A few days ago I was reading Sam Brown's really nice article about WW Phelp's short novel called Paracletes and some other stuff about Mother in Heaven (here). The novel is probably best understood as Phelp's attempt to explain Joseph Smith's theology of dvinization (maybe aptly described as a divine anhtropoloy). One of the things that becomes clear is that WW Phelps was talking about a Female God before Eliza R. Snow. For example, in a hymn he wrote in 1844 we have the following:
This is certainly supportive evidence that talk of a Mother in Heaven originates with Joseph particularly given that Phelps is talking about these things in the context of trying to explain Joseph's theology of divine anthropology (not an orginal claim by me).
However, this is not really what struck me as most interesting. In a letter to William Smith (late 1844), Phelps provides a proof text for the Queen in a Heaven theology:
I assume this is a reference to Jeremiah 7:18 (Asherah worship):
The interesting thing to me is Phelp's willingness to use Jeremiah as a proof text in favor of this idea when Jeremiah is clearly condemming the practice. I find this remarkable particularly in what it possibly implies for how the early saints read scriptures. Here the scriptures seem to largely serve as reference points to distinctive doctrines. It doesn't really matter the Jeremiah condemns the practice, the scriptures really provide glimpses at the truth or as Brown terms, "fragments of truth." Thus from these "glimpses" or "fragments" a larger theological truth is constructed. The glimpses then provide support.
This is very different than the way I like to approach scriptural text. I tend to think the author is trying to make a point and do my best to extract it. I view the author as inspired but not necessarily historical accurate or theologically consistent with other scriptures or even his own writings. Naturally, I think my approach is much more sophisticated. Afterall I take the text seriously and try not to abuse it. But sometimes I wonder. All readings are misreadings but sometimes I think the best readings are spectular misreadings. In fact I wonder if revelation can really operate when one is trying to minimize the misreading? I think the best case for all this is the spectular beauty that we find when this approach was used by Joseph Smith.
Come to me; here’s the myst’ry that man hath not seen; Here’s our Father in heaven, and Mother, the Queen, Here are worlds that have been, and the worlds yet to be, Here’s eternity,—endless; amen: Come to me.
However, this is not really what struck me as most interesting. In a letter to William Smith (late 1844), Phelps provides a proof text for the Queen in a Heaven theology:
Christ kept his first estate-Lucifer lost his by offering to save men in their sins on the honor of a God, or on his father's honor.-Christ hated sin, and loved righteousness, therefore he was anointed with holy oil in heaven, and crowned in the midst of brothers and sisters, while his mother stood with approving virtue, and smiled upon a Son that kept the faith as the heir of all things! In fact the Jews thought so much of his coronation among Gods and Goddesses; Kings and Queens of heaven, that they broke over all restraints and actually began to worship the "Queen of heaven," according to Jeremiah.
The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger.
This is very different than the way I like to approach scriptural text. I tend to think the author is trying to make a point and do my best to extract it. I view the author as inspired but not necessarily historical accurate or theologically consistent with other scriptures or even his own writings. Naturally, I think my approach is much more sophisticated. Afterall I take the text seriously and try not to abuse it. But sometimes I wonder. All readings are misreadings but sometimes I think the best readings are spectular misreadings. In fact I wonder if revelation can really operate when one is trying to minimize the misreading? I think the best case for all this is the spectular beauty that we find when this approach was used by Joseph Smith.
Comment