As for me and my family, we have a very peculiar dynamic going on. I was raised by a strong, independent woman who’s accomplished a lot in her life (postgrad degree, excelled in her career and led her department for many years). She in turn was also raised by a strong, independent woman (left the family farm and got a bachelor’s degree at a time when it was nearly unheard of for women to do so, and supported her children for many years because her husband couldn’t keep a job). My wife, on the other hand, is very traditional and conservative, and we have had some power struggles (her trying to give me power, with me rejecting it). My refusal to preside at family functions has caused some problems (other relatives staring awkwardly as my wife and I argued over who was going to choose someone to say the prayer), but in other ways we’ve settled into a functional relationship (she no longer insists that I drive when the family go somewhere). I guess some traditional conservative male would read this comment and deem me a totally emasculated girly-man. But the way I see it, I’m a real man because I have a penis. Nothing I do or don’t do entitles me to preside over my family.

I think he probably would have called it “irony.” The intentional kind.

Both HM and HF dwell in the celestial kingdom, and therefore are unquestionably equal.

That’s not what the text says. It says that all members of the Church of the Firstborn (verse 94) are equal with each other. But they certainly aren’t equal with “God, even the Father,” since they bow before his throne “in humble reverence” (verse 93). Also, some people in the Celestial Kingdom will be servants to others there (D&C 132: 16).

That’s not to say that those verses say anything about the role of a Heavenly Mother, but the idea that everyone in the Celestial Kingdom is equal is not supported by the text you cited.

It’s always enlightening to have an exchange of ideas with you. Thanks for taking the time.

“The caution that all of us need to exercise is to avoid becoming overbearing to others as we engage our battles.” Good luck in your quest to become less overbearing.

brjones, I have really appreciated your comments on this thread.

Did you actually read what I said? Other Christian religions hold that all three figures in the Godhead (yes, even the Son) are, in some sense, feminine as well as masculine. Or that all three figures are in some sense ungendered. At least our feminine concept of deity potentially resides within the Godhead and is worshiped and prayed to. Mormonism’s is none of the above.

As for D&C 76:95, given that current church policy prohibits women from being sealed to more than one man in the celestial kingdom while men are allowed to be sealed to more than one woman, I would say that men and women in the celestial kingdom are unquestionably unequal.

You could choose to see President McKay’s statement as paternalism if you are looking to find that, or you could choose to see it as a prophetically pronounced absolute truth. I view it as truth, and a remarkably candid statement given the historical context.

Few men, and alas, too few women apparently, view women’s powers and influences as inherently lesser than men’s just because they have been different throughout human time.

How sad. This is the ultimate sexism!

Though there is little doctrine detailing the nature and role of our HM, there is absolute, clear, unequivocal, inarguable Mormon doctrine that establishes that all Mormon Gods (male and female) are equal:

D & C 76:95 – all are equal in power and dominion in the celestial kingdom.

Both HM and HF dwell in the celestial kingdom, and therefore are unquestionably equal.

I, too, am on an eternal quest to know and become like God.

Many of you have very eloquently and persuasively argued that the church has no expanded doctrine about our female God. My point in even bringing this notion up was that we Mormons at least have some concept, when most Christian religions do not, that deity includes a female being. I think that is remarkable and exciting in every way.

I look for further light and knowledge on this, if not in this life, then in the life to come.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Apparently this is an important topic for you, maybe even vital. However, I admit it isn’t important for my wife and I–maybe a better way of expressing it would be to say a priority. Its not a priority because its not a problem that draws us into the battle.

Each of us has numerous battles to wage, and the restraints of resources, time, and energy requires each to carefully choose their battles. Most of the battles we’re dealing with requires our participation because of the pain we experience. The elective battles are those that are dear to our hearts.

I think it is wonderful that we’re all so different in the battles we’re drawn into by circumstances, and also by choice because of what is dear to our hearts.

The caution that all of us need to exercise is to avoid becoming overbearing to others as we engage our battles.

Until it is over we cannot assume that we just won’t ever know anything about Mother in Heaven. I still leave open option c), which is the possibility of more revelation coming forward about her in these last days.

I think I will spend a lifetime trying to come to understand God in even the smallest ways. His ways are definately not ours, so I think it is important to always leave open options for things we might never consider.

I guess I would quibble with that a little. I wouldn’t put those two beliefs (existence of a Heavenly Mother and explanations for why Mormons don’t worship her or even talk much about her) on the same level. IME, Mormons usually speak as if the existence of a Heavenly Mother is a given. That explanation, OTOH, is probably widely believed, but it’s also the sort of thing Mormons usually preface (in Sunday School discussions and so on) by saying, “We don’t really know, but…” or even “This isn’t doctrine, but….” (Of course, that’s my impression, not quantified in any way, so take it for what it’s worth.)

But anyhow, whatever we call them, we do agree that the beliefs don’t seem particularly liberating or empowering.

I have no problem with a practical definition of “doctrine” like this. By that same token, since it’s almost as commonly believed that the reason no one knows anything about HM is because God is protecting her from being scorned and mocked by her children, that would have to be “doctrine” as well. However you slice it, Mormonism does not offer a notion of divine feminine that is liberating to women. (My favorite Bloggernacle post on the matter is “Why I Don’t Want to Believe in Heavenly Mother” by Lynnette at Zelophehad’s Daughters.)

It sounds like you would agree with all that; I’m just summarizing my thoughts on it.

That is another example, not only is it foreign to modernism, but from a structural or post-structural frame of reference, its bizarre and naive to think that one could ever fully understand the context in which the document was produced or the thought of those who produced it. Further, there is a degree to which doing so is simply a form of logocentrism an, attempt to fix the play of the signifier, despite the fact that evidence that such play can not be stopped fills volume after volume of case law etc. I don’t expect everyone to comprehend interpretation the same way, but I do think we must strongly reject those who, in an overtly political act, insist that their interpretation has sole ownership of the truth [sic.] of the text.

#59- “And do you seriously need a women’s studies program to suceed? Claudia Bushman didn’t, Sandra Day O’Conner didn’t, Most women who have acheived great things didn’t do it through a women’s study program, but through good old had work in spite of obsticles placed before them.”

It was my pleasure to be invited to dinner with the Bushmans about 6 weeks ago. While Claudia may not have benefitted from a women’s studies program; from our conversation that night, I take it that the courses she is currently teaching are essentially women’s studies courses being taught from a feminist perspective. I don’t want to put words in Claudia’s mouth but I am lead to believe that she feels feminism and women’s studies are of significant value. Further, when I was working on a women’s studies minor in college I would say that the department as an intellectual community was a wonderful place and did a great deal for the women there, more than one can surmise from the outside looking in. Judge not, dude!

Except for the Holy Ghost part, which I’ve heard before (but as I understand it, that’s a speculation that the Holy Ghost is female, not that there is no Heavenly Mother), Owen’s discussion sounds very foreign to me, as I suspect it would to most Mormons. It’s a bit too scholarly perhaps. While I agree that there is arguably no “official doctrine” about the subject, I’ve never been a fan of convoluted Mormon arguments (often used in apologetics to explain away what used to be mainstream Mormon belief) about what is and isn’t “doctrine.” If it’s taught at church and (almost) everyone believes it, it’s “doctrine” to me. By that definition, I’d say that the existence of a Heavenly Mother is doctrine.

That said, I agree with you. I see nothing particularly “liberating” about a female god whom no one is allowed to worship, and who is subordinate to a male god and perhaps paternalistically protected by him.