Blossom76

Heavenly Mother & Mother Mary

Recommended Posts

Hi guys, I was hoping to get some insight on Heavenly Mother (the concept is very new to me so I basically have no clue about it at all!), and also what the LDS doctrine teachings (and also your own personal views) on The Virgin Mary Mother Of Jesus, the Virgin Birth etc

Thanks for reading, appreciate all responses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Subject of Heavenly Mother our doctrine can be summed up with the phrase "She Exists"  Everything beyond that is speculation.

As for Mary... we do not believe in Original Sin, without Original Sin there is no need for an Immaculate Conception.  Without Immaculate Conception Mary is a "just" a really good person that God chose for a very important role.

She gave birth the the Only Begotton Son of God and then gave birth the the Son and Daughters of Joseph her Husband (The Scripture mention Jesus's brothers and sisters)

Honesty I think LDS members tend to down play her role more then we should. (Probably some knee jerk protestant culture we absorbed to avoid appearing too Catholic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Adding my voice to the choir)

34 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Hi guys, I was hoping to get some insight on Heavenly Mother (the concept is very new to me so I basically have no clue about it at all!), and also what the LDS doctrine teachings (and also your own personal views) on The Virgin Mary Mother Of Jesus, the Virgin Birth etc

Thanks for reading, appreciate all responses

First of all Heavenly Mother is NOT the virgin Mary.  They are completely separate people.

Heavenly Mother: it is known that She exists, but that's about it (remember, LDS believe that God has many more wonderful things to reveal to us).  Here's official essay summing up the little that is known https://www.lds.org/topics/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng  

 

 

The Virgin Mary: was a human woman, highly favored of the Lord, but not divine or perfect like Christ.  LDS don't believe in The Original Sin, so Mary's immaculate conception isn't really applicable at all.  She was a virgin when she conceived Christ through the Holy Spirit, as described in Luke.  She later married Joseph and the two of them had children together.  When Christ died He asked John to look after her.  LDS do not believe in the ascension of Mary nor praying to her for intercession (or anyone else for intercession).  She's talked about in the Bible obviously, but also in the Book of Mormon like: 

  • Mary was a virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins, 1 Ne. 11:13–20.

  • Christ’s mother was to be called Mary, Mosiah 3:8.

  • Mary would be a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, Alma 7:10.

More verses: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/mary-mother-of-jesus?lang=eng

Edited by Jane_Doe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

 

First of all Heavenly Mother is NOT the virgin Mary.  They are completely separate people.

I do understand and am well aware of that, sorry if my question is not clear, the first part of my sentence was about Heavenly Mother (who as far as I'm aware doesn't have a name) and the second part was about the Virgin Mary Mother Of Jesus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

On the Subject of Heavenly Mother our doctrine can be summed up with the phrase "She Exists"  Everything beyond that is speculation.

As for Mary... we do not believe in Original Sin, without Original Sin there is no need for an Immaculate Conception.  Without Immaculate Conception Mary is a "just" a really good person that God chose for a very important role.

She gave birth the the Only Begotton Son of God and then gave birth the the Son and Daughters of Joseph her Husband (The Scripture mention Jesus's brothers and sisters)

Honesty I think LDS members tend to down play her role more then we should. (Probably some knee jerk protestant culture we absorbed to avoid appearing too Catholic)

I would add one bit of info there. Mary was literally of the House of David. Jesus's royal lineage comes through Mary but interestingly, Joseph was also house of David and therefore Christ would have been adopted into the royal house of David anyway.

Christ's royal lineage is literal from his earthly mom (matriarchal) which means he didn't need to be adopted into the house of David in order to claim ascendancy to Israel's throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I do understand and am well aware of that, sorry if my question is not clear, the first part of my sentence was about Heavenly Mother (who as far as I'm aware doesn't have a name) and the second part was about the Virgin Mary Mother Of Jesus

No worries, I was just making sure.  It's a very common mix-up.

On an additional thought: LDS talk about the virgin Mary pretty regularly, especially around Christmas time.  Heavenly Mother is very rarely talked about, simply because we don't know much so there's not much to say.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

I do understand and am well aware of that, sorry if my question is not clear, the first part of my sentence was about Heavenly Mother (who as far as I'm aware doesn't have a name) and the second part was about the Virgin Mary Mother Of Jesus

I believe she does have a name. I doubt any of us will ever know what that name is during this life. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

But Heavenly Mother is God the Fathers wife right? And I guess our spiritual mother like he is our spiritual father. 

Correct, that is known and stated in the "Proclamation on the Family" and other sources.

4 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

 I wish there was more information about her, I really like the idea of her, it's a beautiful concept.

Same here!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Correct, that is known and stated in the "Proclamation on the Family" and other sources.

Same here!  

Hmm, I don't. I wouldn't want my wife's name uttered in vile conversation. As it is now sooo much TV and film is both filthy and blasphemous.

Remember that this is the planet that would torture and kill a God. No, I reckon the amount of info we have on her is sufficient given the state of the earth.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

and also your own personal views

If you mean only our personal views about Mary, I have nothing much to offer. I think she was the mother of Jesus, a chosen and pure vessel, surely one of the holiest and most virtuous of women ever to walk the earth. Which doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

If you mean our personal views about Mother, I have a few I'm willing to share:

  1. Speculation about the Mother is almost always damaging, and at very best is irrelevant (because it's just speculation -- we might as well speculate on the Father's eye color or some such thing).
  2. Why we have even been given the knowledge about the Mother's existence, I don't know -- but I speculate it is because our women need to gain at least a hazy, ill-defined glimpse at the possibilities of their future exaltation, similar to what men have been given.
  3. On a personal level, I have very little doubt we knew the Mother intimately in our premortal lives. I would not be surprised if, for us, she was the most important person we knew, similar to our mothers in the flesh during our childhood. But for us right now, today, in this life, our focus is on the Father, not the Mother. We pray to the Father. We worship the Father. We covenant with the Father. We make all our petitions to the Father. We look to the Father for guidance, for instruction, for wisdom. If we look to the Mother for any such thing, we are acting in a foolhardy manner, looking dangerously beyond the mark.

Let us take comfort in the fact that Mother exists, that we once knew Her well, and that we surely will know her again in the eternities, but with even greater insight and appreciation -- and be content therewith. Let us spend no more time worrying about Mother's "role" or how we can "talk to her" or other such irrelevancies. Let us approach the Father, as we have been taught, and through his great power and love gain our exaltation. Then all things will be added unto us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Blossom76, to be clear, I was not responding directly to you or chastising you at all. Your question was perfectly reasonable. I was simply giving my thoughts as (possibly) requested, and I suppose my thoughts were generated by the unhealthy fixation on the Mother in heaven that I occasionally see displayed by some Latter-day Saints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Vort said:

@Blossom76, to be clear, I was not responding directly to you or chastising you at all. Your question was perfectly reasonable. I was simply giving my thoughts as (possibly) requested, and I suppose my thoughts were generated by the unhealthy fixation on the Mother in heaven that I occasionally see displayed by some Latter-day Saints.

I’m in agreement with your notion that some speculation is damaging.   As an investigator, I’m often confused by things that are put forth as fact when they are really beliefs or suppositions.  Without revelation, how would we know some of these things and do they really matter with regard to our worship and pursuits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grunt said:

I’m in agreement with your notion that some speculation is damaging.   As an investigator, I’m often confused by things that are put forth as fact when they are really beliefs or suppositions.  Without revelation, how would we know some of these things and do they really matter with regard to our worship and pursuits?

I believe that God reveals to us what really matters to our salvation and  exaltation.  Those that has not been revealed, we simply do not need at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Alex said:

I would add one bit of info there. Mary was literally of the House of David. Jesus's royal lineage comes through Mary but interestingly, Joseph was also house of David and therefore Christ would have been adopted into the royal house of David anyway.

Christ's royal lineage is literal from his earthly mom (matriarchal) which means he didn't need to be adopted into the house of David in order to claim ascendancy to Israel's throne.

The Genealogy in Luke is Mary's.  The Genealogy in Matthew is Joseph's.  Note that Matthew is a Jew and would therefore have expertise in the manner of genealogy which is evident in the manner by which he wrote the account, yet he has several non-traditional insertions/ommissions in his account.  This may be because Matthew was not trying to prove Jesus is of the house of David through Joseph (because Jesus would not be his bloodline) but rather as the fulfillment of other prophesy.  Luke, on the other hand, is a Gentile, yet his genealogy is written in the traditional Jewish custom.  This is the genealogy that shows Jesus as having the bloodline of the House of David.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The Genealogy in Luke is Mary's.  The Genealogy in Matthew is Joseph's.  Note that Matthew is a Jew and would therefore have expertise in the manner of genealogy which is evident in the manner by which he wrote the account, yet he has several non-traditional insertions/ommissions in his account.  This may be because Matthew was not trying to prove Jesus is of the house of David through Joseph (because Jesus would not be his bloodline) but rather as the fulfillment of other prophesy.  Luke, on the other hand, is a Gentile, yet his genealogy is written in the traditional Jewish custom.  This is the genealogy that shows Jesus as having the bloodline of the House of David.

Hmm, the old perspective is the one you've recited there-  'Luke's is an account of Mary's genealogy while Matthew accounts for Joseph's genealogy'. However that's not the perspective scholars now tend to hold. The perspective now is that that "Matthew provides an official genealogy of the Davidic heir to which the names of Joseph and Jesus were attached."

https://byustudies.byu.edu/charts/8-6-lineages-joseph

Of course you can read those books the traditional way if you wish... Hmm, on the subject of a trad read versus a scholarly read, I recall one of the new apostles in a Christmas devotional just a year or two ago gave a very traditional account of the nativity- no mention of the scholarly manger being at the tower where the newborn lambs for the temple were raised and that is okay as his account was just as you'd read from the New Testament. 

Edited by Alex
why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alex said:

Hmm, the old perspective is the one you've recited there-  'Luke's is an account of Mary's genealogy while Matthew accounts for Joseph's genealogy'. However that's not the perspective scholars now tend to hold. The perspective now is that that "Matthew provides an official genealogy of the Davidic heir to which the names of Joseph and Jesus were attached."

https://byustudies.byu.edu/charts/8-6-lineages-joseph

Of course you can read those books the traditional way if you wish... Hmm, on the subject of a trad read versus a scholarly read, I recall one of the new apostles in a Christmas devotional just a year or two ago gave a very traditional account of the nativity- no mention of the scholarly manger being at the tower where the newborn lambs for the temple were raised and that is okay as his account was just as you'd read from the New Testament. 

We don't put too much stock in scholarly, right?  I mean, that's the issue with the Catholic doctrine that got formed by the greatest philosophers right?  Wait... I'm assuming you're LDS.  I'm still in Thanksgiving food coma so my brain is not firing on all cylinders.

So anyway (I'm too lazy to read the link you provided.  I promise to read it after I get my brain back), by Jewish tradition, Jesus is not of the House of David through Joseph because Jesus is not blood related to Joseph.  A child can be adopted as a Jew if his mother is Jew or if he goes through the legal process of conversion and become Jew at age 13.  Mary is a Jew.  Therefore, Jesus is a Jew through her bloodline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

We don't put too much stock in scholarly, right?  I mean, that's the issue with the Catholic doctrine that got formed by the greatest philosophers right?  Wait... I'm assuming you're LDS.  I'm still in Thanksgiving food coma so my brain is not firing on all cylinders.

So anyway (I'm too lazy to read the link you provided.  I promise to read it after I get my brain back), by Jewish tradition, Jesus is not of the House of David through Joseph because Jesus is not blood related to Joseph.  A child can be adopted as a Jew if his mother is Jew or if he goes through the legal process of conversion and become Jew at age 13.  Mary is a Jew.  Therefore, Jesus is a Jew through her bloodline.

It's not a biggy- Luke's is more focused on showing Christ as a descendant of God through Adam while Matthew's is more focused on the Abrahamic line through David, thus following the throne of Israel. 

With the scholarly academic read instead of the Mary & Joseph ancestry read we gain an insight into Luke --who isn't born of Israel himself-- yet he believes strongly that Jesus is the Son of God. He emphasizes Christ's line back to God the father through Adam.

Yes, Christ's Davidic literal lineage still comes from Mary with either read.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we all necessarily have the same Heavenly Mother? If there is (as Mormons believe) polygamy in heaven, is it possible that God has multiple wives?

(Sorry Vort - I'm totally ignoring your advice against speculation here!) 

 

Edited by Jamie123
I meant polygamy, not polytheism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Do we all necessarily have the same Heavenly Mother? If there is (as Mormons believe) polytheism in heaven, is it possible that God has multiple wives?

(Sorry Vort - I'm totally ignoring your advice against speculation here!) 

There's an old speculation I heard back in the 70's that the races we see distinct on earth may come from the father's various wives but how that would work is not something that I've seen worked out... unless Noah's ark is a greater symbol than just the baptism of the earth for all of us are descended from Noah.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Do we all necessarily have the same Heavenly Mother? If there is (as Mormons believe) polygamy in heaven, is it possible that God has multiple wives?

(Sorry Vort - I'm totally ignoring your advice against speculation here!) 

 

Brigham Young taught exactly, this.  (And not as speculation.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Brigham Young taught exactly, this.  (And not as speculation.)

Says someone that does not understand how the LDS church gets and vets revelations.

In the New Testament Christ commands his 12 to be one even as the Father and him were one.  And warned them if they were not one they were not his.  Then we see examples of both cases in the New Testament.

The LDS church is under the same command.  Brigham Young did indeed teach that, but was the 12 untied with him?  Evidence points to no (Otherwise it would still be being taught and not subject to rumors).

So is it Doctrine?  If by Doctrine you mean it was taught briefly at some point then yeah it was.  If by Doctrine you mean the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 became one on the matter and announced  it to the body of the Church as binding doctrine and currently teaches it?  No that has not happened.  (The Proclamation of the Family is closer to that then the polygamy of God the Father is).  If by Doctrine you mean that it represents a Eternal reality... well we do not know, because there was no oneness on the matter, thus it is speculation.  It is is not wise to discount the teaching of any prophet, but the Lord put in a system of checks and balances to counter the fact the prophets are still human and can make mistakes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Says someone that does not understand how the LDS church gets and vets revelations.

In the New Testament Christ commands his 12 to be one even as the Father and him were one.  And warned them if they were not one they were not his.  Then we see examples of both cases in the New Testament.

The LDS church is under the same command.  Brigham Young did indeed teach that, but was the 12 untied with him?  Evidence points to no (Otherwise it would still be being taught and not subject to rumors).

So is it Doctrine?  If by Doctrine you mean it was taught briefly at some point then yeah it was.  If by Doctrine you mean the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 became one on the matter and announced  it to the body of the Church as binding doctrine and currently teaches it?  No that has not happened.  (The Proclamation of the Family is closer to that then the polygamy of God the Father is).  If by Doctrine you mean that it represents a Eternal reality... well we do not know, because there was no oneness on the matter, thus it is speculation.  It is is not wise to discount the teaching of any prophet, but the Lord put in a system of checks and balances to counter the fact the prophets are still human and can make mistakes.

 

I had no idea this was taught by a Prophet, it makes me really uneasy, I'm going to have to look at Brigham Young and what he taught, I dont know much about church history except the basic teachings the church gives on Joseph Smith.

Is there Polygamy in the celestial kingdom? And if so is it a requirement for the highest degree of glory?

Edited by Blossom76
Spelling!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now