I look forward to the day when Heavenly Mother can be worshipped and openly spoken of. I am not ashamed of the respect and love I have for her as she is worthy of all that and more.
BobJune 16, 2017
To Uncurly.com DIY Brazilian Keratin Treatment: I have read the article in question, and I have read your post. The article makes sense, and your post, well, um, yeah. Maybe you had stayed up too late.
David DurfeeJune 15, 2017
I find the author's interpretation persuasive and not at all a casual inference. There is no good reason that I can think of for the Spirit to need to state a completely obvious fact - that Mary is an earthly being while Heavenly Father is an exalted, immortal being. What would that add to Joseph's knowledge? But there is every reason in the world to think that the Spirit would have been laying groundwork for future knowledge and understanding that we have a Heavenly Mother - a truly unique concept in Christianity.
First, the scripture in question isn’t, properly speaking, a “reference” as in a citation or a direct mention (i.e., by the Spirit if the Lord to Nephi) so much as it is a section of text from which the article’s author has felt to draw an inference of his own — rightly or wrongly. That is an important distinction.
In other words, the Spirit is not necessarily saying, “This is the earthly mother of the Son of God, as distinct from his heavenly mother,” and thereby, according to the author, proving that Jesus had a Heavenly Mother as well.
The Spirit could just as easily have been contrasting Mary’s “manner of the flesh” with Heavenly Father’s exalted, immortal nature. In fact, considering that Christ’s singular combo of mortality + immortality was essential to his mission, that seems to me to be a more likely reading.
I wish that it were an unequivocal reference to a heavenly mother. I believe in one and long for a First Vision-type confirmation of her existence by our divinely-called leaders, or some other form of unimpeachable testimony. But that longing doesn’t give license to be anything less than rigorous with interpretation of the scriptures we currently possess, and this section does not pass the test needed support the author’s assertion.
Drawing inferences too casually has the potential to pollute doctrine, undermine faith, and sow dissension. We need to couch our scriptural interpretations in careful terms to be sure they are identified as such, in my opinion.
Comments | Return to Story
MichaelFebruary 7, 2018
I look forward to the day when Heavenly Mother can be worshipped and openly spoken of. I am not ashamed of the respect and love I have for her as she is worthy of all that and more.
BobJune 16, 2017
To Uncurly.com DIY Brazilian Keratin Treatment: I have read the article in question, and I have read your post. The article makes sense, and your post, well, um, yeah. Maybe you had stayed up too late.
David DurfeeJune 15, 2017
I find the author's interpretation persuasive and not at all a casual inference. There is no good reason that I can think of for the Spirit to need to state a completely obvious fact - that Mary is an earthly being while Heavenly Father is an exalted, immortal being. What would that add to Joseph's knowledge? But there is every reason in the world to think that the Spirit would have been laying groundwork for future knowledge and understanding that we have a Heavenly Mother - a truly unique concept in Christianity.
Uncurly.com DIY Brazilian Keratin TreatmentJune 15, 2017
First, the scripture in question isn’t, properly speaking, a “reference” as in a citation or a direct mention (i.e., by the Spirit if the Lord to Nephi) so much as it is a section of text from which the article’s author has felt to draw an inference of his own — rightly or wrongly. That is an important distinction. In other words, the Spirit is not necessarily saying, “This is the earthly mother of the Son of God, as distinct from his heavenly mother,” and thereby, according to the author, proving that Jesus had a Heavenly Mother as well. The Spirit could just as easily have been contrasting Mary’s “manner of the flesh” with Heavenly Father’s exalted, immortal nature. In fact, considering that Christ’s singular combo of mortality + immortality was essential to his mission, that seems to me to be a more likely reading. I wish that it were an unequivocal reference to a heavenly mother. I believe in one and long for a First Vision-type confirmation of her existence by our divinely-called leaders, or some other form of unimpeachable testimony. But that longing doesn’t give license to be anything less than rigorous with interpretation of the scriptures we currently possess, and this section does not pass the test needed support the author’s assertion. Drawing inferences too casually has the potential to pollute doctrine, undermine faith, and sow dissension. We need to couch our scriptural interpretations in careful terms to be sure they are identified as such, in my opinion.
ADD A COMMENT