This is the sort of subject matter you’re more likely to hear in New Age circles than you are in Christian circles. Yet, I’m sure there are many sincere Christians who have wondered whether or not we have a Mother in heaven. It’s only natural.
Unfortunately, the Bible is silent in the matter, and I’m guessing our pulpits are as well.
Or are they?
Well, our pulpits are likely silent, but there might be some few things we can garner from the Bible on the subject, at least by inference.
While the Bible doesn’t come right out and say there is a Mother in heaven, neither does it say there isn’t. However, the few items we can point out might at least open the door to the possibility of there being a heavenly Mother.
But before we delve into some of these finer points, I’d like to throw out a couple of questions for you to consider which you’ve probably not heard discussed in your Sunday services. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Question 1: When was there ever a father without there being a corresponding mother?
Question 2: When was there ever a son without there being both a father and a mother?
Has that got your “little gray cells” working? — to quote Hercule Poirot, the great fictional Belgian detective.
Of course, these questions have reference to God, the Father, and God, the Son, Jesus Christ, and by inference, a possible Mother in heaven. However, these questions are merely something for you to consider while we delve deeper into the subject.
On the surface, what we have is an all-male deity. If there were a Mother in heaven, would she be considered a deity as well? Perhaps, but not in the same light as the Father and Son and Holy Ghost, which seem to be some sort of presiding quorum, as it were. Certainly, she would be in a place of honor.
Yet, even if there were a Mother in heaven, I don’t think mainstream Christianity would ever accept the idea. The actual followers of Jesus might, but I don’t think those in power would.
Why would I think that?
Because, in some ways, Christianity has become a lot like science: If you can’t see it, feel it, or touch it, it doesn’t exist. So it is with certain religious subjects, such as whether or not there is a Mother in heaven.
This is so because many Christians, if not millions of them, believe that if it’s not in the Bible, it doesn’t exist. Mind you, the Bible doesn’t teach this, but that’s what millions have been taught for nearly two thousand years.
Personally, I think preachers do us a great disservice when they put limitations on spiritual matters or spiritual subjects, like this one. Like it or not, there are some subjects they just will not discuss. Or, if these verboten subjects do cross their lips, it’s only to belittle or debunk them.
In these pages, verboten subjects like this one will find the light of day. We may not always agree, but at least the discussion is open and on the table. I hope you will dig in and enjoy.
[…] To further investigate this matter, you might want to check out my series: “Is There a Mother in Heaven”, beginning with “Is There a Mother in Heaven? Part 1—Two Questions“. […]
Hi Cris Wonderful subject.
Its rare – if not impossible to find anyone (outside Latter day saints) who even contemplate that there is a mother in heaven.
It is however fundamental to our beliefs as a people that there is a mother in heaven. The prophets of the restoration have spoken extensively on this from revelation, so you are joining 14 million Latter Day Saints in that regard.
I am also fascinated by Gordon’s insight on this matter and others in other bogs and can only ask how you come to these conclusions Gordon? ( I have to suggest – by the Spirit)
Your statement above –
“When I presented my comments on reasons why we do not hear about our Heavenly Mother, one of the possible reasons that I offered was that Jehovah loves His (our) Mother so much and has so much respect for Her that information related to Her existence was withheld to spare Her the denegation and disrespect. ”
This is the central doctrine of the LDS Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints) regarding our heavenly mother – who being the eternal companion of our God is revered above all others and whose name is sanctified and will not be allowed to be sullied. (as she is his eternal companion and Goddess) and by which we are all born as spirits
As you both point out – there can’t possibly be a Son without 2 parents – as the very principal of eternal families and the blue print for all righteous behavior on earth was set by our Father in Heaven and modeled on eternal principals and relationships.
As such therefore – through the restoration of the gospel through the first prophet of the restoration Joseph Smith – the first primary ordinance of salvation to be restored is the ordinance of “eternal marriage’ and this purpose of the temples – where one may if righteous and worthy – enter in and be “sealed in marriage” – for ” all time and eternity” and thus like our heavenly parents enter into an eternal journey together – the “binding” effect – bit however its final effect is determined by the life one lives until we pass through to the spirit world. (as per Christs teaching of only those who are truly worthy will receive salvation)
It is this biding authority that Christ gave to the Apostles after his resurrection and taught to the early prophets before him.
Like wise – our children are also sealed to their parents as an eternal family. As the Lord taught to Moses – ” This is my work and my glory to bring to pass the eternal life of man”.
This is directly in opposition to satans plan and his intent on destroying the family – as we can not be saved without them.
The result is we move forwards into the eternities as one in purpose as husbands and wives and families.
The question Paul asks then in the NT to an audience of those who understood what he was talking about of – “why then are they baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not all?” – is central to the eternal family for as we know – Chris taught that without baptism there is no way a man or woman can enter into the Kingdom Heaven.
Given billions have died with out the opportunity to hear of Christ or embrace his gospel and the fact that God is “no respecter of persons’ – he must have provided a way for “all” to be baptised – and by water through immersion, and that is what the sealing powers of the Melchizedek Priesthood (the name given to Gods Priesthood and which Christ held – see Hebrews) encompass.
The LDS temples today primary reason for existence – is the sealing of living families and the baptism and sealing of the dead through the Melchizedek Priesthood now restored. (as referred to by Paul)
In this period prior to the 2nd coming – this is a “preparatory work” for which the millennium stands in purpose – where ‘the records of all the souls of man will be made available – that all man may receive these ordinances of salvation that may choose for themselves whether they shall bow down and worship the only true God and Christ the redeemer.
I wouldn’t normally ever go into all of this – but its central to motherhood in the eternities – of which we will follow God the Fathers and Heavenly mothers example.
Which also answers the question – “was Christ married?” = of course he was. Its inconceivable that as the first born in the pre existant state with the Father (and all of us and Satan) that the primary reason for progressing is the family- that as a God in his own right – he would not have competed the essential step whilst here in earth.
Hope that gives some insight. (all the other questions such as what about people who didn’t have the opportunity to marry in mortality such infants who died young etc is all answered in the Doctrines revealed by Christ through the restoration.
As you often say Cris – only when we understand the whole picture can we grasp the meaning of each part.
Take care
Greg
Thank you again, Greg, for your lengthy comment. This reply will only be regarding your first paragraph. Any further comment will come in a later reply.
As far as there being few peoples believing in a Mother in Heaven, I think it is a far more extensive belief than most of us might realize.
For instance, the belief is prevelant in at least some New Age thinking. Of course, some feminists, particularly in the late 60s and during 70s, and even some today, believe there is ONLY a Mother in heaven, no male deity at all.
Of course, this is as ridiculous as saying there is only a Father in heaven. If there were only a Father in heaven, where did he get the idea for a female? I discussed this matter in at least one of my other posts.
I also believe there are many indiginous tribes of peoples who believe in a Mother in heaven. Sometimes, some of the least-thought-of people come closer to the truth regarding these kinds of spiritual truths than we so-called civilized people. Of course, you have to sometimes cut through the various mythologies to get to the core of the issue, but, again, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Take, for example, all the different mythologies of the ancient gods who once were reputed to roam the heavens and the earth. If you look closely at the various myths regarding these things, you’ll find a great deal of similarities between the various cultures—the Romans, Greeks, Norse, even the so-called Ananaki of the Sumerians.
They all share a pretty much identical storyline, the Sumerians being much more detailed, according to the works of Zecharia Sitchin, although there are many who dispute his particular interpretation of the ancient Sumerian tablets. I think his timeline is way off.
Anyway, if we take just the Roman and Greek ancient gods, we find a great deal of similarities between the two sets of deity, often the only difference being the names of these gods.
To get at the fire of these things, we must first clear away the smoke. The smoke points back to there being a common origin of these various god mythologies. There are too many similarites for any thinking person to think otherwise.
As far as the Bible goes, there is only one brief mention that could possibly shed light on this subject, much in the same way as the one verse that even mentioned the baptism for the dead idea you brought up in another comment.
To gain further knowledge we must go to the Book of Enoch, of which there are a number of versions written in different languages. Enoch goes into great detail regarding these things, even naming names of those involved, at least the leaders of this movement.
The point being, to get at the fire of any particular subject, we have to first remove the smoke. That’s what I try and do in this blog regarding those issues no one seems to like to talk about, at least the Christian leaders of the day, yourself apparently excepted. Probably most Christians aren’t even aware of these types of issues, as I believe they generally don’t get discussed in their various churches.
When I finish reading your comment, I will get back to you. I hope this has been satisfactory for you regarding the issue of who or who does not believe in a Mother in heaven.
Thanks again for your interest. I appreciate it 🙂
Okay, Greg, I’ve finished your doctrinal exposition of the LDS religion. It does seem to coincide with many of my views found in the Bible.
While I don’t generally get into sectarian beliefs in this blog, it being non-denominational, I allow pretty much anything in the comments section, so I welcome anything anyone might have to say about their various beliefs, and I welcome yours.
I want to comment on a particular thing you said. If I understood you correctly, you said that our Mother in heaven bore us all as spirits? And I’m assuming you believe that spirits are born in the pre-earth life (a subject I have covered extensively) in the same way that they are born here on earth?
Regarding this issue, I will say this one thing, and only this one thing: Accoding to the Gospel of Philip, the birthing of spirits in the pre-existence is of a different order than the birhing of fleshly bodies here on earth.
I believe the Gospel of Philip has some great truths in it, although some have butchered some of their translations to match their own traditional views. I have seen this in the various translations of the book, including some first-hand study in a Coptic class I took while attending college, using the Gospel of Philip as a text.
I covered the issue of Jesus being married in a previous series of posts, in which I used various translations from the Gospel of Philip as witnesses, as well as my own experience in the Coptic class. You might want to check it out, if you’re interested in that subject.
While you’re at it, you might want to check out the blog’s Table of Contents, as I’ve listed links to all my posts. Unfortunately, with this particular blog template, I’m not able to use drop-down menus to display the various series of articles in order to have a shorter TofC, so I have to display them all one by one, making it a rather long TofC.
Feel free to come again. I appreciate reading your comments, as I do anyone who takes from their personal time to create them. (Now, that’s as awkward a sentence as I’ve ever seen.)
P.S. I don’t want you to take this wrong, but one thing I have learned in both the writing of my blogs and in replies to comments is that I almost always remember to double and even triple check my prose, as I have done to this one. Invariably, I find spelling mistakes, as I have in this one, even in this paragraph.
You might want to consider doing this in any future comments you choose to make—here or anywhere else. It makes for easier reading.
One of the things I catch myself doing all the time is writing really long sentences, so I have to go back and break them down into smaller chunks for easier reading. I’m probably guilty of that even in this comment, but I haven’t checked for it, so if I have done so, sorry about that. 🙂
Have a great day. 🙂
Cris,
I was not attacking any position that you have per sae. I was offering that tibbit of information to the reading audience in general. My apology for my poor presentation.
You are absolutely correct. . . Somehow I got in the middle of your dialogue and am now in the process of going back to read your entire expose. In addition, you are correct about my initial reaction to being shown that my beliefs are flawed or in error. Just finished a book on the history of cancer. Some of my long held “sacred cows” were dashed upon the rocks. It is not like anyone was in my face telling that my simplistic understanding of cancer was wrong, but even coming from a book, it was painful to have to admit that I have oversimplified the cancer production mechanisms.
I read Matthew 7:21-23, and am still in the process of digesting it. While this is churning away, please allow me to share some of my thoughts.
1. Moses, when he went into the Mount received the “law.” He comes down off the Mountain to find his flock (actually the Lord’s, but Moses has temporary stewardship for their guidance and direction). He destroys the tablets.
2. Moses returns to the Mount, and Jehovah provides a second set.
3. I anticipate that the second set was not the same law as was initially given to Moses. Why would God do this? Certainly he would have known that Moses would find the Children of Israel in mischief when he got off the mountain. . .
A. was it something that Moses had to see for himself?
B. If the first set of tablets was the Law of Christ, i.e. that which was delivered during ther ministry of Christ, then it makes sense that they would not have been offered up. This is commensurate with the principle that God is a just God. Please allow me to explain my thoughts here. If God gave us a commandment which we do not have the capacity to live, He would automatically damn us! He cannot do that (or more accurately, because he Loves us so much, will not do that). The Children of Israel had been living in salvery, idolatry, and the like, for several hundred years. It is doubtful that they had the capability to live the higher law. As such, the “thou shalts.”
The 10 commandments are very rudimentary and if an individual observed the tenants of the Law of Christ, they would automatically be encompased within that law.
As I read Matthew 7, I get the impression that what Christ is trying to communicate is a cut above what was offered when He set forth the 10 commandments. In addition in the 10 commandments it appears that the commandment is realted to speach, where in Mathew 7 it is more tied to action (although it certainly does not precude speech).
in support of my position, this chapter in Matthew was the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount. In my view, this sermon apples to the elect of His Church, and was not such a broad cast as the Children of Israel. Verses 21 through 23 appear to tie into works and obedience to the commandments; and as I read it, even though some may perform miracles in the name of Christ, or offer up prophecies, it will not avail them admission into the presence of God, unless they are obedient to the law of Christ . In Luke 6:46 I beleve what Christ is trying to say is distilled into one short verse. . .Why call Him Lord, and then not live as He has shown us?
Certainly to proclaim Jesus as the Christ, and then not live as He has directed would be a vain effort, but I do not feel that is the same as taking the Lord’s name in vain. Somewhere in the Bible is a thought to the effect not to sware by the heavens or the earth, as heaven is where God’s throne is located, and the Earth is His footstool. . .
I taught Physics on the university level for a few years. Better add physics to you list of dubious deciplines. There are so many problems with some of the concepts we are teaching, it is little wonder that we have not discovered anti-gravity or succeeded in plasma containment for fusion reactors. But, that is an totally different topic. . .
What Matthew 7:21-23 means to me is this: Here we have examples of presumably good people using the name of Jesus Christ to perform good works. These works were accomplished, even though they did not have the authority of Jesus to do them. Yet, he honored those works. But when it came time to be called up before the judgment seat, they were found wanting and were, basically, cast out.
In essence, they used the name of the Lord in vain, without authority. I think that is a much more serious issue than having the name of Jesus Christ or God vilified through swearing.
I believe this has reference to more than mere obedience to Christ’s laws, but to being called of God and given his authority, as were the apostles and prophets of old. To act in the name of Jesus Christ without his authority is to use his name in vain, so far as described in these verses. It availeth nothing, so far as their salvation is concerned, whether or.not they lived the law of Christ.
I agree with you in that I believe the first commandments Moses received on the mountain were of a higher law. Yes, God knew the children of Israel were building the golden calf, even while He was writing on the stone tablets. So, why did He even bother writing this possible higher law on the stone tablets when He knew Moses would break them?
I can’t say for certainty why the entire scenario was allowed to be played out, but who really knows the mind of God? It may have been, like you suggested, something Moses needed to see for himself because, obviously, the children of Israel never had a chance to accept or reject the laws that Moses brought down from the mountain.
One thing most people overlook is that, with few exceptions, everything that Jesus taught can be found in one place or another in the Old Testament. He expanded on a few things, such as those “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time…” verses in the Beattitudes.
There are some who believe that the Sermon on the Mount was given, not to a broad populace, but to his chosen disciples, who later became known as Apostles, or messengers. I am one who believes this.
To address your last paragraph, I believe black ops science has discovered many things they won’t release to the public, such as anti-gravity, free energy through the zero-point field, and many other things. I’ve heard many interviews of people on the Coast to Coast AM radio show who speak on these matters.
It’s good to hear from you and I’m enjoying our dialogue.
Cris,
Lets back up one step on this one.
When I presented my comments on reasons why we do not hear about our Heavenly Mother, one of the possible reasons that I offered was that Jehovah loves His (our) Mother so much and has so much respect for Her that information related to Her existence was withheld to spare Her the denegation and disrespect.
With that tidbit of info you one-upped me and pointed out the Matthew 7:21-23. I believe that I see the point you are trying to make here and you are apparently a few steps ahead of me on a number of aspects. I trust from your comment that you have formulated a higharchy of sims relative to their seriousness or gravity. Taking the Lord’s name in vain as a proclamation of frustration would not appear to you to be as grave as performing miracles in Christ’s name and not having the authority to do so. Please let me chew on that for a while.
I will state that I believe any unrepented sin acts to damn us or retard our ability to return and live with our Heavenly parents and Christ. Taking the Lord’s name in vain in frustration, carries significant irony. It is ironic that it is by this name that we are saved! Would someone who understands who the Savior is and what He has done for us take His name in vain? I hope not. Will taking the Lord’ name in vain keep us out of Heaven? I don’t know, but I anticipate that the tendency to do so would be symptomatic of a person who does not have an appreciation for the Lord or an understanding of who He is.
I too have been enjoying our dialogue. At some point in time I would like to lay a list of scriptures on you, along with related topics, and obtain your opinion. I have noticed that there have not been to many others contributing to the discussions. I expected that there would be folk who would ask where I came up with certain beliefs or positions. It has been pretty quiet. For the most part you and I seem to agree on most of the issues.
It is truly amazing how much information is in the Bible if one just takes the time to ferret it out. One of the huge dissappointments that I have experienced has been the rate that the Dead Sea Scrolls have been translated and releasted to the public. My favorite Bible Concordance was written by Catholics. I state this to cushion my lament and I do not wish to appear to be bashing the Catholics, but the Catholics ended up with the bulk of the scrolls. Rumor has it that they have not released very much because the scrolls do not support their interpretion of the scriptures. The scrolls would have been written by the Essenes and I believe Christ was an Essene.
I covered your first point in one of the posts on the Mother in Heaven series.
I wasn’t trying to one-up you by referencing Matthew 7:21-23. I was merely pointing out another way to look at taking the name of the Lord in vain. Your assessment of me in paragraph two is correct.
I agree with paragraphs three and four.
I also agree with paragraph five, with the exception of your last statement. I don’t believe Christ was an Essene. I don’t believe he was an anything. He was the Son of God. As the scriptures state somewhere, I believe, he had no need that any man should teach him, which also goes against so many who believe he went to India, Egypt, Tibet, etc., to be taught of man.
The Catholics don’t have to worry about whether or not the Dead Sea Scrolls support their interpretation of the scriptures, as, if they were to look closely, even the Bible doesn’t support their view of the scriptures, let alone their pomp and doctrines. Sorry, Catholics, that’s just the way I feel and read it. I welcome your comments.
I just discovered this website short time ago. I have been reading some of the various threads with considerable interest. Perhaps I am warped or it is my scientific backghround, But in most of these discussions there is a massive flaw. Folk do not seem to be asking the question, “WHY?”
My wife is Budhist, and I like to think that I am a Christian, however, I do not adhere to any particular sect, or denomination. Even In science, where my background lies, I find that most individuals are not willing to give up cherrished beliefs or positions, even when the evidence is overwhelming against their position. Why am I telling you this? I do not expect that anything I have to offer will alter your position. None-the-less, let me throw out a few things.
1. Have you ever kept a diary? If so, go back and read it closely. I anticipate that you will find that you have omitted mention of every day common details. There may be perpherial mention, but no direct statements to the fact. Were statements about a Mother in Heaven never made because it was believed that it was a given and that there was no need to state the obvious? A Father, a Mother, and children. . .?
2. Jehovah, when He presented the 10 commandments to Moses, commanded that we were not, are not, to take his name in vain. Just how many times a day does one hear the name of the Lord used as a sware word or for emphasis? First question for you here, is “Why would God offer up such a commandment? Is He selfish and self-centered? I think not! Second question, (and this may trip you up a tad, as I believe that Jehovah was the spirit form of Jesus Christ. As such, He is our brother and God the Father and Goddess our Mother are our original spiritual parents). Even if you cannot accept that, and only see Him (Jehovah) as a God, would you want your Mother, or your wife, to have Her name slandered and taken in vain. I doubt it!
3. It is my recollection that in one of the translations of the Nagamadi (sp) scrolls there is mention of our Heavenly Mother being distraught over the position of Her Son Lucifer (also one of our Brothers who was a Son of the Morning), which I trust has reference to the fact that he was one of the first to be spirtually begotten by our Heavenly Parents. I am not going to quote “chapter or verse” on this and if you want proof, leave it up to you to dig it up.
In Summary: 1) An omission. 2) Out love and respect. and 3) It is recorded, but did not make it into the canon of the Bible.
I will be anxious to see if others of you have have plausable explanations in addition to those I have listed . . .
Gordon, thank you for your awesome observances. You have a very good mind, make no mistake.
As to the matter of no one asking the question, “Why?”—I can say this:
First of all, no one likes to think of themselves as wrong, so the idea of “Why?” has probably never even entered into many minds. You see, to ask, “Why?” is to admit one may be wrong or that there is something else out there for us to learn, and that may interfere with “American Idol” or “Dancing with the Stars”, or the latest sporting match. And we can’t have that. Somehow, that just wouldn’t be right.
Secondly, we have all grown up in an educational system where we have been taught not to think—critically or otherwise. We’ve been taught to memorize often useless data and to accept everything we’ve been spoon fed, no matter ridiculous. It shows in the people we elect to political office, as well in our addictions of choice, such as computers, computer gaming, all the other specialized gaming options (Wii, etc.), pornography, sex, work, etc.—all non-thinking actions. I think our “civilization”—and I use the word loosely—is the most addicted civilization in the history of the world.
Third, particularly in the matter of religion, to question is heresy, regardless of how unscriptural a belief and/or practice may be. And who wants to be branded a heretic? How many millions of people were murdered throughout history by a major Christian religion because of nonconformity or asking “Why”? To ask “Why?” is to accuse religion of being wrong and we can’t have that either.
Next, I’m not sure what “position” I have that needs to be altered. I like to think I am fairly open-minded in most things. But try me.
I am asking “Why?” all the time, especially in the area of religion and spirituality. I think most people confuse the two. Religion is pretty much a practice of any sort, or, we might say, “doing”, while spirituality tends toward “being” in a good and healthy way.
As to science, I have to agree with you. Science has pretty much become a religion in itself, funded by government grants and tenure, in the case of academia. For instance, just try and do research on an unpopular subject, such as intelligent design, and see how fast your grant money goes out the window. Or try and introduce a new idea, such as man having existed for hundreds of millions of years, and see how soon you become the target of hate mail.
The only sciences I put a lot of faith in are quantum mechanics and microbiology. Well, there are probably others, but I find cosmology, geology, anthropology, archeology, and many other sciences thoroughly lacking in common sense, let alone offering definitive proof of their theories.
I have kept a diary of sorts. Not only have I omitted every-day common details, but I have gone back to read my entries and have wound up throwing them away. “I don’t want anyone to read that,” I reasoned.
I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised as you read further into my Mother in Heaven series. I also think many things were omitted in the Bible due to their being “a given” and, therefore, not worthy, if I may use that word, of mention.
Here’s something for you to chew on: Swearing isn’t the only way to take the name of the Lord in vain. In fact, I would say that it is the least of God’s concerns about this commandment. Check out Matthew 7:21-23 for what I consider the real meaning of not taking the name of the Lord I vain. What have you to say about this?
Jehovah and Jesus Christ is also a subject I have intention on covering in one or more future articles. Keep reading my Mother in Heaven series and you will see that I address the issues you have brought up.
In addition, I have an entire 13-part series in which I treat the subject of”Satan: His Origin and Destiny.” You might want to check that out when you’ve finished the Mother in Heaven series.
Jesus is said to be God’s firstborn. I believe Lucifer was God’s second to be spiritually born of him, as I believe there needs be an opposition in all things. First, Christ; then, Lucifer. No way to prove it; but it’s what I feel.
I do hope I have adequately addressed your questions in this epistle. Keep on reading and keep on writing. I am enjoying this interchange.
I really hope so because I believe the balance is needed.
Well, we’ll find out one day for sure! As it is, I’m pretty sure, as you’ll see.