by Israelites.[4] If there was any ancient echo of Heavenly Mother, Asherah is the best bet.
- Asherah and Lady Wisdom are both associated with the Tree of Life. Canaanite beliefs paired the Tree of Life with fertility and motherhood. Nephi drew a connection between the image of Mary, mother of Christ, and the tree in the Tree of Life vision, lending support to that association.
- In Elijah’s 1 Kings 18 stand-off calling down fire from heaven, both prophets of Baal and prophets of Asherah (translated as groves) were present. The scripture only notes the punishment of Baal’s followers, not Asherah’s.
- The many admonitions against Asherah worship in the OT (usually translated as groves in the KJV) could be attributed to the strict beliefs of the Deuteronomist reformers. As they compiled what is now the OT, the strict monotheistic Josiah reformers would’ve hated implied support of Asherah worship. Essentially, much of the OT could be viewed as revisionist history. The Book of Mormon confirms that compilers of the Hebrew Bible omitted or obscured many plain and precious truths.
Counterarguments:
- Just because Israelites had polytheistic Canaanite beliefs incorporated into Yahweh worship doesn’t mean those hybridizations were appropriate. From the New Testament to the modern day, church leaders constantly fight the incorporation of outside beliefs into the gospel. Prophets fighting Canaanite influences (including Asherah worship) in the OT is highly probable, Deuteronomist reformers notwithstanding.
- Although Nephi associated the Tree of Life with motherhood, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he adhered to Asherah worship. God speaks to people according to their understanding and that was imagery he’d understand. (Jeremiah was a contemporary of Lehi, and he was *definitely* not keen on Asherah worship. See Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17-19, 25.)
- Nephi noted that the Hebrew Bible lost many plain and precious truths. Theoretically, the Book of Mormon was to help restore many of those truths. The only association of divinity and motherhood in the Book of Mormon are the few references to Mary. As many have noted, there is no overt reference to a Heavenly Mother in any modern scripture in this dispensation. Right now Asherah worship does not look like a plain and precious truth restored.
- Joseph Smith went through the Bible and never noted that Asherah worship was appropriate then or now.[5]
Heavenly Mother as the Holy Ghost[6]
Arguments:
- Both the Hebrew and Aramaic words referring to God’s Spirit is feminine. In Greek, it’s neutral. Not until Latin do we get a masculine attachment.[7] In 1902, Charles W. Penrose (as editor of the Deseret News) cited the feminine spirit/breath moving upon the waters in Genesis 1:2 as biblical support for Heavenly Mother.[8]
- The dove, associated with the Holy Spirit in both Old and New Testament, was also associated with the OT fertility goddess Asherah.[9]
- Some religious groups view the Holy Spirit as feminine including the Syrian Orthodox Church and Messianic Jews. Other groups have also tied the mystical Jewish concept of Shekhinah (divine presence, feminine aspect of deity) to the New Testament Holy Ghost.
- Father-Mother-Son trinities have a history in ancient Near Eastern cultures (Osiris-Isis-Horus in Egyptian mythology, for example). This isn’t a new concept.
Counterarguments:
- LDS teachings lean towards a male Holy Ghost, so… yeah.[10] Joseph Fielding McConkie in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism wrote, “the Holy Ghost is a spirit man, a spirit son of God the Father.” The lds.org Gospel Topics entry on the Holy Ghost is pretty clear about referring to it as a “He.”
- LDS doctrine on the Holy Ghost as a personage of Spirit is inconsistent with the concept of Heavenly Mother as a post-mortal exalted being with a resurrected body.[11]
- There is scriptural precedent to support a male Holy Ghost: John 16:7-8, 1 Nephi 8:5-6, and 1 Nephi 11:11.[12]
Discuss.
Relevant on-line articles:
Margaret Barker’s “The Mother in Heaven and Her Children” at the 2015 FairMormon Conference.
Dan Peterson’s “Nephi and His Asherah” in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 9, no. 2 (2000):
Ryan Thomas’ “Biblical Allusions to Asherah” at RationalFaiths.com:
David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido’s “A Mother There: A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven” in BYU Studies 50, no. 1 (2011). (BYU Studies website is down, otherwise I’d include a link.)
Val Larsen’s “Hidden in Plain View: Mother in Heaven in Scripture” in SquareTwo, vol. 8, no. 2 (Summer 2015):
________________________________________
[1] I’ve referenced Footnote 45 in more places than I can count. By far my favorite part of that essay.
[2] I was also relieved that Heavenly Mother was referenced as a single entity throughout the essay. I’m all about eliminating shadows of polygamy wherever possible.
[3] Religions in each culture have regional variation and morph over time. This is a very simplistic understanding of Canaanite religion. There isn’t a ton of archaeological data on Canaanite rites and practices.
[4] Just as archaeological evidence on Canaanite religion is scant, pre-Josiah Israelite practices are also a bit hazy. Even though Asherah figurines and symbolism existed in Israel, we still don’t understand exactly how they were incorporated into Yahweh worship.
[5] It’s a weak argument, but I could see someone using it.
[6] Pushing this idea has been tied to excommunications. Not a fave among church leaders.
[7] The arguments about the gendered terminology are more complex, but this gets the gist across.
[8] See Footnote 52 in Paulson and Pulido’s 2011 “A Mother There” BYU Studies article.
[9] Weak argument. By the time of Jesus, doves were also tied to representing Israel, atoning sacrifice, suffering, and a sign from God. It wasn’t just fertility and God’s Spirit. (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/the-enduring-symbolism-of-doves/)
[10] Funny story: when the Father-Mother-Son trinity was catching on with feminist thought in the late 19th century, President George Q. Cannon (member of the First Presidency at the time) reacted vehemently. “We are warranted in pronouncing all tendencies to glorify the feminine element and to exalt it as part of the Godhead as wrong and untrue, not only because of the revelation of the Lord in our day but because it has no warrant in scripture, and any attempt to put such a construction on the word of God is false and erroneous.” (In Juvenile Instructor 30 (May 15, 1895): 314-17. As quoted in Paulsen and Pulido’s 2011 “A Mother There” BYU Studies article.)
[11] There’s an interesting theory going around that Heavenly Mother voluntarily gave up her resurrected body in order to act as the Holy Ghost. Let’s say I’m enduring mortality with a physically defective mortal body, that body being a major contributor to my trials in this life. I’m really looking forward to a perfected physical body in the resurrection. If you’re telling me that I’m going to give up that resurrected body to spend the rest of eternity testifying to my children about their dad and their brother, then I’m questioning your sanity.
[12] Church leadership has been having a “thing” lately with scriptural precedent (see: women and the priesthood).
Wheat & Tares 
What about spider grandmother.
Mary Ann this is so great. I love some parts of each of these concepts. I love just thinking about the possibilities. One thing that doesn’t make counter arguments insurmountable for me is knowing how Spencer Kimball described his revelation in 1978. That he had to be open to it, then he had to want it, then he had to pray and reach on with his fingertips to barely be able to reach it. (Paraphrasing). Some of our leaders have made step one in this heavenly mother area, yeah? Hopefully before I’m a grandmother we get something more.
I like all three of these conceptions of Heavenly Mother, and they don’t seem to be mutually exclusive. Adopting any of them would require a different understanding and approach to scripture, but that could be very healthy.
I wouldn’t look to the general authorities for revelation or doctrinal speculation, however. That does not seem to be their focus. Even the 1978 revelation was a policy decision, backed by a revelation that has never been published and that perhaps didn’t even come in the form of words.
It would be enough if the general authorities would just allow doctrinal speculation among members. Loosen correlation a little bit. Stop excommunicating people. There is a lot of fear about having wrong ideas, perhaps because we have been hurt before (I’m thinking of Adam-God and the Evangelical attacks accusing us of not being Christian). I think we should just recognize that we don’t really have a single, official doctrine. Rather we have a variety of doctrinal ideas that evolve over time and receive varying levels of official support or condemnation. Are we mature enough to stop pretending otherwise?
Great write up Mary Ann and glad to see you posting with us.
The problem of Heavenly Mother arises from the anthropomorphic nature of the LDS God. A non-physical, infinite God can by definition include all traits we might personify as feminine: wisdom, mercy, etc. Whether we call this traditional God a He or She is irrelevant, as irrelevant as whether my computer is a he or a she. We can imagine dimensions of this God as a wrathful Jehovah in a relationship with a merciful Sophia, but these are understood as metaphors and parables used to try to understand God in His fullness.
The problem with the LDS conception is that we try to conflate the traditional idea of God as an infinite, all-encompassing being, who at the same time is a literal man with a beard. And Mormons also believe that man is not complete without a woman, not just physically, but complementarily. We see men and women as complimentary beings who need each other to create a proper balance.
The problem is that our male Mormon God doesn’t seem to need Heavenly Mother. He seems complete without Her, being as feminine in His tender mercies as He is masculine in His justice.
This concept necessarily marginalizes women in LDS theology. What is their eternal role if they are seen as superfluous in the Godhood?
There are two ways forward: either deemphasize the anthropomorphic nature of God, allowing the divine feminine to have a more natural place within His completeness, or else flesh out the nature of an anthropomorphic Heavenly Mother in order to counterbalance the overly male nature of the LDS God.
This is a topic I’ve wanted to post on for a long time, but have not researched it enough. I love the idea of a Mother-Father-Son trinity/Godhead, and I think that if “families are forever”, then of course this is a perfect heterosexual model family. Having all 3 males is full of patriarchy and perhaps a homosexual family, which I don’t think models “families are forever” very well at all.
I heard someone once say, nobody knows how to influence you better than your mother, and she is likely the Holy Ghost. Perhaps mom is the Holy Ghost. I did a post several years back where someone had a near death experience, and said that the Holy Ghost was family members who have passed on previously. I wish we knew more about this, because I like both theories.
Nicely done.
I have yet to read Daniel Peterson’s article about Nephi and his Asherah, so I may interpret this wrong. I think Peterson is trying to tie Asherah to Heavenly Mother.
But I find this whole thing problematic. Canaanites were polytheistic and believed in a pantheon of gods including Asherah, Baal, El, Eloheim, Yahweh, Molech, etc. It was really Abraham (and later reformers like Josiah) that said basically “Yahweh is our god.” There have been lots of artifacts which show ancient jews worshipped both Asherah and Yahweh, and while in the context of Heavenly Mother, this is appealing to LDS folks, Asherah is just one of a pantheon of gods worshipped in ancient Canaan. To exclude the others is a bit of proof-texting, and doesn’t really get at the heart of polytheism that was prevalent in ancient Israelite society.
The prophets got so mad and idolatry because it was really native to be polytheistic, not monotheistic, and so while it is appealing to refer to Asherah as a possible Heavenly Mother, if we want to subscribe to that notion, how do we account for Baal and Molech? Are they the brothers of Yahweh?
#3 Joel – they are not mutually exclusive at all. In fact, Margaret Barker and many feminists (Mormon or otherwise) are staunch supporters of all three arguments.
#7 MH – You’ve hit on the crux of the Asherah problem. It’s phrased succinctly in _Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament_: “Many scholars assert Israelite religion grew out of the roots of Canaanite religion. Rather than seeing many Israelites falling prey to aberrant Canaanite practices, they suggest Canaanite religion was early Israelite religion, and that biblical prophetic views were originally minority ones that eventually became the norm in the post-exilic period. This developmental view of Israelite religion is not in harmony with Restoration doctrine.” (p. 167)
Many of the actions of Jehovah in the OT are to get it into the brains of Israelites that Jehovah is *the* God. The god of thunder and rain instead of Baal, the fertility god instead of Asherah, the god of war instead of Anat, the conqueror of the primordial sea/chaos/dragon (Yam/Rahab/Leviathan). Jehovah displayed his superiority to the Philistine god Dagon/Dagan quite visibly (1 Sam 5:1-7). The Deuteronimists might have tweaked some of these, but I have a hard time believing that they had a hand in all of them.
I’ve seen all sorts of connections – one theory does state that Baal was brother to Yahweh, and both were sons of El Elyah. Baal (lowercase) was itself a Hebrew word meaning “my Lord” – so you’ll even see it associated in the Bible with Yahweh. Different regions worshipped different forms of Baal. One variation was Baal Hadad, another was Baal Hammon.
I see some claim Moloch was another name for Baal, but they don’t seem to be trustworthy sources. I can’t see much of anything to describe a familial relationship of Moloch to the rest of the Canaanite pantheon. Incidentally, Moloch is a variation of the Hebrew word Melek (king).
The purpose of Dan Peterson’s article is to illustrate a Near Eastern connection to the Book of Mormon through the relationship of the Tree of Life vision to both a deified mother figure in Asherah (explaining Nephi’s association with Mary) and to the imagery and depictions of Wisdom in the Old Testament. He is not attempting to associate Asherah or Lady Wisdom with Heavenly Mother at all.
If you already support the Asherah/Wisdom as Heavenly Mother argument, then it’s a great way to associate Heavenly Mother with Mary and Book of Mormon theology. I don’t think Dan Peterson, known for more conservative views, ever intended for his article to be used in a Heavenly Mother argument.
MH – you probably have heard of Bokovoy’s arguments concerning the divine council in the OT and Book of Mormon. The divine council in the normal polytheistic religions consisted of all deities. In the case of the Canaanites it was headed up by El or Baal. The divine council in our scriptures, though, appears to be a bit different. Yahweh/Elohim heads it up, but the other members don’t appear to be other gods. The way Isaiah and Micaiah and Lehi describe it, it’s more the presence of angels and other heavenly non-deities. That would also leave Asherah (regardless of whether she represents Heavenly Mother) out of the picture.
And why dont we worship female deity? Goddess worship is associated with paganism. Forbidden.
I haven’t read Bokovoy yet. I’ll have to check him out.
I remember on my mission, pointing out to other Christians, Genesis 1:26 “And God said, Let US make man in our image, after our likeness:”
As well as Psalm 82:1 “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.”
Who was God among US and “gods”. Given the archeaology, and even the Bible admits ancient jews weren’t monotheists, these scriptures are have a different meaning when you realize Moloch, Baal, and Asherah were deities worshiped by ancient Jews/Canaanites.
“I wouldn’t look to the general authorities for revelation or doctrinal speculation, however”
While this is an excellent post, I find discussing Heavenly Mother very frustrating. Ancient archaeological evidence and speculation by knowledgeable people is interesting, but not very satisfying. I want something revealed. If we’re not going to look to our prophets, seers, and revelators and simply adopt beliefs (and goddesses) we like, then we’re no different than the idolators who came before.
Also, if we do indeed have a Heavenly Mother, I suspect she’s part of God the Father, rather than a part of the Trinity. In other words, God the Father would really be God the Father and God the Mother, complementary parts creating and completing the whole, and God would encompass the masculine and feminine divine. It would be easy to get away with this, as God the Father very rarely makes an appearance. Without something revealed, though, nothing is very satisfying to think.
Ron, your argument doesn’t engage any of the issues. Goddess worship appears in major world religions as well as paganism. This is also not just an issue of goddess worship. The divine feminine can be understood as an aspect of God rather than a separate individual. This is the view of several Christian groups, including gnostics and eastern branches. The Asherah thing would argue for a separate deity, but the Lady Wisdom and Holy Ghost arguments can easily be incorporated into either feminine aspects of a single God, or a minor portion of the Godhead, which does not conflict with how many Christians view the Trinity as one God.
The idea of Godhood being achieved by the combination of feminine and masculine is a Mormon concept, not just a pagan one. Although our religion advocates a single worship of Heavenly Father, the uncertainty of how separate Heavenly Father is from Heavenly Mother clouds the issue. If Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are one God, then worship of Heavenly Father inherently includes worship of a Heavenly Mother (what Martin pointed out). We already see the Godhead as three separate deities, yet we only worship one. We also have views of joining the three deities together (“one in purpose”) to maintain a monotheistic classification and account for potentially conflicting scriptural views. It is entirely logical to identify the same conundrum with Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.
Martin, discussion of Heavenly Mother can be very frustrating. Orthodox views don’t typically engage in any of these alternate concepts of Heavenly Mother. When I see these views presented in the bloggernacle or elsewhere, they overwhelmingly come from supporters.
I wanted to define which arguments are used to support the different positions. I also wanted to point out weakness of those arguments, or problems with wider Mormon theological implications. If we can really see the details of the arguments, we can have better discussion rather than just calling each other names.
Mormon women have a real need to talk about Heavenly Mother. I would think many Mormon men would as well. Although it is frustrating, this is not something we should just sweep under the rug. And yes, we really need some more revelation on the subject.
And yes, we really need some more revelation on the subject.
Absent any revelation (there is none), I recommend we say nothing. Anything anyone says about heavenly mothers is supposition or conjecture. With God choosing not to reveal anything, I think the notion of heavenly mothers is wholly man-made.
It’s funny that the q15 can solidify it as a doctrine in their topical pages and conservative members still call BS. So much for thinking they aren’t cafeteria Mormons
Anyways…. I’m not saying we need a big huge revelation on heavenly mother. I’m saying that leaders being open to acknowledging her is the first step; next step is them changing the YW theme to daughters of our heavenly parents. If they are open to it then they’ll desire acknowledging her. Baby steps.
ji – “I recommend we say nothing.” Dude, seriously?
“Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right…” (D&C 9:7-8)
“And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” (D&C 88:118)
“The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties.” https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng
MH – just because family members help from the other side doesn’t mean they are the Holy Ghost. There are several positive influences acting on us. Each person has the Light of Christ, enticing them to do good (often associated with the conscience). Each person has family members or other heavenly messengers supporting them and helping them through life (and I suspect that many of individual tender mercies have much more to do with localized help rather than the Holy Ghost). In my opinion, the Holy Ghost is separate from either of these resources. I don’t think we really understand just how much is happening behind the scenes.
In my head, the Light of Christ counterbalances our carnal nature. Those on the other side of the veil counterbalance the influence of the followers of Satan. The Holy Ghost has a unique purpose – to testify of the Father and the Son, to teach the truth of all things, to bestow gifts of the Spirit. As for comfort and guidance – I think that could be either heavenly messengers or the Holy Ghost at different times, based on the experiences of friends and family members.
The discussion reminded me of the time my husband got assistance, plumbing in our kitchen the day he pulled the new stop cock away from the pipe (over a decade ago now). Definitely an emergency requiring prompt action! I always imagined the instructions came from a deceased plumber (and wondered if he/she might have felt that we should have employed a plumber…). Anyway, I’m not aware of any deceased plumbers in either of our family lines, so does that make it a particular assignment in response to prayer?
“What’s Opera, Doc?” is considered one of the greatest cartoons of all time. Nothing like Elmer Fudd singing “Kill the Wabbit”.
The cartoon was inspired by Wagner and Der Ring des Nibelungen which drew inspiration from Norse and German mythology.
Spencer w Kimball said this,”With regard to masters, surely there must be many Wagners in the Church, approaching him or yet to come in the tomorrows—young people with a love of art, talent supreme, and eagerness to create…It remains for inspired hearts and talented fingers yet to reveal themselves.”
I would suggest we are still waiting for inspiration to reveal itself to our eyes because of the blinders we wear.
There could be myriad places where Heavenly Mother is to be found.
I have for a long time liked Asherah. But sacred groves and the tree of life are only a couple of the manifestations of the World tree.
I feel we are so busy admiring the domestic shrub planted in our own front yard, we remain oblivious to the rich biodiversity in the vast forest.
Ji,
The Church officially states there is a Mother in Heaven. Your response is to first say that we shouldn’t acknowledge this or talk about it because it doesn’t count as a revelation. Then you go on to assume there are multiple Heavenly Mothers, even though that definitely hasn’t been revealed. What?
The essay on heavenly mother is anonymous, and doesn’t claim the imprimatur of the First Presidency or the Twelve, or any individual thereof. The essay itself admits there is no scripture or revelation on the subject. I do advise not reading too much into it, and against undue speculation. However, to the degree a heavenly mother notion is now doctrine, it makes perfect sense to suppose that heaven includes many heavenly mothers — each of us had on my one, of course. The essay itself does not insist on singularity in this matter. My point is that absent scripture or revelation, anything anyone says is speculation. If we are going to allow the notion, we must allow for plurality. Oh, and given our history, plurality makes perfect sense, even more than singularity. But I would have preferred for the heavenly mother(s) notion to have remained in the realm of folklore, as part of the tapestry of Mormon thought, rather than being announced as doctrine by a surprise anonymous posting on a website. As folklore, individual members could believe or not — as doctrine, well, those who don’t believe are unfaithful or weak or benighted or something like that. I’m feeling some dissonance in this matter.
Maybe I’ll talk about heavenly mother in my next sacrament meeting talk, and share my joy at finally being able to acknowledge her. Would that be alright? After all, it is doctrine now.
Ji
I have no problem with you not believing in a Heavenly Mother. I think most commenters on this site have doctrines of the church they don’t believe. We all need to come to the best understanding we can through the spirit. My issue is that you have come to thread full of people who have just been granted one of their most sincere desires and are now trying to make sense of it. You then tell those people that their best course of action is to ignore it and carry on as if Heavenly Mother doesn’t exist. It’s like me standing up in my extremely conservative ward during testimony meeting and saying, “I think the proclamation on the family is a man made document. I recommend no one discuss it. At all. Ever.” It’s one thing to disagree with a doctrine. It’s another to tell people they shouldn’t ever mention it or discuss it.
Also, considering our current doctrine is monogamy is best and that the Book of Mormon teaches monogamy is best and polygamy is only used in rare circumstances, I think it is incorrect to assert that multiple heavenly mothers makes more sense than one.
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland didn’t seem to have a problem mentioning Heavenly Mother (singular) in his recent conference address. Given that the gospel topic essays have gone through approval of both the FP and Q12, I don’t think you run any risk by acknowledging our doctrine of a Heavenly Mother in a sacrament meeting. The doctrine of Heavenly Parents was stated in a 1909 First Presidency statement, long before the 1995 Family Proc (also approved by FP and Q12). The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother was also explicitly mentioned in the “Becoming Like God” gospel topics essay, one of the essays released in the first wave (late 2013 into early 2014). This is not newly established doctrine.
Good points Mary Ann.
“The essay on heavenly mother is anonymous, and doesn’t claim the imprimatur of the First Presidency or the Twelve, or any individual thereof.”
This has been a claim for a long time, so the LDS church has added the following to the Introduction to Gospel Topics Essays. See https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng
These essays can be taken as authoritative doctrines of the church, and can’t be brushed off as anonymous.
EBK,
You err in describing my intentions. I am fine with the notion of heavenly mother(s) being part of the rich tapestry of Mormon thought, and I’m okay with it being discussed as such — we have a lot of folklore, and some of it is true and all of it contributes to who we are as a people (for good and ill). However, I cannot join the celebration of introducing our heavenly mother(s) into our worship. Somehow, I want our worship to be focused of Jesus Christ.
I suppose that the very people who are rejoicing at the heavenly mother notion would reject the notion’s pedigree — if they knew what Brigham Young and others taught on the subject, they might also want the notion to remain in folklore. The sanitized version of a singular heavenly mother presented in the anonymous essay is not the notion taught by the first several prophets of this dispensation. And more recent prophets have taught us nothing, and there has been no revelation or scripture. Even in acknowledging the existence of heavenly mother(s), we know absolutely nothing — the anonymous essay didn’t teach us anything new.
Ji,
Are you opposed to Heavenly Father being part of our worship even though it could take the focus from Jesus Christ? Or is it only a woman that somehow distracts us from the gospel of Jesus Christ?
If I reject every teaching that stemmed from polygamy that means eternal marriage, the endowment for women, eternal increase, and other important doctrines I’m not thinking of are all out. Eternal families, which many people (apostles included) claim are the entire point of the gospel will have to be rejected according to your logic. Pretty much, if I don’t accept polygamy in heaven, I might as well leave the church because it’s mostly fruit of the poisonous tree.
Mother in Heaven’s existence is a basic doctrine of the Church. It is mentioned in the Gospel Essentials text. The scriptures are revelation, and Mother in Heaven seems to appear a lot in the scriptures if they are closely read. So for example, Elohim is a plural. And Lehi praises the Lord God Almighty (Yaweh El Shaddai, in Hebrew) after having his first vision. Shaddai (shaddaim are breasts) there is good reason to believe is Mother in Heaven. These things are discussed in the Hidden in Plain View article that Mary Ann links to.
In the comments for that article, there is also a fascinating comment by Alyson Van Feldt on the idea that there is a Father (El), Mother (Elah), Son (Yahweh), and a Daughter (various names). This divine tetrad is all over the Middle East before Deuteronomy. The Father and Mother jointly constitute the plural Elohim. But the comment suggests, the ministry of our Heavenly Parents is mediated on earth by the Son (Christ) and the Daughter (the Holy Ghost). In the article, there is a picture of the four divinities taken from a scroll seal found in Mari, which Peterson and Gee have argued was the home of Abraham. The image looks like it reflects Garden of Eden theology. The bottom line is that if we closely read the scriptures we have, we may find that a lot has already been revealed about Mother in Heaven and perhaps about a divine Daughter as well. As another comment above rightly suggests, we have no right to expect revelation according the the D&C unless we carefully study out in our minds what has already been given.
I embrace the idea of Heavenly Mother as Wisdom AND the Holy Spirit. I believe the Apocryphal book The Wisdom of Solomon shows this well. One could argue that wisdom here is a personification, but it is used so pervasively, it doesn’t feel like that to me.
Here are a couple excerpts from Ch 7 of that book:
Therefore I prayed, and understanding was given me; I called upon God, and the spirit of wisdom came to me. I preferred her to scepters and thrones, and I accounted wealth as nothing in comparison with her. Neither did I liken to her any priceless gem, because all gold is but a little sand in her sight, and silver will be accounted as clay before her. I loved her more than health and beauty, and I chose to have her rather than light, because her radiance never ceases.
All good things came to me along with her, and in her hands uncounted wealth. I rejoiced in them all, because wisdom leads them; but I did not know that she was their mother. (vs 7-12)
I learned both what is secret and what is manifest, for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.
For in her there is a spirit that is intelligent, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, mobile, clear, unpolluted, distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen, irresistible, beneficent, humane, steadfast, sure, free from anxiety, all-powerful, overseeing all, and penetrating through all spirits that are intelligent and pure and most subtle.
For wisdom is more mobile than any motion; because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things. For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness.
Though she is but one, she can do all things, and while remaining in herself, she renews all things;
in every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets;
for God loves nothing so much as the man who lives with wisdom. For she is more beautiful than the sun, and excels every constellation of the stars. Compared with the light she is found to be superior, for it is succeeded by the night, but against wisdom evil does not prevail. (vs 21-30)
Heavenly Mother Exists.. Watch video skip to 11:20
There is a celestial reason to why a Heavenly Mother is not referenced. If taking the name of the Lord our God in vain is wrong, imagine what the consequences are for mocking and taking the name of our Heavenly Mother in vain. Again, there is a very loving reason to why she is protected behind the veil. Perhaps it has something to do with the bearing of her spirit children, or something of the like. I know she exists, and that she loves me. I know I will see my Heavenly Parents again.
In the BYU Studies article “A Mother There,” they mention that idea of Heavenly Mother being protected from slander. Here’s the quote from the main article:
“Similarly, at the 1991 Women’s Conference cosponsored by BYU and the Relief Society, Mormon scholar Kathryn H. Shirts recalled a ‘Primary class, in which someone asked the teacher, ‘If we have a Mother in Heaven, how come we never hear about her?’ The teacher’s reply was that God was protecting her name from the kinds of slander that human beings direct toward the names of the Father and the Son.’9”
And here’s the continuation in the footnote:
“Shirts continued: ‘It was a clever reply, and, at the time, we all thought it was quite satisfying. None of us realized then that this answer described a lady not quite up to taking care of herself in a tough world, an image drawn purely from certain human conventions and not from divine reality.'”
What I never understood about the whole Heavenly Mother / Asherah association is that she is meant to be the wife of the God of Israel, Yahweh, Jehovah etc. This means she would be Christ’s wife, IF anything. Not Father’s wife, thus not mother.
– Christ takes the role of Father and Father figure but this is temporary and obviously heavenly mother refers to heavenly fathers wife, unless some weird incest thing is happening.
– She was also tied to El, who could be the Father but she was just as said to be Yahweh’s so unless they are sharing her..
– Some could say she was El’s and El and Yahweh were mixed. I don’t doubt this culturally happened. But latter day revelation has made it clear Yahweh, and the God of Israel, the very one Asherah was consort of–is Christ. Perhaps acting for the Father, but not the same.
– ignoring the Mother ideas for a second, Was Christ married before his mortal incarnation? It would make his exaltation make sense, but beyond that who knows.
– What makes her different from any False Goddess? Any other Mother Goddess? There’s older ones. Other Semitic ones.
– Lets say Asherah was a representation of heaven mother. How do we know it’s a legitimate one or any current information is accurate of her? That would clearly be a big target for the adversary to attack.
– Let it not be forgotten that there is a great demon called Ashtoreth, who Ishtar was derived from, and some say Asherah.
– Some theories would indicate that Asherah is an object, not a person.
– There is also reason to believe she is more related to Eve. Perhaps some early similar counterpart to the Adam-God Doctrine?
I just found this article… Thank you for showing arguments and counter arguments for the evidence of each of these 3 personifications(?) of Heavenly Mother. I heard Margaret Barker’s lecture on YouTube and really connected with what she said. I eat up whatever I hear about Heavenly Mother, but I’d never heard any counter arguments. It’s definitely something to think about and to continue praying about and studying.
All I can say is that women who have openly said Heavenly Mother is the Holyghost got excommunicated from the church. That suddens me. It shows what a man made religion is and how the church leaders don’t know the truth that so many have received by personal revelation through the Holyghost
Love this whole article. Intelligent, yet simple enough for all to understand. Completely respectful to all sides of the discussion, while also maintaining a reverence for the Godhead, no matter which belief of Who is actually a Member of the Godhead is being discussed.
I agree, it’s time we ask out Dear Prophet to ask for further revelation, and then pray we as a church are worthy of such sacred knowledge :).
Wonderfully written.