See the previous discussion on this topic here.
Researching our Mother in Heaven in a formidable, exhausting undertaking. Essay after essay kept materializing before our eyes until our minds felt like liquid butter melting off the tiny computer screens, but not necessarily with specifically known information about her, that is almost scarce (unless you include Kevin Barney’s article, er..book), but individual theories, opinions, feelings, including most recently here on fMh, abound. So we decided to focus our efforts on of course, Linda Wilcox’s essay which was included in Hanks’ book and in the 1980 issue of Sunstone, and to add a little more to the discussion we though we’d compare and contrast this article (Stephanieeeeeee) and corresponding cover to the 2004 issue with Margaret Tuscano’s article, Is there a Place for a Heavenly Mother in Mormon Theology? (Lula) and its corresponding cover, to see how the thoughts may have changed almost thirty years later.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
The first time I heard about Mother in Heaven, I felt like I had finally found a missing piece to a puzzle. She just felt right, made sense. For a time, it was enough to know that She exists. As time has passed, however, my curiosity about Her has grown. Linda Wilcox to the rescue! In The Mormon Concept of a Mother in Heaven, she has collected and examined references to our Mother in Heaven in scripture (not many, and then only obliquely) in statements by General Authorities (still not many) and even Seminary teachers (oh dear).
A picture emerges of Heavenly Mother with three major characteristics:
1. Mother in Heaven as nurturer
2. Mother in Heaven as queen
3. Mother in Heaven as producer of spirit children
It’s not much to go on, is it? We are left with something like this picture, an image of a pregnant woman curled protectively around her womb. She is warm, she is beautiful, (she is very pregnant), but her face, her expressions, are vague, incomplete. I still feel like I don’t know Her at all.
However, after this paper appeared in Sunstone magazine in 1980, Grethe B. Peterson wrote a personal response to Wilcox’s paper in which she stated, “Our prophet is making some important statements about our female spiritual origins,” and predicted that understanding was coming. Now, thirty years later, I can’t help but feel that Mother in Heaven is as much an enigma as ever.
dImage may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Tuscano’s article links our Mother in Heaven theology with larger issues like gender and authority in the LDS church. A test case as to why certain things are included or excluded from discourse. Throughout the article, she defines three types of authorization: the first being from statements made by Church priesthood authorities, the second from unofficial statements made by Church scholars in conservative publications, like say, the Ensign, and thirdly, she suggests that the membership as a whole decides some things as a collective, or I would even add, individually. This last one may include, for example, Joseph Fielding Smith’s directive on no birth control, Spencer Kimball’s talk against hunting in 1978, and I would add for me, Gordon B. Hinckley’s thoughts on more than one earring.
Using our Heavenly Mother as as example, Tuscano explains how as discussed in Wilcox’s historical overview, we believe in a Heavenly Mother. It’s official Church doctrine. Yet, Tuscano includes a survey done by Doe Daughtery in which she found that after posting a list of questions on Beliefnet.com about the relevance of our Heavenly Mother, she was surprised at how frequently she was warned by faithful members that this was an inappropriate subject that shouldn’t be discussed. Why? Our Heavenly Mother exists yet we aren’t talking about Her.
This is why we wanted to compare and contrast the two articles, and especially the two Sunstone covers. For me personally, the first one by Leonardo da Vinci seems to convey a sense of loss. A sense of the unknown. You can’t see her face, not because it’s gone completely but because it’s unfinished. Yet, perhaps there is opportunity to fill in the space. Like Stephanie says, it displays an essence of fertility, and like Wilcox’s article, written right after the womens movement in the 70’s and the resurgence of interest in our Mother God, and as Peterson discussed, maybe it’s hopeful of the future.
When you compare that to the article and cover in 2004, Tuscano’s essay and corresponding cover done by artist Jeanette Atwood (see a reaction to it and her response here), you get a sense that something has changed in that time period. Tuscano mentions members taking their cues from Church leaders, and notes how little a Heavenly Mother has been discussed in recent Church publications. There’s the fear of Church discipline as well. Tuscano also mentions Gordon B. Hinckley’s address at a 1991 General Women’s Meeting and printed that year in the Ensign regarding how She exists but praying to Her would be inappropriate, with Tuscano noting, “While some regard the need for silence about a Heavenly Mother as reverence, absolute silence does not protect Her, it erases Her,” and, “the willingness of some members to expand the taboo about the Heavenly Mother indicates that they themselves have a say in authorizing theology.”
What of the second picture then? Her face is more clear, but still distorted and strained. Hard even. She looks like she’s fighting for a way out from what is boxing her in. What is restraining her? I’m afraid it’s our fault as members as much as anyone’s. But what about 2004 until now? Stephanieeeeeee and I both agree that while revelation remains as it ever did, knowledge is definitely increasing. The Internet continues to give us access to things we never thought possible. Is that a good or bad thing? That’s for us to decide as individuals.
Some questions to discuss:
Any thoughts on the hymn O My Father?
Compare and contrast the two pieces of art. What do each of them mean to you?
What would expanding our doctrine of deity to include a Mother in Heaven do to our status in the world? What would it do to how we interpret scripture? Do you believe that the Church is covering up, or down-grading so to speak, its knowledge of a Mother in Heaven to appear more mainstream to Protestant religions or could it be based on a fear of feminism?
The paradox then, as discussed by Peterson: Our theology provides for the concept of a male/female deity, yet our religious practices do not. She is, and is not. Why then if this principle was taught by Joseph Smith and acknowledged by church hierarchy up until recently, is our Mother in Heaven not a central part of our religious life and practices? Do you believe members are part of the problem or part of the solution?
Do you feel a personal connection to Her? Do you believe Her role was great is preparing the creation of the world, or is She purely a reproductive model to follow? Could there be more than one?
Does Her absence imply we, as women in the Church, remain on the periphery or in the background?
If we attempt to answer these questions, are we guilty of writing our own theology then?
What about 2004 until the present? Do you think attitudes are changing on this subject?
Next Wednesday (or Thursday, or Friday): The Historical Relationship of Mormon Women and Priesthood by Linda King Newell