Comments on: From our exchanges: “The Mormon Concept of Mother in Heaven”

By: Kevin Barney

Kevin Barney — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:00:22 +0000

Further to no. 29, I have an essay provocatively titled “How to Worship Our Mother in Heaven (Without Getting Excommunicated)” [I know, I know, I've been blogging too long!], which is set to appear in the final issue of Dialogue that Levi Peterson is editing before turning the reins over to Kristine. So look for it in the Winter 2008 issue (which I believe is the issue after next).

(Thanks to Dave for pointing out this post; somehow I had missed it.)

By: Michelle Glauser

Michelle Glauser — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:32:36 +0000

It’s interesting that no one ever brings up the 1909 First Presidency statement on evolution. I loved this post. Thanks.

By: Ugly Mahana

Ugly Mahana — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:15:02 +0000

Do we really know all that much less about Mother in Heaven than we do about Father? Every time Father has revealed himself, it has been to introduce his Son and tell us to heed him (Jesus). Institutional lack of knowledge regarding the personality and attributes of Mother is well-noted. However, I don’t believe there is a comparative richness regarding our knowledge of the attributes and personality of Father. Which is as it should be, for Jesus is “the only name under heaven whereby man can be saved.” While it is true that we should seek for increased knowledge of the gospel, we should be careful not to go beyond the mark by speculating about the nature of EITHER of our heavenly parents. Though speculation regarding Mother brings on a special kind of hand-wringing, speculation regarding Father may do more widespread harm than uninformed (and, without further capital-R revelation, we are all uninformed) discussions regarding Mother.

By: smb

smb — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 02:39:41 +0000

When I read this article last year, I got mad because they had made one of the more reasonable analyses of this phenomenon, and I thought some material I was preparing for publication would be the hot new thing on the block. This essay really does merit a good reading.

My one reservation about Seth’s advocacy is that the early doctrine was not, pace Albanese and others, the dyadic God of Ann Lee or Jacob Boehme. It was much more patriarchal than matriarchal, so if you’re talking about excavating that past, you have to walk through something still quite sexist before taking it in a new direction. Unfortunately, the MiH is much more a part of the broader problematics of the divine anthropology (#52 has noted a part of it, which is in fact mentioned often). Moving back to MiH requires the kind of blatant genealogical polytheism that makes mainline and evangelical Protestants uncomfortable with Mormons in the fold.

I do agree that the idea that the divine mother has to hide from her children is a silly bit of neo-Victorianism.

By: Mark N.

Mark N. — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:21:10 +0000

There are some chapters in “Women of Mormondom” (if I recall the title correctly) where Eliza R. Snow makes it clear that the concept of Mother in Heaven is part and parcel of Adam-God teachings. Seems strange that this never seems to be mentioned whenever the topic comes up.

By: Tim J.

Tim J. — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:35:22 +0000

We are COMMANDED to seek after these things and we are BLOWING IT. All the while making lame excuses about how “it doesn’t matter anyway” or “we’ll find out later” or even more ridiculous doctrinal justifications with little or no basis in either scripture or even reality.

Agree with Seth. Alma 12:9-11 comes to mind. If we don't ever want to know, well, we never will. Of course, there is a mandate therein that not all that we learn do we need to teach.

By: Bookslinger

Bookslinger — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:20:19 +0000

Seth, I can see how your personality lends itself to your career in social advocacy issues.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:16:00 +0000

Seth, I’m the constant beneficiary of other bloggers’ patience with my own passionate comments — thanks for an exciting discussion.

By: Seth R.

Seth R. — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:50:58 +0000

By the way Clark and Ardis, sorry about the stridency of those last few posts. You got the receiving end of some frustrations that have been stewing for some time. But neither of you are who I am really irritated with. You just happened to be nearby when I decided to vent.

The issue of how best to seek for further light and knowledge in this situation is certainly worthy of careful consideration though.

By: Bookslinger

Bookslinger — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:10:15 +0000

I was going to comment about “spirit relatives” in the context of “generations of gods” as deductions from the King Follet Discourse and D&C Section 76, and how the people of the 2nd and 3rd degrees of the CK are servants to the exalted ones who obtain the highest degree.

However, by using human analogies to contemplate such relationships, I wasn’t able to maintain a sufficiently reverent tone. Anyway, I came to the following as a concluding thought, which sobered me to the point where I had to leave out the less-reverent analogies:

It may be interesting to contemplate how the exalted ones
among our generation (“our generation” being the children of Elohim, i.e., all spirit brothers/sisters of Jehovah) will relate to their firstborn spirit child, and what they’ll need to teach him about his assignment for his spirit brethren.