C
Chris-WA
Guest
Does the LDS church really teach that God the Father is married, or is it just speculation on the part of former LDS leaders?
- Status
M
majick275
Guest
Here is a quick pass of some easy to check references to this:
An editorial footnote of History of the Church, 5:254, presumably quotes Joseph Smith as saying: “Come to me; here’s the mysteries man hath not seen, Here’s our Father in heaven, and Mother, the Queen.” In addition, a second-hand account states that in 1839, Joseph Smith had told Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young, one of Smith’s plural wives, after the death of her mother, that “not only would she know her mother again on the other side, but ‘more than that, you will meet and become acquainted with your eternal Mother, the wife of your Father in Heaven’.” See Wilcox, p. 65 (1987).
*the popular Latter-day Saint hymn “O My Father”), describing the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother. See Eliza R. Snow (1845); see also Derr (1996-97); Pearson (1992). This hymn contained the following language:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not formally acknowledge the existence of a Heavenly Mother until 1909, in a doctrinal statement on evolution by the First Presidency marking the 50th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, where the doctrine was stated indirectly. See Smith et al. (1909). The Church also later acknowledged the doctrine in The Family: A Proclamation to the World, where the Church stated that each person is a “spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents”. Other references to the Heavenly Mother doctrine can be found in Latter-day Saint speeches and literature. See, e.g., Hinckley (1991) (encouraging Latter-day Saint women not to pray to the Heavenly Mother).
It should be obvious that LDS doctrine requires this to be so. However, expect a lot of difficulty in getting this clearly defined by them.
An editorial footnote of History of the Church, 5:254, presumably quotes Joseph Smith as saying: “Come to me; here’s the mysteries man hath not seen, Here’s our Father in heaven, and Mother, the Queen.” In addition, a second-hand account states that in 1839, Joseph Smith had told Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young, one of Smith’s plural wives, after the death of her mother, that “not only would she know her mother again on the other side, but ‘more than that, you will meet and become acquainted with your eternal Mother, the wife of your Father in Heaven’.” See Wilcox, p. 65 (1987).
*the popular Latter-day Saint hymn “O My Father”), describing the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother. See Eliza R. Snow (1845); see also Derr (1996-97); Pearson (1992). This hymn contained the following language:
Code:
In the heavens are parents single?
No, the thought makes reason stare.
Truth is reason: truth eternal
tells me I've a mother there. *It should be obvious that LDS doctrine requires this to be so. However, expect a lot of difficulty in getting this clearly defined by them.
A
amgid
Guest
It is more of a speculation than a well-defined doctrine. There is nothing in LDS scriptures that categorically states that God the Father is married. However, there are some passages in scripture that suggest He very well might be. One of them is the following:
Genesis 1:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
This suggests that the “image of God” has both male and female attributes, in some sense or other. Since LDS believe that God the Father is a personage in physical human form, with a tangible body of “flesh and bones,” it is not too far-fetched to assume that He should also have a female counterpart.
In the “Proclamation” on the family issued by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles a few years ago, it is stated that mankind are children of “heavenly parents,” which strongly suggests that the General Authorities believe that this is the case. But no categorical statements have been made.
amgid
J
Jerusha
Guest
There is a lot of difference between God having both masculine and feminine attributes, and God having a wife. By our human nature, with its limitations, we normally ascribe masculinity to God, but, “he” (language limitation illustrates) transcends gender.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
If that is what the General Authorities said in an official LDS church document, then what more do you need?
Let’s follow this logically. The GA’s said we are born of heavenly “parents,” as in the plural form of “parent.” We know the LDS church believes that God the Father has a body and is male. So, logically speaking, that must mean that the LDS church believes that He is married to a female, right? If so, what sort of being is she?
B
ben_dy
Guest
That’s been a question that I’ve had for which I haven’t been able to find any definitive answer. Not exactly just our mother (or mother’s - assuming “Our Father” has a plurality of wives). “Our Father” (‘God’) was once a mortal man such as we were: he is an exalted being and man can become like him, and males, at least, can have many wives, attain his own realm of godhood, create spirit children to populate his worlds, etc. But he (you, whatever male) must be married and “what sort of being(s)” are women in the exalted celestial kingdom? “Wives” who will give birth to spirit children? Do they/will they have any other ‘powers’ equal to that of men? Eternal happiness, I suppose?
We know that women do get to the celestial kingdom - in D&C 137:5, JS writes of his vision of the CK, “I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;” so, as his Mom made it to the CK, I just wonder if that’s where she stays (in the lowest of the three orders?) or if she can attain ‘eternal progress’ and become a ‘goddess’ of her own worlds?
Looking forward to a good solid LDS view of women, their kingdoms, and what sort of eternal progression they can hope to attain - as they can’t attain the priesthood, I doubt that they could become as gods, I suppose, but I’d like to know what they’re reward is - eternal wifehood?
M
majick275
Guest
The LDS Temple ceremony is probably a good example of the LDS role for exalted women.
God the Father instructs Jesus to take Adam and create the world. The same occurs for the placement of Adam and Eve in the garden. They (God the Father and Jesus) then come and visit Adam and Eve to cast them out of Eden. The rest is delegated to Peter, James and John.
Nowhere do we see any evidence of any “goddesses” being consulted or allowed to participate. They merely exist in the background having spirit children. Faithful LDS women are consecrated to become queens and priestesses to their husbands. (Men are consecrated to become kings and priests to God)
I find this to be the spiritual equivalent of barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. (while maintaining silence and sharing with all of the other wives of the polygamist for all eternity)
God the Father instructs Jesus to take Adam and create the world. The same occurs for the placement of Adam and Eve in the garden. They (God the Father and Jesus) then come and visit Adam and Eve to cast them out of Eden. The rest is delegated to Peter, James and John.
Nowhere do we see any evidence of any “goddesses” being consulted or allowed to participate. They merely exist in the background having spirit children. Faithful LDS women are consecrated to become queens and priestesses to their husbands. (Men are consecrated to become kings and priests to God)
I find this to be the spiritual equivalent of barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. (while maintaining silence and sharing with all of the other wives of the polygamist for all eternity)
C
Chris-WA
Guest
I’ve wondered the same thing myself. Current LDS authorities certainly say we have heavenly “parents.” They say God the Father is the father of our spirits. So who is the other parent(s)? A “heavenly mother” of some type? If so, the implications of that are far reaching. If there is a heavenly mother, that means God the Father has some type of being as a wife, some type of being who is just like him, and where did she come from? They are unwilling to concede a never-ending progression of gods, but how else can you explain the existance of a “heavenly mother?”
B
ben_dy
Guest
Well… in trying to reason this out with there being no definitive LDS catechism to look these things up and reasoning solely from the standard works, my assumption would be…
…that as there are plural gods who created this solar system and universe, they would have - eternally - have been procreating. And since “God the Father” was once a man like us, now in an exalted state as a god yet being of flesh and bone, my assumption is that he would have had sisters, cousins, etc., with whom he could procreate the pre-existent ‘spirit children’ (and continues to procreate so that his spirit children may be still born into this world).
From reading the Book of Abraham, where plural gods create, I would assume that there is “a never-ending progression of gods” (is there an LDS doctrine which says otherwise? I honestly don’t know!). One thing that I thought was interesting in the writings (or speeches, preaching, whatever) of the Apostle Orson Pratt, there is the theory that God the Father was lawfully married to Mary:
Apostle Orson Pratt:
But although he’s quite sure that Mary was the legal wife of Joseph (Jesus’ step-father, not Smith), he’s not certain if they were sealed for ‘time’ only or for 'time and eternity:
Apostle Orson Pratt:
So, according to Pratt, the BVM could be your Mom, as well. (Not mine, though!) I’m not certain how much weight Pratt’s theology carries in LDS circles these days, but I know that he was one of the first “Quorum of the Twelve Apostles” under Joseph Smith and, although he broke with Smith (and thus the church) over the doctrine of plural marriage, he was re-baptized an re-admitted, was one of the first to enter Salt Lake Valley, and was the last of the original “Quorum of the Twelve Apostles” to die. It’s rather hard to pin down what is speculation or theology in LDS ‘church father’ writings - some members accept only that found in the “standard works”, some the standard works plus whatever the current prophet is teaching, some what previous prophets and apostles have taught, etc. The second position is likely the most accepted but I don’t quite understand how, if you’re LDS, you “track down” the official church doctrine on a given matter if the current prophet has not written or spoken upon the subject. Does Hinckley believe that the BVM is married to God the Father? I don’t know. Has anyone asked him? Don’t know that either. If I wanted to find out, where would I look? No idea…
What’s the Churchill phrase? “a riddle wrapped in mystery inside an enigma wrapped in a ball of old newspaper which once contained some nice fried cod and chips”? That sort of sums up the surety of LDS doctrine which I’ve been able to uncover! And that’s with help from current LDS members, as well.
A
amgid
Guest
Assuming that she does indeed exist (and nothing has been revealed on the subject that I know of), then presumably she would be a glorious being as the Father is. The closest thing to a definitive assertion that has been made by a senior General Authority on the subject was a conference talk given by Gordon B. Hinckley in October 1991 conference, called “Daughters of God.” He was then counselor in the First Presidency. The following extract leaves a lot out. If you are seriously interested you should read the whole talk in the Nov. 1991 issue of the Ensign. You will find it on the Church’s website. I am quoting the bits that are most directly relevant to this discussion. Words in braces {} are added by me. I have changed square brackets in the original to angular brackets to avoid causing problems on this website:
"It was Eliza R. Snow who wrote the words: ‘Truth is reason; truth eternal / Tells me I’ve a mother there.’ (Hymns, 1985, no. 292.)
"It has been said that the Prophet Joseph Smith made no correction to what Sister Snow had written. Therefore, we have a Mother in Heaven. Therefore, that we may appropriately pray to her.
"Logic and reason would certainly suggest that if we have a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in Heaven. That doctrine rests well with me.
"However, in light of the instruction we have received from the Lord Himself, I regard it as inappropriate for anyone in the Church to pray to our Mother in Heaven.
"The Lord Jesus Christ set the pattern for our prayers. In the Sermon on the Mount, He declared: ‘After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.’ (Matt. 6:9.)
“I suppose those … who use this expression {i.e. pray to Heavenly Mother} and who try to further its use are well-meaning, but they are misguided. The fact that we do not pray to our Mother in Heaven in no way belittles or denigrates her.”
That is the end of the quotation from the talk I gave earlier, to which I may add that none of us can add to or diminish the glory of her of whom we have no revealed knowledge.
This is about as authoritative as you can get. Gordon B. Hinckley evidently considers it reasonable and logical to believe in the existence of such a being, and he is quite comfortable with believing in it himself; but at the same time acknowledges that it is a subject on which “nothing has been revealed”. You can’t have it any clearer than that.
amgid
C
Chris-WA
Guest
Several LDS posting in these forums have called those teachings “speculations” by eariler prophets/apostles. But if current GA’s did say that we come from heavenly parents, then what other conclusion could one possibly draw? It really bothers me how difficult it can be to pin down certain LDS teachings. It’s as if the LDS leadership puts out these incredible statements like “we come from heavenly parents,” but are afraid to tell us what that means. Are they purposefully being vague here? Are they trying to remain true to what eariler prophets taught while at the same time not delving too deeply into a teaching they really can’t support themselves? Unless they come out with more definitive statements, I guess we will never know.
M
Malachi4U
Guest
Is it possible for one of the women (wife’s) of heavenly father to cheat on him with another god etc…?
Back on Kobol, can a wife of the top god cheat on the top god?
Sorry, I don’t recall offhand the top god’s name.
Back on Kobol, can a wife of the top god cheat on the top god?
Sorry, I don’t recall offhand the top god’s name.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
Thanks for the research. It seems clear that the current Mormon prophet defintitely believes this heavenly mother exists, but I sure would like to hear his logic and reasons are for believing such a thing. There is absolutely no scriptural reference to her, and if nothing has been revealed then it seems he, and others before him, are going out on a major limb to suggest that God the Father has a wife (or wives). Perhaps this idea stems from the Mormon beliefs in pre-existance, eternal progression, and eternal marriage.
But let me ask you one huge question. Doesn’t it seem odd that Heavenly Father would keep this a secret throughout all of salvation history? Why would He keep our “heavenly mother” a secret from us? How would that make Him a good father?
Also, if she does exist, then she had a creator. Who could that be?
C
Chris-WA
Guest
I thought a little more about this and I think it is reasonable and logical to assume we have a mother in heaven. After all, Heavenly Father is the perfect father, Jesus Christ is the perfect brother, so why would God leave us without a mother? For Catholics, that person is Mary. She is our mother not because she is married to God (obviously she’s not), but because she is the mother of Christ and the mother of the church. Not only is she the mother, but she is the queen mother, because she is the mother of the King, just like the mothers of the Davidic kings in the Old Testament were the queen mothers to the people.
T
twf
Guest
According to a Mormon I’ve been talking to on MSN, the Heavenly Mother has always existed with the Heavenly Father, for all eternity. I wonder if there are any official documents to back this up?
M
majick275
Guest
What little LDS doctrine that has been publicly revealed indicates that there are mothers as Heavenly Father (being completely exalted) is a polygamist.
A
amgid
Guest
I perceive a certain sincerity in your post, so I will briefly try to answer it for you. In the early years of the Church, speculating theological issues was common among LDS. They speculated about all kinds of things, not just the common ones frequently mentioned on these boards. The reason why they don’t get much of a mention is because they are not sensational enough to be used as a weapon against LDS. I don’t know why they were so prone to theological speculation in those days. Perhaps they thought it was a fun thing to do, or perhaps it was the times in which they lived, or maybe they just allowed their imaginations to get carried away, and everybody thought that was cool! Here is a typical example. This quote is from Franklin D. Richards, published in the JoD. He is commenting on the three Nephite disciples mentioned in the Book of Mormon, who were permitted to “tarry” until Jesus should return:
“They wanted to tarry until Jesus came, and that they might, He took them into the heavens and endowed them with the power of translation, probably in one of Enoch’s temples, and brought them back to the earth. Thus they received power to live until the coming of the Son of Man. I believe He took them to Enoch’s city and gave them their endowments there. I expect that in the city of Enoch there are temples; and when Enoch and his people come back, they will come back with their city, their temples, blessings and powers.” (Journal of Discourses, 25:236-37.)
This is pure speculation. There is nothing in LDS scripture to confirm any of this. It is not true LDS doctrine. And there really is no justification for it either. In LDS scripture, the lord has specifically counseled the Saints against such speculations:
D&C 80:
4 Therefore, declare the things which ye have heard, and verily believe, and know to be true.
This scripture clearly mandates against theological speculation; or at least, against teach it as though it were gospel doctrine. If you have a fertile imagination, and want to let it run wild, you are free to do so. But it would be wrong to teach it in a public discourse as though it were gospel doctrine.
There are some things that I know with certainty. I know with absolute certainty that the Book of Mormon is true. I know with absolute certainty that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. I know that he saw the Father and the Son in the First Vision, and that the gospel and the priesthood has been restored through him. Therefore that is something that I can teach with absolute conviction. But I don’t know that the three Nephite disciples were taken to a temple in the city of Enoch, and received their endowments there! There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that says that. It is speculation; and I would be wrong to teach it in public discourse as though it were true.
Since those early days a lot has changed in the Church. The tendency in the Church to speculate on doctrine has gradually disappeared. The last in the line of prominent LDS who followed that tradition was probably Bruce R. McConkie. I don’t know of any LDS General Authority alive today whom I can say belongs to that tradition. Nowadays the General Authorities, especially the First President and the Twelve Apostles, are much more careful about what they teach, and they try not to speculate on doctrinal issues.
(Continued in the next post…)
amgid
A
amgid
Guest
(Continued from the previous post…)
So, in the light of all of that, how shall we interpret the various official statements by LDS General Authorities implying the existence of a “Heavenly Mother”? That is a good question. Here is my opinion. First, I refer you to the quote I gave you from Gordon B. Hinckley in post #10. That is probably the most authorities and definitive statement on the subject ever published, or likely to be. I believe it implies that the First Presidency has determined by revelation that that doctrine is true. There is such a thing as a “Heavenly Mother”. Therefore the General Authorities cannot deny it. The General Authorities cannot deny something that they know is true. Therefore this is a doctrine which they are willing to affirm in their teachings. But nothing further has been revealed beyond that. Who She is, where She came from, and how She came to be had not been revealed. Therefore the General Authorities cannot go beyond that affirmation. And that is how I believe that you should understand those statements put out by the General Authorities of the Church.
This quote is from your post #8:
Deuteronomy 29:
29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Mark 6: Alma 12:
9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.
I wrote the above before reading the following post, so I will briefly comment on them:
(Continued in the next post…)
amgid
So, in the light of all of that, how shall we interpret the various official statements by LDS General Authorities implying the existence of a “Heavenly Mother”? That is a good question. Here is my opinion. First, I refer you to the quote I gave you from Gordon B. Hinckley in post #10. That is probably the most authorities and definitive statement on the subject ever published, or likely to be. I believe it implies that the First Presidency has determined by revelation that that doctrine is true. There is such a thing as a “Heavenly Mother”. Therefore the General Authorities cannot deny it. The General Authorities cannot deny something that they know is true. Therefore this is a doctrine which they are willing to affirm in their teachings. But nothing further has been revealed beyond that. Who She is, where She came from, and how She came to be had not been revealed. Therefore the General Authorities cannot go beyond that affirmation. And that is how I believe that you should understand those statements put out by the General Authorities of the Church.
This quote is from your post #8:
You would be as unwise to speculate on that as the LDS have been. Who says that religion must provide an explanation of everything divine? Where did your God come from? What makes you think that I need to be able to tell you where my God came from? I will quote you a couple of scriptures that I have quoted before, but needs to be repeated here:
Deuteronomy 29:
29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Mark 6: Alma 12:
9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.
I wrote the above before reading the following post, so I will briefly comment on them:
I agree!
I believe that the First Presidency have determine that by revelation, but beyond that they are not willing to go. And by the way, it says (one) “Mother,” not “wives”!
No, that has nothing to do with it.
(Continued in the next post…)
amgid
A
amgid
Guest
(Continued from the previous post…)
D&C 35:
18 And I have given unto him {Joseph Smith} the keys of the mystery of those things which have been sealed, even things which were from the foundation of the world, and the things which shall come from this time until the time of my coming, if he abide in me, and if not, another will I plant in his stead.
D&C 124:
41 For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulness of times.
The fact that God the Father is a personage with a tangible body, for example, is something that had not been revealed before (as far as we know).
Perhaps because it is such a sensitive issue that God would not have wanted to reveal it. Perhaps it had been revealed to the ancient saints, but the knowledge has been lost. God has declared that it is His intent to reveal in this dispensation many things which have been kept hid from the foundation of the world:
D&C 35:
18 And I have given unto him {Joseph Smith} the keys of the mystery of those things which have been sealed, even things which were from the foundation of the world, and the things which shall come from this time until the time of my coming, if he abide in me, and if not, another will I plant in his stead.
D&C 124:
41 For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulness of times.
The fact that God the Father is a personage with a tangible body, for example, is something that had not been revealed before (as far as we know).
A
amgid
Guest
Sorry Chris. I messed up on the last bit of the last post, so here it is:
amgid
We don’t know anything beyond what has been revealed. It is wrong to speculate. God is not obliged to, indeed cannot, reveal to us everything we might like to know.
Well, if you find it a comforting thought, you are welcome to that belief. As I said before, LDS have a very high regard for Mary, the mother of the Lord. But that is not what LDS mean by “Mother in Heaven”.
amgid
- Status