wife

[applepansy]

Originally Posted by Truegrits

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"...

I think that the prophet asking the author to change the one word is good enough for me.

By teaching we assume knowledge is passed to the person being taught.

applepansy

[Kyra]

The only proof I need is in my patriarchal blessing. If you're not LDS then this won't hold any proof for you, but as members of the church it should be more than enough. Patriarchal blessings are definitely not considered offical church doctrine, but I guess you could consider it a testimony builder on this particular subject.

My patriarchal blessing tells me that before coming to Earth I had a very special relationship with my Mother in Heaven and she is anxiously awaiting my return.

That's the only proof I need.

[john doe]

I just want to be clear, I do believe in a Heavenly Mother. It makes sense to me. But our canonized scripture does not explicitly say there is one.

[abqfriend]

We have the same problem in the Catholic Church.
Some things are clearly doctrinal-and some things many believe-but it is not defined as doctrine.
Some of the Marian apparitions fall into this catagory.
Some of the prophecies given to some of the Catholic mystics fall into this catagory as well.
-Carol

Originally Posted by john doe

I just want to be clear, I do believe in a Heavenly Mother. It makes sense to me. But our canonized scripture does not explicitly say there is one.

[Gwen]

it may not be part of our canonized scripture but it is clearly part of our doctrines.

Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone
Of the First Quorum of the Seventy
“A Champion of Youth,” Ensign, Nov 1987, 27

...Women are endowed with special traits and attributes that come trailing down through eternity from a divine mother......Theirs is a sacred, God-given role, and the traits they received from heavenly mother are equally as important as those given to the young men.

“Lesson 9: Chastity and Modesty,” The Latter-day Saint Woman: Basic Manual for Women, Part A, 60

President Spencer W. Kimball, speaking to Latter-day Saint girls in Mexico City, said: “You are daughters of God. … You are made in the image of our heavenly mother. … Your body is sacred to you and precious” (in Conference Report, Mexico City and Central America Area Conference 1973, 108).

“A Sure Trumpet Sound: Quotations from President Lee,” Ensign, Feb 1974, 77

There are forces that work beyond our sight. Sometimes we think the whole job is up to us, forgetful that there are loved ones beyond our sight who are thinking about us and our children. We forget that we have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother who are even more concerned, probably, than our earthly father and mother, and that influences from beyond are constantly working to try to help us when we do all we can.

Ida Smith, “The Lord as a Role Model for Men and Women,” Ensign, Aug 1980, 66

One newly restored truth that the Prophet taught—hard for the world to swallow in his day, and still misinterpreted by many in our own time—was the Lord’s view of women. The Prophet taught that men and women are of equal value and of equal importance in the sight of God. He preached that in order for a man to achieve his highest potential (the celestial kingdom and godhood) he must have a woman—equally exalted—by his side and sealed to him forever! (See D&C 131:1–4.) A just God would not require the yoking of two unequal beings for eternity. Building upon the foundation laid by Joseph Smith, subsequent prophets taught that God was not single, but married; that there is a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother; and that we were made in their image: male and female children. (See James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–75, 4:203, 205.)

Neal A. Maxwell, “The Women of God,” Ensign, May 1978, 10

When we return to our real home, it will be with the “mutual approbation” of those who reign in the “royal courts on high.” There we will find beauty such as mortal “eye hath not seen”; we will hear sounds of surpassing music which mortal “ear hath not heard.” Could such a regal homecoming be possible without the anticipatory arrangements of a Heavenly Mother?

again i do not understand the need for so many to continually emphasize it's not in "canonized scripture"... to me that leaves the impression that one is trying to avoid the question and pretend the doctrine is not out there. or that the doctrine is not important.

this isn't some obscure question about time or space or where does god live that really has no bearing on our salvation... this doctrine is important. it's part of our yw's identity (as evidenced by some of the quotes). it adds clarification to the fact that we are an eternal family and that god is truely our father. it gives the obsessive need we as lds have to seal our families together meaning... if there is no heavenly mother and there is no marriage then what exactly are we doing? if gender is essential and eternal and there is no marriage and we only see god (the male) as important then what exactly is the woman's eternal purpose? the doctrine of a heavenly mother clears resolves those concerns. it's logical and makes good since. if we make this doctrine part of our yw's identity and then we dismiss it as nothing what message are we sending our yw? in my opinion it is a very important doctrine and relevant to our exaultation. so it's not in the canonized scripture... and...?

i also don't understand what it is that other faiths find so offensive about this concept.

if anyone can shed some light on this please. it really does bother me that some can be so dismissive about it. this is not directed at any particular person. this discussion has taken place here on more than one occassion.

[MarginOfError]

I hope I didn't make you feel like you were being ostracized for your comments, John. But on the bright side, we're getting Gwen to do all the research for us!

[gabelpa]

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 don't personally think it is to do with Heavenly Mother being offended I think it is to do with how Heavenly Father feels - easiest way is to compare how you feel when someone offends you to how you feel when someone offends one of your children.

-Charley

[Gwen]

Originally Posted by MarginOfError

But on the bright side, we're getting Gwen to do all the research for us!

lol

[Heavenguard]

Please correct any flaws in my logic or understanding of LDS teaching:
My conjecture is that the idea of a Heavenly Mother is required by LDS doctrine, because it is doctrine that an exalted couple can have children after this life. If we are the spiritual children of God, then he must have a wife with which he had us, his children.

Personally, though, it seems like the wrong direction for the conclusion to be made. That is, I think it makes more sense that a doctrine concerning a Heavenly Mother would lead to a conclusion about eternal increase, rather than eternal increase leading to the conclusion of a Heavenly Mother.

But my way may not be the way the conclusion was derived, anyway, so ... meh.

However, it seems to me that we would be created in God and Heavenly Mother's images, male and female (respectively, of course :P) , rather than in God's image, male and female if there is a Heavenly Mother. I do have to say it does seem a little silly for God to see that there was no suitable companion for Adam in the animals, and then create Eve of and for him afterwards if he himself has a wife. I mean ... that's got to be one of the worst wife jokes ever :P I'd be surprised if he wasn't put in the doghouse for a while for that one!

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

What was the reason for changing it?

Elphaba

President Kimball, whose slogan was "Do It" (long before Nike, I believe), requested that it be changed. Even though (as Truegrits pointed out), the knowledge is important and precursory, knowledge is not enough. We must do the right things, not just know them.

Originally Posted by MarginOfError

Ultimately, I think there is enough evidence to justify the belief. I'm not sure I would or would not call it 'official doctrine.' What I am sure about, however, is that it is unnecessary doctrine, as our salvation is in no way tied to whether or not a Heavenly Mother exists. I would think this has more to do with why missionaries don't teach about a Heavenly Mother--she's irrelevant to us at this stage of our eternal existence.

I think this is probably the biggest reason. Frankly, it just isn't important as a key part of our doctrine and belief system. Heavenly Mother is important, but like you said, our salvation isn't tied to it.

Originally Posted by Gwen

it may not be part of our canonized scripture but it is clearly part of our doctrines.

Four out of the five quotes you gave were from the Ensign. Two of those were Conference issues. A third was from Harold B. Lee. Do we not accept the doctrine of an "open canon"? Isn't that one of the biggest things that sets us apart from so many other Christian sects -- the fact that we have continuing revelation?

In April Conference this year, Elder Holland said the following:

In general conference last October, I said there were two principal reasons The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is accused, erroneously, of not being Christian. At that time I addressed one of those doctrinal issues—our scripturally based view of the Godhead. Today I would like to address the other major doctrine which characterizes our faith but which causes concern to some, namely the bold assertion that God continues to speak His word and reveal His truth, revelations which mandate an open canon of scripture.

(The full text of that talk can be found here: LDS.org - Ensign Article - My Words...Never Cease�)

Don't we consider the prophets' words in the Church magazines (and especially the Conference issues) to be part of LDS canon? I would argue, based on the references that you gave, that the Heavenly Mother teaching is part of official canon.