Janice Allred was given the most severe probation from Church leaders one can get. It soon led to her excommunication. Janice discusses her writings, speeches, and events that led to her excommunication from the LDS Church. She also shares whether she has discusses her experiences with others who have been excommunicated like John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, & Denver Snuffer.
It appears that the LDS Church brands the scarlet letter A for apostasy on the chest of those guilty of apostasy in order to make their teachings appear dangerous to orthodox members of the Church. Despite all that, Janice continues to attend church in Provo, Utah. But this scarlet letter has affected her children, and not in a good way. Check out our conversation….
I asked Janice Allred how she views the LDS Church today, and if she had advice for LDS Church Leaders. How should ward members treat the excommunicated? We share a mini-episode of Kurt Francom’s “Leading Saints” podcast on how members should reach out to excommunicated members. Check out our conversation by signing up for our free newsletter and I will give you a secret link to the final part of our conversation. Sign up at https://gospeltangents.com/newsletter
I also asked Janice if she would ever get re-baptized. I was surprised to hear she “won’t”, despite going to church every Sunday for 30 years after her excommunication. What do you think of her story? Would you continue to attend after your excommunication?
Wheat & Tares 
Rick, there are no links to the videos in your post.
With a little research I was reminded that Janice Allred’s apostasy was in promoting a female “Mother in Heaven” as equal to “Father in Heaven”. This is a purely rational conclusion if one believes LDS doctrine of eternal progression, celestial marriage and the equality of men and women.
The real offense of Janice Allred was to advocate worship of “Mother in Heaven”. In this she crossed two lines – she threatened the Patriarchy of the church leadership and she challenged the leadership’s’ view of the Godhead.
I believe this 1994 article is representative of Allred’s theology: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/toward-a-mormon-theology-of-god-the-mother/
I am not familiar to what degree Allred challenged the Patriarchal order of the church. This does not seem to be her target. Rather her unforgivable sin was to express unorthodoxy about the nature of God. Yet as Allred explains, church leadership acknowledges a Mother in Heaven. So how is it blasphemy to explore the concept?
One can only wonder. I have always found it curious how seriously the LDS leadership holds and defends its position on the Godhead. Personally, the descriptions and relationships encapsulated in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost surpass my understanding. Some parts seem clear. Other parts obscure and exceed the dimensions of my comprehension. And the nature of God should stretch our minds. Who are we to claim to know the ways of an infinite God with our finite minds?
But the LDS leadership does know. It absolutely knows and it is is offended at any, especially members, who dare challenge them on theology. At least that was the mindset in the 1990s. Is this sensitivity still the case? The church today seems to scarcely care about theology as it seems to spend more time explaining all it doesn’t know, rather that what is – think of Elder Oaks explaining that the leadership has no insight in how men sealed to multiple wives will be resolved in the next life. It will just work out. I agree! So why be so sensitive at members who explore what might be seeing that you, the leaders, are taking a pass?
I am a simple person. The scriptures say not one word about mother(s) in heaven, and I think it is generally wise to say nothing where the scriptures are silent. Private musings are one thing, but public teaching and preaching is another thing. There is one hymn that mentions mother(s), but one hymn does not establish doctrine. Another hymn teaches “There’s the right and the wrong to every question,” but Elder Oaks gave a talk some time back where he cited this specific hymn and acknowledged that some questions don’t have one right and one wrong, and some questions might have multiple rights and maybe even no right answer. Is there a right answer as to which laundry detergent one should buy?
On the question of Heavenly Mother(s), I think that the less publicly said is better. Why? Kindly allow a parallel. When the Church’s doctrine was that men of African descent could not receive the priesthood, and people of African descent could not go to the temple, some people naturally wondered why. The scriptures were silent on why, and as nature abhors a vacuum, so men (including leaders at the highest levels) created reasons and taught them from our pulpits and printed them in our books. The Church today rejects all of those reasons, including those propounded by then-apostles. Lesson: where the scriptures are silent, perhaps people should also be silent. The existence, or non-existence, of mother(s) in heaven is not one of our articles of faith; my membership does not depend on me affirming anything here.
I am a simple person. I have a hard enough time keep track of faith, repentance, and baptism, and charity and love, and taking care of my family, and going to work every day. When people want to force mother(s) in heaven on me in a church meeting as a foundational belief, it bothers me, because belief in this isn’t foundational and it isn’t necessary for our salvation. I don’t know what the future holds after this life, but I believe that it is more wonderful than anything that I can contemplate. That is sufficient for me. I don’t need to have all of the questions answered and explained, and in fact I’d rather not have them explained by people speaking without a clear revelation from God. When men and women speak beyond what the scriptures say, then we go beyond the mark, and we risk teaching grave error, as we did in explaining why people of African descent could not receive priesthood and temple blessings.
Yes—we have enough to think about without having mothers forced on us. What difference does it make who they are, how many there are, what they do all day? It’s so ridiculous for women to wonder what their lives will be like in eternity (and men don’t need to be bothered). It’s not that they are especially important or interesting anyway. Certainly if you look at the way the church is organized women are neither foundational nor necessary.
Georgis,
The LDS doctrine of the Godhead is challenged by the Book of Mormon wherein it is taught that Jesus Christ is the “Eternal Father”. So Jesus is the Father and the Son but he is not Heavenly Father? I conceptually believe in God the Father and God the beloved Son Jesus being separate beings. But scriptures strongly indicate a duality of existence! LDS are so adverse at acknowledging this duality we insist on a separation that subtracts from what the scriptures say
I don’t have a particular issue with LDS theology on the nature of God. Reality is one can find in LDS doctrine various nuggets and perspectives that provide for rich and deep contemplation. My concern is with the leadership asserting an absolute interpretation of the Godhead wherein the leadership claims doctrinal authority on Christianity and superiority over Christian denominations.
I find the leadership engagement on matters of Christian theology to be weird. First, the LDS church stopped caring about theology when McConkie and then Packer died. The current leadership of the church is made up of doctors, lawyers and businessmen. No philosophers or theologians in the mix! (Elder Holland was trained in literature, but has spent the last 40 years as an administrator) This doesn’t mean the leadership cannot weigh in on theology, but it makes them poorly equipped to understand and appreciate the richness of Christian philosophy. We even notice the leadership not even being aware of what past LDS leaders, including Joseph Smith taught!
Rather than theology, what the LDS church has today is dogma. The official beliefs are simplified doctrinal viewpoints that “good” members publicly declare, and then in private we each try to come to our own understanding. Where is the boundary on what personal insights can be shared? What perspectives are allowed and which ones condemned? It is this uncertainty that is problematic as it squelches thought and substitutes conformity for intelligence.
Dot, if I conveyed the message that women are neither foundational nor necessary, then I apologize. They are both: the whole human family descends Adam and Eve, and we both have as many mothers and grandmothers as we have fathers and grandfathers. I don’t teach publicly what women will be or what they will do all day in heaven, nor do I teach what men will be or what they will do all day in heaven. I don’t know. Both men and women, irrespective of sex, can become co-heirs with Christ. I do not know all the details of what that means, but I believe it. I think that it will wonderful beyond our mortal capacity to comprehend.
I have heard some of Cleon Skousen’s teachings on different topics presented as truth from pulpits and in classrooms, and I call this error. You will probably agree with me that Church leaders before 1978 erred when they presented reasons why people of African descent could not have temple or priesthood blessings. The Church eschews all those reasons today. I’m fine with private musings, but what we pronounce from our pulpits and in our classes should (in my opinion) be tethered to the standard works. If the scriptures are silent, then maybe we should be silent, also.
Disciple, I agree that Book of Mormon teaching on the Father/Son is less than clear. I think that the BoM prophets before 3 Nephi, like the OT prophets, had no concept of Father and Son as two discrete beings. They knew only Jehovah, who was the one and only God, and the BoM prophets knew by prophecy that God would take up a body of flesh and would then be called the Son of God. Perhaps the only Father that really matters is Jesus, who was/is God, and who came in the flesh and dwelt among John and his contemporaries. Power to become sons and daughters of God is given to those who believe in Jesus as Christ, and it is this parentage (and only this parentage) that will save believers at the last day. I don’t know that we can have a relationship with Jesus’ Father, for to see Jesus is to see the Father. Some leaders tell us today to have faith both in Heavenly Father and in Jesus Christ, but I am not sure. The scriptures seem to teach us to have faith in Christ alone. The Father has given all power over this creation to the Son, and the Son should be the sole object of our faith.
Georgis,
There is no theology around women’s divine nature if there is no theology around a Heavenly Mother. You cannot separate the two topics. Either women are made in God the Mother’s image or they are the creation of a male God who thought it would be a good idea to have two sexes for some inexplicable reason. If women do not have any divine destiny, this is crucial information for them to know, so they can make informed decisions about if they should sacrifice their time, talents, and so forth to a church that doesn’t see them as children of God.
You can’t teach that women are heirs with Christ the way men are, and then simultaneously tell women that their potential is perhaps to be a polygamous wife for eternity presided over by a husband God. There is no question that men can attain godhood. Why should there be a question if women can attain it? If women can’t, then the church needs to explicitly teach this and stop lying or obfuscating the truth. Don’t God’s children deserve to know the truth about their heritage and potential to fully use their agency?
KLC, thanks for letting me know. I fixed the links.
Disciple, one of the things that struck me in the interview was that Janice said it wasn’t so much what she wrote about Heavenly Mother than got her in trouble, but what she wrote about God and Jesus. Basically, she believes God & Jesus as synonymous and are the same being, similar to my Paul Toscano interview. That was more heretical to her bishop than Heavenly Mother.
Here’s my interview with Paul discussing his heretical theology:
and
What usually happens in these cases has less to do with what someone believes and more to do with openly pitting those beliefs against what is taught by the leaders of the church–especially in a way that suggests that the apostles are not inspired.
LDS political excommunication, especially upon mothers, is unquestionable abuse of authority and clear unrighteous dominion: the boyish act of excommunicating members over words or beliefs derives from cowardice, weakness and insecurity—it makes our priesthood appear to be petty, bureaucratic, and immature.
The type of LDS men who move to excommunicate in order to “defend the church,” are type of men that should be excommunicated in the first place. We would do better without them.
Like a Milgram experiment, it’s priesthood men— particularly those so willing to excommunicate others in the Name of God—who are the ones really on trial.
Excommunication can have as much to do with power as it does with theology or bad behavior. It’s supposed to be “a chance to start over” (as Elder Ballard called it).
In some cases I’m sure it gets used this way, but excommunication absolutely has a tendency to get weaponized against perceived troublemakers like a police nightstick. In the case of the September Six, it has the feeling of a public beatdown of certain types of dissent.
It’s very difficult to understand exactly how harsh excommunication is for a true believer unless you’ve been personally impacted by it, and I don’t just mean sitting in on a disciplinary council. My dad was excommunicated while I was on my mission and this “act of love” very nearly destroyed by family. He had served in many high-level, visible ward and stake callings and been involved in many disciplinary councils…so he knew the routine and what the grounds were for it and was shocked when he was called in.
We talk about excommunication like you’re just not considered a member for awhile in some closed-door private council. No…for an active believer it is incredibly public and humiliating – it feels brutal and violent.
* You’re formally cut off from all of the saving ordinances that are supposed to let you into the celestial kingdom while being told it’s out of love.
* You have fewer privileges at church on Sunday than someone who was never a member…yet you’re expected to show up at church every week and just take it if you want any hope of getting back into heaven.
* You have no voice and aren’t allowed to participate.
* You (and often your family) are ostracized and rejected by friends and even family members who you thought cared unconditionally.
* Any misfortune that comes your way is viewed by others as some sort of justified punishment from God for whatever you did.
* Your kids suddenly become pitied and frowned at.
* Your temple sealing technically stays intact…assuming your marriage survives it at all. But in an eternal scheme, what is your spouse supposed to do? Meet you outside the celestial kingdom gates from time to time for a sinner’s picnic?
* You’re even obliged to change the type of underwear you wear.
There is honestly nothing like an excommunication to reveal who the truly Christlike people are in a ward…it’s often not the people you thought it would be.
After a few years he re-applied for membership after doing everything he could – always attending church, never missing a meeting with leaders, doing everything he was asked. He received a letter signed by a member of the first presidency…”nope, can’t come back. Try again in 12 months if you want.” He received those letters year after year. He missed the temple portion of my wedding and had to sit outside while my entire family except him was in there. The only complaint I ever heard him make was one time after the third or fourth rejection he said, “Sometimes I wonder if it would have been better to just become inactive instead – they’ll do anything to get an inactive member back…they don’t seem to care about me at all.”
Pirate Priest—that is heartbreaking.
Pirate, I agree with Dot. I am very sorry for your father’s treatment. My thoughts: seventy times seven? a little mercy? welcoming back the prodigal with open arms? I don’t know the details, obviously, but when is enough enough? Hasn’t Elder Holland recently taught that no matter what we’ve done, we are not beyond the Lord’s capacity to save and to forgive? A record can be annotated to prevent a calling. I am sorry, and I hope that your father is soon again welcome in our assembly.
I have family members who’ve been excommunicated. And while it’s terribly sad and unfortunate–I can’t say that my loved ones who’ve gone through that experience are victims of injustice. They made big mistakes–and the judgments they received were an inevitable result of their own actions. But even so, their being excommunicated wasn’t only to protect the church–which is vitally important–it was also for their own welfare. It placed them in a position where they received less condemnation than they would have otherwise. And it also helped them to appreciate the blessings that come with being faithful–that is, by having some of them removed–at least that’s my hope for them.
That said, though there may have been a loss of trust there was never any loss of love or concern between anyone in my extended family because of those actions. The larger issues (now) have to do with repairing broken families and mending familial relationships. A lifetime won’t be enough to fix all of the damage. But still–as it relates to the church’s actions–I have to say that, if not anything else, they served as a warning to my family that such destructive behavior cannot be tolerated among the Lord’s people. These words of Jacob come to mind:
“Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.”
@Jack, “It placed them in a position where they received less condemnation than they would have otherwise.” While I’ve heard this justification for excommunication for a number of times, this smells to me just like some good ol’ fashioned Mormon “folk doctrine”. The reasoning seems to be that if someone who has made a covenant with God commits a sin that seriously violates that covenant, they are somehow going to have a better standing before God by “releasing” them from this covenant. This reasoning makes zero sense to me. Whether they are ex’d or not, they still committed the sin in question while their covenant was intact, so how is releasing them from the covenant going to make God feel any better about their actions?
When most people marry, they covenant with their spouse to be monogamous. If one spouse violates this covenant and is discovered, the other spouse may or may not choose to release them from this covenant through divorce. However, I don’t think that the violated spouse feels any better about the unfaithfulness of the cheating spouse after a divorce is finalized. The unfaithful spouse’s infidelity is equally bad whether or not they are released from the marriage through divorce–either way, the spouse was unfaithful while the marriage covenant was intact. It seems like it would be the same thing with a covenant made with God. If you break a covenant with God, it seems like God would be equally displeased with you for this sin on “Judgement Day” whether or not you were subsequently ex’d.
I understand (but don’t necessarily agree with) some of the other justifications for excommunication, but the whole “receiving less condemnation” or “lightening the burden of their covenants” arguments make no sense to me at all. It just feels to me like folk doctrine to make people feel better about excommunication, something they themselves know deep inside is often an ugly, unwarranted, and unproductive practice.
mountainclimber479,
I believe it’s that very precept that mercifully preserved the Lamanites while the Nephites were destroyed.
@Jack, I don’t think your Nephite/Lamanite example is an example of excommunication reducing the condemnation of individuals. Given the Book of Mormon text, I think you can certainly argue that the Nephites were destroyed because they had sinned against the “greater light” that God had given them, that they’d become more wicked than the Lamanites, etc. You can also argue that the Lamanites were preserved because they were just “following the traditions of their fathers”. Those “following the traditions of their fathers” Lamanites were the Lamanites that were preserved, not their covenant breaking ancestors. In other words, the Lamanites that were preserved weren’t preserved because they’d been excommunicated and therefore qualified to receive a less harsh judgment. They were preserved because they didn’t know any better and had never made covenants with God in the first place.
Also, I think for purposes of this discussion, it would be more productive to talk about the excommunication of an individual person receiving a less harsh judgment from God (an idea that I believe to be rather ugly folk doctrine) rather than God’s dealings with entire nations. The Church excommunicates people, not nations.
@Jack: This is the problem precisely. We talk about excommunication like it’s some merciful thing. Like God is looking down at a person’s file and readying the “outer darkness” stamp, then some kindly stake president swoops in to saves the day by yanking the paper away at the last moment.
I’m not suggesting the church shouldn’t have a mechanism to cut formal ties with a person when the situation warrants, but let’s not lie to ourselves about what excommunication actually is: it’s eternal social ostracization until you get back in line with the church.
What’s worse is that excommunication is designed to discourage the person from coming back at all – the church trusts any old local leader to issue the judgement but doesn’t trust those same leaders to know when someone has been punished to be allowed back – that takes personal approval from the very top.
A few years ago I lived in an outer area. We lived there because we could buy land there, build a house, and be debt free (leader advice). It took 45 minutes to get to church and, having youth, at least twice a week. We were excited when a branch was created in our area, but less excited when a newish member was called as branch president, although there were a number of men with leadership experience.
We did not find out until later how extreme his right wing views were.
I rode with the BP to a leadership meeting, and on the way home we were discussing current affairs, including voluntary assisted dying legislation that was being proposed, and which I supported and he did not.
A few days later he turned up on my doorstep with a councilor, in the dark, and handed me a letter which accused me of apostasy and invited me to a hearing, where all of his questions were of the, do you agree that ….. the church does not support voluntary assisted dying etc. That way if I didn’t agree I was also defying his authority. He declared me guilty of Apostacy at the end and said I was exed.
There was another factor at play that I was not aware of. He was a high school teacher where my children went and I was head of the Parents and citizens committee. The committee were asked by the principal for our input on the sex education programme. We were given a presentation on it and were impressed that it not only covered biology but consent, power imbalance etc. I later found out the BP was trying to have it removed.
But I was a High Priest and could not be exed by a BP or Bishop, (not a woman) so took it to the Stake President, who dragged it out for months. This created a great deal of stress in our lives, and in the branch.
Eventually the BP applied for a transfer out of the area, and went inactive
The stake President never made a decision, and when he was released went inactive too. For other reasons I assume.
So I was exed but by someone without the authority. The next BP called me as a councilo
mountainclimber479,
Maybe my example about the Lamanites is a bit misplaced. Still, what I was suggesting is that their being cut off from the presence of the Lord served to protect them from further condemnation–albeit in a rather counterintuitive way. If they had suddenly been endowed with the light and understanding that the Nephites had–but failed to repent–they would’ve been under greater condemnation than they already were. IMO, it is in the same sense that those who are excommunicated are cut off from certain blessings of the priesthood. This is a non controversial principle. The reason why we–today–don’t have more light and truth (collectively) than we already have is because we’re not prepared to live up to it–and would only be condemned by it. That said, I agree with what you say about other factors (such as false traditions and so forth) having to do with why the Lord extended greater mercy towards the Lamanites than he did towards the Nephites.
The Pirate Priest,
In my previous comment I try to make it clear that there are other more (shall we say) grave purposes for excommunication. It isn’t just about mercy–though that’s certainly part of the purpose for stripping certain blessings from those who have committed serious sin. The Savior makes it clear–in the Book of Mormon in particular–that while those who have committed serious sin should still be welcome to join with the congregation they are not to partake of the sacraments of the church. In fact he uses rather harsh language to convey his counsel on the subject, saying that those who partake of the sacrament(s) unworthily “eat and drink damnation to their souls.” And so, while it is obvious that the church has become more tolerant of certain indiscretions–especially among the youth–we should remember that some sins are very serious and need to be dealt with accordingly. Hence my quotation of Jacob’s words in my previous comment.
I’m curious of the thought process behind those who subscribe (or say they subscribe) to most other LDS beliefs or attend church but then also worship or pray to a mother in heaven. Sure, Mormon theology supports the idea of her existence. And personally, I love the idea. It makes more sense to my mortal brain than the opposite. But if one subscribes to most other LDS beliefs, then one also knows that nowhere in the scriptures, never at any time, are there examples of prophets doing anything similar. So, how does one reconcile that contradiction? Does someone down this mental path think they’ve discovered something brand new or wrongly omitted from prophetic history? Do they think our mother in heaven’s proper recognition was only suppressed by 4,000 years of oppressive patrichy? But now finally, the present generation is clearheaded enough to see the real truth? If so, that seems rather solipsistic. Why do present proponents think they’ve got such a privaleged vantage point?
Georgis: When you state that you are so busy having faith and being charitable that when “people want to force mother(s) in heaven on me in a church meeting as a foundational belief, it bothers” you (and who cares whether it’s mother or mothers, right?), that is a fairly clear indication that you don’t value women. If you don’t mean that, great! But that’s how you are coming across. And telling women that you think everything will be wonderful, and you think women are awesome, even though any discussion of the issue is irrelevant and stressful, doesn’t work. Just sayin’.
Pagan,
The whole premise of the LDS church is founded on continuing revelation. It doesn’t matter to the church that no ancient prophets anywhere in the scriptures talk about temple work for the dead. No ancient prophets anywhere talk about eternal marriage. In fact Jesus himself said no one marries in heaven. Yet here the church is contructing its theology around beliefs that are nowhere in scripture. Not only constructing theology but declaring that you have to be eternally married to even reach what is considered heaven.
Let’s look at another system of oppression, besides patriarchy, that has lasted thousands of years, monarchies. Was it foolish for people to develop a democratic system of government when there had been emperors, kings, chieftains, etc for thousands of years? Were the early practitioners of democracy delusional in thinking that their generation discovered enlightenment and truth when previous generations hadn’t? Goddesses were worshipped in ancient civilizations. Even if the “right” goddess wasn’t worshipped, the human need for a divine mother can be seen as a righteous desire of those civilizations. When monotheism came along in an extremely patriarchal climate, where livestock was given more dignity than women, is it any surprise that those in power decided to exclusively worship a male God?
Dot, I am sorry to have offended you, but I am not guilty of the charge that you lay against me of not valuing women. I cautioned against the public teaching of a particular idea (the existence of mothers in heaven). I never denied the existence of mothers in heaven, and I never denigrated women. I wrote that I think it unwise to teach from our pulpits and in our classrooms doctrines that the scriptures do not teach. I gave an example of when we (not you or me personally, but Church members pre-1978) came up with reasons why people of African descent could not receive temple or priesthood blessings. That non-scriptural ban was untethered from canon, and we erred in the lists of reasons for it that we created and taught from our pulpits and in our classrooms. In my mind, better to stay close to the revealed truth in the standard works, and to have the humility to say “I don’t know” when called upon to explain something that the scriptures do not explain. I also wrote that private musings outside of worship services are fine.
I’d rather stop in public teaching at faithful women and men being joint heirs with Christ, without respect to their genders. That is solid, common ground for all believers in Christ, in and out of the Church. Beyond that, I teach nothing about the eternal destiny of men or women. If asked, my answer is that it will be glorious beyond my ability to comprehend (that’s true), but I do not know anything when it comes to specifics. I do know this: although one can teach a powerful sermon, or do many might works, or know all truth from beginning to end, if a man or a woman does not have charity, all the rest will amount to nothing. So yes, I try to be charitable. I am guilty as charged of trying to be “so busy having faith and being charitable.” I don’t always succeed, but I do try. If that is a crime, call me guilty.
@Mary, Thanks for a very thoughtful reply. I can now better see the motivation for worshipping a mother in heaven. As you say, Goddesses were worshipped in ancient civilizations. They’re even worshipped in some religions today. Many of these religions were multi-theistic and easily accommodated such beliefs. LDS theology, however, is different. It’s doesn’t allow for that. So, the question remains: How does one rationalize LDS worship of a mother in heaven when there’s just no (LDS) scriptural or continuing revelation to support the idea? I suspect that proponents just endure the contradiction with confidence that it’s the current prophets that are mistaken; not themselves. In fact, we actually have a language today that helps sustain that belief. One can argue that all prophetic counsel on this topic, both past and current, has been constrained by male leadership and centuries of patriarchy. To promote a mother in heaven would weaken male power. Only if those shackles of thought could be overthrown, might we possibly see a doctrinal reversal on mother-in-heaven worship much like the (former) racial priesthood ban. I suspect that’s how many in our LDS faith continue with their righteous desire to worship a mother-in-heaven. They think of it as truth not properly acknowledged.
To me though, the patriarchy argument on this is a tough one. It doesn’t make sense.. For me to believe it, one has to explain how a benevolent and omniscient god (one not blinded by patriarchy himself?) would call all his historic and current prophets, and also send his son to earth, charging them (as He said) to convey his unadulterated word to man… but then allow patriarchy to step-in and defeat the potential revelation on this one important topic at every turn. So, I struggle with the idea that patriarchy is responsible for a lack of extensive doctrine on the mother-in-heaven topic. God and his prophets appear to have had no problem communicating other, even harder-to-accept truths, yes? So, is patriarchy really the reason LDS and most historic Judeo-Christian theology has omitted mother-in-heaven worship? Or is it something else?
I acknowledge the idea of heavenly mothers as one of the threads in the rich tapestry of Mormon thought, but I am hesitant to endorse the thought as church doctrine or personal doctrine. I want to believe everything that has been revealed, and everything that is yet to be revealed once it is revealed, but I am unable to discern that there has been any revelation at all on this topic.
[I use the term in plural because,to me, the provenance of the thought in Mormon history seems to require the plural.]
I am fearful of what the scriptures call “itching ears,” so like some others here I prefer to stay close to the scriptures — I apply this preference to essentially everything that I regard as doctrine. I acknowledge that my own definition of doctrine differs from Elder Bednar’s.
That said, I appreciate the diversity of discussion that occurs on W&T.
BTW, my stake president speaks often of heavenly mother (he uses the singular, or refers to heavenly parents), maybe even more so than than he speaks of Jesus.
Georgis
FYI using the words sorry and but in the same sentence isn’t a great apology.
Pagan,
Even though the church claims it’s just like other Christian religions. That’s not strictly true. The church isn’t traditionally monotheistic because Mormons worship two deities: Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. These are separate beings, and both are gods. Furthermore Mormons believe in the existence of multiple gods/goddesses based on what is taught about our own potential. These gods/goddeses just aren’t worshipped because they are not our parents.
If you believe that God has called prophets who do in fact deliver God’s pure and exact words to His children, then the patriarchy argument won’t make sense to you. However, if you truly believe prophets are infallible, then there are plenty of other things you’d have to mentally reconcile, like the changing temple ceremony, the black priesthood and temple ban, etc.
The reality is that God wanted Moses to give His children the higher law, but because of idolatry (this can be a metaphor for any false tradition), Moses could not teach people God’s higher law. The reality is that Moses himself could not even enter the promised land because of his own pride. There are more examples I could point out that showcase prophets or people’s failure to deliver God’s pure word or to live God’s word. If God never let humans use their agency in ways that thwarted His delivery of eternal truths and principles, then the Great Apostasy never would have happened. Prophets, like all human beings, are products of their culture.
As far as why hasn’t God tried to forcefully correct the patriarchal issues in the church? I don’t know. I really don’t have insight into why God allows horrific things to happen all the time in the world. I don’t know why God ever let Brigham Young institute the racist priesthood and temple ban either. Why didn’t God show up to Brigham and be like what are you doing? The scriptures and history are littered with what we would consider divine inconsistencies. But I believe these are better explained when you view prophets are fallible people who deliver sometimes very fallible messages.
Powerful, authoritative women are found and lauded within the Judeo/Christian body of scripture. With few exceptions (Mary), they are ignored (prophetess Anna) or weakened (prophetess Deborah) in LDS lesson manuals. From time-to-time a patriarchal general authority may kindly mention that the resurrected Jesus appeared first to women.
That we are able to hold onto our intrinsic value, and find it within ourselves to forge ahead with determination and joy with scant modeling in scripture is worthy of acclaim.