Mother in Heaven -- a tricky pseudo doctrine thing...

Public forum to discuss questions about Mormon history and doctrine.
User avatar
Shawn
Posts: 707
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 14:22
Location: Utah

Re: Mother in Heaven -- a tricky pseudo doctrine thing...

Post by Shawn »

Ann, Heavenly Mother does not have to be associated with polygamy at all. I urge you to separate the two so you can find joy in the "beautiful idea" of Heavenly Mother.

I also do not believe that the idea of Heavenly Father protecting Her is necessarily sexist. Spouses protect each other. Maybe Heavenly Mother presides over worlds to which She does not reveal details about Heavenly Father.

While it doesn't do much good to speculate, maybe it's good to wonder. It is a wonderful thing to think about having a Mother in Heaven.
Last edited by Shawn on 17 Jul 2015, 18:02, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
On Own Now
Posts: 1801
Joined: 18 Jan 2012, 12:45

Re: Mother in Heaven -- a tricky pseudo doctrine thing...

Post by On Own Now »

Shawn wrote:
On Own Now wrote:The first reference to Heavenly Mother in LDS literature was in the poem "My Father in Heaven", by Eliza R Snow. It was written in October, 1845 and published a month later in the Church's Times and Seasons.
W. W. Phelps composed a hymn titled "A Voice from the Prophet 'Come to Me'" in 1844. It contains the words:
Come to me; here's the myst'ry that man hath not seen;
Here's our Father in heaven, and Mother, the Queen
See History of the Church, Volume 7, Chapter 26.
Wow, great find, Shawn. Indeed, that does predate ERS's poem. After a bit of research, though, I will point out that it also was written after the death of JS. It was published in the Times and Seasons in January, 1845 and the same poem/hymn declares that JS is with God in the hereafter, along with Adam and Eve and all the other saints that have died. Because of that, it's not anything that can be directly attributed to JS.

In addition, I'm not totally sure who Phelps meant by "Mother, the Queen". Here are the first lines:
Come to me, will ye come to the saints that have died-
Come to me, here are Adam and Eve at the head
To the next better world, where the righteous reside;
Of a multitude, quicken'd and rais'd from the dead:
Where the angels and spirits in harmony be
Here's the knowledge that was, or that is, or will be-
In the joys of a vast Paradise? Come to me.
In the gen'ral assembly of worlds: Come to me
Come to me where the truth and the virtues prevails;
Come to me, here's the myst'ry that man hath not seen;
Where the union is one, and the years never fail;
Here's our Father in heaven, and Mother, the Queen...
Did he mean Father and Mother in Heaven (God and wife)? Was that the mystery? Or did he mean that our father Adam and our mother Eve are in heaven, still sealed in an eternal marriage (where the union is one and the years never fail)? This would also qualify as a mystery that man hath not seen. In that light, it's easy to see a possible foreshadowing of Adam-God. Part of the difficulty is that in this poem, it's hard to tell who is talking. The voice keeps repeating the phrase, "Come to me". Yet, Adam, Eve, "Father in heaven", "Mother, the Queen", the lord, and JS are all mentioned in the third person by the same voice.

My guess is that he's talking about MIH, not Eve, but it's pretty unclear in context.

As I've always said, while we don't have any recorded statement or writing from JS about the topic, it is completely consistent with his teachings and if he didn't say it himself, it was an unavoidable conclusion from his teachings.
- - -
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” ― Carl Jung
- - -
"Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another." ― Romans 14:13
- - -
User avatar
Shawn
Posts: 707
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 14:22
Location: Utah

Re: Mother in Heaven -- a tricky pseudo doctrine thing...

Post by Shawn »

The speaker in the hymn is Joseph Smith. You probably lost view of the title (A Voice from the Prophet 'Come to Me') as you studied the content :P. He refers to himself in the third person at the end, but I think it's saying "Here I am, your Prophet and Seer, Joseph Smith: Come to me."

I have no doubt that "Mother, the Queen" refers to Heavenly Mother.

Anyway, parts of the hymn are kind of creepy and I don't like it.
Ann
Posts: 2597
Joined: 09 Sep 2012, 02:17

Re: Mother in Heaven -- a tricky pseudo doctrine thing...

Post by Ann »

Shawn wrote:Ann, Heavenly Mother does not have to be associated with polygamy at all. I urge you to separate the two so you can find joy in the "beautiful idea" of Heavenly Mother.
Thanks, Shawn. Unfortunately, I'm very impressionable, and the times I did hear it associated with Heavenly Mother (when I was young) really stuck with me. Time has gone on, and there's been no "official" further light and knowledge on the subject, so we're all left with whatever input we've received from each other over the years. And that little voice inside that "tells me I've a Mother there."
"Preachers err by trying to talk people into belief; better they reveal the radiance of their own discovery." - Joseph Campbell

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes." - Marcel Proust

"Therefore they said unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered and said unto them, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes...." - John 9:10-11
Rob4Hope
Posts: 665
Joined: 06 Jan 2015, 07:28

Re: Mother in Heaven -- a tricky pseudo doctrine thing...

Post by Rob4Hope »

hawkgrrrl wrote:
OK, here is where it gets fun. This BYU lady said the source of that "doctrine" (pseudo doctrine?) was a footnote that appeared in like a seminary/institute lesson manual or something. (There is a chance I might be able to find out more about that, and put in a reference for the claim). But this lady believes that this WAS the source of that, and because there was so little about the teachings of MIH in the first place, the idea caught on like wild fire, spread out like crazy, and has become a type of doctrinal approach to the whole topic.
I'm not clear on this. Is the BYU lady saying that the source, the footnote, is just someone's speculation? If so, yes, I think she's 100% right. The truth is, whenever we come up against an uncomfortable doctrine, mental gymnastics leads to speculation, leads to folklore, leads to de facto doctrine. This is how it happens every time.
Hi HG. I did some checking, looked her in the eyeballs actually and asked her point blank, and she was quite certain that the doctrine, from the graduate class she attended at BYU, traced the source to a footnote in an instructors manual at the CES level. That was the first occurrence found, with nothing they could find proceeding it. It appeared to have been a rumored folklore idea, like you suggested HG, that spread and become doctrinal (in the culture anyway).

So, I challenge anyone out there to find an original source about this if possible. I would be very interested...but I'm not sure such exists.

hawkgrrrl wrote: The idea that God is a benevolent sexist, one who thinks Heavenly Mother is fragile and in need of protection from her own children, is a mighty convenient way to look at it, particularly convenient since it's how benevolent sexism works in recent contemporary western society: women are placed on a pedestal and protected from anything unpleasant because they can't handle it and stay pure and sweet. That doesn't make this thinking eternal. On the contrary, it points to its transitory, temporary, cultural nature. It also assumes that Heavenly Mother is a whole different type of creature from Heavenly Father, not an equal, not even really a God in any real sense. She's fragile and can't handle the tough stuff. I don't know a lot of women who are actually like that, but I do unfortunately know plenty of men, particularly from older generations, who think women are like that.
I LOVE THIS! What you said here in particular: "...women are placed on a pedestal and protected from anything unpleasant because they can't handle it and stay pure and sweet" is quite interesting because, from my perspective, it messes with, among other things, the dynamics of marriage at a fundamental level. It makes women passive, subservient, submissive, and fragile. And, it seems to do it in the quest to protect their purity. This is offensive to me, and yet I see it happen all over the place. I have often wondered?...is this done to protect women, or to control them? In some situations, I am sure I have seen it done for the subtle and cunning purpose of control.
User avatar
Sheldon
Posts: 459
Joined: 14 Aug 2013, 13:44

Re: Mother in Heaven -- a tricky pseudo doctrine thing...

Post by Sheldon »

Rob4Hope wrote:[ I did some checking, looked her in the eyeballs actually and asked her point blank, and she was quite certain that the doctrine, from the graduate class she attended at BYU, traced the source to a footnote in an instructors manual at the CES level. That was the first occurrence found, with nothing they could find proceeding it. It appeared to have been a rumored folklore idea, like you suggested HG, that spread and become doctrinal (in the culture anyway).
First occurrence of what? That we believe in the Mother in Heaven? Or that we don't talk about her because God wants to protect her? Or something else? I'm confused (which isn't hard to do)
Rob4Hope
Posts: 665
Joined: 06 Jan 2015, 07:28

Re: Mother in Heaven -- a tricky pseudo doctrine thing...

Post by Rob4Hope »

Sheldon wrote:
Rob4Hope wrote:[ I did some checking, looked her in the eyeballs actually and asked her point blank, and she was quite certain that the doctrine, from the graduate class she attended at BYU, traced the source to a footnote in an instructors manual at the CES level. That was the first occurrence found, with nothing they could find proceeding it. It appeared to have been a rumored folklore idea, like you suggested HG, that spread and become doctrinal (in the culture anyway).
First occurrence of what? That we believe in the Mother in Heaven? Or that we don't talk about her because God wants to protect her? Or something else? I'm confused (which isn't hard to do)
The first occurrence of why we don't talk about her, because God protects her and doesn't want her talked about at all out of respect. That kindof idea is what I was talking about.
Old-Timer
Site Admin
Posts: 17243
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: Mother in Heaven -- a tricky pseudo doctrine thing...

Post by Old-Timer »

Retroactive justifications tend to be stupid.
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken
amateurparent
Posts: 952
Joined: 19 Jan 2014, 20:43

Re: Mother in Heaven -- a tricky pseudo doctrine thing...

Post by amateurparent »

A footnote in a CES manual. I declare that to be NOT A SOURCE.

At this point in my FC, CES is the least trustable of all sources
I have no advance degrees in parenting. No national credentials. I am an amateur parent. I read, study, and learn all I can to be the best parent possible. Every time I think I have reached expert status with one child for one stage in their life, something changes and I am back to amateur status again. Now when I really mess up, I just apologize to my child, and explain that I am indeed an amateur .. I'm still learning how to do this right.
User avatar
LookingHard
Posts: 2946
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 12:11

Re: Mother in Heaven -- a tricky pseudo doctrine thing...

Post by LookingHard »

amateurparent wrote:A footnote in a CES manual. I declare that to be NOT A SOURCE.

At this point in my FC, CES is the least trustable of all sources
AP - I think you don't know what CES stands for - Creates Extra Stress :-)
Post Reply