Oaks confirms we have heavenly mothers.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
huckelberry
God
Posts: 4072
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Oaks confirms we have heavenly mothers.

Post by huckelberry »

Rivendale wrote:
Fri Jul 18, 2025 11:01 pm
huckelberry wrote:
Fri Jul 18, 2025 10:32 pm
Exmo might be an odd sample of Mormon reactions. I checked the mad board and found an active discussion. It was bubbling along on close to the ho hum level.
Huckleberry, it is much deeper than the one link to exmormon reddit. Check out Jazzmine Rappleye's Instagram post regarding this to see the vast disparity between believers.
I do not know anything about Jazzmine. I asked Google and found Instagram and then found I do not do Instagram sorry.

I have at times observed that not all Mormons think with King Follett. I think some view the father as eternally God.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 8272
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Oaks confirms we have heavenly mothers.

Post by MG 2.0 »

Rivendale wrote:
Fri Jul 18, 2025 9:07 pm
The Oak's video has hit believers media and it is a scattered mess illustrating how disjointed general members feel and think about multiple mothers. https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... _audience/
I grew up also coming away with the thinking that there may be more than one Heavenly Mother. It is very difficult from our very limited perspective to even try to visualize what the economy of the next life/world/existence might look like.

Sometimes it's easier to simply deny it exists or look at it in some innocuous and fuzzy manner that doesn't cause any controversy.

Regards,
MG
I Have Questions
God
Posts: 4268
Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am

Re: Oaks confirms we have heavenly mothers.

Post by I Have Questions »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Sat Jul 19, 2025 4:26 pm
Rivendale wrote:
Fri Jul 18, 2025 9:07 pm
The Oak's video has hit believers media and it is a scattered mess illustrating how disjointed general members feel and think about multiple mothers. https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... _audience/
I grew up also coming away with the thinking that there may be more than one Heavenly Mother. It is very difficult from our very limited perspective to even try to visualize what the economy of the next life/world/existence might look like.

Sometimes it's easier to simply deny it exists or look at it in some innocuous and fuzzy manner that doesn't cause any controversy.

Regards,
MG
So let me get this straight. First of all you went with Oaks talking about Heavenly Mothers as an obvious hoax, or AI manipulation. But now that it’s unquestionably legit, now you’re going with “I’ve known about Heavenly Mothers all along, because I figured it out myself when I was young”. Brilliant.
Last edited by I Have Questions on Sat Jul 19, 2025 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
User avatar
Rivendale
God
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:21 pm

Re: Oaks confirms we have heavenly mothers.

Post by Rivendale »

huckelberry wrote:
Sat Jul 19, 2025 1:46 am
Rivendale wrote:
Fri Jul 18, 2025 11:01 pm
Huckleberry, it is much deeper than the one link to exmormon reddit. Check out Jazzmine Rappleye's Instagram post regarding this to see the vast disparity between believers.
I do not know anything about Jazzmine. I asked Google and found Instagram and then found I do not do Instagram sorry.

I have at times observed that not all Mormons think with King Follett. I think some view the father as eternally God.
She is on YouTube also. https://youtu.be/CFF05_6KJWs?si=xtvqSvnSqfTMNC8m
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 8272
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Oaks confirms we have heavenly mothers.

Post by MG 2.0 »

I Have Questions wrote:
Sat Jul 19, 2025 5:43 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Sat Jul 19, 2025 4:26 pm
I grew up also coming away with the thinking that there may be more than one Heavenly Mother. It is very difficult from our very limited perspective to even try to visualize what the economy of the next life/world/existence might look like.

Sometimes it's easier to simply deny it exists or look at it in some innocuous and fuzzy manner that doesn't cause any controversy.

Regards,
MG
So let me get this straight. First of all you went with Oaks talking about Heavenly Mothers as an obvious hoax, or A.I. manipulation. But now that it’s unquestionably legit, now you’re going with “I’ve known about Heavenly Mothers all along, because I figured it out myself when I was young”. Brilliant.
Two things can be true at the same time. Especially when not all the information is available at points in time along the way. As a result the truth may even be conditional until further light and knowledge is available.

Not quite as black and white as you might like it to be.

Regards,
MG
User avatar
Rivendale
God
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:21 pm

Re: Oaks confirms we have heavenly mothers.

Post by Rivendale »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Sun Jul 20, 2025 8:50 pm
I Have Questions wrote:
Sat Jul 19, 2025 5:43 pm
So let me get this straight. First of all you went with Oaks talking about Heavenly Mothers as an obvious hoax, or A.I. manipulation. But now that it’s unquestionably legit, now you’re going with “I’ve known about Heavenly Mothers all along, because I figured it out myself when I was young”. Brilliant.
Two things can be true at the same time. Especially when not all the information is available at points in time along the way. As a result the truth may even be conditional until further light and knowledge is available.

Not quite as black and white as you might like it to be.

Regards,
MG
Further light and knowledge? Why the initial pushback? If it was indeed faked why dismiss it? What element of Mormon doctrine regarding mothers is uncomfortable?
Chap
God
Posts: 3260
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: Oaks confirms we have heavenly mothers.

Post by Chap »

May I mention that it seems more than just likely that the deity worshipped by ancient Jews once had a wife?

Why don't we usually hear about that?

1. Scholarly explanation:
See Dever, William G. 2008. "Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel". Walmart. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Argues with considerable force of evidence that Yahweh had a consort, Asherah. See also below. Despite the popularity of belief in her, the Jerusalem-based elite from whom we have the core of today's Old Testament edited her out of the record.

2. Other explanation:
Being married to Yahweh was always rather difficult. When Yahweh told Asherah of his not very nice career plans for their son, she told him what she thought of such a sadistic approach to parenting, and walked out on him.

Here's a like to a webpage on NBC news that sets things out in detail:

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42154769

Here is the text - now you know her name, maybe some of our Mormon readers might try praying to her instead of just Heavenly Father? Return and report ...
God had a wife, Asherah, whom the Book of Kings suggests was worshipped alongside Yahweh in his temple in Israel, according to an Oxford scholar.

In 1967, Raphael Patai was the first historian to mention that the ancient Israelites worshipped both Yahweh and Asherah. The theory has gained new prominence because of the research of Francesca Stavrakopoulou, who began her work at Oxford and is now a senior lecturer in the department of Theology and Religion at the University of Exeter.

Information presented in Stavrakopoulou's books, lectures and journal papers has become the basis of a three-part documentary series, now airing in Europe, where she discusses the Yahweh-Asherah connection.

"You might know him as Yahweh, Allah or God. But on this fact, Jews, Muslims and Christians, the people of the great Abrahamic religions, are agreed: There is only one of Him," writes Stavrakopoulou in a statement released to the British media. "He is a solitary figure, a single, universal creator, not one God among many ... or so we like to believe.

"After years of research specializing in the history and religion of Israel, however, I have come to a colorful and what could seem, to some, uncomfortable conclusion that God had a wife."

Stavrakopoulou bases her theory on ancient texts, amulets and figurines unearthed primarily in the ancient Canaanite coastal city called Ugarit, now modern-day Syria. All of these artifacts reveal that Asherah was a powerful fertility goddess.

Asherah's connection to Yahweh, according to Stavrakopoulou, is spelled out in both the Bible and an 8th-century B.C. inscription on pottery found in the Sinai desert at a site called Kuntillet Ajrud.

"The inscription is a petition for a blessing," she shares. "Crucially, the inscription asks for a blessing from 'Yahweh and his Asherah.' Here was evidence that presented Yahweh and Asherah as a divine pair. And now a handful of similar inscriptions have since been found, all of which help to strengthen the case that the God of the Bible once had a wife."

Also significant, Stavrakopoulou believes, "is the Bible's admission that the goddess Asherah was worshiped in Yahweh's Temple in Jerusalem. In the Book of Kings, we're told that a statue of Asherah was housed in the temple and that female temple personnel wove ritual textiles for her."

J. Edward Wright, president of both The Arizona Center for Judaic Studies and The Albright Institute for Archaeological Research, told Discovery News that he agrees several Hebrew inscriptions mention "Yahweh and his Asherah."

"Asherah was not entirely edited out of the Bible by its male editors," he added. "Traces of her remain, and based on those traces, archaeological evidence and references to her in texts from nations bordering Israel and Judah, we can reconstruct her role in the religions of the Southern Levant."

Asherah — known across the ancient Near East by various other names, such as Astarte and Istar — was "an important deity, one who was both mighty and nurturing," Wright continued.

"Many English translations prefer to translate 'Asherah' as 'Sacred Tree,'" Wright said. "This seems to be in part driven by a modern desire, clearly inspired by the biblical narratives, to hide Asherah behind a veil once again."

"Mentions of the goddess Asherah in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) are rare and have been heavily edited by the ancient authors who gathered the texts together," Aaron Brody, director of the Bade Museum and an associate professor of Bible and archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion, said.

Asherah as a tree symbol was even said to have been "chopped down and burned outside the Temple in acts of certain rulers who were trying to 'purify' the cult, and focus on the worship of a single male god, Yahweh," he added.

The ancient Israelites were polytheists, Brody told Discovery News, "with only a small minority worshiping Yahweh alone before the historic events of 586 B.C." In that year, an elite community within Judea was exiled to Babylon and the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. This, Brody said, led to "a more universal vision of strict monotheism: one god not only for Judah, but for all of the nations."
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Marcus
God
Posts: 8039
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Oaks confirms we have heavenly mothers.

Post by Marcus »

Rivendale wrote:
Sun Jul 20, 2025 9:17 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Sun Jul 20, 2025 8:50 pm
Two things can be true at the same time. Especially when not all the information is available at points in time along the way. As a result the truth may even be conditional until further light and knowledge is available.

Not quite as black and white as you might like it to be.

Regards,
MG
Further light and knowledge? Why the initial pushback? If it was indeed faked why dismiss it? What element of Mormon doctrine regarding mothers is uncomfortable?
His previous answer seemed to hold a clue to his approach:
MG 2.0 wrote:...Sometimes it's easier to simply deny it exists or look at it in some innocuous and fuzzy manner...
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 8266
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Oaks confirms we have heavenly mothers.

Post by Moksha »

I Have Questions wrote:
Sat Jul 19, 2025 5:43 pm
So let me get this straight. First of all, you went with Oaks talking about Heavenly Mothers as an obvious hoax, or A.I. manipulation. But now that it’s unquestionably legit, now you’re going with “I’ve known about Heavenly Mothers all along, because I figured it out myself when I was young”. Brilliant.
MG didn't want to let too much out of the bag lest the heathens mock the Lord's eternal truths. He felt compelled to play coy, not being certain of that angel with the drawn sword intentions. Once confirmed by the Deseret News, he can let his light truthfully shine!!!
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Rivendale
God
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:21 pm

Re: Oaks confirms we have heavenly mothers.

Post by Rivendale »

Moksha wrote:
Mon Jul 21, 2025 1:36 am
I Have Questions wrote:
Sat Jul 19, 2025 5:43 pm
So let me get this straight. First of all, you went with Oaks talking about Heavenly Mothers as an obvious hoax, or A.I. manipulation. But now that it’s unquestionably legit, now you’re going with “I’ve known about Heavenly Mothers all along, because I figured it out myself when I was young”. Brilliant.
MG didn't want to let too much out of the bag lest the heathens mock the Lord's eternal truths. He felt compelled to play coy, not being certain of that angel with the drawn sword intentions. Once confirmed by the Deseret News, he can let his light truthfully shine!!!
Dishonesty at its best. I value skepticism but I also value admitting when I am wrong.
Post Reply