Robert in SD:
If the LDS church teaches that we have a spiritual mother and a father in heaven, then what does that make Mary, the mother of Jesus? Is she God’s heavenly wife? Was she just used by the Heavenly Father to bring Jesus into the flesh? Is she now exalted? If so, is she some other God’s wife or the wife of the Heavenly Father, which leads me to believe that a Heavenly Father can have more than one Heavenly wife?
I’m really confused about what a married Heavenly Father implies about the relationship between God and Mary, the mother of Jesus. Any LDS out there who can clear this up for me?
Robert,
See my quotes from Orson Pratt in message #9 posted above - although I would take these statements as speculative theology and most (if not all) LDS would likely say that if there is no doctrine about Mary to be found in the standard works (or, in the case of the Bible as correctly translated and all the other caveats placed upon it as an inspired work - we’re not privy to that which is inspired or not nor told - save in a few cases - what has been removed, changed, etc.) or taught
by the current prophet that there is no doctrine, period.
The most recent teaching I can find even vaguely concerning Mary and the “siring” of Christ comes from a teaching of president (and prophet, seer, and revelator, etc.) Ezra Taft Benson, in which he taught, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was he begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the son of the Eternal Father.” (BUT NOTE: This comes from “The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson” and is most frequently quoted on ‘anti-Mormon’ websites - and I don’t have a copy of the book to verify the quote nor when this was spoken or written - if not at the time that Benson was prophet, then the teaching would not have been ‘binding’ by LDS at that time: my note on this quote says “1988” but that is also the publication date of the book.)
As I understand it, now, even though this was taught by a prophet if it is not taught by the SITTING prophet, it’s not only not doctrine, it can’t be understood as current theological thinking.
It’s confusing to me - and, I suppose, to curious LDS members - just what doctrine concerning a particular matter may or may not be… there’s no recourse beyond staying on top of what the current president teaches and what is taught in the standard works (and only that therein that is currently taught and understood by the current prophet I suppose).
It seems that the only teaching authority within the LDS church is the CURRENT prophet and if he is silent on any given area of doctrine, one can only speculate. There is, apparently, no recourse to the teachings of past prophets, etc. And, boy, one thing I learned is NOT to think that when you read McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” you’re actually reading much that current LDS members will necessarily accept as “Mormon Doctrine”!
So I’m not sure that anyone here - LDS or not - could answer your question. It would have to be put before president Hinckley and - at his death - dealt with yet again by the prophets yet to come.