Mormon Feminism is Back (and its Name is Still "Apostasy.")

[_MsJack]

The Grand Council is comprised of the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. I have no idea whether or not Heavenly Mother is a part of that council, but the revelations, as we have them now, do not indicate such to be the case (which alters nothing, of course, regarding her personal attributes as a perfect, exalted individual being).

So, when Genesis 1:26-27 says,

Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Do you think this means women were created in the image of three distinctly male persons---Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

How do you interpret "image"? It has several variations in classical Christian theology, but my understanding was that Mormons usually interpreted it to refer to physical resemblance.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Do you think this means women were created in the image of three distinctly male persons---Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

How do you interpret "image"? It has several variations in classical Christian theology, but my understanding was that Mormons usually interpreted it to refer to physical resemblance.

Seeing that elohim in the verse is masculine, it is not likely that God is considered a man and/or a woman at that verse.

The traditional views of the verse are that it denotes the triune God or a council. The traditional views don't seem to suggest that it suggests a God and a Goddess on the job, although some Mormon theologians want to go that way.

[_Droopy]

It's as doctrinal today as the official statement on the Negro question was back in 1949. It could become non-doctrinal at some future date, but as of now, it is doctrine.

Nice try for someone who is utterly clueless as to what LDS "doctrine" is and how it is understood (and nothing in the 1949 statement is in any way incompatible with present doctrine or the lifting of the ban in 1978).

[_Droopy]

When you say you've been observing the gay movement closely for decades, including their sexual habits that you claim to find disgusting, it rings a little truer. As if you didn't have to rely on hasty googling so heavily.

Where did I say anything about the "gay movement?" I have been observing it, its ideology, and some of its own internal literature, for sometime (as well as the behavior and attitudes of a number of its members), but how is that relevant to this discussion (and drop the constant "google" insults, it only makes look like even more of an intellectual buffoon and bomb thrower than you already are).

[_Buffalo]

When you say you've been observing the gay movement closely for decades, including their sexual habits that you claim to find disgusting, it rings a little truer. As if you didn't have to rely on hasty googling so heavily.

Where did I say anything about the "gay movement?" I have been observing it, its ideology, and some of its own internal literature, for sometime (as well as the behavior and attitudes of a number of its members), but how is that relevant to this discussion (and drop the constant "google" insults, it only makes look like even more of an intellectual buffoon and bomb thrower than you already are).

You've commented a number of times on very specific gay sex practices (which I'd never heard of before), claiming to have observed homosexuals very closely over the years. I believe you.

You'd have a very hard time demonstrating that I "constantly" engage in "google insults."

I note with interest that you still haven't apologized, by the way. I'm waiting.

[_Drifting]

No they're not. You're making it up as you go along, Bluff, which makes you a shoe in as a major Brooks defender here. The idea of heavenly parents is conspicuous throughout LDS doctrinal literature and GA teaching over many generations. I see nothing changing as of the present.

Read it and weep. I'll expect you'll be issuing an apology to me now.

1997 Gospel Principles, p 13:

http://www.LDS.org/gospellibrary/materi ... ere_01.pdf

Our heavenly parents provided us with a celestial home more glorious and beautiful than any place on earth. We were happy there. Yet they knew we could not progress beyond a certain point unless we left them for a time. They wanted us to develop the godlike qualities that they have.

2009 Gospel Principles, p 10:

http://www.LDS.org/bc/content/shared/co ... f?lang=eng

Our Heavenly Father knew we could not progress beyond a certain point unless we left Him for a time. He wanted us to develop the godlike qualities that He has.

Great spot.
Our Heavenly Mother is obviously embarrassing to the Church.
Personally, I love her unconditionally.

[_MsJack]

Seeing that elohim in the verse is masculine, it is not likely that God is considered a man and/or a woman at that verse.

Elohim is a masculine plural. Masculine plurals in Hebrew could denote groups which included members of both genders. If you had a group of gods and goddesses, they would be elohim.

These verses shift between plural ("Let us make . . . ") and singular ("in the image of God he created them"). If a masculine singular can be made to represent a plurality of Gods, then I don't see why that plurality cannot be seen to include a female entity.

The traditional views of the verse are that it denotes the triune God or a council. The traditional views don't seem to suggest that it suggests a God and a Goddess on the job, although some Mormon theologians want to go that way.

Whose tradition?

Most of the Christian world doesn't have Mormonism's gender dilemma here because it doesn't interpret "image" to refer to the physical body. Christians have traditionally seen the imago Dei as referring to humanity possessing the psychological or spiritual attributes of God (substantive view), or humanity's capacity to be in relationships with one another (relational view), or the idea that human beings are the heirs of God's power possessing dominion over the earth (functional view). In addition, male and female are not seen as attributes of God; though God relates to us in gendered terms that we can understand, in divine nature God is genderless.

I brought this up because I think that it is from these verses that Mormon feminists get the idea that God includes a man and a woman, and within the framework of Mormon theology and its emphasis on the physical body, I think they can build a reasonable case.

They also get the idea from the teaching that a man cannot be exalted without being sealed to a woman, but on its own, I find that line of reasoning to have far more problems.

I was trying to give Droopy space to explain his own beliefs on the matter though, as I try not to assume that I know what someone believes just because they are Mormon.

[_Buffalo]

Great spot.
Our Heavenly Mother is obviously embarrassing to the Church.
Personally, I love her unconditionally.

Credit where it's due - the Mormon Expression guys spotted it.

[_Drifting]

Great spot.
Our Heavenly Mother is obviously embarrassing to the Church.
Personally, I love her unconditionally.

Credit where it's due - the Mormon Expression guys spotted it.

They too must love our Mother...

[_Buffalo]

They too must love our Mother...

Well, one thing is for sure - the COB must hate her! They're trying to erase her from existence! That's even worse than trying to kill her.