posted
"But there are some details that seem left out...."
There are a LOT of details left out, both pro and con. This is especially the case with the first 2 hours of history. There is a lot to cover and I can understand why things were jumbled and confusing. However, the worst part was the Nauvoo era that gave the most biased view of Joseph Smith than any other portion of both programs.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically calling Joseph Smith a Tyrant King who whilly-nilly destroyed a printing press without explaining Joseph Smith's own reasons for doing so.
He took over the Nauvoo Legion and became Mayor when those who originally given those positions abandoned him and Mormonism, then attacked him. He destroyed the printing press as he was advised it was legal to do. Not smart, mind you, but seen as legal under the Law. The Nauvoo Charter was granted by the STATE because of past persecutions didn't give Mormons much of any power (other than in numbers).
Not to mention the whole 3 and 8 Witnesses of the Book of Mormon were not mentioned ONE TIME, no matter what you might think of them.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Not to mention the whole 3 and 8 Witnesses of the Book of Mormon were not mentioned ONE TIME, no matter what you might think of them.
I seem to remember them being mentioned. I could be getting it confused with when I looked up the book of mormon on wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure they did mention the witnesses at least once.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't remember it myself and I know other Mormons have mentioned they weren't talked about at all, so . . . unless proven otherwise.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watched the first segment, the history. I believe it runs about 1h50m or so of actual documentary. I thought it was pretty well-handled. Occassional, I'm not sure how you'd like the destruction of a printing press by an American religious leader to be treated in a documentary.
"Whoops! You get a mulligan on that, bad call." No, I think not. I'm a Mormon too, and it's not a part of my history I'm happy about, to say the least. But I'm not going to hide from it or gloss over it, either.
I don't recall the witnesses being mentioned either...I've still got it, though. May watch it again.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Occassional, I'm not sure how you'd like the destruction of a printing press by an American religious leader to be treated in a documentary."
I just said HOW. To put in Docu-speech, "Joseph Smith was advised by counsel to destroy the Printing Press in accordance to the then legally recognized nuisance clause of the Nauvoo Charter. It struck at the Heart of the American institution of free speech and ended up leading to the prophet's death."
posted
I found the show very informative and interesting. However, there was one part that caused me to be upset and dismayed. The part about the baptisms for the dead.
Just so I've got this straight, they have a mountain complex that is dedicated to nothing but acquiring names of dead people, which they then use for baptisms in temple ceremonies? Is this true?
If so, it's one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stihl, there have been several heated threads on Hatrack about baptism for the dead if you're interested.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I envy your life, stihl1, if posthumous baptisms are among the most disgusting things you've ever heard about.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lynn, don't let a massacre from over 100 years ago depress you.
I saw roughly half of the documentary, and I thought it was interesting and fairly balanced. They went into polygamy, both historically in the LDS church and in modern apostate LDS faiths*, but emphasized that it has been forbidden for many decades (since 1890??). And that it results in certain excommunication. I thought that was a balanced approach.
The part on the family and sealings was interesting. And the part on excommunication highlighted a major problem with most all organised religions: authoritarianism.
* I'm not sure of the correct term for the quasi-Mormons who still practice polygamy but are not in the main LDS faith. Splinter groups? Fundamentalists? Apostates?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just so I've got this straight, they have a mountain complex that is dedicated to nothing but acquiring names of dead people, which they then use for baptisms in temple ceremonies? Is this true?
The truth is not quite so dramatic. Just about every Mormon congregation in the US has a genealogy center (open to the general public) where people can go to research their ancestry. Mormons doing their own genealogical work can submit the names of their direct ancestors to have their temple work done for them.
In theory, and according to Church policy, that's how it's supposed to work. The reality is a bit messier, and has been well debated on these forums.
Are the two latest threads that I remember dealing with the subject. If you want to have a conversation about this topic, please remember that you can choose to use language that reflects your distaste for the practice, but does not offend others.
The phrase "it's one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard" is not especially effective at engaging others in conversation.
quote:the part on excommunication highlighted a major problem with most all organised religions: authoritarianism.
All organizations have some degree of authoritarianism. I'd love to hear more of your opinion on exactly why you think the authoritarianism discussed in the documentary was so problematic.
quote: I'm not sure of the correct term for the quasi-Mormons who still practice polygamy but are not in the main LDS faith. Splinter groups? Fundamentalists? Apostates?
I'm sure they don't feel that any of those terms apply to them (though, privately, I do). I think "polygamists" is a fair designation that can be used without insulting mainstream Mormons or...er...polygamists.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
There is a flurry of chatter in the bloggernacle about this. Here's a link to a post with links to a lot of the threads: http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3841
I thought it was overall perfectly fine, very favorable in points, and balanced overall. I wouldn't show it in Sunday School, but it wasn't meant to be a church movie.
The second day was better than the first. Someone seeing the first day might come away with a distorted impression of church history - the mountain meadows massacre is simply not so big a deal that it deserves 1/6 of the airtime for history of the church. Also, the long segment emphasizing modern-day polygamy was a little bit annoying considering those who practice it have been being excommunicated for a hundred years, but the documentary twice showed President Hinkley stating that polygamy was NOT part of the modern-day church and those who practice it are not Mormons and definitely not fundamentalist Mormons. So, the time devoted was disproportionate, but the actual content was, as far as I could tell and according to Matt, accurate.
The second day was great. There were definitely viewpoints expressed that I would disagree with, but every negative comment was balanced with someone from the church or with positive experiences or comments. After one woman's tale of her excommunication, the documentary noted that the church NEVER comments on or releases accounts of excommunications, so every story you here is by nature from only one side. The segment on church welfare and church humanitarian work practically had a sunset in Arcadia feel (TM Anneke), and the part on missionary work I thought was sweet. The segment on temples was, with the exception of one woman's comments, very respectful and accurate. Even the ex-Mormons who did not believe it anymore and said why spoke of the temple and the church affectionately. There are angry ex-Mormons out there, but the documentary didn't give them a place to air grievances.
The man who talked about his wife who died giving birth to their eighth child was just heartbreaking. Elder Jensen was very personable, and Elder Packer was, I thought, very sweet, open, explanatory, and a little rueful about the consequences when questioned about a comment that has rubbed many people the wrong way.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We didn't watch it. My son turned it on for a bit, but he said he felt just the opening part of the show expressed such a snarky attitude about religion in general that he figured it was going to be very biased and tainted and not worth watching.
posted
I thought the first day was disappointing. I didn't find it quite as biased as Occasional, but I thought the emphases were pretty wrong. As kat mentioned, the 20 minutes on Mountain Meadows was a little heavy, as was the extensive polygamy discussion.
I only saw the last hour of the second day, but I thought it was very well done. My stomach clenched a bit when it went into the temple discussion, but I thought it was handled fairly, by-in-large. I thought the discussion of homosexuality within the church, and particularly Elder Jensen's comments counterposed against those of the former member were particularly good at expressing the complexity of the issue. I thought the first day suffered more from lack of what I would recognize as authoritative views on church history, relying more on personable interviewees. I would have liked more credentials than "Author" on most of the individuals.
I think my favorite interviewee was Richard(?) Mauw, the Protestant pastor. I saw three statements from him, and every one I thought was indicative of how I would hope Mormonism would be perceived by a non-member: an assumption of good will and good intent, without a belief in its veracity.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watched most of it...had to miss some bits since I was busy, but I thought it was really cool. The second half was better than the first I thought.
I might have missed it but did the show talk about the racist stuff from the Mormon past?
Regardless of its old form and past issues I think modern Mormons are neat.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I might have missed it but did the show talk about the racist stuff from the Mormon past?"
Yes, almost a whole section of it. Although it focused more on the revelation to give priesthood to all men rather than any racist attitudes. That was helpful because it explained the process of revelation and priesthood authority from at least one person (Pres. Hinkley) who was actually in the room when it was revealed.
One thing people just don't understand (and I know it was talked about a few times here at Hatrack) is that race issues in Mormonism are so complicated that you literally have to do more than slap on a stereotype label.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've watched most of the first segment, until the site started having technical difficulties. Maybe the server got overloaded or something. It's all posted online now right here.
Maybe it's just because I don't like tv much, and I'm not used to watching it, but did the people they interviewed seem like they were overdramatizing every word they said? I found that a constant annoyance. They seemed like performances by bad actors or something, instead of just interviews.
I liked the content overall, but from studying more about Mountain Meadows massacre I found that nearly every historian of the subject agrees that there's no evidence that Brigham Young ordered the killing. Yet the one fellow they interviewed (Will Bagley) is the only historian who feels the data says otherwise. His reasons, though, don't seem very sound. For instance, his first bit of evidence for Young's culpability is that Brigham Young was in control of everything that happened in Utah, a proposition that's pretty ludicrous and refuted by many documents of the time. Next, Bagley believes Brigham Young did it in order to send a message to the United States that he was in control of all transportation through Utah, and then he simultaneously believes that President Young acted immediately to cover up all traces of his part in the events. Which is it? Was he sending a message or trying to keep it a secret? It's not really reasonable to believe both, though Bagley sincerely does seem to. So I thought it wasn't the smartest thing of Helen Whitney to present Bagley's narrative standing alone as though it represented an accepted consensus among historians.
posted
I see race issues in Mormonism as being fairly simple and straightforward, myself. We're told by our doctrine, and by our General Authorities, that racial hatred is wrong, that we're all one family, children of God, brothers and sisters. We're taught to work together to succor each other and build up Zion regardless of race or culture. We're a worldwide church, and we're taught to love each other as ourselves, to mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort, to lift up hands that hang, and this holds across all races and ethnicities. Nothing could be more completely clear in our doctrine.
We send missionaries to all parts of the globe, and they always seem to gain a deep love and appreciation for the people, country, and culture of their missions. Nearly all the future leaders of the church have served missions, so this global perspective pervades the church leadership. We worship together, there isn't any segregation in Mormon churches, unlike most other denominations in America. Before I joined the LDS church I had visited many local churches (Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, AME, Catholic) and never happened to see any congregation that was integrated. They all were either black churches or white. All the Mormon wards I've belonged to have had both. The bishop of my second ward was black, and there were about as many blacks there as whites. So, in practice, I find the Latter Day Saints seem to do better than other denominations about race, although there's still definitely a lot of racism in individuals that needs to be worked on.
Historically, the fact that Mormon doctrine wasn't always so clear about race, I think, reflects the social trajectory of our country, and particularly that of Utah. I wish it weren't so. Joseph Smith adopted a black girl into his family, as a daughter, and he and his brother ordained blacks to the priesthood. One reason early Mormons were distrusted by their neighbors in Missouri and Illinois is that they were abolitionists. Had Joseph lived to a ripe old age, perhaps our church would have grown up free from the stain of institutional racism entirely. That would have been marvelous.
posted
I thought the "Mountain Meadows" part was well done, until they put Bagley in as spokesman for more than 50 year of excellent research on the topic. You explained it well Tatiana, but I would put it differently. He came away sounding like, "this is the way it was because that is how I say it was." Sadly, those who are not familiar with the many non-sensational works on the subject won't know how complicated the question is; and those who already agree with him will simply say I told you so.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Overall I think the documentaries are a good thing, as they will get people both inside and outside the church talking and thinking about all these issues.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ex-communicated scholar mentioned a "Heavenly Mother" but then they never explained what that was. I've never heard of it before. Is that a general Christian concept? I thought all of the Christian deities are male.
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The concept of a Heavenly Mother (a spouse and co-creator of our spirits with Heavenly Father) is, to my knowledge, a uniquely Mormon doctrine. It was first expounded by Eliza Snow in her hymn "O My Father" and then declared doctrinally sound by Joseph Smith.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love that doctrine. It isn't talked about a GREAT deal, except with a lot of reverence. For me it's one of the most beautiful, moving doctrines we have.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of why I'm glad it's not talked about much:
In my experience, it's a favorite target of anti-Mormon literature and fiction, often distorted into extremely vile, repulsive distortions.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no record of Joseph Smith teaching it. There are several second-hand accounts of him teaching, the most famous being Eliza R. Snow's words to the hymn "O My Father, which were included because of something Joseph said to her. She wrote it after Joseph died, however.
In the history of the Church, there are 1) revelations given to Joseph that were announced as such, 2) things that Joseph said, and 3) things that people say Joseph said.
It is a human tendency to lump those altogether as Joseph's teachings, but they are not the same. It think the concept of Heavenly Mother is so vague and often not spoken of precisely because it belongs in that third category.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the unique doctrines of the LDS Church is the existence of a Mother in Heaven. It is more than a trivial speculative idea, but part of the foundational teachings associated with Exaltation. No one (Man OR Woman) can be saved to the highest degree of Heaven without marriage for time and eternity. Although particulars are not available, the doctrine is enshrined in one of the most beloved hymns “Oh My Father” by Eliza R. Snow. It states, “in the heavens, are parents single?” and replies, “no . . . truth eternal tells me I’ve a mother there.” President Wilford Woodruff proclaimed the hymn a revelation. To add to that, it is impossible to fully comprehend the doctrines of eternal families without accepting the implications.
The key to understanding Heavenly Mother is both in the name and a simple verse of the Doctrine and Covenants. It occurs in the famous “Civil War Prophecy” of D&C 130:
quote:1 When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves.
2 And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.
Although it has more to do with the nature of God and our relation to Him than gender issues, the idea expressed of “that same sociality” has repercussions. There is not a lot of differences between what we observe here on Earth and human nature in the Eternities. It is true that we are perhaps more prone to sin, misunderstanding, lies, and mistakes in mortality. Yet, it is clear that mothers are a very important part of the social fabric of humanity. To understand motherhood is to understand Heavenly Mother, just as Fatherhood brings its own lessons. The recent Proclamation on the Family emphasizes the Earthly relationships of gender to Eternal truth:
quote:We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children . . .
. . . By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.
Therefore, we know that Heavenly Mother is just that; a woman who takes care of children. There is no pretence as to how that can be achieved morally or "physically." It is in the forming of Heavenly Children (that has not been explained in the least) that the vile, repulsive stories are talked about. Mostly it comes from those who consider any physical act as gross and damning, and find this the perfect excuse to make Mormonism look disgusting.
Of course, not every man or woman has the opportunity to marry or raise children here on Earth. However, if Heaven is the ideal and families reflect Heaven, then Time only is of concern and not ultimate circumstances. There is much that we must, as religious people, hope for in the next life that cannot be attained in mortal probation. Marriage and children might be part of that anticipation for a better Eternal life when not available as mortals. That is the faith that drives proxy Temple work after all.
Scriptures do not mention Her because she is not part of the plan of salvation beyond what we already know of motherhood. The deity we worship continues to be Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as One, and They have been consistent on who and what we must do to be saved. If honesty is important, those who want to “graduate” the female half of Heavenly Parents must acknowledge there isn’t much known about Father in Heaven either. We know as much as we do about Him because Jesus is His representative. Ultimately it is through Jesus Christ that we get near the Father, and it is through the Father that the Mother can be percieved.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While the scriptures do not overtly mention Her, both Adam and Eve being created in God's image at least implies Her existence. In the LDS interpretation of what "In God's image" means, of course.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for the explanations. So she is assumed to be a deity on the level of the Heavenly Father and the mother of Jesus?
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The mortal mother of Jesus is not considered a deity to the LDS. We revere her but don't pray to her.
Heavenly Mother is the spiritual mother of all of us, and we know very little about her. Our theology is open-ended though. There are many things yet to be revealed, and Heavenly Father teaches us line by line, and precept by precept. As we receive and put into practice the teachings that we have, we become worthy to receive more and higher teachings. This goes on eternally, and is known as eternal progression.
So I think of us in our current state as being in kindergarten. There are ages and eons of experiences and struggles and growth and learning that go on after this mortal life. We aren't taught much about any of that. I suppose that means we need to focus on the work we have to do here, and the other will come in the right time. Presumably we'll be better able to understand it, the wiser and better we become. Exaltation is a gradual process, which involves every fiber of our being, our wills, our agency, and our efforts, as well as the necessary grace of God, and the atonement of Jesus the Christ, without which it would be impossible.
Understand that these are peripheral teachings, that aren't fundamental to our religious lives. They are interesting to speculate about, and to think and pray about, but they don't come into Sunday School or church very often. The central tenets of our faith are faith in Jesus Christ as the savior of humankind, repentence, baptism, receiving the holy ghost, and loving God and our neighbors.
quote:Originally posted by Chanie: The ex-communicated scholar mentioned a "Heavenly Mother" but then they never explained what that was. I've never heard of it before. Is that a general Christian concept? I thought all of the Christian deities are male.
In classical Christian theology God, having no physical body, is neither male nor female.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
"Understand that these are peripheral teachings, that aren't fundamental to our religious lives. They are interesting to speculate about, and to think and pray about, but they don't come into Sunday School or church very often. The central tenets of our faith are faith in Jesus Christ as the savior of humankind, repentence, baptism, receiving the holy ghost, and loving God and our neighbors."
The general, encompassing term we use for doctrines like that of a Heavenly Mother is "not essential to our salvation." In other words, full and complete understnding of it does not effect our ability to be saved, as opposed to those listed in the last part of Tatiana's post.
Incidentally, the fact that "O My Father", the hymn that talks about our Heavenly Mother, is in the hymnbook means that it's doctrinally approved.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In trinitarian theology the father-son language is metaphor. Jesus is believed to be the same being as God -- the incarnation or "en-fleshment" of God. Father/Son is as close as the language could get to describing a relationship that has no actual human experience parallel.
And one of the limitations that God took on by becoming incarnate was the limitation of having to be one gender or the other.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw is talking about what the vast majority of Christians believe. What Mormons believe is held only by them. Just so no one is confused.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quite. I was answering Chanie's question, which I took to be responding to my post just above it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, thank you. That was what I was asking. I am often confused by the Christian concepts of Moshiach/G-d.
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The concept of Mother in Heaven is speculative doctrine. There is no binding canonical information about her existence. I believe that it is not necessary to believe in a Mother in Heaven to be a faithful member of the church, or vice versa. A good deal of Mormon "doctrine" falls into this category of speculation; which I think is a good thing, as long as people do not hold it in the same regard as scripture.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kent: The concept of Mother in Heaven is speculative doctrine. There is no binding canonical information about her existence. I believe that it is not necessary to believe in a Mother in Heaven to be a faithful member of the church, or vice versa. A good deal of Mormon "doctrine" falls into this category of speculation; which I think is a good thing, as long as people do not hold it in the same regard as scripture.
If the hymn O My Father, is considered a hymn in the official LDS hymn book, and the preface of the book states that the hymns ought to be used for sermons, and if the hymns we sing are a prayer to God himself. It seems odd if not blasphemous for entire congregations to have praised God for decades concerning a concept that is not recognized as true.
There are so many scriptures that implicate Her existance that I think the onus is on the naysayers to prove she does not exist and why not.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Kent. I think it's beautiful and it makes sense to me and I like it and it feels right and I believe it, but it isn't doctrine the way the restoration of the Priesthood or the nature of God the Father is.
quote:Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.
With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.
However many scriptures seem to "implicate" her existance, none of them say it outright and the conclusion must be inferred.
It is not said outright in a official proclamation by the Church, it isn't said outright in the scriptures, and it isn't in the Articles of Faith. That does NOT mean it can't be true, but it isn't official doctrine.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The concept of Mother in Heaven is speculative doctrine.
I don't agree with you. In the temple it is understood that the participants will become kings and priestesses and will continue to propagate children. If the participants remain true to their covenants it is taught they will become like God and have an eternal family.
The very nature of Mormonism and eternal goals requires a Heavenly mother. There might not be written canon on the subject, but it is certainly more then speculative.
EDIT
quote: The mortal mother of Jesus is not considered a deity to the LDS. We revere her but don't pray to her.
I think what you said is speculation, and I will continue to speculate. In Mormonism I can't help but see the Heavenly Mother as Deity. Mormons are taught that married couples in this life are equal with different roles. The priesthood, Exaltation, is not complete without both roles.
We may not understand her role, but that doesn't make her a non-Deity. The Holy Ghost is a Deity and we don't pray to him/her/it. Mormons don't even pray to Jesus, and He is considered Deity.
I am only talking about how I perceive Mormon doctrine, not my own personal beliefs.
quote:The concept of Mother in Heaven is speculative doctrine.
I don't agree with you. In the temple it is understood that the participants will become kings and priestesses and will continue to propagate children. If the participants remain true to their covenants it is taught they will become like God and have an eternal family.
The very nature of Mormonism and eternal goals requires a Heavenly mother. There might not be written canon on the subject, but it is certainly more then speculative.
I agree with what you are saying. What if there was something particular to our God's case that does indeed remove a heavenly mother from the picture? I have no idea what specifically but it's just a thought.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I disagree with you on the certainty of Mother in Heaven in Mormon doctrine. It isn't in any of the sources listed above as sources of official doctrine. I think it is important to clarify the differences between official doctrine and non-official doctrine found in statements made by leaders of the church.
It could be true and I think it is, but it isn't and hasn't ever been official.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does Mormon doctrine require that God have not just a physical body but also a human body? If not, "he" could reproduce asexually.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Does Mormon doctrine require that God have not just a physical body but also a human body? If not, "he" could reproduce asexually.
Its more OUR bodies are patterned off of His. What abilities God's body has that ours does not is limited in treatment by scripture.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because something is speculative doesn't mean it isn't true. However, the concept of a Mother in Heaven is so far to the periferies of the gospel that it really is not a core doctrine. If the prophet were to come out and teach that there is no Mother in Heaven it would not damage my faith.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will say that the idea of a "Mother in Heaven" is doctrinal without reservation. In fact, I think we would have to have a revelation about her NOT existing to say otherwise.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are you basing that on, Occ? How do you reconcile that with the statement on the church website that says doctrine must be in the scriptures, a proclamation, or the Articles of Faith to be official?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What BlackBlade said. We are patterned after Him, not to mention are His Children. So, logically He has the same body type as us. Even if that is not stated in scripture, description of Him in Mormon revelations are of a human body of unimaginable glory.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
