wife

[AnthonyB]

From a TC (Trad Christian) veiw point.

The Bible at times gives God characteristics that are feminine and both men and women are created in the image of God. It would not be wholly incorrect to see God as our mother. (She that caused us to be and the aspect of God that the female is the image of.)

However we have been told to speak of Father and Son. One could see this as a cultural hangover from the times the bible is written in. However I think it is interwoven with the imagery of the church as the bride of Christ. We (the body of Christ) are the female (the beloved) to Jesus as the male. (the lover.) It is God who persued us, it is Jesus that sacrified in love for us. It is we who are the objects of his affection and sacrificial love.

(Actually the book "The Shack" has a wonderful analogy about men and women. Woman was initially broght forth from man and after that all men are then brought forth from women. Completing a loop of mutual dependency.)

Too overtly seeing God as feminine may disrupt the image of the relationship with God.

Personally I see this as a strength of TC over the way some LDS think. I see women as fully in the image of the one almighty God, as much as men are. LDS thinking IMHO can leave the feeling that only men are in the image of the ultimate God of our universe. Women are made in the image possible of some other person, who we know almost nothing of and isn't even named in the Godhead. (Of course it is possible to see this as part of reason why women are so mysterious!)

However I would like to ask some questions to the LDS folk about the assumptions made in the LDS posts above...

To speak of heavenly parents, does it necessarily mean Father and Mother. Surely it may just be refering to the multiple persons of the Godhead who were involved in our creation. The bible has both Father God and Jesus involved in creating us, in LDS thinking it was the Father that played a part in out spirit selves and Jesus who brought about the physical world we are physically born into. Both played a part in bringing us into what we are, so it would not be unreasonable (in LDS terms) to see them as our parents.

In the hymn that refers to God our Mother, could the writer have just been refering to the feminine side of the Godhead from which women are created, rather than a seperate person of whom we know nothing? I perceive most LDS believe in a seperate person of Mother God but would it be within LDS orthodoxy to have the other veiw (or acceptable to LDS)?

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by skippy740

Just think of how God's name and Christ's names have been taken in vain and even turned into vulgar expressions.

Would you want your mother's or wife's name to be treated similarly? Because if it was a widely known aspect of the gospel, you can bet that Her name would be dragged through the mud as well.

This never made any sense to me, even when I was young.

I don't know if she would be considered a goddess, or not--perhaps someone can let me know. But surely she wouldn't be offended by what mere mortals say.

I understand taking the Lord's name in vain breaks a commandment, but again, I don't think it's because He would be offended.

Elphaba

[skippy740]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

This never made any sense to me, even when I was young.

I don't know if she would be considered a goddess, or not--perhaps someone can let me know. But surely she wouldn't be offended by what mere mortals say.

I understand taking the Lord's name in vain breaks a commandment, but again, I don't think it's because He would be offended.

Elphaba

If one of your children looked you straight in the eye and intensely said "I HATE YOU!" - how would you feel?

How should your husband feel about his wife being treated in such a way by his children?

Shouldn't a loving husband protect his wife against such treatment from anybody - let alone his own children?

If we were ants on a log, or flies or plants, then I don't think Mother would care as we would be mere insects/plants/mortals. But we're human beings and we're children of a Heavenly Father (and Mother). Mom's feelings are much more tender than Father's.

"Honor thy father and mother - that thy days may be long in the land."

"Your mother and I brought you in this world. We can take you OUT!" (Bill Cosby)

[skippy740]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

What was the reason for changing it?

Elphaba

Because KNOWING and DOING are two completely different things.

[Kyra]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

What was the reason for changing it?

Elphaba

If I remember correctly, they changed it because we can't just know something, we have to put it into actions. So changing the words went along better with church doctrine.

Originally Posted by Elphaba

This never made any sense to me, even when I was young.

I don't know if she would be considered a goddess, or not--perhaps someone can let me know. But surely she wouldn't be offended by what mere mortals say.

I understand taking the Lord's name in vain breaks a commandment, but again, I don't think it's because He would be offended.

Elphaba

I've always thought of it as a matter of respect, and also a good example for how husbands should treat their wives. He loves her and respects her so much that He won't allow her name to be used in vulgar ways.

And I believe that He is offended when His name is taken in vain. I know that if someone were to use my name as a swear word it would offend me. But that's just my opinion.

[desert_fox]

Originally Posted by john doe

Actually, it's not church doctrine. But when you realize that we believe that God is our father, then it stands to reason to accept that there must be a mother. It's implied strongly. And the reason our missionaries don't reach it is because it isn't official doctrine.

Yes, this^^ Many members tend to (whether knowingly or unknowingly) cross that 'what's doctrine and what's not' line quite often...and it's not always a good thing.

[Truegrits]

Originally Posted by skippy740

Because KNOWING and DOING are two completely different things.

Yes, but one must KNOW before one can DO. I think the song was better worded originally..."teach me all that I must know"; you cannot do without the knowing...maybe just the last verse could have been changed to "teach me all that I must do"...

[Islander]

Originally Posted by keky96

Hi, I would like to ask a few questions about the mormon church.
first do you belief that God as a wife.

Well, it should be noted that this issue of a "Heavenly Mother" is not an official doctrine of the LDS Church. We should leave that explicitly clear, especially for the investigators. Members are free to extrapolate (speculate?) on the matter and it is certainly not in the KJV of the bible. From a purely anthropomorphic standpoint, it makes some sense since, unless anyone believes that God is hermaphrodite, He created men male and female in His own image and likeness.

It is one of those things that are really not relevant to our salvation and the earthly covenant. We concentrate on the Atonement of the Savior and His teachings. I am sure once we cross the veil and onto the eternities we will learn things that will blow our minds a galaxy away and will take an ion to fully comprehend.

[Gwen]

“Lesson 3: I Am a Child of God,” Primary 2: Choose the Right A, 11

Explain that we all lived in heaven with Heavenly Father before we came to this earth. We are his children. That is why we call him Heavenly Father. We also lived with our heavenly mother and all the rest of Heavenly Father’s children. Everyone who has been born on the earth is a child of Heavenly Father. We do not remember living with Heavenly Father, but we know we are his children because we read it in the scriptures.

if it's not church doctrine what are we teaching our children? why is there such a need to disprove the teaching of a heavenly mother? why does that concept scare so many, especially those of other faiths?

[AnthonyB]

I would like to ask some questions to the LDS folk about the assumptions made in the LDS posts above (since my questions got ignored maybe becuase of the long post here they are again)...

To speak of heavenly parents, does it necessarily mean Father and Mother. Surely it may just be refering to the multiple persons of the Godhead who were involved in our creation. The bible has both Father God and Jesus involved in creating us, in LDS thinking it was the Father that played a part in out spirit selves and Jesus who brought about the physical world we are physically born into. Both played a part in bringing us into what we are, so it would not be unreasonable (in LDS terms) to see them as our parents.

In the hymn that refers to God our Mother, could the writer have just been refering to the feminine characteristcis of the God from which women are created, rather than a seperate person of whom we know nothing? I perceive most LDS believe in a seperate person of Mother God but would it be within LDS orthodoxy to have the other veiw (or acceptable to LDS)?