Finding the Goddess of Latter Day Saints: Removing the Feminine Mystique from Heavenly Mother

Phi Kappa Phi Annual Student Paper Competition Finding the Goddess of Latter-day Saints: Removing the Feminine Mystique from Heavenly Mother

Natalie Cherie Campbell Senior, 4th Year 208-404-0064 366 E 600 N #24 Provo, UT 84606 Professor Brandie Siegfried

1 I waz missing somethin somethin so important somethin promised a layin on of hands . . . the holiness of myself released . . .

I found god in myself & I loved her/i loved her fiercely —Ntozake Shange “A Laying on of Hands”1

What is God? Some assert that God is other; others assert that we are a reflection of God. Lorenzo Snow, a prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said, “As man now is, God once was; as God now is man may be.”2 This statement presents a problem to the traditional Christian concept of God. The problem that arises has two parts. First, God’s perfection could be potentially jeopardized if he had been as we are, fallen and limited. Second, we cannot be as God is because the Trinitarian God is not both man and woman, meaning women must be excluded from divinity to uphold the singularity of a male god. These tensions surrounding the potential of female spirituality have recently permeated the sphere of feminism, most obviously emerging in some feminists’ insistence that God must be a neutral being and other feminists’ religious shift towards the goddess in the 1970s. In addressing the goddess shift, Carol P. Christ says, “Is the spiritual dimension of feminism a passing diversion, an escape from difficult but necessary political work? Or does the emergence of the symbol of the Goddess among women have significant political and psychological ramifications for the feminist

1. Ntozake Shange, For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow Is Enuf (New York: Scribner Poetry, 1997), accessed January 22, 2015. (formatted as original).

2. The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1984): 1.

2 movement?”3 Indeed, the goddess is significant. Because religious views regarding women continually influence female societal function, the goddess has an incredible capacity to alter the female condition. Christ agrees saying, “The simplest and most basic meaning of the symbol of the Goddess is the acknowledgment of the legitimacy of female power as a beneficent and independent power.”4 Interestingly though, before feminists commented on the divine female gap, the goddess existed within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Professing the existence of multiple, gendered gods that are one in purpose, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints asserts a sophisticated deity structure that navigates both the divine female gap and the singular, masculine nature of the Trinity. Within LDS doctrine, God serves as a title for Heavenly Father, Heavenly Mother, and their son Jesus Christ. By having a distinct divine female, Latter-day Saints maintain that the divine nature and potential of both men and women is indisputable.

This is just one of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’s many unique doctrines. But, while the concept of heavenly parents is perhaps the most fundamental doctrine within LDS teachings, let alone revolutionary to Christian belief, it may also be the least discussed doctrine among LDS members. “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” which the Church published in 1995, states boldly that “All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and as such, each has a divine nature and destiny.”5 This statement gives centrality to the family structure within our eternal progression, known as the Plan of Happiness. It also provides the reality of an 3. Carol P. Christ, “Why Women Need the Goddess,” Ariadne Institute, accessed January, 21, 2015, http://www.goddessariadne.org/#!why-women-need-the-goddess-part-1/cufo.

4. Christ, “Why Women Need the Goddess.”

5. “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign 25, no. 11 (1995): 102 (emphasis added).

3 eternal purpose for men and women, and the actuality of loving divine parents who take interest in our lives. Yet, even with such bold statements in place, Heavenly Mother is not often spoken of. Although she is a key and unique element in LDS doctrine, many members insist on veiling her in silence. Paulsen and Pulido, in researching LDS doctrine on Heavenly Mother, comment that “some within Mormon culture who see discussion of our Heavenly Mother as inappropriate believe that respecting her sacredness requires silence, as if to speak of her is to risk offending God.”6 This attitude has only resulted in awkwardness surrounding Heavenly Mother instead of reverence, and shame at our curiosity instead of excitement at learning about the other half of God. Betty Friedan, a feminist writer in the 60s who addressed what she referred to as the Feminine Mystique—or the prescribed notion that a woman’s femininity and ordained roles were limited to and fulfilled by wife, mother, and housewife—made many statements that illuminate the LDS problem of sacred silence and its implications for women. More particularly, Friedan illustrates women’s unique struggle: “We did not want to be like them, and yet what other model did we have.”7 Here Friedan relates to women who, having seen only their dissatisfied mothers, fear a future that seems to offer no alternatives to the inevitably unfulfilling road ahead.

Fortunately, Latter-day Saint doctrine offers women the model of a divine woman, who stands equal to a divine man, giving us an understanding capable of altering the female condition in society and reimagining female potential in eternity, regardless of our current situation. Heavenly Mother can be a perfect model of womanhood and female potential for all women. But Heavenly 6. David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido, “A Mother There: A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven,” BYU Studies 50, no. 1 (2011): 73.

7. Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 2001), 130.

4 Mother’s influence is undermined when patchwork explanations for the status quo are disseminated through the LDS people, allowing the Feminine Mystique to color our spiritual understanding and hinder the progress of healthier paradigms. We, as the LDS people, must realize that our hesitant ignorance has been increasingly thrown up by ourselves, so that now the silent struggle is felt among most LDS women and the countless other women who, because of our silence, will never learn of a solution. Thus, we all stand together and “suddenly realize [we] all share the same problem, the problem that has no name.”8 It is the problem that exists when we stand alone in an empty room—not in relation to anyone else, no roles, no titles, no expectations—and ask ourselves in a whisper “who am I?” all the while fearing that we truly don’t know the answer.

Our problem with no name—who am I?—is the problem that LDS women face in a uniquely spiritual facet when we ask, “Who is she?” It is the fear many secretly experience when wondering if we want to eternally occupy the silent and distant corner where we have placed Heavenly Mother. But we forget that we create the Feminist Mystique; we ourselves place Heavenly Mother on that unreachable pedestal. Lack of further revelation on Heavenly Mother offers no excuse for this shaming silence; rather, any lack should guide us to ask more questions and study out more truth, in both a temporal and eternal sphere. In coming to know our Heavenly Mother, I offer a two-pronged approach. By looking to ancient theological history we will find forgotten names and symbols that, whether synonymous or similar to our divine Mother, can influence our understanding of her potential roles and presence, just as it did for Abraham, the mystic Jews, and Nephi. And by looking to current LDS doctrine we can find definitive mentions of Heavenly Mother’s continual influence in our lives as the wife of God and our Mother, and as a divine individual who takes an active role in the workings of eternity. Heavenly Mother is a 8. Ibid., 63.

5 stunning goddess, capable of filling the divine female gap if we let her. And as we come to understand her, we will find that the Feminist Mystique need not invade our eternity.

Beginning with theological history is important because, as Friedan points out, “Education itself can help provide that new image [of Heavenly Mother]—and the spark in girls to create their own—.”9 Thus, educating ourselves on LDS historical theology—specifically of the ancient Israelites, Mystic Jews, and New World Jews (as detailed in The Book of Mormon)— can offer insights into the qualities of a divine female influence that we may not have previously recognized or, if recognized, allowed into our understanding of Heavenly Mother. We start with her forgotten names. Both Abraham, the father of the Israelites, and Nephi, a New World Jew, knew of Asherah, who was also known as Wisdom and the Queen of Heaven. Asherah was a part of Ancient Israel’s divine family as wife of El and mother of Jehovah, a divine family familiar to Abraham because they originally belonged to the Canaanite pantheon.10 But, Asherah’s presence in the Israelite pantheon did not last long. Unfortunately, as Peterson explains, “By the time of Israel’s Babylonian exile . . . opposition to Asherah was universal in Judaism. Thus around 600 BC, Asherah was basically eliminated from the history of Israel and subsequent Judaism by Deuteronomist priests who censored her name from the Bible.”11 Thus, the goddess of the Bible is rendered nonexistent, and female spiritual potential is drastically diminished. But fortunately,

9. Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 501.

10. Daniel C. Peterson, “Nephi and His Asherah,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9, no.

2 (2000): 18. “The cultural and religious distance between Canaanites and Israelites was considerable smaller than Bible scholars one thought. (Michael D. Coogan says it clearly: ‘Israelite religion [was] a subset of Canaanite religion.’) The god El was the patriarch of the Canaanite pantheon.”

11. Ibid., 20. Asherah was removed from the temples during the “reforms of King Josiah, who reigned from roughly 639 to 609 BC.”

6 “hints of the goddess remain,”12 and though Asherah’s name is no longer in our scripture, one of the ways she remains is through the name Wisdom.

The persona of Wisdom can be found in the Songs of Solomon and Proverbs, as well as in other books of scripture. Margaret Barker quotes Ben Sira, an ancient religious writer, in detailing Wisdom and by extension Asherah: “She stood in the heavenly assembly, she was present at the creation, she was enthroned on a high pillar of cloud, she was allotted Israel as her inheritance, she served God Most High in the temple on Zion . . . .”13 Ben Sira finishes by saying, “She was, then, among other things, the morning sun, a royal angel priest figure, and the patroness of Zion.”14 In Ben Sira’s text and others, we can access descriptions of Wisdom and Heavenly Mother through the potential parallels that exist between them. We also see that Wisdom’s roles are incredibly extensive in ways that would expand our understanding of Heavenly Mother. For example, Ben Sira’s description mentions divine assemblies, creation, and inheritances in Israel which are all more expansive than the traditional female roles allowed by the Feminine Mystique, making the goddess a natural defense against religious-based sexism.

Even so, the habitual limitation placed upon female deity glares in sharp contrast to the expansive nature granted to male deity. When thinking of the 1950’s suburban household, we immediately know where the men and women are found. The wife as the immaculate homemaker and diligent parent immediately comes to mind. Next to her sits, with paper in hand, the husband who has been taught to be an emotionally-uninvolved father; his place is in the workforce. Living through this paradigm, Friedan saw the lopsided nature of things.

12. Peterson, “Nephi and His Asherah,” 20.

13. Margaret Barker, “Wisdom: The Queen of Heaven,” Scottish Journal of Theology 55, no.

2 (2002): qtd. Ben Sira, 145.

14. Ibid.

7 Unfortunately, within the LDS context, these ideas still cling to Heavenly Mother but interestingly not Heavenly Father. Sharply contrasting the uninvolved father which stereotypes manhood, Heavenly Father is defined and glorified by his fatherhood. In allowing our paradigms of Godhood to expand Heavenly Father’s prescribed capabilities as a father, it is unsettling to see that the same allowance does not belong to Heavenly Mother. If Heavenly Father can maintain the divine work and be a father, can Heavenly Mother not also be a mother and help with the divine work? With this in mind, might I suggest that in a realm of divinity wife and mother, though glorified, are relational terms by which we understand the aspects of her that relate to us.

It is clear from Heavenly Mother’s descriptions that she engages in a large variety of capacities, and can thus be our model for motherhood and wifehood, and also unqualified womanhood, all of which may be much more divinely expansive opportunities than we currently believe them to be.

More details regarding her expansion of roles are found in Jewish mysticism where we come to know more about the names that characterize the forgotten qualities of the divine. In the Kabbalah, the sefirot (or aspects of divine energy) are sometimes called The Tree of Life, which is a diagram ordered into three columns known as pillars. According to Theresa Ibis, the right side is the Pillar of Force, or Masculine energy and deals with expansion, energy, and movement, whereas the left is the Pillar of Form, or Feminine energy which deals with receptivity, containment, and discipline.15 The beauty of the Tree of Life diagram though, resides in the middle column. As Ibis explains, “The Pillar of Balance mediates between the two polar energies and is ultimately what is needed to bring about the Union of Masculine and Feminine.”16 As 15. Theresa Ibis, “Shekinah: The Feminine Presence of God,” Alchemy Journal Feminine Face of Alchemy, http://www.universalkabbalah.net/Shekinah.

16. Ibid.

8 Judaism became monotheistic, this understanding may have simplified God to only the middle pillar, allowing Jehovah as a symbol of the balance of male and female divinity to subsume El and Asherah, leaving the heavenly parents as disembodied qualities that comprise the forgotten right and left pillars. But, when comparing all three pillars, the middle pillar can also represent the unity of the male and female divine, who work together much more closely than we typically portray. Indeed, with an LDS understanding of Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father being distinct personages, the danger is not that the goddess in nonexistent but that many members may limit the ways they understand Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother to be unified, simply deciding that Heavenly Mother, if not named, is not involved.

Having found forgotten names of feminine deities such as Asherah, Wisdom, and the Pillar of Form, we begin to recognize equally enlightening information embedded in their accompanying symbols. For example, in relation to the symbols that were associated with Asherah or Wisdom, Ben Sira lists these: “[She was] a huge fragrant tree, she was the anointing oil kept specially for the high priests . . . she was compared to the rivers flowing from Eden to water the earth, and her teaching was like the light of the dawn.”17 Of these four symbols, two symbols (the light of dawn and rivers) are comparisons, whereas the anointing oil and the tree are both metaphors, offering us stronger insight into Asherah’s being. Goddesses have traditionally been associated with healing which makes Wisdom or Asherah’s correlation with the anointing oil very illuminating. Within the LDS church the anointing oil is used in blessings of healing, consisting of an anointing and a sealing. Because healing was originally within the realm of the goddess, this two-part blessing of healing has the potential to be a beautiful example of the divine partnership of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, who work together to heal us 17. Barker, “Wisdom: The Queen of Heaven,” 145.

9 both physically and spiritually. Jesus Christ who is the perfect representation of the union of our heavenly parents is also represented in this blessing of healing by healing us through the atonement. Such understanding of past symbols highlights the fact that Heavenly Mother has perhaps always been present and involved in the workings of God, whether we explicitly recognize that presence or not.

Along with healing, Goddesses have also been traditionally associated with fertility, which is addressed by the second symbol—the tree—and is brought to full light when we consult Nephi’s experience with the Tree of Life vision in The Book of Mormon. Returning to Asherah before she was expunged from the temple and censored out of scripture, Peterson provides connections between her Israelite roles and their symbolic implications for Nephi, by first noting that Nephi most likely knew of Asherah and her accompanying symbols. This is likely because “an image or symbol of Asherah stood in Solomon’s temple at Jerusalem for nearly two-thirds of its existence, certainly extending into the lifetime of Lehi and perhaps even into the lifetime of his son Nephi.”18 With this context, we turn to the curious way that Nephi comes to know that the Tree of Life represents the “love of god.”19 Entering his vision, Nephi converses with the Spirit, and upon seeing the tree desires “to know the interpretation thereof.”20 Peterson points out that the Spirit’s response is unexpected, since the Spirit shows Nephi Jerusalem, then Nazareth, and finally a virgin. Upon confirming that Nephi has seen the virgin, an angel asks “Knowest thou the condescension of God?” to which Nephi responds, “I know that he loveth his children; 18. Peterson, “Nephi and His Asherah,” 20.

19. The Book of Mormon, trans. Joseph Smith Jr. (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981), 1 Nephi 11:22.

20. Ibid., 1 Nephi 11:11.

10 nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.”21 The angel then clarifies the image of the virgin by explaining that she is the “mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh,”22 at which point Nephi sees her holding the Son of God. This image constitutes Nephi’s answer because even though the vision of the virgin Mary and baby Jesus seems irrelevant, Nephi understands, saying the tree “is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore it is the most desirable above all things.”23 But what facilitated Nephi’s sudden comprehension? Peterson hypothesizes, “Clearly, the answer to his question about the meaning of the tree lies in the virgin mother with her child. It seems, in fact, that the virgin is the tree in some sense . . . Significantly, though, it was only when she appeared with a baby and was identified as “the mother of the Son of God” that Nephi grasped the tree’s meaning.”24 It is very plausible that Nephi was able to comprehend the symbols and connections between the Virgin Mother of the Son of God and the Tree of Life because the Israelites had considered Asherah synonymous with the sacred tree. The Tree of Life was her main cult symbol, and “interestingly, it appears that Asherah, ‘the mother goddess par excellence,’ may also, paradoxically, have been considered a virgin.”25 Knowing the symbols of Jehovah’s divine 21. Ibid., 1 Nephi 11:16 22. Ibid., 1 Nephi 11:18 23. Ibid., 1 Nephi 11:22 24. Peterson, “Nephi and His Asherah,” 16-18.

25. Peterson, “Nephi and His Asherah,” 22. “Raphael Patai has called attention to the parallels between Jewish devotion to various female deities and quasi-deities over the centures, commencing with Asherah, and popular Catholic vereration of Mary, the mother of Jesus. . . .

[Similarly,] the Punic western goddess Tannit, whom Saul Olyan has identified with IsraeliteCanaanite Asherah, the consort of El, the mother and wet nurse to the gods, was [also] depicted as a virgin and symbolized by a tree.”

11 mother, it seems fairly clear why Nephi would have made a symbolic connection in relation to Jehovah’s earthly mother as a typification of her divine model. This provides interesting implications in regard to the LDS understanding of the tree of life. Drawing a parallel between Asherah and Heavenly Mother, we can assert that the tree itself is Heavenly Mother, which bears fruit: the Son of God. In this way, the interpretation in 1 Nephi 11:22 of the tree being “the love of God,” gains new dimension. The love of God can now encompass Heavenly Father’s love for Heavenly Mother, his wife; Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father’s love for their Son Jesus Christ; and our heavenly parents and Jesus Christ’s love for us. This also changes our salvific goals since our journey to the tree includes tasting the fruit, the Savior’s atoning sacrifice, as a means of obtaining eternal life in our heavenly parents’ presence.

Understanding and accepting the expansive capacity of the divine woman, whether through names, symbols, or other means, is crucial in understanding our own identity. In addressing identity, Friedan’s comments, when applied to Heavenly Mother, show why this necessity exists. She begins, “It is my thesis that the core of the problem for women today is . . . a problem of identity.”26 Friedan quotes psychoanalyst Erik H. Erikson, who explains that identity crisis occurs when a youth must create their own “central perspective and direction . . . out of the effective remnants of his childhood and the hopes of his anticipated adulthood,” which then requires finding a connection between who he believes he is, and who other expect him to be.27 Similarly, we each have to decide our eternal direction and determine what we are supposed to be in that sphere. But, as Friedan points out, “why have theorists not recognized this same

26. Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 133.

27. Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 134 (emphasis added).

12 identity crisis in women?”28 Both men and women face moments of identity crisis, especially when placed in a spiritual context. This is why it is crucial for women and men to have access to an understanding of God in both the individual persons of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother and their unified aspect as a couple. Once we know that spiritual progression is possible and modeled by both male and female deity, we must decide to act based on their example. Yet, it is not enough to simply allow men to know and emulate Heavenly Father and women to know and emulate Heavenly Mother. Therefore, though they are our direct models, our heavenly parents sent Jesus Christ as a perfect model of our heavenly parents’ combined qualities. Exhibiting the perfect union of both feminine and masculine godliness, much like the Middle Pillar of Balance in the Kabbalah, Jesus Christ shows us that by becoming like him, equally like Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, we achieve a fuller identity. Therefore, both men and women lack an aspect of their identity when they neglect their relationship with either Heavenly Father or Heavenly Mother.

Much like the spiritual gaps in our identities, the goddess of different historical and religious moments has undergone a significant loss of identity as we have forgotten who she is, her influence, and most often her very existence. In result, we often hear names and see symbols that we do not equate with the goddess. It is the same with Heavenly Mother among LDS members. Many LDS members talk of her in hushed tones or avoid the topic altogether because we lack information or believe we are protecting her from slander. This, as Friedan points out, is our trap of lost identity. She says, “The chains that bind her in her trap are chains in [our] own mind and spirit. They are chains made up of mistaken ideas and misinterpreted facts, of incomplete truths and unreal choices. They are not easily seen and not easily shaken off.”29 LDS 28. Ibid., 135.

29. Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 77.

13 scholars David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido have noticed this problem and in response, compiled as many mentions of Heavenly Mother by LDS authorities as possible, in an effort to counter “perceptions among the LDS community that Heavenly Mother deserves, or requires, a ‘sacred’ censorship.”30 This sacred censorship is alarming in that it stops us from sharing her reality, shames those seeking truth, and stunts our personal relationships with our heavenly parents from forming and helping us shape our own divine identities; sacred censorship functions as the LDS Feminine Mystique. Friedan tells a chilling truth: “A mystique does not compel its own acceptance. For the feminine mystique to have “brainwashed” [LDS members] . . . it must have filled real needs in those who seized on it for others and those who accepted it for themselves.”31 Thus, having explicated the parallels of an ancient Heavenly Mother and how her identity may influence our own, we turn to the current doctrine regarding Heavenly Mother from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in hopes of uncovering not only who she is and how that knowledge may influence us, but why we have accepted the Feminine Mystique and projected it onto our perceptions of her.

In Paulsen and Pulido’s article “A Mother There” they found several different functioning categories for Heavenly Mother, granting her a more solid identity, and granting us a more solid understanding of her unity with God the Father and her individuality as God the Mother. They begin by discussing mentions of Heavenly Mother’s roles as a divine wife and mother. Perhaps one of the most famous mentions of Heavenly Mother as a wife and mother is in Eliza R. Snow’s lyrics in “Oh My Father,” originally titled “Invocation, or The Eternal Father and Mother.” The phrase “In the heav’ns are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare!

30. Paulsen and Pulido, “A Mother There,” 75.

31. Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 268.

14 / Truth is reason—truth eternal / Tells me I’ve a mother there”32 blatantly states that Heavenly Mother is a wife and our divine mother. President George Q. Cannon also explicitly details her position as wife stating, “God is a married being, has a wife. . . . We are the offspring of Him and His wife.”33 The title “Heavenly Mother” itself sheds light on the roles with which most LDS members are most comfortable: a wife and mother. In regards to our heavenly parents as a wife and husband, we know very little of their relationship other than their equality because “in marriage, neither is superior.”34 On her motherhood, Paulsen mentions a concept taught by Orson F. Whitney who, of our mother in premortal life, said, “In the development of our characters, our Heavenly Mother was perhaps particularly nurturing.”35 But, as Paulsen explains, “Mormon leaders have affirmed that Heavenly Mother’s involvement did not completely end with premortality, but continues throughout our second estate.”36 Elder John A. Widtsoe offered us hope of coming to form relationships with both Heavenly Father and Mother by attending LDS temples, which “will help us understand the nearness of our heavenly parents.” 37 But, just as Heavenly Mother’s role extends into our mortal existence, it also includes our future existence in eternity, at which point we will “vividly recall our former life with them”38 And Paulsen

32. Paulsen and Pulido, “A Mother There,” 71.

33. Ibid., 77.

34. James E. Faust, “Keeping Covenants and Honoring the Priesthood,” Ensign 23, no. 11 (1993): 38.

35. Paulsen and Pulido, “A Mother There,” 76.

36. Ibid., 82.

37. Ibid., 83.

38. Paulsen and Pulido, “A Mother There,” qtd. George Q. Cannon, 84.

15 concludes that “the loving support and example of both Father and Mother will guide us in the eternities.”39 Thus we must ask ourselves what in Heavenly Mother’s role as wife and mother requires sacred silence, invites the Feminine Mystique, or makes so many LDS members uncomfortable: perhaps nothing. But, perhaps the fact that a facet of her divine capacity labels her entire identity begs discomfort. Perhaps she seems neglectful, since she is the mother and should be—according to traditional gender roles—more present and nurturing than our Heavenly Father. But even with these discomforts, many members are comfortable with her role as wife and mother because it fits common understanding of womanhood as wifehood and motherhood. But while these are important aspects of womanhood, as defined by LDS doctrine, our comfort with them should not cause discomfort with every other divine role. It is the Feminine Mystique—the limiting factor that cages women into a prescribed role that excludes all other capacities—that insists that wifehood and motherhood are women’s sole roles and capacities, rendering such roles negative limitations instead of beautiful gifts and opportunities.

Understanding Heavenly Mother as a divine individual causes the most discomfort, though LDS doctrine on Heavenly Mother’s individuality is unparalleled. Elder Orson F. Whitney said, “there was a time when . . . our eternal Father and Mother were once man and woman in mortality.”40 We also know that she “possesses the attributes of Godhood,”41 and that as a divine being “side by side with the divine Father, she has the equal sharing of equal rights, privileges and responsibilities.”42 Thus far, though LDS doctrine is vague in some places, we 39. Ibid., 85.

40. Ibid., 77.

41. Ibid., qtd. Widstoe, 78.

42. Paulsen and Pulido, “Á Mother There,” qtd. Susa Young Gates, 78.

16 have near at hand a divine woman who is exalted, empathetic from her journey toward godhood, nurturing, concerned for our well-being, and powerful in her sphere and in conjunction with her divine spouse, God the Father. She is also shown to have taken an active role, like Heavenly Father, in designing the Plan of Salvation,43 and the creation.44 But even so, we are torn in our desire to reach for our mother, a beautiful bust teetering on its divine pedestal, which remains too distant to see its contours and too fragile to bring nearer. Is this Heavenly Mother? Even if it is not, such a pathetic avatar leads us to shun discussion on Heavenly Mother’s individuality, instead condensing her entirety as a woman into a mother and then a wife, so we need not fear harming her by not growing curious.

Friedan speaks of this tendency to simplify individuals by their roles, by referencing Henrik Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House.” In a parting conversation, Nora’s “shocked husband [Torvald] reminds Nora that woman’s ‘most sacred duties’ are her duties to her husband and children.

‘Before all else, you are a wife and mother,’ he says.”45 While members of the LDS Church agree that a woman’s sacred duties include being a wife and mother, it is possible to overlook a crucial issue with Torvald’s view, that “before all else, you are a wife and mother.”46 Nora expresses the problem with this assertion saying, “I believe that before all else I am a reasonable human being.”47 First and foremost we too are all individuals, including Heavenly Mother. We

43. Ibid., qtd. Ballard, 80-81.

44. Ibid., qtd. Brigham Young, 80.

45. Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 141.

46. Ibid., (emphasis added).

47. Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 141.

17 know this, yet “the trouble is, when need is strong enough, intuition can also lie.”48 So in favor of understanding Heavenly Mother, and even Heavenly Father, simply and safely, we ignore our desire to know them in their true complexity, and the problem with no name begins. In the words of Friedan, when faced with the Feminine Mystique, “sometimes a woman would say “I feel empty somehow . . . incomplete.” Or she would say, “I feel as if I don’t exist.”49 So it is not surprising that upon applying the Feminine Mystique to Heavenly Mother we too feel she is incomplete, simplified, reduced, or practically nonexistent.

Unfortunately, many of us have latched onto a limiting understanding of gender roles, so that now Friedan’s Feminine Mystique transfers too well to our perceptions of Heavenly Mother and by extension Heavenly Father. In determining our spiritual reality and identity from “mistaken ideas and misinterpreted facts, of incomplete truths and unreal choices,”50 many of us trap ourselves in a false understanding we refuse to adapt. Yet, within LDS doctrine a provision for such circumstance is made: continuing revelation. Friedan says it this way: “How can any woman see the whole truth within the bounds of her own life?”51 It’s a true conundrum.

Similarly, the LDS church acknowledges that understanding can always deepen, but remain assured that Jesus Christ and our heavenly parents still guide us, leading us to knowledge that can be circumscribed into a complete whole. But even with this provision for growth and improvement, we often neglect our ability to access continuing revelation by failing to study out and take advantage of the knowledge and revelation we already have. Therefore, if any want to know of Heavenly Mother and her implications as a goddess, they must seek truth from available 48. Ibid., 268.

49. Ibid., 274-275.

50. Ibid., 77.

51. Ibid.

18 sources such as theological history, calling up forgotten names and symbols of the female divine as reflections of our Heavenly Mother. They must also learn of and ponder current LDS revelation. Such a search can yield segments of truth, enrich our understanding, and open our minds to the further mysteries of God. None should be silent or ashamed of such a pursuit.

Of course, “as Latter-day Saints should be deeply reverent when speaking about any sacred subject, Church leaders may well caution an individual to be respectful of and to avoid teaching unorthodox views about Heavenly Mother.”52 But this warning should lead us to discernment and tact, not fear and avoidance. Paulsen clarifies saying, “We have found no public record of a General Authority advising us to be silent about our Heavenly Mother; indeed, as we have amply demonstrated, many General authorities have openly taught about her.”53 And we must begin to learn of her, or we will never rid ourselves of the Feminine Mystique we unrecognizingly project onto Heavenly Mother.

As we, men and women, allow ourselves to come to know both Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father, we will find solace in our heavenly parents’ love for each other and for us. We, as women, will strengthen our knowledge of our divine identity and look forward to an eternal sphere without reservation, for we know our heavenly parents are both happy, and that we too can be happy there. As Friedan said, “When their mothers’ fulfillment makes girls sure they want to be women, they will not have to “beat themselves down” to be feminine; they can stretch and stretch until their own efforts will tell them who they are. . . . And this may be the next step in human evolution,54 for the last and most important battle can be fought in the mind and spirit of 52. Paulsen and Pulido, “A Mother There,” 85.

53. Ibid.

54. Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 512.

19 woman herself.”55 We need only look to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to see a divine women, working in tandem with a divine man, to change our perception of female potential. Within the Church, we need only remove the Feminine Mystique from our perception of Heavenly Mother to drastically change how we view our place in eternity. As Friedan declares, “Who knows what women can be when they are finally free to become themselves? . . .

It has barely begun, the search of women for themselves. But the time is at hand when the voices of the Feminine Mystique can no longer drown out the inner voice that is driving women on to become complete.”56 We must find Heavenly Mother wherever we can, whether by recognizing a line of representation (such as Jesus Christ, who is paralleled with the Father, who is unified with the Mother), by studying forgotten names and symbols, or by expanding our minds to understands current LDS revelation. As we do so, we will understand the nature of our heavenly parents and their nearness which we had not recognized before. Elder Glenn L. Pace said “Sisters, I testify that when you stand in front of your heavenly parents in those royal courts on high and you look into Her eyes and behold Her countenance, any question you ever had about the role of women in the kingdom will evaporate into the rich celestial air, because at that moment you will see standing directly in front of you, your divine nature and destiny.”57 In that moment, our Goddess will radiate in a beautiful reality. In that moment, we will see god in ourselves and love them fiercely.58 In that moment, we will know her, and we need never be ashamed again.

55. Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 501.

56. Ibid., 512.

57. Peterson and Pulido, “A Mother There,” qtd. Glenn L. Pace, 85.

58. Shange, For Colored Girls, (words adapted from “A Laying on of Hands”).

20 Bibliography Barker, Margaret. “Wisdom: the Queen of Heaven.” Scottish Journal of Theology 55, no. 2 (2002): 141-159.

Christ, Carol P. “Why Women Need the Goddess.” Ariadne Institute. http://www.goddessariadne.org/#!why-women-need-the-goddess-part-1/cufo.

Faust, James E. “Keeping Covenants and Honoring the Priesthood.” Ensign 23, no. 11 (1993): 38–39.

Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2001.

Green, Arthur. “Shekhinah, the Virgin Mary, and the Song of Songs: Reflections on a Kabbalistic Symbol in Its Historical Context.” AJS Review 26, no. 1 (2002): 1-52.

Ibis, Theresa. “Shekinah: The Feminine Presence of God.” Alchemy Journal Feminine Face of Alchemy. http://www.universalkabbalah.net/Shekinah.

Paulsen, David L. and Martin Pulido. “A Mother There: A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven.” BYU Studies 50, no. 1 (2011): 71-97.

Peterson, Daniel C. “Nephi and His Asherah.” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9, no. 2 (2000): 16-25, 80-81.

Shange, Ntozake. For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow Is Enuf.

New York: Scribner Poetry, 1997. Accessed January 22, 2015.

The Book of Mormon. Translated by Joseph Smith Jr. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981.

“The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” Ensign 25, no. 11 (1995): 102.