Missing in Theme
Proving again our oddity, Mormons proudly proclaim an acknowledged—but sparse—doctrine of Heavenly Mother. While the thought of a Heavenly Father without a corollary Heavenly Mother “makes reasons stare,” we spend most of our church lives behaving as if she isn't there. And if she is there, well, she's auxiliary.
Even the Young Women theme—the Young Women theme!—ignores her entirely.
We are daughters of our Heavenly Father, who loves us, and we love Him…
All true, but of all church programs, isn't Young Women one place where we could—and should—explicitly acknowledge that we are also daughters of a Heavenly Mother, that she loves us, that she was a co-creator of our spirits, that we are created in her image?
Missing in Conference
In General Conference there are ample opportunities to mention her specifically. Most of the time, however, our leaders shy away. The old wives' tale about Mother in Heaven being “too sacred” to be mentioned is false. So why do we do this time and again?
Counselor Carole M. Stephens mentioned “heavenly parents” twice. President Linda K. Burton use the collective term once. Neither specially referenced Heavenly Mother.
President Dieter F. Uchtdorf twice also said “heavenly parents” and once “eternal parents,” but each time he immediately reverted to speaking only of God the Father.
Pondering this truth—that we are children of heavenly parents—fills us with a sense of origin, purpose, and destiny.
It is good to remember that you are always a child of God.
However, it is also important to remember that being a daughter of eternal parents is not a distinction you earned or you will ever lose. You will always and forever remain a daughter of God. Your Heavenly Father…
You are dear to your heavenly parents.
The infinite and eternal Creator of light and life knows you! He is mindful of you.
The first of Uchtdorf's references to “heavenly parents” was footnoted with a quote from Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith:
God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. President Joseph F. Smith taught that “man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body.”
If our spirits were literally born of “heavenly parents,” then is Heavenly Mother not also our “Creator”? Are not “all men and women literally the sons and daughters” of Heavenly Mother as well? I cannot imagine another reading of this statement, but we seem to believe explicitly stating it would be heresy. Why?
Missing in Creation
The Family: A Proclamation to the World states:
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. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
If “gender is an essential [eternal] characteristic” for each of us, doesn't it stand to reason that the God whose image women are created in is actually Heavenly Mother's rather than Heavenly Father's?
Lest you think I'm on the edge here, all my positions have been made by latter-day apostles and prophets as well. We just seem to have forgotten them.
Not So Missing in Art
The one venue in which Mormons seem to comfortable acknowledging Heavenly Mother is in art. With Eliza R. Snow setting the precedent with O My Father, this method of expression has sticking power.
Recently I just became aware of a beautiful song written by Julie de Azevedo Hanks expressing a longing to know our Mother in Heaven, it is titled “Mother, Where Art Thou?” She is currently in the process of seeking donations to produce her new collection with this beautiful song included!
Please consider donating to make this a reality. With only a $20 donation, you will receive a download of the EP album!
Perhaps it is time to ask for more light and knowledge.
“A Mother There”: A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven by David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido and published by BYU Studies, is now available for free download here. Please read!
If you need prodding, this quote from the paper should suffice:
In this paper, we will share important historical accounts that cast serious doubt on the specific claims that, first, a sacred silence has always surrounded this treasured Mormon doctrine and that, second, Heavenly Mother’s ascribed roles have been marginalized or trivialized. With respect to the second claim, we will share historical portrayals of Heavenly Mother as procreator and parent, as a divine person, as co-creator of worlds, as coframer of the plan of salvation with the Father, and as a concerned and loving parent involved in our mortal probation. Finally, we will sketch portrayals of her role in the eschaton.
When I first stumbled on the Paulson/Pulido article several years ago, it happened to be around Mothers Day. So, for Mutual, I had the Priests gather up, and we invited mothers to come, and we reviewed the article together. We covered what we could in 45 minutes, but I think it was illuminating for the young men as well as their mothers.
Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Paid Menopause Leave – Because I Deserve It
In this day of politically-correct expression, it is easy to see why so many obsess needlessly and endlessly about such questions.
Of course, before we were inundated by feminist propaganda, it was fairly academic to understand that any reference to “Father” was implicit and unstated reference to “Mother’. To state the obvious was not necessary. The very thought of one without the other still “makes reason stare”.
Jim Cobabe recently posted…Bees won’t sting idiots
Jim, why is explicitly stating something that is, apparently, so obvious to all so offensive to you? Why does stating something that everyone, apparently, already knows such that you’d label it “feminist propaganda”?
But since you know all these things that I missed all 50 years, can you fill me in on, for example, what part Heavenly Mother played in the creation? She’s not in the temple film, but I guess I missed the implicit references you picked up. (Probably due to your clear thinking and wisdom.)
And now, I suggest that next Sunday you give a prayer in church (any meeting will do) and say, “Dear Father and Mother in Heaven…” Shouldn’t be a problem since the mother part is implied anyway, right?
Let me know how that works out for you.
And just as a head’s up, most women under 60 (and probably most over 60) actually like being called by their own name nowadays, rather than as Mrs. Jim Cobabe. Yes, I know Ms. Jane Cobabe is implied in that address, but we’re OK being ourselves now instead of just an…auxiliary. In fact, we kind of like it. (Feminist propaganda and all that.)
P.S. I suggest, sincerely, that you read Women at Church by Neylan McBaine. I’ve know you (virtually) long enough to think that you may not be able to understand it, but I hope you could.
Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Lifestyle Hacks: Increased Productivity With Personalized Routines
Most of my life I have felt the only reasonable explanations for the black priesthood ban where either
#1 Brigham Young made a big blunder because he was racist
#2 The people in the church were mostly too racist to deal fairly with blacks
Often I’ve thought how sad it is that God allowed a bunch of racist bigots to keep blacks from having the priesthood and going to the temple instead of just striking them down and getting some decent people. Maybe there weren’t enough decent people.
So I read comment like Jim Cobab’s and I see it all over again. He is so completely unwilling to step out of his own fat-headed shoes to even see what other people experience, to even imagine he might not understand everything, or to ponder how we could help some people with expanded knowledge that I see, all over again, a church held back by close-minded, bigoted people.
Jim you need to do some research and see what kind of DISCIPLINE was imposed on people who claimed Heavenly Mother actually was implied in reference to God the Father. You are clueless.
Margie, well said.
It’s just odd to me that someone who claims to think Heavenly Mother is already there would be bothered by the suggestion to just say it out loud. It’s as if the essential thing is to make sure you just keep her implied. (And that in itself isn’t supposed to be meaningful…)
Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Remembering Robes
That paper, A Mother There, isn’t very new.
No, it’s not. But when I got it, I had to pay for it. 🙂 It’s free now. Download!!!
Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Emotional Labor – The Injustice of It All
It is not obsessing needlessly to think about this or want to know more about our Mother!
It is absolutely NOT obvious to everyone that if you say ‘Father’ you mean ‘Mother’ as well. I admit, I was born in 1980, likely after your deadline for “feminist propaganda,” but I can’t even fathom how anyone from any generation could think that. Assuming that “Father” means “Father and Mother” makes reason stare.
It seems like maybe you grew up LDS. For people who didn’t, who have been taught their entire lives that God is a formless figure without human parts and passions, how on earth would it be obvious to them that when we say “We have a Heavenly Father” we mean “and Mother”?
It is documented that in Young Women lessons outside the U.S., many of the girls were shocked to find out the Church believes in a Heavenly Mother. I’m fairly certain these countries aren’t affected the same way as the U.S. has been by feminism, so I don’t think we can blame feminism.
This discussion and search for more revelation is critical. The temple seems clear that no woman is involved in the creation story. It tells us that we’ll hear the voices of Elohim and others as we hear the creation story. We then hear clearly male voices (and now see clearly male people). Some theorize that Elohim could mean more than just a male god, but simple research seems to show that Elohim is plural MALE, not a plural mixed-gender group. So if She’s not even in the temple, how can you fault people for wondering if she was really involved at all, or what her role is?
Why is this important? Because women do not know their eternal destiny/role. We are told over and over and over that the roles of men and women are NOT the same. Will anyone argue that our church teaches that? So we cannot say that we know our female roles by studying our male Heavenly Father. Imagine going through this life with no answers about what your eternal destiny/role is.
You know, I’m DONE listening to people like you who try to shame us for asking questions and wanting to know about OUR MOTHER. Give it up! It won’t hurt you one iota if we receive greater institutional knowledge about Her. The only way it could possibly hurt you is if your ego is connected to having only a male in the role of creator and God. If you have a reasoned, thoughtful idea or concern you want to express, that is more than welcome. But I’m done with the attempts at shaming and blaming. Quit it.
Beautiful post, Alison. I find the concept of a church which at least tacitly acknowledges the existence of a Divine Feminine Principal, but which refuses to address her, keeps her hidden away and relegated to a “supporting role” offstage, in some ways worse than religions which subscribe to a singular Divine being who is decidedly and militantly male.
I think the Feminine aspect of Divinity is of deep importance, as there is no balance without it, and a religion which endorses its absence or its subservience is one in which women are likely relegated, as well, to the status of adjuncts to their male principals. It’s not good for the church and it’s not good for society at large.
While I see “God” as more of a pervasive being who is *neither* male *nor* female, but who embodies characteristics of both, and, additionally, the entire spectrum in between (as well as probably things outside the “visible spectrum” of which humans cannot really conceive), I think a concept of God which includes a Divine Feminine as well as a Divine Masculine, are far healthier for society and the church. And I think it is important that the concept of the Divine Feminine not be relegated to the Divine Kitchen, Divine Broom Closet and Divine Maternity Suite. Surely Heavenly Mother has a more encompassing role than that.
Allison this was really beautiful. I hope Julie is able to publish the song. I love the lyrics! I would love to know her inspiration.
Lorain, with all due respect, I can’t imagine why certainty with regard to a female goddess—even without too many details—is inferior to a certainly she doesn’t exist at all.
Alison, I am not offended. Just think you’re wrong.
Trapped in your own paradigm.
Jim Cobabe recently posted…Bees won’t sting idiots
Jim, with all due respect, who is more likely to be trapped in their own paradigm, an older man who was raised in a patriarchal society and belongs to a patriarchal church, or a woman of a similar demographic?
I would suspect I’m more likely to be caught in YOUR paradigm than another.
I do still recommend Women at Church. If you would be willing to promise to actually read it, I will order a copy and have it mailed to you. I have done this for others, including a dear elderly man who wanted to understand my thoughts. I sent him the book. He was surprised at how many, many things he had never really seen or understood and thanked me for helping him.
The full response to your post ended up being an entire post. You can read it here:
Women at Church: Translating Gendered Doctrine
Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Paid Menopause Leave – Because I Deserve It
I very much resonate with these thoughts and questions. A close friend once waxed beautifully poetic at how much the temple has taught him about his eternal identity, which in turn has helped him stay centered and faithful throughout his life. I cannot say the same as a woman, and this pains me very much. It also pains me that it didn’t occur to him that scanty eternal identity knowledge for women = incomplete eternal identity knowledge for men.
Sue, yes, yes, yes.
First, as with the video, I am kind of bowled over that people can rejoice, on one hand, about how male modeling is awesome sauce but proclaim, on the other, that women don’t need it.
Second, your point is fabulous:
scanty eternal identity knowledge for women = incomplete eternal identity knowledge for men
That deserves a post of it’s own. Do you want to write it? 🙂
I feel similarly that scanty understanding of polygamy = chaotic “eternal family” doctrine. (Yet another post for another day…)
Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Emotional Labor – The Injustice of It All
To me, the most evocative part of the post is the last line. Yes, we need more light and knowledge. I have no use for speculation as to the nature and personality of Mother. Actual revelation – that is a different story.
As a corollary, I have no problem with male priesthood, so long as it is actually God’s power, and used as He directs. I personally believe that the restoration is ongoing, and look forward to learning more about how our Heavenly Parents would organize both men and women to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man[kind]. I rather suspect that “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard” what could come, if we would seek and knock rather than dismiss current practice as mere patriarchy.
The funny thing about the Martin and Pulido paper is that in my view that the data they present lead me to the exact opposite conclusion than they draw.
Across a incredibly broad survey of Mormon writings they come up with a handful of examples, almost all of which trade on merely acknowledging the existence of Heavenly Mother. As it acknowledges Pres Hinkley stated that “None of us can add to or diminish the glory of her of
whom we have *no revealed knowledge*”. Then they go on to list the few examples where leaders made the barest attempts to include Heavenly Mother as a paragraph aside in describing attributes and the character of Heavenly Father. They try and blow and spin these out to pretend that somehow we have a rich theology of Heavenly Mother.
For me that article underscores not the richness of Mormon theology on the female divine but how just how much an afterthought the female divine has been in Mormon theological development. She is an idea unrealized. A useful appendage when the male leaders have felt Her existence convenient to mention. No one could read the evidence there honestly and pretend that She is in anyway central to Mormon theology as so many of us want Her to be.
Yes Allison if we really care about Heavenly Mother as a co-equal with Heavenly Father it is time for us to beg, plead and petition for more light and knowledge. While there is a growing grass roots desire to do so, there is zero indication that those with the right to receive revelation for the church have shown any inclination to do. None. Acknowledging her existence from time to time seems to suit their needs well enough.
I have searched for and listened for and asked about Heavenly Mother my entire life. Mormonism is profoundly male-centric and I have long since gone outside of Mormonism in my search for Heavenly Mother and found Her in worship practices that would would be sharply condemned in Mormonism. So that makes me a self confessed apostate — oh, well. I will take apostate over a Motherless spiritual home.
[An old friend of mine from the Boca Raton Ward just posted this on Facebook. He gave me permission to post and answer here (brevity not being my strong suit). ~Alison]
Jim Foster wrote:
What if there are reasons for this:
* Father in Heaven has more than 1 wife
* We don’t all have the same mother
* Maybe even within our earthly family unit we may not have the same mother
* In heaven there is a separation of roles
* Fathers go off to work as a first order of business
* Mothers raise the children as a first order of business
* We as mortal children interface directly with the parent whose first order of business is to govern their creations, and most certainly is always the parent of all.
If this scenario were valid it implies:
* There are more worthy exalted women than men
* We know that in general there are as many men as women on this earth
* We know for doctrine that no man or woman will be deprived of any blessing they desire and are worthy for
* This implies more women than men choose or qualify for exaltation
* Does exaltation favor women, do they get more out of this relationship than men or do we just ascribe it to pride and vanity as major disqualifiers
This is just food for thought, not advocating this or assuming it is valid.
Jim, thanks for commenting. Here are my responses, although I hope you will clarify what you mean by some of these.
My first response to these ideas is, if they are true, why not just say so? (Yes, I realize some of them won’t be popular, but lots of things in the LDS church are not popular. “Peculiar people.”) I don’t see why any of those idea would preclude more information or direct acknowledgement. For example, if we all had different Heavenly Mothers (ack!) why would that keep us from acknowledging our personal Heavenly Mother in the YW theme?
I’ll be up front again that the idea of eternal (or earthly) polygamy not only doesn’t sit well with me, but note that the first presidency officially stated that it is not a requirement of the celestial kingdom (contrary to what many have said in the past). My best guess would be it’s not part of it at all, but that’s a different post.
The last three are equally interesting and confounding to me. Fathers “go off to work.” Meaning what? Where does Heavenly Father go? Mothers raise their children—and yet we, her children, never interact with her or see her or here of her at all? Father “goes” to “interface” with his earthly children and Mother stays…where?
Sorry, but the last line just stabs my heart. Heavenly Father is “most certainly is always the parent of all.” Heavenly Mother? Whatevs. Could be a billion of them. No matter. 🙁 Lots of step-mothers, pretty interchangeable.
Sincerely, are you sure there is only one Heavenly Father for every human on earth?
The “we need polygamy because there will be more exalted women isn’t authoritative. And, in fact, the first presidency (per above) sent a letter to all CES teachers a number of years ago telling them not to teach that polygamy was requires in the celestial kingdom (as had been the tradition).
Given that polygamy will not be required, do we imagine that enough women will agree to it that it will out work out numerically perfectly? And why couldn’t our Heavenly Parents simply create more men to compensate for the, apparent, spiritual depravity of men?
What if worthy women desire to be evenly paired with a spouse instead of one of a harem? Do you believe that, ipso facto, a “worthy” woman would accept polygamy?
For the record, I don’t think women are inherently more righteous than men. So, there’s equality for you.
Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Lifestyle Hacks: Increased Productivity With Personalized Routines
“If these are true, why not just say so?”
We receive collective revelation according to our collective ability to live by it. It seems that we are not ready to know why we know so little about Mother in Heaven.
Richard Alger recently posted…Cheap Grace vs. Costly Grace
Richard, I don’t think this is a real universal truth. Given that (as you noted on FB) most revelation comes about due to specific questions, it could well be that our current leaders (the only ones authorized to get general doctrinal info) aren’t asking questions that would lead to these answers.
Why? It’s very possible that it’s a generational issue. The GAs don’t see it as an issue (to a great extent, it was not one for their generation) and so don’t ask. They ask about things they are concerned about. It’s very possibly a gender issue. Given that they are all male, it’s far less likely that they would see the gendering problem women face. (Even women who don’t think it’s a problem still deal with it every day. It’s the culture and church norm.)
Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Women at Church: Translating Gendered Doctrine
It is possible that the GAs just haven\’t been asking. And that your questions posted online might be a catalyst for them to do so. I accept all the influences that will bring new light and knowledge on this subject.
I am not afraid of speculation. I have my own ideas of how things may be. I am comfortable that I may be wrong.
The things I am most sure of is the Doctrine of Christ. As we live what we really know for sure, we inevitably will grow towards God and all the wonderful new light we will receive.
Nicely said. 🙂
Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Public Service Announcement:
Asking About Pregnancy Status
I am not even proposing that what I posted is correct with the exception of our Father in Heaven “most certainly is always the parent of all.” I seem to have left myself no wiggle room there. As an engineer (you already know I am not an English major, hah) I am just looking for best explanations as to how things are taught and implemented.
I agree that additional revelation would help us understand this and is desirable (but would take some of the fun analyzing).
You posited some questions in regard to my postings, so I will reply below.
Alison – “If we all had different heavenly mothers”.
Jim – we needn’t all have different mothers but we needn’t all have the same, maybe just a few amongst us all. It should not preclude the YW theme if it said “a Heavenly Mother”.
Alison – “not a requirement of the celestial kingdom”
Jim – I agree it is not a requirement, but what if it isn’t precluded. It seems that Polygamy is required of Joseph Smith (he who holds the keys of this power). This verse doesn’t seem to require that all exalted beings participate. Maybe others have to choose and agree among the participants that it is what they want. For those exalted beings not participating in Polygamy, their future mortal children wouldn’t be under the same assumptions this posting is considering. Saying this differently, maybe our situation and our Heavenly Parents are the exception (Polygamous) rather than the rule among other exalted beings.
Doctrine and Covenants 132:6464 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
Alison – “Fathers “go off to work.” Meaning what? Where does Heavenly Father go?
Jim – I was intentionally vague because I don’t know all that he does or might do, but it could include in more particular to Him than to (Them – feminine) the responsibilities of creation and governance.
Alsion – “The “we need polygamy because there will be more exalted women isn’t authoritative”.
Jim – Not being authoritative and being untrue are different, so it is not precluded as a reason and maybe there will be more women. Otherwise, understanding that all who want eternal marriage will not be deprived, and unless exactly the same number of men and women achieve exaltation, an exception at least if not the rule would be required (and would assume at least a small surplus of women if not equal according to what is now practiced).
Alison – “And why couldn’t our Heavenly Parents simply create more men to compensate for the, apparent, spiritual depravity of men?”
Jim – Good one. If Polygamy were the rule it might not be desired, or maybe they just don’t want to stack the deck to preclude it, or maybe the eternal material used to create spiritual bodies necessitates equal proportionality of male and female genders.
Alison – “Sincerely, are you sure there is only one Heavenly Father for every human on earth?”
Jim – The Guide to the Scriptures; God, Godhead – “”There are three separate persons in the Godhead: God, the Eternal Father; his Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost.”” … “”It is generally the Father, or Elohim, who is referred to by the title God. He is called the Father because he is the father of our spirits”” … “” The Father of the spirits of all mankind”” … Several references are given including
1 John 3:2 “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” — all of these imply a single and common father of us all.
We are taught that Jesus Christ is our brother (spirit body), this implies we have at least one parent in common.
We call each other brother and sister in church, because we are all brothers and sisters (spirit body) with at least one parent in common.
lds.org; Gospel Topics; God the Father – “” God the Father is the Supreme Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things. He “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22).”” — “the” Father implies only one to us his children.
I am sure there are many more examples that show this is the doctrine of the church, that God the Father is the parent of all on earth and if needful I can do a more rigorous study.
(This is my first posting, I tried to send this earlier but wasn’t subscribed yet, not sure if it will eventually get posted ahead of this. This one supersedes it and I will delete it if possible to avoid confusion. This one adds more detail that the earlier post did.
More baby boys die in infancy than baby girls, and this number is in the billions. So even if one assumes that “women are more righteous than men” there are billions of boys who have died well before the age of accountability who are a shoo in for exaltation. So the “more women than men in the Celestial kingdom” idea is not a sure thing.
But more than this, why I can’t wrap my head around eternal polygamy is that exalted beings are infinite and eternal- why would you need more than one infinite and eternal wife for an infinite and eternal husband? More infinite and eternal wives would not even more, because infinity plus infinity is still infinity. The only situation in which eternal polygamy makes sense is if the male is infinite and eternal, and the female is decidedly godly and thus you would need more of them to get the job done.
That should read “the female is decidedly *less* Godly”
I believe that this light and knowledge can be found, but that it won’t come from the patriarchal order. Our heavenly parents did not call the mothers to tell of the Father, and I don’t believe they will call on the fathers to tell of the Mother.
The light will come not as thunder from the mount, as a word from a throne, because those things are masculine, sky-reaching, Apollonian. It will come as a lullaby to a baby, or spring to a tree, feminine, root-growing, matriarchal. The voice of the Mother will come through the mothers, in that chain of communication men mock out of awe, and when you hear it your head will turn as it does when your mother speaks your name.
This sort of thing comes by coven more than kingdom.
Provocative thoughts, but I had to laugh that in an article designed to elevate the standing of women, you would stoop to use the derogative and scornful of the wisdom of women term “old wives’ tale.” Oops. (I cannot believe that trite rationalization ever originated with women.)
Sisters be at peace. Father is our Father and Mother is our Mother
As you see your fellow sisters, who have received, now receive and
will receive that revelation above all That our older brother Jesus lives,
also receive that revelation That Mother too lives you are a wonderful
reflection of Her within you lies the humility that makes us your men cry
in your humble hearts you bind up the grieving fears the pains of your companions, your sons your fathers, you bear the spiritual hopes when alone
or with a partner who cant accept this gospel. It is said I knew this gospel was true when my heart accepted what my mind could not. Readily Father saw with joy the truth of ions past the great roll His beloved companion bore, when we walked in gardens before we came and you dear sisters saw and heard that would be yours to bear your desire was not to flinch for many you knew the tears you would shed but you knew too the heart would carry.
be it mother Eve who would cradle her dead son in her arms and grieve for the son who brought this first pain. To those who followed the tears of your love your pain and your undying joy would bury the seas of this our earthly home. In that preparation when you walked and talked did you walk with Mother too, Yes you did and did you listen to her too as well as Father and walk with our Jesus yes you did and we men walked with as listened too, She is our Mother, and Father saw it was very good. Nether the less great mothers sisters daughters too would bear the role, of Mary the mother of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Mary, of the tears that washed the feet of Him who gave His life to fulfill that you my sisters and we your brothers could be at one with Father. It is said take a coin one side it is the head we your brothers on the other side you our sisters without the which we could not survive, we at the end in a great disaster our death would find our cries and many a voice will cry out mother, So much could be said the original question why no acknowledgement? Why because you are there a complete reflection of Mother, when have you sought the greater part of glory? over the men you love but the greater joy for you, the man you chose the son you raised the father you adored, that has been your joy.The man you hope to find the hopes you have are the same, the very same hopes Mother has for you and when we return home Father and Mother will be there and you will know Mother was always acknowledged, for you will see in her eyes the reflection
which is you and your tears like ours will be of joy. It will be understood and your peace those that are yours before you will be Eternal for that Eternity ahead. I hope you will understand these words for there to edify you to see Mother as we see Mother who we treasure too.