LDS theology teaches us that we have a heavenly father and a heavenly mother. Although we know very little about Heavenly Father, we know even less about Heavenly Mother.

LDS theology teaches us that Heavenly Father is who we pray to, and it is to whom we assign all appearances of divinity to humans (even if there is no indication in scripture that the appearance was gendered).

Contrastingly, we are discouraged from praying to Heavenly Mother, the scriptures are mostly silent about her, and no president of the church has presented to the general church body a revelation on her: her nature, her role, her history, her interactions with humans. Nothing.

LDS theology also teaches us that Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are in a partnered relationship—some people label this “marriage”—and that they are the parents of the spirits that inhabit our mortal bodies.

These teachings inform our stances on gender roles, orientation, gender, and relationships.

Because the LDS church sees the divine relationship between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother as an ideal, they teach that the ideal mortal relationship is between a man and a woman, and they should have children. Any other relationship is unnatural and—to borrow LDS parlance—unordained.

Because there is inequality in their relationship—with Heavenly Father being in charge and Heavenly Mother being demure—we should have inequality in our relationships, with husbands presiding and wives nurturing.

Because Heavenly Father leads out in speaking to us, then men are assigned leadership qualities and roles. Because Heavenly Mother is quiet (or silenced, if you will) and reserved, women are assigned soft skills as qualities.

Because only two persons are in that relationship and are different sexes, the LDS church sees sex (and gender) as binary.

A few years ago, I began to feel pulled toward getting to know more about Heavenly Mother. I wanted to feel closer to her. And so, I began praying to her. Well, I sort of included her in the prayers I was already addressing to Heavenly Father. In reality, I prayed to both of them. Over time, I felt doing so allowed me to place both of them on equal footing, and I believe this allowed me to experience intense spiritual events that seemed connected to Heavenly Mother.

Recently, however, I have realized that even this action—while it might address the sexism in LDS theology, at least in part—does little to address the homophobia and transphobia. It still perpetuates ideas of gender and sex binary. And so I’ve spent some time in my morning and evening walks reflecting on the LDS concept of God.

I think the LDS church has something potentially powerful in the idea that there is more to the divine than just an old, bearded, white guy. Including a feminine personage in the divine could be liberating. Even the idea that we have a familial link to them could be empowering.

But it’s ruined by the perspective that they are two entirely and completely separate beings, especially when one has all the power and the other is in the shadows. Separate not only in person, but also in purpose and role.

This perspective leads us—even encourages us—to do the same thing in the church. We separate the masculine and feminine. Classes are segregated by sex. Roles are segregated by sex. Ordinances are segregated by sex. And our intense focus on idealizing the cisheteronormative portrayal of our heavenly parents forces out those among us who are not cis and who are not hetero.

I wonder, however, if we would be better served seeing God not as two beings as separate—both in person and in role—but as two beings united.

LDS theology teaches that the Godhead consists of three beings who are one in purpose. Perhaps, we can use a similar approach in our portrayal not just of the Godhead, but of, well, God.

We often synonymize “God” and “Heavenly Father”. We even do that with the name we have assigned to Heavenly Father. Although we assign “Elohim” to him, it is a name that is plural in nature.

But what if we reappropriate “God” to mean both Heavenly Father *and* Heavenly Mother? What if we see God as both male and female, both masculine and feminine? What if without one or the other, “God” is incomplete?

What if we have a heavenly father and a heavenly mother not as a pattern to dictate our approaches to sex, gender, and orientation? What if we have a heavenly father and a heavenly mother to remind us that none of us is purely masculine or purely feminine, neither just man nor just woman? What if viewing “God” as both masculine and feminine for it to be whole helps us to know that our unique combination of masculine and feminine is what makes us whole?

What if the song went, “I am a child of God, and they have sent me here”? What if the youth recited instead “We are children of our God, who love us, and we love them”? What if we embraced the idea that because the appearance of God to Moses, to Joseph Smith, to John the Baptist, or to the Nephites is never accompanied by gendered pronouns that perhaps it wasn’t always just Heavenly Father in those instances? What if we portrayed not just Heavenly Father in the temple film speaking to Adam and Eve, but the whole God?

If we can see God as both male and female, then it could help us see the futility in gendering roles and relationships. If each of us is both masculine and feminine (to whatever degree or combination), then none of us is entitled to lead or to be more spiritual or to parent or to baptize or to participate in any of the multitude of gendered activities and responsibilities. If each of us is both masculine and feminine, then trans members can no longer be seen as abnormal and burdened. If each of us is both masculine and feminine, then gay members can be welcomed as full participants in the religion, without threat of church courts and excommunication.

And maybe, just maybe, the sexism, homophobia, and transphobia so prevalent among Latter-day Saints would diminish.

Just yesterday I had an epiphany.

I asked myself the following question, or rather, the following question came to my mind; Why do I love Jesus Christ? (or anyone I love, for that matter). Why do I feel humble when thinking of Him, why do I get an overwhelming sense of gratitude and love when I think about Him? Is it because of anything I have done? Is it because I feel I deserve or should be loved by Him? No.

And why do I have a desire to be better and to do what He wants me to do? Why do I strive (with limited success) to be like Him? Why do I want to be like Him?

It is because He loves me. And I don’t just think this, it is something I know and feel and am aware of on a basic level. His love for me is apparent when I feel the spirit, when I think of His life, how He lived and behaved towards people He came in contact with. This is independent of His teachings to obey the commandments. His love for me is unconditional. Remember, this is independent of His teachings to be obedient and follow the commandments. Loving me does not mean He expects less of me or will let me off the hook.

So all these things I feel and want to be are inspired by His love for me. Not for anything in myself or that I have created. This is the love that He wants us to have for others. For our husbands and wives, our parents, our children, our friends, our other family members, our acquaintances, those we have conflict with, those who are not like us, those who offend us, those who hurt us, those we have no reason to like, those who do things that annoy us. Everyone. He wants us to actually have this love so that they feel this love and are saved by it.

I understand what this love is. It isn’t the doing, it is the state of heart and mind, of truly loving, so that in our demeanor, attitude and behaviour towards others, we radiate this love. This is why people flocked to Him, why children surrounded Him. They knew His love was genuine and constant, they basked in it and wanted it. When He came to the Americas, this is why the multitude didn’t want Him to leave. This is the Spirit which cannot help but be present in the face of such love. It is a love that grows and needs no effort, because it is. It is something that is possible to attain through a lifetime of learning and growth. He has this love for all. We can at least, have this love for those around us.

This is a love I can develop over time, independent of my expectations of others, that I can come to with His help. But this is the true concept of the love of Jesus Christ.

>A knowledge of the attributes and character of Deity is essential to an intelligent exercise of faith in Him.

I wonder if others agree with this. If so, I wonder which specific attributes or characteristics of God resulted in your faith.

My mind has been somewhat taken up with the news of the deaths of these poor baby girls in Saskatchewan, left to freeze and die in the cold snow, in -50 degree weather, this week. My heart breaks for them, for their loved ones, including the young father who left them (and again we don’t know all the details) because in spite of the mistakes he made, in taking them out without proper clothes, and leaving them, because he wasn’t aware of all he was doing, he is suffering for the choices he made. It looks as though something precipitated this, which caused a string of ill advised choices, fueled by alcohol and stress. I am not judging either, but just feeling pain for this family and these poor babies.The comfort is that I know Heavenly Father sent his angels to hold these innocents, to bring them home and maybe maybe to take away the suffering from the cold. Maybe the cold didn’t cause them too much physical anguish? I don’t know much of what freezing to death is like, and I don’t want to find out that they suffered excruciating pain, so young as they are. Children, especially the smallest ones need and are to be protected. So many children for many different reasons are not, and I know this hurts the Lord, I don’t question why He doesn’t always interfere, because He is wiser than I am.

What I feel, as a mother (and even just as a human being) is this urgency, to protect and save the suffering babies. Right now, this is the current one in my mind, these little girls who had little protection from the elements.

I am not thinking (as I know some are) that it is just more evidence of problems on the reserves. No, it is a human problem. The choices made by the father he will regret for the rest of his life. I cannot even begin to imagine the pain and sorrow he is experiencing, and their mother as well, that because of a fight, she was not there to watch over and keep her girls safe. The tragedy just transcends all blame at that end.

I do think there is some responsibility for a government that does not regulate the sale of alcohol better. Yes, this father (and so many other alcoholics) made his own choice to purchase and consume alcohol, but evidence shows that First Nations people are genetically more prevalent to substance addiction. The government makes too much money, though to not control the purchase of alcohol or the accessibility of it, better. Do they think of the victims of alcoholism? The innocents, who because of this freedom to drink yourself into a stupor, suffer, and sometimes pay, as in this case, with their lives.

See, children have a right to be protected, to be cared for. They cannot care for themselves. If a puppy or a kitten had been left out there, that animal may have had a better chance of survival. But if an adult is at risk, then how much more are a 3 year old and a baby barely over the age of a year unable to look after themselves? Especially in the debilitating cold.

But the government does not want to lose the revenue they gain through the suffering of others. Our governments (provincial and federal) who are supposed to do their best for the citizens make poor decisions that affect the lives and well being of those who do not choose to even participate in that. These little girls were not a part of the decision their father made to drink, nor a part of the decision to sell the alcohol, to create easy access to it’s sale, to make it in the first place. Adults, people who are supposed to have the intelligence to make responsible choices designed to promote the well being and safety of those they have stewardship over, were the ones who made the decision that resulted in the suffering and death of two little girls.

All I know is that a loving Saviour held them in His arms, this I know, brought them home and ended their suffering and kept them safe and I am sure, wept tears because of His great love, not only for them, but for all involved.

“How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.” (verse 10)

Alma said that he felt inspired not to intervene because they are automatically saved for their belief in God.

“The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.” (verse 11)

The last part of verse 11 was interesting. Another reason Alma gave for not intervening is that “the Lord . . . doth suffer that . . . the people [presumable the ones doing the killing] may do this thing unto them . . . that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just”.

So he’s not going to intervene in order that God could punish (exercise judgement upon) them? If Alma and Amulek had intervened and no one was killed, God wouldn’t have needed to punish them. Wouldn’t that have been better all around?