Heavenly Mother

[Mamabear]

Theory or doctrine?
Scriptural references?
If true, why hidden? By God’s design or men?

From the church’s website:

“While there is no record of a formal revelation to Joseph Smith on this doctrine, some early Latter-day Saint women recalled that he personally taught them about a Mother in Heaven. The earliest published references to the doctrine appeared shortly after Joseph Smith’s death in 1844, in documents written by his close associates.”

Personally I have a problem with things that were added after Joseph’s death, which people said he taught.

[Mamabear]

“Men and women cannot be exalted without each other. Just as we have a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in Heaven. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has said, “Our theology begins with heavenly parents. Our highest aspiration is to be like them.”
From their website.

I don’t believe this and I don’t understand why it says that their theology begins with heavenly parents. Especially when Jesus, nor his apostles and prophets from ages ago taught this doctrine.

[marc]

I believe by God's design. Men profane everything.

[Pazooka]

I recommend dipping into Margaret Barker’s work. She has some really good papers on Margaretbarker.com. I’ve purchased 3 of her books and plan on getting more. Her research specialty is “temple theology” with an emphasis on the appearance of Lady Wisdom (what we would term the Heavenly Mother) in ancient Israelite worship and how many traces of her were obliterated by priests, scribes and shifty kings. You’d be surprised how much scripture is translated to the masculine, where the feminine is actually indicated, respecting God’s transactions with creation.

I’m currently researching the possibility that the power of resurrection is performed, not as a male priesthood ordinance, but by exalted females, contrary to the LDS tradition. This seems to be the message and pattern that I’m finding from scripture (ie Psalm 111), ancient Egyptian religion (Facsimile 2), ancient Roman and Greek mythology (Hebes, Aurora, dawn stars), etc. It’s everywhere and it’s fascinating. For instance, research the Wedjat Eye, Eye of Ra and Eye of Horus.

[Christianlee]

I think it began as an extension of the Adam-God doctrine taught by Brigham Young. I only believe it makes sense if Mary was the pre-existent Mother before she was born just as Jesus was the pre-existent Son. It is obvious in LDS theology that in some way Mary would have been married to the Father to have His Son. Ancient Christianity in both East and West claimed Mary was preserved from sin.

[abijah]

• Matthew 22
  For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Lds theology in its present state has no real way of interpreting or engaging w/ the ^above scripture.

In order to get a better idea of how people in the 2nd-Temple judaic era thought about various doctrines, it can be helpful to read the stuff they read, and glean info from what they were informed by..

• 1 Enoch 15 (God addressing forsworn angels)
  Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons?
  And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those ⌈also⌉ do who die and perish.
  Therefore have I given mortal men wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth.
  But you were ⌈formerly⌉ spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world.
  And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.

it seems like the logic goes, because mortal men are, well... mortal, there thus arises a cosmic incumbent necessity for fallen man to somehow perpetuate himself/themselves through time.

the book of enoch seems to say that because spiritual beings are by nature immortal, therefore they don't have that same necessity of a helpmeet in order to propagate a lineage in order to endure.

Jesus's quotation about no marriage in the resurrection and reference to being "like the angels in heaven" doesn't make a whole lot of sense from an lds doctrinal standpoint, but it does appear to be contextualized by 1 Enoch, which New Testament authors quote/reference from loads of times (Matthew in particular)

"idk abijah, you saying theres a connection between some random matthew verse, and the apocryphal book of enoch seems a little tenuous to me...", Ok well i have a second witness, it's not even the only time Jesus refers to the Book of Enoch in the same chapter (matt 22) ---->

• Matthew 22
  “But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment.
  And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless.
  Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’"

its practically a copypasta

• 1 Enoch 10
  To Raphael he said, "Go, Raphael, and bind Asael hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness"

so i think it's a fairly solid assumption that in Matthew ch. 22, Jesus
A) is quoting from 1 Enoch, and
B) using the logic/doctrine of 1 Enoch to expound about marriage/women.

I talked about a ĺot of this stuff in my "Were there female spirits in the premortality?" thread, and as I've ruminated longer on it, the more convinced i am that our modern LDS conception of marriage and the male-female dynamic seems to speak to a worldview that's been much more influenced by post-feminism, post-modernism, and all the myriad philosophies of western men since the Enlightenment that've been continually eroding the Christian way of viewing and interfacing-with Reality. leading up to today, with a modern western conception of male+female, husband+wife that's been utterly distorted from God's original design, and an altogether disincarnated lens thru which to interpret spiritual meaning from physical facts.

• Genesis 2
  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul..
  And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

The more I've meditated on the subject the more confirmed i feel in the hunch that i don't think we were split-apart male + female spirits in the premortality, that's something that happened after the Creation period, and we're actually applying that male/female dichotomy retroactively to things it doesn't apply. The scriptures talk a lot about "sons of God", but never daughters. The only female spiritual beings that ever get referenced are fallen pagan goddesses.

i think the full understanding of the divine feminine is reserved for the very end, the "parousia" when Time itself unfolds on itself, all things are brought into the cosmic present.

• Revelation 21
  And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

[HeberC]

I'm curious about everything but I think Jesus is extremely protective of Her. So, for now, I'll take it as above my pay grade and let the Father introduce me to Her, when we're both ready.

[LDS Watchman]

Theory or doctrine?
Scriptural references?
If true, why hidden? By God’s design or men?

From the church’s website:

“While there is no record of a formal revelation to Joseph Smith on this doctrine, some early Latter-day Saint women recalled that he personally taught them about a Mother in Heaven. The earliest published references to the doctrine appeared shortly after Joseph Smith’s death in 1844, in documents written by his close associates.”

Personally I have a problem with things that were added after Joseph’s death, which people said he taught.

Doctrine.

Brigham Young, Eliza R. Snow, and other early church leaders taught about her quite plainly.

Joseph Smith's King Follett discourse combined with the Nauvoo Endowment and D&C 132 leave us no other conclusion than the existence of a Heavenly Mother.

[Robin Hood]

Theory or doctrine?
Scriptural references?
If true, why hidden? By God’s design or men?

From the church’s website:

“While there is no record of a formal revelation to Joseph Smith on this doctrine, some early Latter-day Saint women recalled that he personally taught them about a Mother in Heaven. The earliest published references to the doctrine appeared shortly after Joseph Smith’s death in 1844, in documents written by his close associates.”

Personally I have a problem with things that were added after Joseph’s death, which people said he taught.

Doctrine.

Brigham Young, Eliza R. Snow, and other early church leaders taught about her quite plainly.

Joseph Smith's King Follett discourse combined with the Nauvoo Endowment and D&C 132 leave us no other conclusion than the existence of a Heavenly Mother.

They were the same people who taught plural marriage too, and claimed Joseph as their authority in the matter.

[LDS Watchman]

Theory or doctrine?
Scriptural references?
If true, why hidden? By God’s design or men?

From the church’s website:

“While there is no record of a formal revelation to Joseph Smith on this doctrine, some early Latter-day Saint women recalled that he personally taught them about a Mother in Heaven. The earliest published references to the doctrine appeared shortly after Joseph Smith’s death in 1844, in documents written by his close associates.”

Personally I have a problem with things that were added after Joseph’s death, which people said he taught.

Doctrine.

Brigham Young, Eliza R. Snow, and other early church leaders taught about her quite plainly.

Joseph Smith's King Follett discourse combined with the Nauvoo Endowment and D&C 132 leave us no other conclusion than the existence of a Heavenly Mother.

They were the same people who taught plural marriage too, and claimed Joseph as their authority in the matter.

Yes, and they spoke the truth.

[Christianlee]

Theory or doctrine?
Scriptural references?
If true, why hidden? By God’s design or men?

From the church’s website:

“While there is no record of a formal revelation to Joseph Smith on this doctrine, some early Latter-day Saint women recalled that he personally taught them about a Mother in Heaven. The earliest published references to the doctrine appeared shortly after Joseph Smith’s death in 1844, in documents written by his close associates.”

Personally I have a problem with things that were added after Joseph’s death, which people said he taught.

Doctrine.

Brigham Young, Eliza R. Snow, and other early church leaders taught about her quite plainly.

Joseph Smith's King Follett discourse combined with the Nauvoo Endowment and D&C 132 leave us no other conclusion than the existence of a Heavenly Mother.

There is nothing in the temple, scriptures or King Follett about Heavenly Mother. It has to be inferred. Brigham Young and Eliza Snow both favored the Adam-God doctrine with Eve as Heavenly Mother. I personally won’t trod over that ground again. It is well worn. I personally don’t believe there is any real evidence that a Heavenly Mother exists. Older groups descended from Joseph Smith III rejected it. But the doctrine makes the feminists happy and that is all that seems to matter.

[Pazooka]

I'm curious about everything but I think Jesus is extremely protective of Her. So, for now, I'll take it as above my pay grade and let the Father introduce me to Her, when we're both ready.

Unless those are programmed copouts: 1) that she is so loved/sacred that she shouldn’t be talked about, and 2) that we shouldn’t pursue knowledge of her. The destruction that devoured the 2nd temple period was said, by some to have been in consequence of the people having forsaken “Wisdom” - which is a name for the Heavenly Mother.

In the sixth week, ‘All who lived in the temple lost their vision, and the hearts of all of them godlessly forsook Wisdom, and the house of the kingdom was burned and the whole chosen people was scattered (1 Enoch 93). This history says that Jerusalem was destroyed after the people in the temple had forsaken Wisdom. There is even a poem about the rejected Wisdom:

Wisdom went forth to maker her dwelling among the children of men, and found no dwelling place. Wisdom returned to her place, and took her seat among the angels (1 Enoch 42)

~Margaret Barker

Maybe this is part of the mysteries of godliness that one should be engaged in searching out. I mean, are there really things so sacred and special that you shouldn’t be interested in them or try to search them out? Is that a true principle?

Bonus content from Margaret Barker:

Even a brief survey shows that there had been a Lady in Jerusalem who had been rejected and had returned to her place among the angels. She had been worshiped with wine and incense, and bread to represent her. She had protected the city and given prosperity, and she had given vision to the priests. She had been evicted from the temple by Josiah, and her cult (set of religious rites) probably involved items removed in the purge or remembered as missing from the second temple: the item named the Asherah (probably the menorah), the host of heaven, the horses for the sun, the oil, the mana, the high priest’s staff that bore almond blossoms., the ark, the fire and the spirit. A long list, but these things were not forgotten. In the Book of Revelation, John saw the ark restored to the holy of holies (Rev 11:19), he saw four horses ride out from the temple (Rev 6:1-8), he saw the Man in the midst of the seven lamps, the menorah, he heard the Spirit promising the faithful they would receive the hidden manna (Rev 2:17). John was describing the restoration of the first temple.

It bears looking into.

[TheDuke]

Heavenly Mother(s) do exist. I have spoken to mine in a once in a lifetime experience.

I can tell you that we are on this earth, as the temple words say, in a world fashioned after the one we came from (Celestial), where there are many fathers, mothers, and children, all celestial. And while father and mother are interdependent, it is not father that rules the roost.

To really understand the dynamics requires hours and hours and hours of prayer and meditation, at least to us slower learners steeped in traditions, doctrine all mingled with teachings of men.

[Joan7]

I've only just started digging into this, but I feel it is very good to take the time to go through these things and seek confirmation from the Spirit:

https://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleLarsenH ... other.html

EXCERPT:

Hidden in Plain View: Mother in Heaven in Scripture
Val Larsen
SquareTwo, Vol. 8 No. 2 (Summer 2015)

ABSTRACT

Heavenly Mother is prominently present in scripture. She plays all the roles we would expect a divine mother to play. While her presence has been obscured by the loss of plain and precious parts of original texts, her extensive involvement in the lives of her children is nevertheless still apparent if the scriptures are closely read with attention to symbols and surrogates. As the modern Zeitgeist impels us to look for the feminine divine in the scriptural canon, voices speaking from the dust—especially the Book of Mormon—providentially give us background information necessary to find our divine Mother hidden in plain view.

* * *

Heavenly Mother is prominently present in scripture. With the Father, she is Alpha and Omega, that is, we find her in the first verse of Genesis, and when we look for her in the last chapter of Revelation, she is there. In the scriptural account of our departure from the preexistence, we take leave of Mother in Heaven. During our lives on earth, when we are sick or afflicted, she blesses, comforts, and heals us. She is present when the Savior effects the atonement, and she puts us on the path to fully claim that great gift. When we return to heaven at the end of this life, we find her there to greet us and help us be born again in immortal and exalted bodies. She prominently plays all the roles we would expect a divine mother to play. And yet, to most of her children, she is unknown. She is tragically unseen by the multitudes who inwardly long to know her.

For Latter-day Saints, the fact that we have a Mother in Heaven is not in question and has not been since the days of Joseph Smith. [1] Even our most elementary lesson manual, Gospel Principles, mentions that we have “heavenly parents.” [2] It is well established Mormon doctrine that man cannot attain exaltation and godhood without woman nor woman without man (D&C 132: 19-20). [3] But while the existence of Mother in Heaven is not in doubt, most Latter-day Saints assume virtually nothing has been revealed about her beyond the fact that she exists. We must eagerly await, they suppose, further revelation in God’s due time.

The validity of that supposition probably depends on whether the existence of our Heavenly Mother is ancient truth restored or truth revealed for the first time in this dispensation. If like other key gospel truths, it is a restored doctrine, then we should expect to find traces of Mother in Heaven in scripture. Though plain and precious things have been expunged (1 Nephi 13: 28-29), it is unlikely that a truth of such foundational importance could completely disappear from scriptural and other historical texts. Fortunately, there are many indications that Mother in Heaven was known to the ancients. It is, therefore, incumbent on us to recognize her presence in the scriptures we have. The Lord rarely gives us new revelation on a matter until we have carefully studied and understood what he has already given us.

While the scriptures should and will be the main foundation of this article, our search for additional understanding of Heavenly Mother may be more successful if we draw insights from scholars who specialize in the study of the Bible and the ancient Near East. Mother in Heaven, in her many guises, has become a topic of intense interest to contemporary biblical and ancient Near East scholars. The Zeitgeist of our time leads them to search for the feminine divine. And providentially, recent discoveries of ancient documents and artifacts have added new voices that speak to us from the dust about the roles Mother in Heaven may have played in the theologies and rituals of the ancient Hebrews and surrounding peoples. This vein of scholarship is immense. No attempt will be made here to harmonize or fully explicate the many nuanced and sometimes conflicting views of scholars who write on this theme. What will be cited are various strands of this scholarship that converge with Mormon thought and illuminate themes of interest to Latter-day-Saints. The most important supplement to the close readings of scripture that are the main focus of this article will be the work of Methodist scholar Margaret Barker, whose readings of ancient texts are so often consonant with foundational assumptions of Mormon theology. [4]

Modern prophets have restored the truth that we have a Mother in Heaven. The time is now right and the tools are now available for us to come to more nearly know our divine Mother as we ought. In this article, I discuss how Mother in Heaven came to be hidden in plain view and how we can again see her in the scriptural record that bears witness of her as well as of the Father and the Son.

Let me conclude this introduction by acknowledging that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, thankfully, have an exclusive right to declare doctrine. Their monopoly on establishing doctrine is the sure foundation for our unity in the faith. What is offered here is theology, not doctrine. And as Adam S. Miller has sagely observed, “theology is always tentative and nonbinding. Theology, though sensitive to what is normative, never decides doctrine.” Miller then adds,


“Though this is a kind of weakness, this weakness is also theology’s unique strength. Because it is hypothetical, theology is free to map whatever charitable patterns the details of the text may prompt it to pursue. The rich theological possibilities of a text are, in principle, limited only by the critically productive questions that we as readers are capable of bringing to bear. If a particular approach does not bear charity, then nothing has been lost. If an approach does reveal patterns of meaning that address the root of human suffering, then its productivity speaks for itself.” (Miller 2012, Kindle locations 1320-1323).

As noted above, prophets have declared that we have a Heavenly Mother. This exercise in theology explores rich possibilities in our scriptural texts, specifically, the possibility that more than we have supposed is revealed about Mother in Heaven, that close reading of scripture may alleviate the suffering of those who deeply mourn the functional absence of Heavenly Mother in their lives.

In the Beginning

Let us begin with the first verse of Genesis: In the beginning, the Gods created the heavens and the earth. The Hebrew word usually translated God in this verse is Elohim, the plural of El. [5] El means God and Elohim means Gods. If one accepts the doctrine that a man and woman must be sealed to each other to attain godhood (D&C 132: 19-20) [6], this plural name for God is what might be expected. It seems to support the idea that God is a sealed couple, El and Elah, who jointly constitute Elohim. [7] As expected, we find a plural verb, na’aseh, coupled with the plural noun Elohim when the Gods say, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: … male and female” (Gen 1: 26-27). [8] In this reading, it is not Adam, nor is it Eve, who is formed in the image of God. It is Adam and Eve as a couple who are the image of the Elohim. The Elohim appear 2,602 times in the Old Testament [9], so if we understand this plural generally to represent Mother as well as Father in Heaven, we will see that Mother is ubiquitous in scripture. And if we read plurals in this way, Mother also appears 432 times as Adonai, another plural name for God that means Lords. [10] Plural adjectives are also used to describe God, for example, hayyim (e.g., 1 Samuel 17: 26) and kadoshim (e.g., Joshua 24: 19) which describe the Elohim as living and holy.

This is not, of course, the only way the text can be read. For most Old Testament scholars, God is thought to be just one person and the plurals Elohim and Adonai are, thus, a problem that needs to be explained away. Most hold that, though they are grammatically plural, the name Elohim and the title Adonai are notionally singular. Some have suggested that the plural forms are a kind of “plural of majesty” or “royal we” that emphasizes the majesty of God. [11] This supposition is supported by the fact that though it is sometimes paired with plural forms, Elohim is most often paired with singular forms of the verb and adjective. And in some passages, e.g. Psalm 42: 2, the singular El and plural Elohim are mixed and seem to be equated. Indeed, Yahweh, Elohim, and Adonai are often mixed together in ways that suggest no consistent distinction is made between these different manifestations of God (e.g., Exodus 6: 2). So there is much evidence and persuasive reasoning that supports the typical view of scholars that Elohim is just one God and is not distinguished from Yahweh in the Old Testament. The various contexts in which Elohim, Yahweh, Adonai, and El mix and overlap probably cannot be entirely explained away and, thus, remain the principal stumbling block for adopting the reading proposed here. [12] And yet we too, while fully understanding that Elohim and Jehovah are distinct, often mix them together indiscriminately. Elohim is our God, but as Spencer W. Kimball taught, we refer to Jehovah as “the God of this world.” [13] In bearing testimony, we indiscriminately mix expressions of gratitude to God and to Christ. We always mention both El and Jehovah in our prayers. We occasionally refer to our Heavenly Parents when talking about God. So the intermingling of various divine beings in discourse is not a practice that is confined only to the Old Testament. It happens in our day as well. In part, this mixing of beings and titles may reflect the perfect congruence of will in the Elohim and Yahweh. [14]

The combination of the plural Elohim with singular verbs is less problematic. If Latter-day Saints think of El and Elah as an inseparable divine unit that attains godhood and acts as God only when they act together, then the singular verbs and adjectives are not inconsistent with the Mormon understanding of divine ontology. Father and Mother act as one and, insofar as they are Elohim, exist as one. Thus, if the issue is the singular form of the verb, there can be few expressions in the scriptural text that will support the typical scholarly reading but not support the proposed Mormon reading of the plurals Elohim and Adonai.

This unity of Father and Mother that is affirmed in Mormon theology seems to be beautifully expressed in Proverbs 8: 22-36 where Mother speaks of creation:

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning…. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth. While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields…. when he prepared the heavens, I was there…. Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him…and my delights were with the sons of men. Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed [ashre] are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed [ashre] is the man that heareth me…. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.

This passage contains word play on the name Asherah, one of the names of Mother in Heaven. [15] It suggests that to know Heavenly Mother is to find life and favor with God. To deny her and hate her is death.

The grounds for thinking of Elohim and Adonai as both Father and Mother are not limited to what we have just discussed. The ancient record is quite clear—and ever more clear as additional voices have spoken from the dust—that many inhabitants of Canaan worshipped a divine family, at least sometimes understood to consist of Father El, Mother Elah, and their son Yahweh. [16] (Elah appears under a variety of different names, e.g., Elat, Asherah, and Athirat). Commenting on this family, Barker writes, “Before Josiah and Deuteronomy, when Yahweh assumed all the ancient roles and titles of El, Asherah would have been the consort of El, and Yahweh would have been the son of El and his consort,… Asherah.” [17] The Elohim and their children, the bene Elohim or the host of heaven, were thought to rule the earth as a council of divine beings. [18] Thus, in Deuteronomy 32: 7-8, an earlier religion is recalled in which Elyon, the high God, divided the rule of the earth among the bene Elohim, the children of Elohim, assigning his subordinate son Yahweh lordship over Israel. (This portrayal of the divine family was suppressed in the Masoritic text [and the King James Bible] which replace the bene Elohim with sons of Israel, making the text incoherent. As we shall see, Asherah was also suppressed in various scriptural passages, and she and the bene Elohim were cast out of the temple in Jerusalem.) [19] While this divine council was variously conceived, sometimes including a female figure, sometimes not, it repeatedly shows up, both inside and outside of the Bible, as a family of gods who govern the earth (e.g., in Job 1: 6, 1 Kings 22: 19-22). The sometime presence of a Mother god in this pantheon is another strand of evidence that Mother in Heaven was known anciently and participated with Father in creating the earth and orchestrating the salvation of her children.

The analysis to this point suggests two rationales for seeing Mother in Heaven as ubiquitous in scripture, and I here add a third that reaches the same conclusion. The first approach would be to see the plural verbs and adjectives associated with the plural noun Elohim as the residue of an earlier text in which the precious truth that we have a Mother in Heaven was plainly communicated by consistent plural verbs and adjectives. Toward the end of his life, Joseph Smith seemed to endorse this approach: “In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation…. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through…. When you take [that] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods.“ [20] Barker also provides substantial support for this approach by giving examples of passages scribes may have changed to obscure the presence of Mother. In some cases (as with bene Elohim in Deuteronomy 32: 8), restoring Mother makes a passage intelligible that is now unreadable. [21]

A second, more conservative approach would be to assume that the text is largely intact as originally handed down and, then, to emphasize the fact that Mother and Father are Elohim only when they act as one. Verbs and adjectives in the singular can then be read as reflecting the necessary unity of the male/female union that constitutes Elohim in the many appearances of that divine actor.

A third approach would be to grant whatever claims scholars make about original meaning of the text but then reinterpret what is written in the light of revelation in our day. Given the consistent message of Restoration prophets that we have a Mother in Heaven, modern Mormons might view the plurals Elohim and Adonai as providential. In the context of knowledge now revealed, they may signify in our day both Father and Mother in Heaven even if they did not have that meaning when the text was originally written.

If any of these paths are followed, Mother’s presence in the Old Testament becomes ubiquitous, with more than 3,000 appearances in the text. In the King James Bible Elohim is translated as God, Adonai as Lord, and Yahweh as LORD or GOD. Keith Meservy has suggested that “We can find Jesus Christ in the Old Testament by substituting Jehovah for LORD whenever it appears. Then something wonderful happens. Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ, appears from the beginning to the end of this great book as the God of the Old Testament.” [22] By following the same strategy and substituting Elohim and Adonai for God and Lord, we can have the wonderful experience of seeing our divine parents, the Elohim, blessing their children from the beginning to the end of the Old Testament.

The Asherah Tree

While her acts in conjunction with the Father and Son are an important part of what Mother in Heaven does, the main focus of this article will be her distinct presence in scripture. And to understand that, we must review how Mother seems to have manifested herself in Israel up to the time of Lehi. That a Heavenly Mother was known as Asherah and was worshipped in Israel is now recognized by a majority of biblical scholars. [23] Substantial evidence indicates that this was the case. What is also clear is that the symbol of her being and presence was a tree. [24] She was often represented, including in the temple, by a statue that had the trunk of a tree at the bottom and the figure of a woman at the top. This statue is the most common religious artifact archaeology has found in and around pre-exilic Jerusalem, with the majority of the finds being in the holy city itself. The ubiquity of these figures and other tree artifacts associated with her leaves little doubt that worship of Asherah, Queen of Heaven, consort of El, was an integral part of Hebrew religious practice, at least among the common people. [25]

The archeological evidence is supported by the biblical text which also indicates that Asherah was widely worshipped among the Hebrews. The tree being her symbol, her worship was associated with holy trees and sacred groves, which are frequently mentioned as places of worship and covenant making in the Old Testament. The first use of the word grove is in Genesis 21: 33, “And Abraham planted a grove in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God.” Abraham had earlier constructed his first altar in the Promised Land at Shechem (Genesis 12: 4 – 7), a location distinguished by a great oak tree (אּלּהּ, elah) that was regarded as the sanctuary of God (אּלּ, el). Under this oak Jacob buried the false gods of his household (Genesis 35: 4), and under it Joshua set up a pillar to commemorate the covenant between the Lord and Israel (Joshua 24: 24 – 26). Gideon, too, was called into service and offered sacrifices to God on an altar under an oak tree (Judges 6: 11-20). [26]

The tree as the place of covenant making--especially a tree with an altar—was an important motif in the ancient near east. “The connection” Wright observes “between the tree and covenant making [is] apparent iconographically.” [27] Figure 1 is one of his iconic examples of trees serving as the locus and witness of a covenant. Hunsaker notes that trees were often incorporated in ancient temples, then suggests that the ancient pattern is replicated in modern temples that have Garden rooms where images of the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil stand witness as covenants are made at the temple altar. [28]

[LDS Watchman]

Theory or doctrine?
Scriptural references?
If true, why hidden? By God’s design or men?

From the church’s website:

“While there is no record of a formal revelation to Joseph Smith on this doctrine, some early Latter-day Saint women recalled that he personally taught them about a Mother in Heaven. The earliest published references to the doctrine appeared shortly after Joseph Smith’s death in 1844, in documents written by his close associates.”

Personally I have a problem with things that were added after Joseph’s death, which people said he taught.

Doctrine.

Brigham Young, Eliza R. Snow, and other early church leaders taught about her quite plainly.

Joseph Smith's King Follett discourse combined with the Nauvoo Endowment and D&C 132 leave us no other conclusion than the existence of a Heavenly Mother.

There is nothing in the temple, scriptures or King Follett about Heavenly Mother. It has to be inferred. Brigham Young and Eliza Snow both favored the Adam-God doctrine with Eve as Heavenly Mother. I personally won’t trod over that ground again. It is well worn. I personally don’t. believe there is any real evidence that a Heavenly Mother exists. Older groups descended from Joseph Smith III rejected it. But the doctrine makes the feminists happy and that is all that seems to matter.

You're right that she isn't explicitly mentioned in the scriptures, but there's enough there to show that logically she has to exist.

D&C 132 speaks of husband and wife becoming God's and continuing their posterity throughout the eternities. The endowment has women being anointed to become queens to their husband's. The King Follett discourse likewise has men (and women) becoming Gods and speaks of God being an exalted man.
D&C 76 has exalted men (and women) becoming Gods, too.

The only logical conclusion doctrinally is that our Heavenly Father is married and that we have a Heavenly Mother.

And in conjunction with the Adam-God doctrine, our Heavenly Mother is Eve. Which I happen to believe is true.

[Luke]

Theory or doctrine?
Scriptural references?
If true, why hidden? By God’s design or men?

From the church’s website:

“While there is no record of a formal revelation to Joseph Smith on this doctrine, some early Latter-day Saint women recalled that he personally taught them about a Mother in Heaven. The earliest published references to the doctrine appeared shortly after Joseph Smith’s death in 1844, in documents written by his close associates.”

Personally I have a problem with things that were added after Joseph’s death, which people said he taught.

Doctrine.

Brigham Young, Eliza R. Snow, and other early church leaders taught about her quite plainly.

Joseph Smith's King Follett discourse combined with the Nauvoo Endowment and D&C 132 leave us no other conclusion than the existence of a Heavenly Mother.

They were the same people who taught plural marriage too, and claimed Joseph as their authority in the matter.

And were correct, imo.

[Luke]

“Truth is reason, truth eternal tells me I’ve a Mother there.”

[Joan7]

Mystical City of God Book 8, Chapter 3 Archived 2013-09-07 at the Wayback Machine

The Evangelist Mark wrote his gospel four years later, in the forty-sixth year after the birth of Christ. He likewise wrote it in Hebrew and while in Palestine. Before commencing he asked his guardian angel to notify the Queen of heaven of his intention and to implore her assistance for obtaining the divine enlightenment for what he was about to write. The kind Mother heard his prayer and immediately the Lord commanded the angels to carry Her with the usual splendor and ceremony to the Evangelist, who was still in prayer. The great Queen appeared to him seated on a most beautiful and resplendent throne. Prostrating himself before Her, he said: "Mother of the Savior of the world and Mistress of all creation, I am unworthy of this favor, though I am a servant of thy divine Son and of Thyself."

The heavenly Mother answered: "The Most High, whom thou servest and lovest, sends me to assure thee, that thy prayers are heard and that his holy Spirit shall direct thee in the writing of the Gospel, with which He has charged thee." Then She told him not to write of the mysteries pertaining to Her, just as She had asked saint Matthew. Immediately the Holy Ghost, in visible and most refulgent shape, descended upon saint Mark enveloping him in light and filling him with interior enlightenment; and in the presence of the Queen he began to write his Gospel. At that time the Princess of heaven was sixty-one years of age. Saint Jerome says that saint Mark wrote his short Gospel in Rome, at the instance of the faithful residing there; but I wish to call attention to the fact, that this was a translation or copy of the one he had written in Palestine; for the Christians in Rome possessed neither his nor any other Gospel, and therefore he set about writing one in the Roman or Latin language.

[abijah]

i posted this earlier in the other thread i suspect prompted this one. I've been thinking about how heavenly mother might be better understood in context by analyzing the tower & city of Babel in Genesis 11

In reality the scriptures go on and on about God's queen consort.

the only thing is, it's always in reference to His own, consecrated, covenant people as a collective unit as being his wife (vast majority of the time as a highly unfaithful one)

"but abijah, surely that's just a metaphor, a figure of speech", idk im not so sure about just assuming that off the bat. it's like i said in my superidentities thread -

I think we will experience full Marriage, on MULTIPLE levels, as in, we will have our own spouses, whilst simultaneously experiencing what it means to be married, as a corporate, covenant-bound community, to.... Christ.

we will have our spouse... and We will have our Spouse.

As I said before, it all stacks.

just because the concept can be broken down to a dichotomy -- between one singularity of a lone, distinct goddess, vs a multiplicity of distinct entities/personalities come together into a composite whole.-- doesnt mean they both are not true. ¿por que no los dos?

i think this dichotomy between the singular vs the multiplicity is an indispensable factor to the mystery of the divine feminine.

We can glean truths by observing the heavenly Woman`Zion's evil opposite and counterpart ----> the Whore of Babylon.

The origin of Babylon was the tower of Babel. But where is the Whore in that story?


She is the tower. And the peoples of Babylon are the blocks.


The true version:

1 Peter 2
you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, (or, a tower - Woman`Zion) to be a holy priesthood...

The Whore`counterfeit tower to heaven was composed of all the nations & languages by means of fornication:

Revelation 17
..The great prostitute, who rules over many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication...
And the angel saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

Not the case in the instance of Lady`Zion however:

The Whore = False Bride = False Tower/Temple/House

Zion = True Bride = True Tower/Temple/House

Genesis 11
And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and tar had they for mortar.
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose head may reach unto heaven...

• Isaiah 9
  The bricks are fallen down, but we will rebuild with dressed stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.

"Build Back Better", this time not with oven-fired bricks, but with "dressed stones". Dressed because it's not just a tower we're talking about, but a woman.

You can tell that the fire-scorched bricks of Babel likewise map-onto and align w/ child fire sacrifices to Moloch ---->

Genesis 11
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

• Leviticus 18
  And thou shalt not let any of thy children pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

Multiple rebels = burnt`bricks that compose the singular Whore/Tower (via cosmic fornication/child`sacrifice/etc.)

Multiple saints = "living stones" that compose the singular Zion`Temple (via the Name of Christ )

The Bride (and perhaps 'heavenly mother'? ) is some sense a super-identity. A larger-scope composite identity of a Woman, whose composite identity is made up of all the individual covenant members of Israel, the true City w/ a heaven-reaching tower.

Revelation 21
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.


IMO she is both an actual distinct Woman, as well as a covenant population of many. not mutually exclusive.

[Serragon]

It is not doctrine, though I think almost all LDS believe it to be true.

It can be inferred, but not specifically supported, by scripture or revelation. And I think her nature and attributes are likely to be very different than what most LDS think.

Almost all LDS I know think of eternal families as them and their kids sitting around the fireside in heaven together. The reality, especially when you think literally about what a sealing is supposed to represent, is likely to be very different indeed.

[Joan7]

This passage from the AYAHTKUHYAHT NEMENHAH teaches about the role that Mother in Heaven had in the beginning. It is beautiful. I believe it.

Some of the names are difficult to translate. For example, “Aylohhihm” means “Heavenly” and is a plural, feminine denominative. In Nemenhah, “Pah Aylohway” means Mother in Heaven, and “Tsi Aylohway” means Father in Heaven. “Aylohhihm” means God the Father and God the Mother in Their united sense and connotes a “sealing power,” or the power of the Aylohhihm to bind cosmic forces and celestial endowments together for mutual benefit through the modality of sacred covenants.

BOOK OF THE TUHHUHL NUHMEHN 1

1) Pah Aylohway: Ponder the deep, Aylohhihm. Is it not a great question?
2) Tsi Aylohway: Look out into the deep, Aylohhihm, and tell Me what You see.
3) Pah Aylohway: I see space there – space to fill, space to build, space to do a great thing. Long have I pondered the deep and wondered why it remains so dark and empty. Should it not be filled with light? Should it not be filled with wonder and beauty? Where We are, there is light and truth. Our own parents provided this for Us and We rose up by line and by precept to become like them. Why do We look out upon the deep and see emptiness? It is a thing that should not be.
4) Tsi Aylohway: We look upon where We are and see what is real. Out yonder there is no one to see Us. Indeed there is no one to see at all. What need then, has the deep of light, and wonder, and beauty? Our work is for the world in which We find Ourselves. Why should We ask for more than what is?
5) Pah Aylohway: I am not “no one,” Aylohhihm. I look upon the deep and I would see what I would see.
6) Tsi Aylohway: That is right, Aylohhihm. Now because someone sees the deep, I perceive that there is substance there which fills the expanse and the emptiness. It is matter but it has no order.
7) Pah Aylohway: It is the same as the world in which We now labor except that, unto the matter with which We do Our labor, someone has given order and life. Therefore, the question still exists – why should the deep remain so? What ought to be done with the matter? Why should not We venture to do the same there as has been done heretofore? Or shall We remain always here to act upon another’s work?
8) Tsi Aylohway: To act upon what has always been is not a bad work, Aylohhihm. Indeed, it has brought Us to exaltation. In this way all spirit children do arise, line upon line and precept on precept, even unto the state and stature of their parents. This is the everlasting Covenant. Do You think to rashly abandon that which We have learned from Our own experience?
9) Pah Aylohway: I do not wish to abandon anything, Aylohhihm. But let Us cause light and truth to expand and grow. Else, why should We be endowed with power at all?
10) Tsi Aylohway: It is right, Pah Aylohway. Let Us leave that which We now know by virtue of another’s work and make works of Our own.

11) Narrator: Then Tsi Aylohway and Pah Aylohway separated Themselves from each other for a season and set about the work of organizing matter. Tsi Aylohway found the task easier than Pah Aylohway, for His endowment was to create by combining matter into organized unions.
12) He made stars, worlds, moons, and other astral bodies. He caused all of these to coalesce into great, swirling formations and clouds. He experienced all this creation first hand by placing Himself within the creation – giving of His own substance by way of pattern and form, and the deep matter willingly obeyed. Then He stood back and observed His work and pondered it.
13) Narrator: Pah Aylohway found creation more difficult, for Her endowment was in becoming a wellspring of life unto matter. She caused the deep matter to recognize itself as a living soul, and taught it to seek patterns of order, and the matter did live; but, without experience, it could do nothing but ponder itself. Then She too stood back and observed Her work and pondered it.
14) Tsi Aylohway: See, Aylohhihm, that I have been able to cause the matter to become organized. I have made moons, worlds, and stars, such as We have heretofore seen. But the bodies have no life. Organization alone brings no real order to the matter.
15) Pah Aylohway: It is so, Aylohhihm. Look how I have given self knowledge to the deep matter and it does seek patterns of order. But the matter does only ponder itself and is confused. Life and existence alone brings no real order to the matter.
16) Tsi Aylohway: Our work alone does not accomplish anything. Our previous work was fruitful because there was organization and life brought together by fathers and mothers. When one is without the other, the matter remains in chaos.
17) Pah Aylohway: Why should We work thus alone? Why should We not combine Our work together?
18) Tsi Aylohway: It is right, Aylohhihm. I shall work by the endowment of My power to bring together the deep matter and organize it into all the astral bodies We have heretofore seen, and I shall consecrate all that obey Me unto the endowment of Your power.
19) Pah Aylohway: I shall work by the endowment of My power to give Your organizations self-knowledge and they shall become living beings capable of perception.
20) Tsi Aylohway: I do covenant with You, Aylohhihm, to share all My creative works with You, that the endowment of My power may be combined with the endowment of Your power206.

21) Pah Aylohway: I do covenant with You, Aylohhihm, to share all My creative works with You, that the endowment of My power may also be combined with the endowment of Your power207.
22) Narrator: Then were Tsi Aylohway and Pah Aylohway bound by Their covenant one to another, and They became one in heart, one in mind, and one in purpose. This is the first covenant made by our Heavenly Parents. We desire that all do likewise. All arise.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I know many of you don’t care to read the Nemenhah Records, but Mother in Heaven is referenced more than any other record I’ve ever read. And when God is referenced, it is almost always as Elohim, which is both Father and Mother in Heaven. Christ even teaches various doctrines about Mother in Heaven in these records. The temple endowment that was taught by Christ begins with Father and Mother.

[tdj]

I like the THOUGHT of having a female deity, or basically a goddess. But I also don't know if I believe it or not. I've been all over Christendom before becoming a member of the LDS church, and there was never a single one that I believed EVERYTHING they taught, and this church is no different. For one, it would make God not god if he had to share it with someone else. That's kind of the whole requirement of being THE God; having no other equal. Also, God is a spirit, not a physical man, and therefore the act of procreating is different. The requirements are different then what is needed in biology. In the spirit world, chromosomes, and xx/ xy just don't exist.
I'm a mom, and I just can't imagine how furious I'd be if my husband told my kids that I existed, but they were forbidden from talking about me, to me, or from even knowing my name. The story goes that God wanted to protect her from us, but that also doesn't make sense considering that if she is an all powerful being like him, then we are nothing to be afraid of by any stretch. What could someone in her position possibly need protecting from?

[John Tavner]

I like the THOUGHT of having a female deity, or basically a goddess. But I also don't know if I believe it or not. I've been all over Christendom before becoming a member of the LDS church, and there was never a single one that I believed EVERYTHING they taught, and this church is no different. For one, it would make God not god if he had to share it with someone else. That's kind of the whole requirement of being THE God; having no other equal. Also, God is a spirit, not a physical man, and therefore the act of procreating is different. The requirements are different then what is needed in biology. In the spirit world, chromosomes, and xx/ xy just don't exist.
I'm a mom, and I just can't imagine how furious I'd be if my husband told my kids that I existed, but they were forbidden from talking about me, to me, or from even knowing my name. The story goes that God wanted to protect her from us, but that also doesn't make sense considering that if she is an all powerful being like him, then we are nothing to be afraid of by any stretch. What could someone in her position possibly need protecting from?

Man is merely creating something in their own image with that excuse. God isn't offended by us- if "Mother" exists then she wouldn't be either because love doesn't react that way.

I've also had an "experience" which was supposedly Heavenly Mother. - whether it was or wasn't I don't know, sure I "felt" something amazing, but it didn't change my life - it didn't make me more like God and it didn't boost my faith - so I'm left to wonder if what I felt really was from her or God or anything. If I do not walk away from something with greater conviction or faith I have to wonder if it was from God. Don't get me wrong, I like those feelings, but I don't need them to live - we are to live by faith and not feeling. I've had many "spiritual" experiences and many are not from God, but we as mormons or even Christians in general are quick to assume any spiritual or "angelic" or "vision" etc.. type experience is from God. They are not all that way even if they might appear so.

I suspect much of hte talk of Heavenly Mother recently actually is a resurrection of an old goddess/principality named Ishtar, or Aphrodite and many other names she went by. I believe it is a great deception used to distract people from coming unto God and turning their hearts fully towards Him. Too many people are seeking after these "spiritual manifestations" and not seeking to be changed into the image of God through Christ. We don't seek after the gift that we are told if we don't have, we are nothing - I.e. Charity or love or Agape. Most of us seek knowledge and become puffed up but aren't receiving wisdom or love in order to edify. We struggle to even bear the name of Christ (and in Him there is neither male nor female, bond nor free, greek or jew...). We seek our own, puff ourselves us want to know about "heavenly MOther" when we don't even know Heavenly Father. Knowing hte Father is eternal life and if you know the Father you become love- and we can't know the Father except through the Son and the Son is the perfect image of the Father, if you've seen (know) the Son, then you see (know) the Father. (see does'nt mean literally see the translation is more of a knowledge understanding of who they are). We must have a pure heart in order to See the Father.

So, in my strongly held opinion most of this is deception used to distract us from actually becoming like the Son and being formed in the image of the Father and Following Christ - the goal is to obtain eternal life which means we are to manifest the image of the Father to the world through hte Son and He gives us His Holy Spirit to do so. Regardless, what I do know is that we do not need that information to be saved, nor do we need it to be formed in the image of Christ - what we need is the Holy SPirit and we need to learn how to submit and deny ourselves and if Heavenly Mother is real or exists that information is just a cherry on top, but is unnecessary to the purposes that God has established for the salvation of mankind nad the glory that God has set for us to be formed in His image and to manifest His presence, His Kingdom to the world and I have little doubt this belief creates more distraction than benefit especially in regards to changing the nature of mankind into a Son or Daughter of God.

[Mangus MacLeod]

Although it is not scripture, or really anything akin to it, in the third verse of her classic LDS Hymn, Oh My Father, I think Eliza R. Snow made the most profound statement on this subject:

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

I agree with Sister Snow, based on what I have come to know and understand, if I apply the slightest bit of reason to this whole question and equation, the thought that God the Father is Single and Alone, does make reason stare! If His primary purposes and objectives are creation and procreation, nothing else really makes any legitimate sense. Why we don't know more about Her/Them, I don't really know. But that is probably the reason -- Celestial Plural Marriage. The female/mother side of the equation is much more complex. But honestly, if you really do apply a little bit of reason to the whole equation, it is the only thing that genuinely makes any legitimate sense.

Think about how God created everything here on earth. Look at and understand the pattern(s). Even plants have sex and procreate. That is the pattern. That is the natural order of things. And procreation requires two polarities, the masculine and the feminine. Just like electricity, procreative current cannot flow without these opposite polarities. And, in the vast majority of species, including humans, these opposite polarities do not exist in one creative entity. It virtually always requires at least two opposite polarities, and often the male of the species, even in plants (as in pollen) has the ability to mate with multiple females, and that is generally the natural order of things. I realize some of this is not what most people like/want to hear, but I'm really not sure its quite as big a mystery and the kind of rocket science we attempt to make it into. I think Sister Snow knew and understood what she was talking about.

I am considering starting a separate thread about Mormons, the World, and Divine Gender Roles -- the Great Deception?

But until I do, this will have to do.