Heavenly Mother has been a hot topic on the blogs lately. Some attention is due to a new children’s book published early September by Deseret Book[1]. Other discussions centered around a recent Harvard Theological Review article by Taylor Petrey, “Rethinking Mormonism’s Heavenly Mother”[2] in which Petrey encouraged exploration of Heavenly Mother theology within the bounds of a “generous” orthodoxy. When it comes to Heavenly Mother, though, it’s difficult to pin down what we believe within regular orthodoxy, let alone a generous one.
In 2011 BYU Studies published “’A Mother There’: A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven” by David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido. The article represented the most complete analysis of Heavenly Mother teachings by church leaders to date. The Church has recently increased exposure of Heavenly Mother teachings in official publications. Taking these newer pieces into consideration, where are we at concerning an orthodox understanding of Heavenly Mother?[3]
Is Heavenly Mother doctrine?
According to the church’s handy dandy doctrine identification tool, yes, the existence of Heavenly Mother is doctrine. Two older First Presidency Statements mention Her explicitly (1909 and 1925), and the 1995 Proclamation on the Family implies her existence (and possibly others) with “heavenly parents.” Heavenly Mother is noted in at least four new church publications published within the last two years: “Becoming Like God” Gospel Topics essay (2014), “Mother in Heaven” Gospel Topics essay (2015), The Eternal Family CES cornerstone course teacher manual (2015), and the Doctrinal Mastery New Testament teacher manual (2016).[4]
Is our doctrine of Heavenly Mother based on revelation?
Not that we know of. The “Mother in Heaven” essay explains,“there is no record of a formal revelation to Joseph Smith on this doctrine,” though it’s clear he taught of Heavenly Mother. We aren’t sure where Joseph got the idea. The essay explains that our current understanding of Heavenly Mother “is rooted in scriptural and prophetic teachings about the nature of God, our relationship to Deity, and the godly potential of men and women.” We infer the existence of Heavenly Mother from revelations on related topics.
Characteristics of Heavenly Mother (I’m sticking with the singular form for ease) as described in the most recent church publications (2014-2016):
She has a body.
Implied. The Eternal Family manual says Heavenly Father is “a real being who has a glorified, resurrected body of flesh and bones.” Later, “As we come to understand our Heavenly Father, we can better understand our potential to become like our Heavenly Parents.”
She is female.
Definitely. In a step beyond gender as an eternal characteristic, The Eternal Family manual quotes Joseph Fielding Smith’s 1957 Answers to Gospel Questions, “Is it not feasible to believe that female spirits were created in the image of a ‘Mother in Heaven’?”
She is married.
Implied. In The Eternal Family manual, “As men seek to righteously fulfill the roles of husband and father, they become more like their Father in Heaven.” (In the chapter on women’s roles, only motherhood is explicitly connected to heavenly parents.) Obviously our understanding that men and women must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage to be exalted supports the idea that Heavenly Mother is married. In recent publications a divine Mother or Heavenly Mother is singular, suggesting monogamy. The generic term Heavenly Parents, however, could technically work with a number of different marriage systems.
She is a mother.
Definitely. From the “Mother in Heaven” essay (and repeated in the Doctrinal Mastery manual), “all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.” The Eternal Marriage manual uses the 1909 First Presidency statement. The “Becoming Like God” essay has it’s own explicit phrasing that Heavenly Mother is our mother.
She is divine.
Definitely. The “Mother in Heaven” essay quotes Susa Young Gates, “the divine Mother, [is] side by side with the divine Father.” It also includes a statement attributed to Elder Rudger Clawson, “We honor women when we acknowledge Godhood in her eternal Prototype.” However, that essay and the Doctrinal Mastery manual both repeat the prohibition on worship of and prayer directed toward Heavenly Mother. The Eternal Family manual specifies that our works bring glory to Heavenly Father as opposed to Heavenly Parents or a Heavenly Mother.
She is co-designer of the Plan of Salvation.
Sometimes implied, but also rejected. From the “Mother in Heaven” essay, “We are part of a divine plan designed by Heavenly Parents who love us.” The Eternal Family manual specifies it as Heavenly Father’s plan in spite of close proximity to phrasing of Heavenly Parents, “Heavenly Father’s plan provides a way for us to become like our Heavenly Parents.” Also, “As women embrace their divinely appointed role as mothers to bear and care for God’s children, they glorify Him and become more like our Divine Parents. Explain that bringing children into the world is an essential part of Heavenly Father’s plan of salvation.”
She is co-creator of the world.
Absent. Even though this responsibility was mentioned in the past by church leaders (see the BYU Studies article), there’s no indication in recent publications that Heavenly Mother was involved in creation beyond mothering spirits. It should be noted, however, that although “the Creator” in the Family Proclamation appears to be Heavenly Father, the church tends to emphasize Jesus Christ as creator of the earth working under direction of the Father. If you remove the Father from direct involvement in creation, there’s little reason to include the Mother.
She is an involved parent in mortality.
Definitely-ish. The “Mother in Heaven” essay quotes President Harold B. Lee, “We forget that we have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother who are even more concerned, probably, than our earthly father and mother, and that influences from beyond are constantly working to try to help us when we do all we can.” Most people understand Heavenly Father’s influence transmitted by the Holy Ghost or Light of Christ, but it’s unclear how Heavenly Mother’s influence might be felt. Nothing in recent publications sheds light on church-approved methods of interacting with Heavenly Mother.
An orthodox viewpoint, then, sees Heavenly Mother as a divine woman, the mother of our spirits. She most likely has a physical body and is married to Heavenly Father (probably monogamous, but not guaranteed). She might have had a role in designing the Plan of Salvation (but probably not), and she can somehow exert influence in our mortal experience.
What are we doing with Heavenly Mother doctrine?
It’s somewhat surprising how much traction we’ve historically gotten out of such limited understanding. There was quite a bit of speculation about the nature of Heavenly Father’s wife/wives in the 19th century, with Orson Pratt in The Seer calculating the time necessary to gestate tens of millions of spirit babies in the premortal realm and Brigham Young hypothesizing Eve as one of many wives of Adam-God. Both systems of thought were later repudiated quite strongly by the church.[5] In the early 20th century, Heavenly Mother received shout-outs by two different First Presidencies when they published official statements responding to increasingly popular ideas of evolution in 1909 and 1925.
In Petrey’s recent Harvard Theological Review article, he expressed concern that Heavenly Mother is currently used to push a heteronormative agenda. Whether you think that’s a good or bad thing depends on your perspective, and I think the Church views this as a good thing. In the “Mother in Heaven” essay, church leaders declare, “We have been given sufficient knowledge to appreciate the sacredness of this doctrine and to comprehend the divine pattern established for us as children of heavenly parents…” In The Eternal Family manual, Heavenly Mother is used in connection to the idea of gender as our eternal identity and purpose, followed by a discussion on Church views of same-gender attraction. The more gender roles play a role in our discourse, the more we’ll likely see Heavenly Mother put forth as the example of female gender roles in both the premortal realm and the eternities.
There are clear limits to our orthodox understanding of Heavenly Mother.
Somewhere we need to place caveats when using our doctrine of Heavenly Mother. First, given how little we know of her, we are not on firm ground when we use her as a defensive (or offensive) argument. Even though we believe Heavenly Mother is female, a wife, and a mother, we have no revealed information on what this divine “Prototype” acts like, talks like, thinks like, or does in her roles as woman, wife, and mother. If we are using her to argue what a woman should be like, then we need to be clear about where we are really getting our understanding, because it’s certainly not from any revealed information about Heavenly Mother. Elder Oaks declared that our highest aspiration is to be like our heavenly parents. One reason a lot of Mormon women tend to stick with becoming like Heavenly Father in common discourse is we really don’t know what becoming like Heavenly Mother entails.
Second, when you involve Heavenly Mother in a discussion (as well as Heavenly Parents and Divine Parents), distinctions become notable. Above I noted an example of how “Heavenly Parents” in one sphere suggested Heavenly Mother’s involvement in designing the Plan of Salvation, later contradicted by publications specifying Heavenly Father as the author. I’ve also mentioned previously how The Eternal Marriage manual says women bearing children glorifies Heavenly Father while making women more like our Divine Parents. That the Father receives additional glory based on our actions with silence concerning any glory related to Heavenly Mother inevitably suggests inequality. We don’t know enough of Heavenly Mother to understand the power structure between Her and the Father, so any time the ultimate superiority of Heavenly Father is noted while Heavenly Mother is in the discussion, we undermine the notion that men and women are on equal standing in families and in the eternities.
Discuss.
[1] Our Heavenly Family, Our Earthly Families by McArthur Krishna and Bethany Brady Spalding, illustrated by Caitlin Connolly. McArthur Krishna wrote about her book at Segullah. Reviewed by Meredith Nelson at the Mormon Women Project, Rameumpton at The Millennial Star, Julie A. Smith at Times and Seasons, Ashmae at By Common Consent, and Petra at Zelophehad’s Daughters.
[2] Posts at By Common Consent: Aug 29 – Taylor Petrey introducing his recent Harvard Theological Review article, “Rethinking Mormonism’s Heavenly Mother”. Aug 30 – A personal reflection on the divine feminine among other gender disparities in our lived religion by Tracy M. Aug 30 – Margaret Toscano’s response to Petrey’s article. Sep 2 – Caroline Kline’s response to Petrey’s article. Sep 7 – Kristine Haglund’s “nakedly unacademic” response to Petrey’s article. Sep 9 – Taylor Petrey’s response to all those responses. At Zelophehad’s Daughters: Sep 1 – Ziff’s response to a common apologetic argument about Heavenly Mother. At Feminist Mormon Housewives: Sep 12 – Sara Katherine Staheli Hanks asks the Mormon Feminist community for individual thoughts on Heavenly Mother.
[3] Since I’m sticking to orthodoxy, I won’t explore academic theories surrounding Heavenly Mother. One of my first guest posts here was the strengths and weaknesses of Heavenly Mother as Lady Wisdom, Asherah, and the Holy Ghost (Spoiler alert: I’m not a strong believer in any of those).
[4] The fact I feel compelled to prove it is doctrine, of course, completely undermines the argument. No-one will lose a temple recommend for expressing doubt in the existence of Heavenly Mother.
[5] Even though Orson Pratt’s theories in The Seer were fairly quickly disavowed as speculation by the First Presidency, they exerted a powerful influence on how we look at Heavenly Mother. In particular I was struck by how similar Orson Pratt‘s reasoning was to President Hinckley’s 1991 remarks concerning the Heavenly Mother prayer prohibition:
But if we have a heavenly Mother as well as a heavenly Father, is it not right that we should worship the Mother of our spirits as well as the Father? No; for the Father of our spirits is at the head of His household, and His wives and children are required to yield the most perfect obedience to their great Head. It is lawful for the children to worship the King of Heaven, but not the “Queen of heaven.” The children of Israel were severely reproved for making offerings to the “Queen of heaven.” Although she is highly exalted and honored as the beloved bride of the great King, yet the children, so far as we are informed, have never been commanded to pray to her or worship her. Jesus prayed to His Father, and taught His disciples to do likewise; but we are nowhere taught that Jesus prayed to His heavenly Mother:… (p. 104-105)
Are Heavenly Father, Heavenly Mother, and Jesus Caucasian? That’s how it looks in most of the pictures I’ve seen.
I blame Italians for starting the whole Christ as Caucasian thing (https://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/classroom-content/teaching-and-learning-in-the-digital-age/images-of-power-art-as-an-historiographic-tool/christ-as-the-good-shepherd). Yes, Mormons tend to go Caucasian with resurrected/exalted beings (and almost all scriptural figures, excepting Lamanites in the BofM). Every so often something sneaks through that isn’t super obvious Caucasian, which is always neat: https://history.lds.org/exhibit/2012-international-art-competition?lang=eng#mv53
@mary ann
“I blame Italians for starting the whole Christ as Caucasian thing”
Quite right. At least today they aren’t all shown with blond hair and blue eyes like they were in my first KJV bible. That’s progress, I suppose. 🙂
Even non-Mormon denominations have the sticky problem of explaining diverse races. If we believe that everybody on earth is descended from Adam and Eve, and God created them in his image, then it’s hard to explain the existence of the three major racial groups for any given Adam-Eve combo.
It gets a bit tougher when we assume that God and Heavenly Mother are physical beings who reproduce the old fashioned way which, I believe, is the Mormon take on things. Though, from my searching, theories about heavenly procreation vary.
I haven’t been able to find out exactly where Jesus came from in Mormon cosmology.
I appreciate the effort of writing the original posting. But since there is no revelation on the subject, I’m satisfied to leave the heavenly mothers thought in the realm of supposition and folklore, and maybe wishful aspirations. But I understand this is a matter of importance to some.
Anon, in Mormon thought, Jesus has a spirit body (just like anyone else) received from Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. The difference is the parents of his physical body were Heavenly Father and the mortal Mary. That combo made it possible for him to withstand the required torment associated with the Atonement prior to a mortal death, and the ability to resurrect himself post-death.
Orson Pratt and BY both believed exalted beings reproduce the old-fashioned way (viviparous spirit birth). Modern leaders have backed off this speculation (and speculation on most topics for that matter). You’ll see it crop up on the blogs every so often – Mormon Heretic just discussed this here in a post back on September 13th.
Ji, thanks. 🙂
If we were to apply those principles that we know (doctrine etc) to the idea of heavenly mother, we run into some very sticky situations.
1. Is she one of many wives
2. Who are the others?
3. is there a “pecking order”?
4. What role do the others have?
5. Are we offspring of different heavenly mothers or just the first wife?
I guess until (and if) we are given more information – or if the information is elevated in status, we will just have to speculate.
Enjoyed the post Mary Ann…
Thankyou Mary Ann this is helpful in clarifying what we do and don’t officially believe. I do not understand the thinking that we assume mother in heaven, and Eve are married, and because they are male and female marriages, we therefore can’t have homosexual marriage approved by God. 2+2=4 therefore 3+1 can’t possibly =4 too? Because Adam and Eve were black God can not possibly be the father of asians, and caucasians.
Interesting question how HM communicates with us, and us with her.
My wife and I have worked together for the last 20 years, and have built4houses, and renovats couple of others together, so In my world we create together, and assume our heavenly parents do the same. There is a lot of joy/satisfaction/love to be gained from working together.
@geoff-auss
” I do not understand the thinking that we assume mother in heaven, and Eve are married”
I agree. In the Bible, Jesus says very clearly there will be no marriages in heaven: “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). This was Jesus’ answer in response to a question concerning a woman who had been married multiple times in her life —whom would she be married to in heaven (Matthew 22:23-28)? Evidently, there will be no such thing as marriage in heaven (see https://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-heaven.html). Presumably, since sex between unmarried partners is prohibited by OT law as fornication, there would be no physical relations in heaven. Therefore, procreation by production of “spirit babies” would be by some as yet understood means other than physical relations. Of course, there would be no prohibition to same-sex pairings in heaven.
Anon, no sex in heaven? I don’t think your heaven is my heaven. I say that a bit tongue-in-cheek, but kind of really…
@steve
“no sex in heaven”
I agree, as a practical matter, but I can only say that’s the logical conclusion if the Bible forbids both marriage in heaven and sex outside of marriage. Honestly, Mormon cosmology doesn’t stand up to close examination. I think the main problem is that Joseph Smith tried to merge Christianity with Spiritualism (e.g. Swedenborg) but didn’t really think it through–obviously. If nothing else, eternal progeny from one pair of physical bodies would result in genetic issues due to inbreeding. Then, there’s the problem that nobody ever gets old and dies, so you wind up with a universe (planet, etc.) full of sexually frustrated 30-somethings after a few generations. Mormon heaven will be like an everlasting episode of “Friends”, I suppose.
Yes, I understand the logic. (For me though I believe there will be marriage and sex in heaven – if God is love, those seem like pretty integral portions of the whole love experience, imo.)
I think you’ll find that Joseph Smith was merging a lot more than just those 2 in the end. His ability to see through the pieces and synthesize is one of the most remarkable aspects of his genius in my opinion. And I understand Joseph Smith can be accused of a lot of things, but not thinking it through would rarely be the case from what I’ve seen. If you’re referring to “spirit” progeny from resurrected beings, I agree there are a lot of problems with the idea – but it wasn’t an idea of from Joseph Smith, the idea came after his death; in Joseph Smith’s cosmology the spirits of mankind are eternal, there is no creation about them.
On second read, it sounds like your understanding of this proposed idea of progeny from resurrected beings – is that they (just one pair?) would be creating other physical resurrected bodies.
I haven’t heard such a thing before. It’s not a Mormon idea to my knowledge. The more common belief is that those who are resurrected, married, and have become like God, will have spirit children who will then be sent to another earth to receive a physical body to go through a mortal experience. I don’t personally accept this idea (I believe Joseph Smith had it right that spirits are eternal, and therefore never “born”) but that is a commonly accepted idea among many LDS members.
Geoff-Aus, I think the reasoning is based on D&C 132: A man and a wife must enter the new and everlasting covenant of marriage to be exalted and become gods. People have tied this to the NT line “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 11:11)
Anon, in Mormon thought it is the special nature of the sealing covenant that allows it to hold in the eternities. D&C 132:15-18 explains that since marriages cannot be performed after the resurrection, if you haven’t had the marriage sealed by proper priesthood authority prior to resurrection, it won’t be valid. That’s the typical Mormon response to Matthew 22. (And Mormons will also say that since the Sadducees didn’t believe in physical resurrection, they weren’t being sincere.)
19th-century Mormons took a very literal view of many things. If God was our Father and has a physical, tangible, exalted male body, there must have been a procreative process. That would likely involve a physical, tangible, exalted female body, and physical relations of some sort (requiring some sort of marriage commitment to be sinless). In a related train of thought, Orson Pratt figured Heavenly Father must have somehow taken the mortal Mary as a Wife at some point, because it would have been fornication for them to conceive a child out of wedlock. In a current age where we have things like artificial insemination, the idea that marriage (or even sex) needs to take place for procreation to occur isn’t as much a given.
@steve
“The more common belief is that those who are resurrected, married, and have become like God, will have spirit children who will then be sent to another earth to receive a physical body to go through a mortal experience.”
I see. I actually did have it wrong. I based my understanding on what I had heard about “eternal families” and the imagery showing grandpa, grandma, mama, papa, and a few happy children commonly seen in Mormon artwork. That implied to me that Mormons imagined generation after generation of physical humans living together in Heaven. Thanks.
LDS_Aussie, plenty of people have explored those sticky situations, which is probably why the church cut back talk of Heavenly Mother and asked members to stop talking about God’s intimate relations. Orson Pratt would have answered yes to the pecking order (only one could have the privilege of standing next to God as the Queen in Heaven, since scriptures speak of queen as singular), yes we likely derive from multiple wives given all the math formulations he did, no idea what exact position the other wives hold. In BY’s Adam-God theory, each wife is responsible for populating each world. So everyone on this earth comes from one wife – Eve/Heavenly Mother.
I can’t imagine the church didn’t foresee the can of worms bringing in Heavenly Mother would be, so apparently they must feel it’s worth the cost to buckle down on gender roles.
The longer I study and read about Mother in Heaven the more convinced I am that we don’t know most things and all will be revealed when we get there. Including the fact that a lot of what we know about Father in Heaven is either God communicating with humans in a form they can understand or us making God in our image bc our mortal brains are so limited in understanding. I’m disturbed that MiH is being used to push a heteronormative agenda when we have so little knowledge re the subject.
There are huge gaps in our current knowledge of the Plan of Salvation. A lot of questions can’t be answered with our current understanding. I’d rather everyone take a wait and see pose than try make answers to the questions come from our lean framework of understanding.
It’s frustrating that it feels like most of my questions are either met w certainty from others (with pity for me not having as much knowledge as they have) or a shouting down that answers to those questions must be put on your “shelf” and just quit worrying about it. I get that I may not get answers to a lot of my questions in this life, that doesn’t mean there isn’t value in wrestling with the questions.
Sorry Anon, didn’t catch that you weren’t clear on that. Yes, so the idea is that the goal is to become *just* like our Heavenly Parents, where we will be repeating their responsibilities in the future. So the question of Heavenly Mother isn’t just a “I want to know more about my mom” thing to Mormon women (though that’s important to many). It’s “I want to know what’s in store for me in the hereafter. Do I essentially disappear as an individual and become an invisible appendage to my husband?”
” The more gender roles play a role in our discourse, the more we’ll likely see Heavenly Mother put forth as the example of female gender roles in both the premortal realm and the eternities”
I can see how this could be, and it makes me feel like She’s a pawn at times. We haven’t heard any desire or effort on the part of our leaders to seek further revelation concerning Her. It’s still considered taboo to really even mention in her Sunday School and the like. Yet it’s ok to bring Her forward when Her presence conveniently reinforces gender roles and the Church’s ideals regarding heterosexual marriage.
Also that Orson Pratt quote was a killjoy to my otherwise promising Saturday.
@mary ann
“Yes, so the idea is that the goal is to become *just* like our Heavenly Parents, where we will be repeating their responsibilities in the future.”
In that case, the whole picture makes a lot more sense. I know I am simplifying and making stuff up, but I can see it working like this: After death, a married-sealed couple becomes a new Heavenly Mother/Father. Together, they create a new universe (let’s say), populate one or more worlds in that universe with an Adam-Eve pair, and thereby ultimately populate the universe with billions of humans. Meanwhile, the original Heavenly Mother/Father pair births spirit babies that travel to the various worlds and inhabit the physical bodies as they are born.
Now, Mormon cosmology has the idea of the eternal family and dwelling with the heavenly parents (the corollary of this is un-exalted existence and separation from the heavenly parents). How do Mormons picture the exalted existence in terms of dwelling with the heavenly parents and dwelling with their family, in the sense that spouses and children are all sealed together (spouse to spouse and children to parents)?
The first paragraph above makes perfect sense to me. When you start throwing sealed children and dwelling with the original heavenly parents into the mix, I get lost again.
Maybee, wasn’t intending to have that quote be such a killjoy. The scripture reasoning, including the phrasing of that reasoning, was the main point. However, I felt including the full quote (rather than just picking out certain sentences) also served to show how we have some very different cultural assumptions today. Even though The Seer was deemed speculation by the existing FP, the assumptions of that time period included seeing men as Lord, Masters, and Saviors of their respective families (one justification Pratt gave for why polyandry was inadvisable was because it would be impossible that a woman could serve two masters). We do not view marriages the same way today, but much of our terminology (and speculation around Heavenly Mother) was formed during that time. We are handicapped by this today.
Anon, in spite of what many of our Primary children understand, the idea isn’t so much that mom and dad and kids sealed to them will all be living in the same household. The idea is that entrance to the highest kingdom requires being sealed as a spouse, and being sealed as a child into the family of God. Ancestors and descendants will be associating with each other (enjoying the same sociality as on earth), but you’ll each have your own responsibilities. In the early church there was a lot of “adoption” (where church leaders were sealed as parents to church members). The switch to focusing on biological ancestors essentially served to make members look outward a bit and seek to bring ordinances to people we have personal responsibility for by virtue of our family relationships in this life. Our own earthly families serve as a more manageable and more personal subset of the family of God.
@mary ann
“The idea is that entrance to the highest kingdom requires being sealed as a spouse, and being sealed as a child into the family of God.”
This is the first explanation I’ve heard that makes any sense whatsoever. Thanks.
“Anon, no sex in heaven? I don’t think your heaven is my heaven. I say that a bit tongue-in-cheek, but kind of really…”
Don’t worry about it Steve. Once you get to heaven, you’ll get a better understanding than you have now. At that point you’ll be glad there is no sex. In fact, you won’t even desire sex anymore. You’ll have a “celestial understanding.”
The idea that we have a heavenly mother is misinformation created to justify the false doctrine of polygamy.
From the Lectures on Faith which was the “doctrine” in the D&C until Heber J Grant decided to remove it in 1921: [Lec 5:2a] There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things – by whom all things were created and made that are created and made, whether visible or invisible;
[Lec 5:2b] whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space.
[Lec 5:2c] They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness.
Now compare with D&C 130:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
Take a look at where D&C 130;22 came from. . . This is how we got D&C 130:22, the only “scripture” which says God has a body of flesh and bones: “On Saturday, 1 April 1843, Joseph Smith traveled to Ramus, accompanied by Orson Hyde and William Clayton. Brother Clayton acted as Joseph’s scribe on this trip and recorded the Prophet’s remarks in his personal diary. The Prophet’s party stayed the night at the home of Benjamin F. Johnson. The next morning Orson Hyde preached to the Saints, using as his texts 1 John 3:2 and John 14:23. Joseph later wrote that after the morning meeting, ‘we dined with my sister Sophronia McCleary, when I told Elder Hyde that I was going to offer some corrections to his sermon this morning. He replied, ‘they shall be thankfully received.’ Joseph then preached to the saints at Ramus in the afternoon and evening meetings. He included among his afternoon remarks what is now Doctrine and covenants 130:1-7, and he included Doctrine and covenants 130:18-23 during his evening remarks. These selected remarks of the Prophet Joseph, as recorded by William Clayton and later copied by Willard Richards, were first published in the Deseret News on 9 July 1856. They were added to the Doctrine and Covenants as section 130 in the 1876 edition at the direction of Brigham Young.” (Stephen E. Robinson, H. Dean Garrett, A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants, [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 2001] 4:220-221).
Two personages and neither of them is a heavenly mother. Here we have two conflicting doctrines. Both can’t be right.
According to the official LDS church essay, the concept of Heavenly Mother is church *doctrine*.
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. This understanding is rooted in scriptural and prophetic teachings about the nature of God, our relationship to Deity, and the godly potential of men and women. The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is a cherished and distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints.”
https://www.lds.org/topics/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng
The LDS church essays are approved by the First Presidency and Q12, so that makes them official.
“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…”
https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng
Of course, any individual is free to believe whatever they wish, but the LDS church’s official stance on the matter is that Heavenly Mother is doctrine.
@stockoneder
Individual members are free to hold their own beliefs, and I support that. On the other hand, the official LDS essay, approved by the First Presidency and Q12, states that Heavenly Mother is LDS church doctrine.
Sorry anon, your comments got stuck in the queue.
@mary ann
Please feel free to delete the duplicates if you like. I was out an about and figured it was a network issue, so I kept trying. 🙂
The Lectures on Faith were also church doctrine and officially recognized and sanctioned scripture for over 86 years. Until of course the contradictions they posed to newer “doctrine” became to glaring to ignore. Then something had to be done.
Blood atonement, adam-god theory, polygamy and blacks not being worthy to hold priesthood were also official doctrine, until they weren’t.
Church doctrine is always changing and definitely not the final word on what is truth and what isn’t.
@ EBK
Lol!
@stockoneder
“Church doctrine is always changing and definitely not the final word on what is truth and what isn’t.”
Preaching to the choir, buddy. 🙂 I am a firm believer in religious freedom–the freedom to believe whatever you feel is reasonable. Personally, I believe it’s just a matter of time before the LDS church grants women the priesthood and performs marriages/sealings of same-sex couples. The LDS church cannot continue violating public policy and societal norms forever–as proven by the examples you listed.
Stockoneder, what is considered doctrine definitely can change. That was a big reason why I started the post with the evidence that the church *currently* considers Heavenly Mother doctrine. I used criteria that the church put out at the Mormon Newsroom in 2007 for the information of journalists writing articles about the church:
“Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
“Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center.”
As of right now, every kid will learn about Heavenly Mother as an official church teaching in both seminary and institute.
It seems to me the doctrine of Heavenly Mother grows out of the LDS anthropomorphization of heaven “as it is on earth.” She is part of the necessary accoutrement for any fully anthropomorphic God, along with a beard, hands, feet, and a throne.
Unfortunately, she isn’t there to provide God with any kind of gender balance in His relations with His children, she did not arise out of the need for a “divine feminine.” The divine feminine in LDS theology, if it exists, is a role filled by Christ and the Holy Ghost. But the fact that She apparently exists, but is silent and invisible, creates the impression of a greater gender imbalance than their would be if it was just God, and God was a He/She.
Heavenly Mother is a theology rich in potential, but has yet to grow into something more meaningful, like the cult of the Virgin for Catholics. If it were up to me, we’d have alters and shrines to Heavenly Mother, and we would pray to Her. And She would answer our prayers too, just as the Virgin does for Catholics.
I generally like the idea of a HM. The main problem I have with it is it is primarily an assumed doctrine which, in our modern context, is heavily influenced by our concept of an conservitive American nuclear family. The failing occurs when you realise that we, as children of heavenly parents, are being raised by basically a single father and and older brother with a neglectful mother.
Unfortunately, HM doctrine is yet another reason for me to take the attitude that, like a bad TV show, we’re just making things up as we go along. I wonder what the doctrinal equivalent is of having Bobby Ewing show up in the shower as it’s declared that the entire [fill in the blank] past years were all a dream, and it’s time to reboot the show after painting ourselves into a corner.
Thanks for the comprehensive summary Mary Ann.
I wrote about my own feelings on the topic here: https://wheatandtares.org/2013/09/12/why-talk-of-the-divine-feminine-isnt-helping-or-i-want-to-scream/
Sadly, little seems to have changed in the interim. Just more doubling down.
Don’t we believe that Jesus Christ is able to succor all people – male and female – and that he experienced all aspects of mortality in order to adequately succor us? If we do believe that concept, then isn’t Jesus, in effect, every bit of a woman as a woman is? In other words, he understands everything about being a woman, just as he understands everything about being a man. He is both genders, essentially. Or, put another way, genders (as well as all other labels) become meaningless in Jesus. If it were not so, he would be unable to adequately succor all people.
And, if we are to become like Jesus and obtain godhood alongside him, don’t we also have to experience the same thing and fully understand all aspects of both genders (as well as transgender, etc.)?
So, if we believe this, why the fixation on eternal genders and gender roles? It’s incredibly short-sighted, in my opinion. Or is there something I am missing?
@oranganjil
“So, if we believe this, why the fixation on eternal genders and gender roles? ”
I honestly believe that the LDS church (at least today) *does* purposely emphasize eternal families with mommy, daddy, and kids in order to exclude LGBT people. The image of mommy, daddy, and the kids being sealed together and living eternally in heaven isn’t representative of actual Mormon cosmology, but I have a feeling that many Mormons imagine that to be the case. It’s certainly promoted that way in Mormon artwork, and it’s how I thought it worked based on the images I saw.
It seems LDS church is paranoid that LGBT folks have some sort of “homosexual agenda”, as revealed in some leaked videos just today. Dallin Oakes, a Mormon Apostle, in reference to the Chelsea Manning leaks: “I’m suspicious that the news media cover up anything involving homosexuals when it would work to the disadvantage of the homosexual agenda and so on, and I was just wondering if there was some of that in this.”
Oct 2 Salt Lake Tribute article: http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4423214-155/leaked-videos-show-mormon-apostles-discussing
Videos are here: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCJTIFO9JJWiXABNXHDUKj4A
Mark N., had to look up that Bobby Ewing thing (Dallas was a bit before my time). Hard to believe that an insanely popular show like that would try to pull it off.
Hedgehog, loved your thoughts in that post.
Orangganjil,
That’s one of the alternate takes Taylor Petrey put forth in his article as a way to go beyond heteronormative stuff.
In the 1970s and 1980s buckling down on gender roles seemed more a reaction to feminism (I was handed Benson’s “To the Mothers in Zion” as a YW). In the 1990s the gender roles emphasis seems to have been more in reaction to gay marriage (looking at conference talks within the year or two prior to the Family Proc).
Women in the church definitely hear about Christ understanding the female experience. Elder Bednar has put forth that in a heterosexual marriage the goal is to work together and learn to view things from each other’s perspective (Hedgehog talked a lot about this in her post).
Going back to early leaders, gender has always played some role in the church. Can you think of a time where we’ve said gender doesn’t ultimately matter in the eternal scheme of things? Based on the different treatments of Adam and Eve in the Bible, many people have understood gender differences to be reflective of inherent differences in temperament and purpose. Our temple ceremonies are no different.
Mark N., I love the Bobby Ewing reference. That was a really big deal at the time and I remember my parents being very upset about the ending.
Mary Ann,
I guess a question we could ask ourselves is: Does the story of Adam and Eve’s differences represent an eternal status or is it merely a teaching tool full of symbolism from which we can benefit in our path back to God’s presence? I don’t believe the story is historical but rather allegorical, so I don’t project those gender differences into eternity.
It also seems to me, if we take the belief that, together my wife and I have the necessary eternal gender differences to be a godhead (gods?), then we have a few serious issues to deal with:
1) We have two, competing godheads (one with Father, Jesus, HG; another with Father, Mother, and Jesus – or are they the same thing?).
2) Jesus, by himself, is only capable of fully succoring men and can only succor women through his supposed wife?
3) Transexuals are hosed since there are only male and female gods, meaning nobody is capable of succoring them.
4) We’re just guessing at God and don’t even have that basic understanding required for faith (between Adam-God, polygamy, eternal polygamy, and now 1950’s era nuclear families, we’re all over the map on this).
Either Jesus is fully capable of completely succoring all genders (male, female, trans, etc.) by himself, thus rendering the necessity eternal gender nonsense, or he can only do it within a framework of eternal gender and thus needs some eternal wife in order to do so. Mormons can’t have it both ways.
Sorry folks, but no way do I want to be stuck with the same physical body FOREVER, regardless of how perfect it might be. If I am going to exist forever, I choose having the experience as a spirit being. This gives me the option of having more than one physical body, which I can easily discard. Might even try out both male and female bodies.
Tom D
Orangganjil, I think looking much more closely at Adam and Eve is a good thing. I was more trying to argue why thinking gender is significant isn’t exactly a new idea in the church. Besides, Mormons have always had it both ways. The HG doesn’t have a physical body, yet he is god (our church has spoken strongly against the HM as HG thing), and Christ was deity prior to ever receiving a body as well. That goes against our basic requirements. If we start going with time-distortion explanations, you could just as easily argue that Christ’s future marriage allowed him to retroactively understand all female experiences.
Mary Ann,
I understand what you mean and I am not arguing that the church hasn’t incorporated gender as an important aspect of the theology. Instead, I’m just claiming that it doesn’t make sense given other aspects of our theology.
“…you could just as easily argue that Christ’s future marriage allowed him to retroactively understand all female experiences.”
So Jesus couldn’t understand women without his wife? At some point it seems to me that we Mormons are just guessing at a lot of our theology. That’s why it is troubling to me to see us claim something like eternal gender as definitive and use it to marginalize a segment of our community, when in reality our claims boil down to conjecture.
You seem not to be making that claim but I am speaking generally.
What I’m saying is that someone could still come up with a gender role argument if you were trying to use Christ to say that gender isn’t as big of a deal since he understands both male and female viewpoints. I agree that the vast majority of what we understand on gender is conjecture and speculation. Theoretically being disciples of Christ doesn’t have a big gender component – we’re all working to develop the same Christlike traits. But leaders say the plan of salvation begins and ends with families, pivoting on the central role of Christ and the Atonement. Gender roles are considered important right now since “family” is such a major component in the plan of salvation.