LDS - Belief in Heavenly Mother; Prayers?

[BYUChemAlum]

But here is the deal - they don’t even want to discuss it. It’s like a taboo topic or something. Here is how the conversation goes:

Non-Mormon: “So you believe in a heavenly mother.”
Mormon: “Yes.”
Non-Mormon: “So God has a wife or wives?”
Mormon: “It hasn’t been revealed.”
Non-Mormon: “So if there is a heavenly mother, some other god must have created her?”
Mormon: “It hasn’t been revealed.”
Non-Mormon: “Well, isn’t that a logical conclusion?”
Mormon: “It hasn’t been revealed.”

You see what I’m getting at. It’s like Mormons are almost embarrassed to talk about the subject. It logically leads to discussions they just don’t want to have. There seems to be this block that when it comes to certain subjects, Mormons just would rather discontinue the discussion, as if they would really rather not think about those things.

LDS doctrine is not based on “logical conclusions” (I am not referring to whether LDS doctrine is itself logical), or rationalizations of ideas. It is instead based on revelation from God. Such extrapolations, as I already mentioned, can be done to support personal speculations, however they are not the basis for doctrinal beliefs. I would also have to actually see one of these hypothetical discussions to comment on what exactly the issue is.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

BYU, do you find it the least bit strange that Jesus never made mention of heavenly Mother? The One, the only One, who would actually be in a position to know, not once speaks about His “heavenly mother”.

No I don’t. Why would Jesus mention Heavenly Mother (accepting that our belief is true)? Jesus did not reveal everything there is to be revealed. Also, since LDS believe that revelation continues, we believe that God did indeed reveal/restore the belief in the existence of Heavenly Mother when He was ready.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Chris, thanks for your comments and I couldn’t agree more. Beginning with a preconeived notion and then bending your theology to fit that notion results in nothing but confusion.

God bless.

Every religion in existence has preconceived notions which shapes their theology, as well as their reading of scriptures. I believe I already commented on the notion that God the Father is not embodied and how that shapes the traditional understanding of being created in the image and likeness of God.

 

[Stephen168]

LDS doctrine is not based on “logical conclusions”

I agree

It is instead based on revelation from God.

Christ is the revelation.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

I agree

LDS doctrine is based on God revealing His truths.

Christ is the revelation.

Which does not take away from the belief that God reveals His truths to His people.

 

[Stephen168]

LDS doctrine is based on God revealing His truths.

It’s based on Joseph Smith making up stuff to make the individual(s) he is talking to at the moment feel good.

All this relies on Joseph Smith being a prophet of God.

It seems Joseph Smith was actually trying to restore some kind of Judaism with Aaronic priesthood, polygamy, and polytheism.

Which does not take away from the belief that God reveals His truths to His people.

Through Jesus Christ alone

 

[Chris-WA]

Firstly (not commenting on the numbered points above), as I’m sure you are aware, we believe that prophets are not infallible in everything they say. They, as we all are, are entitled to their opinions and speculations, and there is nothing “guilty” (if that word is being used to denote something negative) about it.

Ah, yes–the speculation defense. Have heard it many times before, but it just doesn’t stand up to logic. How does one tell the difference between truth and speculation when it comes to the proclamations of an LDS prophet? Did Joseph qualify his teachings as speculation? No, he did not. He taught them as metaphysical fact. And the church believed.

Also, LDS do not limit revelation to just what is in the Standard Works. While the Standard Works obviously have a unique place in revelation, we also accept revelation in other settings, such as in General Conference.

Tell me how you, as a Mormon, can differentiate between when your prophet is speculating and when he is teaching truth. What is to be believed and what is not? I’ve never heard an LDS be able to adequately answer that question in a reasonable and logical manner.

What I was responding to directly was your referring to “it has not been revealed” as a “trick” (as if LDS are being intentionally dishonest or deceptive). It is a perfectly valid response to topics where no definitive binding revelation has been given on an issue, though people have speculated and extrapolated based on what has been revealed.

Fair enough. I retract the word “trick.” It can imply a deliberate sense of deception. “Stonewalling” is more accurate.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

It’s based on Joseph Smith making up stuff to make the individual(s) he is talking to at the moment feel good.

According to you. But we are discussing what Latter-day Saints believe.

Through Jesus Christ alone

Which does not take away from the belief that God reveals His truths to His people.

 

[JeanMichel]

Your language gives you away…“plurality” is a Mormon term used describe multiple gods (and marriages).

So yes, you are trying to impose your errors, and yes, that is dishonest, not a tactic.

When all else fails and you are caught in the weakness of your argument, then prevaricate and attack the opposing side.

You seem to deliberately choose the works of anti-Mormonism rather than just use truth. I know you, and others, think I am attacking Catholicsm (which I find personally offensive because it evades answering my questions or addressing my perspective), but what I attack are poor, dishonest methods to teach truth.

 

[Javl]

JAVL,

Here are the names from the article:

David Ben-Gurion, Levi Eshkol, and Moshe Dayan

I don’t know which Jewish background they had–perhaps you do. The article itself was a talk presented to a gathering of Jews and Mormons, as the headnote reads.

Have a good day.

Thanks Parker. These men you mentioned were typically secular Jews. To have dialogue with any one in today’s Judaism it must be with the Orthodox. If not, it actually would mean nothing, for the Orthodox are really the continuation of Judaism from the destruction of the last temple. Shalom .

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[JeanMichel]

This has already been treated and explained.

1. You had better go back and do some more research and study about Catholicism for you seem to have a lot of predjudice and misconceptions about it.
2. Every teaching, tenet, doctrine, and dogma, within Catholicism is Biblical. It is said that the Church uses, depends, and relies on Tradition. Yes we do. Holy traditions only, such as the Trinity. Much in mainline Christianity is Holy Tradition based. Many have tried to prove Catholicism has apostacized, erred, changed, etc,. and all have failed. Jesus, the Apostles, and all the Church Fathers have proved otherwise. Keep in mind that the Catholic Church has been here unchanged for 2000 years still teaching the exact same truth that Jesus taught. Prove otherwise.
3. Again your predjudice, misunderstanding and misconception shows through. You are the one who is building on sand with your unfounded accustaions and criticisms.
4. Yes, it was Brigham young, if I remember correctly. At one time his words and teachings were on the same level as sacred scripture, but no longer.
5. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Catholics on this and other threads ( myself included ) all try to present the real truth given by Jesus to us through the Apostles. We try to eliminate predjudice, myths, lies, misconceptions, misunderstandings, and error. If you pay attention to our posts you will find this is the case. I am sure that we do not belittle anyone, but do try to get our point across in all Christian Charity. If you and others do not see it that way, then we are sorry for your predjudices and can only say read and study about The Catholic Church and find out that we are correct. We all have much to learn.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I will respond using numbers to relate to the above paragraphs:

1. Thank you for your advice to study more Catholicism. Interesting advice that I expect applies to all people on the earth. Are you attempting to place yourself above me or stating that you have a more perfect understanding of Catholicism? Exactly how am I to receive this comment or advice? Suffice it to say that I study daily and have for over 50 years.
2. All Christian churches think their doctrine is biblical not just Catholics. Attempting to shout louder than the 36,000 other denominations that declare the same thing is meaningless. It is as if one is a child declaring your dad is better than my dad. You and I both know that some doctrine is more easily explained by scripture while other doctrines are more easily explained by Tradition. If you are attempting to say that each and every Catholic doctrine is specifically spelled out in scripture than we have nothing to talk about. That position is absolutely false and every Catholic Biblical scholar knows it.
3. This is a typical response to anyone that disagrees with your methods and those of others here. I reject anti-Mormonism just as I reject anti-Catholicism. I reject when anyone on this forum uses the same tactics that we condemn in anti-Catholics. If we cannot expect each other to be honest and respectful of other religions, then how can we expect others to treat us any differently? As Christians we must demand a higher standard of each other.
4. If Brigham Young’s words are not longer held as doctrine by the Mormon church, then why are we attempting to portray them as believing his words? This is deceitful and dishonest. Why call it anything else? A sow’s ear makes a terrible purse; let’s at least be honest with ourselves.
5. Javl, I may be more sensitive to the comments regarding other churches by some of our editors. I strive to put myself in the shoes of non-Catholics to see how our comments play. When doing so, I find that a certain number of our editors are less than Christian. Worse, they use less than honest descriptions of the beliefs of others, in particular Mormonism. Why resort to distortion of their beliefs? Why not treat them and their beliefs in the same manner we seek to have Catholicism portrayed? We seldom to state the truth of Catholicism and allow the Holy Spirit to take care of the rest. We are incapable of “disproving” Mormonism; the Holy Spirit is an expert of defining between truth and error. Stop sensationalizing, stop telling haf-truths, stop doing to others that we resent when they do it to Catholicism. This is not difficult, but it demands forfeiting pride, ego, and over-zealousness and requires humility, patience, and faith that God has each of us in his hands; Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

 

[JeanMichel]

Very well said - especially the last sentence. LDS doctrine has in effect reversed the proper understanding of what it means to be made in the image of God. Their beliefs make God in our image, not the other way around. LDS belief in a heavenly parents (plural) is the logical extrapolation of their doctrines of celestial marriage and eternal progression, i.e., if men and women can marry for eternity and become gods procreating for eternity, then so it must also be with God the Father. Therefore there must be a heavenly mother. This line of reasoning becomes very complicated very quickly. Now you have to deal with the question of where did heavenly mother come from. Another god above her is the only logical explanation. And for that matter, where did God the Father come from? Another god above him is again the only logical explanation.

In general Mormons don’t go there. They claim this is because no further revelation has been given, but I suspect there is also an underlying realization that when one thinks this through, one quickly hits a wall. One soon realizes that in order for this system to work, there has to be an unlimited progression of gods above gods above gods - a heavenly economy so vast and complicated as to defy all comprehension. When Joseph Smith invented the doctrines of celestial marriage and eternal progression, he obviously didn’t think through the ramifications of those doctrines and see how quickly they unravel under the slightest scrutiny. It’s like covering up lies with more lies. The farther you go, the more outrageous the lies have to be to cover the previous lie. Try having this discussion with any Mormon and the answer is always the same - *“That hasn’t been revealed.” *It’s a simple trick to end the discussion quickly so one doesn’t have to go there.

Gosh, this is a genuine sort of logic! Why didn’t I think of it. That’s right; Mormons sit around like a bunch of mindless idiots thinking up ways not to follow the loic of their beliefs. Creating blank walls and using trite statements to divert the superior minds of all others.

If this position had any truth to it, why is this church growing at all? Oh, I forget, the world is full of idiots. I am so happy that all those who come to Catholicism are the only intelligent people in the world.

If we could just get this kind of statement published on ETWN and the Vatican website, what do you think the world and God would think of us?

Organized religion demands an inordinate degree of patience because their are so many sad examples of Christians. I knew a wonderful jewish fellow who at one time desired to join the church. Unfortunately, it was not his experience in the death camps of Hitler, but the behavior of fellow Catholics that competely destroyed his faith. All my words after that realization fell on deaf ears.

Why is that when we talk about other religions and churches, our minds shut down…oh forget it. I tire of trying to help those who seek to destroy the faith of others and only accomplish destroying faith in their own church. Have mercy on each of us sinners, dear Lord and may each of us wake to a greater light on each day’s morn.

 

[Javl]

I will respond using numbers to relate to the above paragraphs:

1. Thank you for your advice to study more Catholicism. Interesting advice that I expect applies to all people on the earth. Are you attempting to place yourself above me or stating that you have a more perfect understanding of Catholicism? Exactly how am I to receive this comment or advice? Suffice it to say that I study daily and have for over 50 years.

My friend. I am glad that you have studied for over 50 years. I have also. I am 84 and have taken college courses in comparative religions. I have also studied under men like Dr. Scott Hahn ( who is a convert ) and also have a license to teach comparative religions in both Ohio and New York. The study of religion is more than just a hobby with me.

1. All Christian churches think their doctrine is biblical not just Catholics. Attempting to shout louder than the 36,000 other denominations that declare the same thing is meaningless. It is as if one is a child declaring your dad is better than my dad. You and I both know that some doctrine is more easily explained by scripture while other doctrines are more easily explained by Tradition. If you are attempting to say that each and every Catholic doctrine is specifically spelled out in scripture than we have nothing to talk about. That position is absolutely false and every Catholic Biblical scholar knows it.

I see that you are quite predjudicial and misinformed about Catholicism. Believe me when I say that I have thoroughly studied various religions and know exactly of what I speak. I say this in all Christian Charity when I say that many of your comments are uniformed, predjudicial and inane. I am truly sorry my friend , but you still have much to learn. I am not being egotistical, for I too still have much to learn.

1. This is a typical response to anyone that disagrees with your methods and those of others here. I reject anti-Mormonism just as I reject anti-Catholicism. I reject when anyone on this forum uses the same tactics that we condemn in anti-Catholics. If we cannot expect each other to be honest and respectful of other religions, then how can we expect others to treat us any differently? As Christians we must demand a higher standard of each other.

I expect disagreement with my comments and statements when I present Christ’s truths to someone who doesn’t know or believe in them or accept them. Those that disagree are the ones that cannot accept being told they are wrong. The old saw “the truth hurts” is not fancy but fact.

1. If Brigham Young’s words are not longer held as doctrine by the Mormon church, then why are we attempting to portray them as believing his words? This is deceitful and dishonest. Why call it anything else? A sow’s ear makes a terrible purse; let’s at least be honest with ourselves.

Now here is where you are putting your spin on my comment. I mentioned it as a statement of fact. You are the one that is trying to build a mountain out of a mole hill.

1. Javl, I may be more sensitive to the comments regarding other churches by some of our editors. I strive to put myself in the shoes of non-Catholics to see how our comments play. When doing so, I find that a certain number of our editors are less than Christian. Worse, they use less than honest descriptions of the beliefs of others, in particular Mormonism. Why resort to distortion of their beliefs? Why not treat them and their beliefs in the same manner we seek to have Catholicism portrayed? We seldom to state the truth of Catholicism and allow the Holy Spirit to take care of the rest. We are incapable of “disproving” Mormonism; the Holy Spirit is an expert of defining between truth and error. Stop sensationalizing, stop telling haf-truths, stop doing to others that we resent when they do it to Catholicism. This is not difficult, but it demands forfeiting pride, ego, and over-zealousness and requires humility, patience, and faith that God has each of us in his hands; Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

My friend, again I say this in all Christian Charity, but you are totally missing the point here and are not paying attention to what is being said or what has transpired in these threads. I know you mean well and I know that we all appreciate it but most of your comments and statements seem to be way off the mark. In fact many are quite insulting to us. Please try to pay attention to what we say and how we say it and then maybe you will understand.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[SteveVH]

No I don’t. Why would Jesus mention Heavenly Mother (accepting that our belief is true)? Jesus did not reveal everything there is to be revealed. Also, since LDS believe that revelation continues, we believe that God did indeed reveal/restore the belief in the existence of Heavenly Mother when He was ready.

He would have revealed “heavenly mother” because He revealed the true nature of God. This is difficult for you because you do not imagine God as “one”, but rather “many” individual gods all of which are dependant upon heavenly parents for their existence. These are gods who are only different from us in their degree of exaltation.

God revealed His nature slowly, mysteriously, through salvation history, culminating in Jesus Christ. He is "the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15). Jesus is God’s only Word. All of scripture points to Him, not as piece of the salvation puzzle, but rather the fulfillment of God’s revelation. Paul explains better than I can:

"In the past God spoke to our fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being sustaining all things by his powerful word." (Heb 1:1-3)

It is Christ that revealed the Father and the Holy Spirit. On our birth certificates, we must name and identify both the father and the mother. This is so because it identifies who we are. It is beyond comprehension that if the pre-incarnate Christ, in revealing God’s true identity, had a “heavenly mother”, that he would not have made at least a cursory reference to her. Look at the evidence. It is not in your favor.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Ah, yes–the speculation defense. Have heard it many times before, but it just doesn’t stand up to logic. How does one tell the difference between truth and speculation when it comes to the proclamations of an LDS prophet? Did Joseph qualify his teachings as speculation? No, he did not. He taught them as metaphysical fact. And the church believed.

Tell me how you, as a Mormon, can differentiate between when your prophet is speculating and when he is teaching truth. What is to be believed and what is not? I’ve never heard an LDS be able to adequately answer that question in a reasonable and logical manner.

Actually, I think that the “speculation defense” (which isn’t really a “defense”, but a statement of the reality that prophets are entitled to their opinions, including on theological issues, and while one may certainly agree with them on such, they are not the same as official doctrinal statements. Note that I have not commented on any specific instance of this, but am making general comments) is quite logical.

As far as knowing when prophets are speculating and when they are “speaking as a prophet”, I believe that these two articles substantially address these issues, and I have recommended them every time this “issue” comes up:

On the Fallibility of Inspired Human Leader in the True Church of Jesus Christ

Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets

 

[BYUChemAlum]

He would have revealed “heavenly mother” because He revealed the true nature of God. This is difficult for you because you do not imagine God as “one”, but rather “many” individual gods all of which are dependant upon heavenly parents for their existence. These are gods who are only different from us in their degree of exaltation.

Actually, this is not “difficult for [me]”. Firstly, we must remember that while LDS do believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate and distinct, and that they can be referred to as “three Gods”, they are also “one God” (a phrase used in our scriptures, instructional manuals, etc) in the sense that they are one in purpose, mind, and intent. So, while we do not speak of the Three being “one substance/being”, we do believe they are “one” in purpose.

The “true nature of God” has nothing to do with Heavenly Mother, since she is not God. Therefore, Jesus representing the Father, revealing the Father to man, etc. would not necessitate that He speak of Heavenly Mother, especially since Latter-day Saints accept that God indeed did reveal the existence of Heavenly mother through revelation to His prophets.

God revealed His nature slowly, mysteriously, through salvation history, culminating in Jesus Christ. He is "the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15). Jesus is God’s only Word. All of scripture points to Him, not as piece of the salvation puzzle, but rather the fulfillment of God’s revelation. Paul explains better than I can:

"In the past God spoke to our fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being sustaining all things by his powerful word." (Heb 1:1-3)

Yes, LDS agree with all of that.

It is Christ that revealed the Father and the Holy Spirit. On our birth certificates, we must name and identify both the father and the mother. This is so because it identifies who we are. It is beyond comprehension that if the pre-incarnate Christ, in revealing God’s true identity, had a “heavenly mother”, that he would not have made at least a cursory reference to her. Look at the evidence. It is not in your favor.

That is your interpretation. For Latter-day Saints, who accept a doctrine of continuing revelation, we believe that Jesus revealed the Father, and the Holy Ghost to man. We believe that God continues to speak to us (and therefore saying that God forgot to mention Heavenly Mother anciently is not a problem for us, since we believe that God still reveals truths to us, and that Jesus didn’t stop speaking after His ascension), and that He indeed revealed to man the existence of Heavenly Mother. So from our perspective, there is no issue.

 

[SteveVH]

Actually, this is not “difficult for [me]”. Firstly, we must remember that while LDS do believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate and distinct, and that they can be referred to as “three Gods”, they are also “one God” (a phrase used in our scriptures, instructional manuals, etc) in the sense that they are one in purpose, mind, and intent. So, while we do not speak of the Three being “one substance/being”, we do believe they are “one” in purpose.

I realize that you must find some way to refer to God as “one” because it would be very difficult to explain it away due to the numerous passages found in Sacred Scripture. Yet nowhere do we find this “oneness” described as only being in purpose, mind and intent. This would only make the Father, Son and Holy Spirit “one” in the same way that members of the Rotary Club are one.

The “true nature of God” has nothing to do with Heavenly Mother, since she is not God. Therefore, Jesus representing the Father, revealing the Father to man, etc. would not necessitate that He speak of Heavenly Mother, especially since Latter-day Saints accept that God indeed did reveal the existence of Heavenly mother through revelation to His prophets.

Thank you for the clarification. I didn’t realize that you believe that “Heavenly Mother” was a creature and not divine. I don’t think any other Mormon poster has mentioned that. If she is not divine, but rather a creation, then you have placed yourself in an even more precarious position. Trace it back. At some point you must, through simple human reason, come to the point of One who did not have a created mother or father. One Who is eternal, without beginning. Does “Heavenly Mother” also have a “Heavenly Mother” who also has a “Heavenly Mother”…? Where does it end? When you follow the river upstream, what do you find as the source?

Originally posted by SteveVH
God revealed His nature slowly, mysteriously, through salvation history, culminating in Jesus Christ. He is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15). Jesus is God’s only Word. All of scripture points to Him, not as piece of the salvation puzzle, but rather the fulfillment of God’s revelation. Paul explains better than I can:

“In the past God spoke to our fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being sustaining all things by his powerful word.” (Heb 1:1-3)

Yes, LDS agree with all of that.

Of course you do. You do realize that in speaking of “Heavenly Mother” there is a deeper issue at the heart of the conversation. It has to do with your entire theology as well as anthropology. It has to do with the truth of God’s nature as revealed to us by Jesus Christ as well as the truth of human nature in relation to its Creator. In my opinion you have muddled the two, resulting in a very confused theology. God is God and there is no other. He is eternal, without beginning or end and is the One source of all that exists both in heaven and on earth. He had no parents, nor is He dependent upon anyone or anything for His existence. We, on the other hand, are creatures. We will always be creatures, even in heaven. We will never be God.

That is your interpretation. For Latter-day Saints, who accept a doctrine of continuing revelation, we believe that Jesus revealed the Father, and the Holy Ghost to man. We believe that God continues to speak to us (and therefore saying that God forgot to mention Heavenly Mother anciently is not a problem for us, since we believe that God still reveals truths to us, and that Jesus didn’t stop speaking after His ascension), and that He indeed revealed to man the existence of Heavenly Mother. So from our perspective, there is no issue.

“In the past God spoke to our fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son”

The prophets showed the way to the Son. He has come. For what else would we be looking? Please don’t interpret this as meaning that we believe that God no longer communicates with His people. He communicates with our Church and with us individually on a constant basis. It all centers, however, on the person of Jesus Christ, calling us always back to Him and teaching us to live as He lived. He lives and breathes within the life of our Church, being continually present to us. He established the “new and everlasting covenant” There will not be another. We await nothing more than Him. Any revelation, other than Christ, would be without purpose.

 

[flyonthewall]

FLY:

You had better bone up on your Hebrew history and stop depending on someone’s misinterpretation of the Bible. The ten tribes of Israel were NOT lost!!! When the Hebrews were scattered not all of them were. Individuals and families may have been scattered, but NOT the tribes!. Read up on Philo, Josephus, Clio, etc., and learn that there are/were no “lost tribes”!!!

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Okay, then tell me where they are?
They were scattered throughout all the nations of the earth, just like the Bible states.
They are “Lost” in terms of immediate recognition, but scripture states they will be gathered in the last days.
In fact, the gathering of Israel will be such a huge event that the prophet Jeremiah states:

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say, The Lord liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;

“But, The Lord liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land

The gathering of Israel will supplant the Exodus as event that showcases the Lord’s might.
So even though every single individual of the 10 tribes in question may not have been scattered, enough were to be unrecognizeable as a “tribe” or “tribes”.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

I realize that you must find some way to refer to God as “one” because it would be very difficult to explain it away due to the numerous passages found in Sacred Scripture. Yet nowhere do we find this “oneness” described as only being in purpose, mind and intent. This would only make the Father, Son and Holy Spirit “one” in the same way that members of the Rotary Club are one.

There is no need for LDS to “explain (it) away” referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as “one”, since, as mentioned, we firmly believe that they are indeed “one”. The question is, how are they one? Of course, that could be the topic of a whole other thread, however very briefly, LDS frequently point to John 17:11, and John 17:20-23 as examples of the issue of “oneness”, where Jesus prayers that we may be “one”, as the Father and the Son are “one”. So, how are they one? We believe that this points, not to a oneness of substance/being, but a oneness of purpose, will, intent. The mind of one is the mind of the others, something that members of the Rotary Club could not say.

Thank you for the clarification. I didn’t realize that you believe that “Heavenly Mother” was a creature and not divine.

Sorry, I don’t think I meant to say that. Heavenly Mother certainly is a deified being, however I meant that she is not God, as in God the Father, and therefore she is not the subject of adoration or worship, and Jesus revealing the Father doesn’t have to include discussing Heavenly Mother.

Of course you do. You do realize that in speaking of “Heavenly Mother” there is a deeper issue at the heart of the conversation. It has to do with your entire theology as well as anthropology. It has to do with the truth of God’s nature as revealed to us by Jesus Christ as well as the truth of human nature in relation to its Creator. In my opinion you have muddled the two, resulting in a very confused theology. God is God and there is no other. He is eternal, without beginning or end and is the One source of all that exists both in heaven and on earth. He had no parents, nor is He dependent upon anyone or anything for His existence. We, on the other hand, are creatures. We will always be creatures, even in heaven. We will never be God.

Yes, I understand that is your view. We believe that we are children of God, and that, through the infinite atonement of Jesus Christ, we can become joint-heirs in Christ (Rom 8:17), sitting with Christ on His throne, even as He sits at the throne of the Father (Rev 3:21). God will always be our Father, and Jesus Christ will always be our Savior, and we believe that a belief in exaltation (a gift from God that we cannot merit by ourselves, of our own doing) does not conflict with that.

"In the past God spoke to our fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son"

The prophets showed the way to the Son. He has come. For what else would we be looking? Please don’t interpret this as meaning that we believe that God no longer communicates with His people. He communicates with our Church and with us individually on a constant basis. It all centers, however, on the person of Jesus Christ, calling us always back to Him and teaching us to live as He lived. He lives and breathes within the life of our Church, being continually present to us. He established the “new and everlasting covenant” There will not be another. We await nothing more than Him. Any revelation, other than Christ, would be without purpose.

We agree that all revelation points to Christ. However we do not believe that Hebrews 1:1-2 meant an end to prophecy or prophets. Indeed, we believe that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Rev 19:10), and that Jesus Himself event sent prophets after Him (Matt 23:34, Luke 11:49, Matt 10:40-41, Acts 11:27, Acts 13:1, etc). We believe that all revelation points to the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, and to the Kingdom of God. We don’t believe that Hebrews 1:1-2 means that prophets are unnecessary (as we see from the previously cited verses, there were prophets after Jesus, some even sent by Him), but that it contrasts the way that God spoke, and that God speaking through His divine Son, the Savior, is different from speaking through prophets (an exegesis that does not necessitate an ending of having prophets).

And we firmly believe that our latter-day prophets all call us to Christ, taking His name upon ourselves, to repentance, and accepting the good news of Jesus Christ.

I have a question, how do you believe God communicates with the Catholic Church, differently from the way He speaks to us individually (if so)? What do you mean by that?

 

[KathleenGee]

Mary is very efficacious in bring us closer and deeper to Jesus Christ.

So, for Mormons to gain some base of understanding and common practice here, it would be good to allow Mormon women to study Mary and devotions to her because she will truly bring them closer to Christ.