403 Forbidden

Nine Moons » Blog Archive : Does Elohim = Mr. and Mrs. God? » Does Elohim = Mr. and Mrs. God?

Does Elohim = Mr. and Mrs. God?

Don - January 4, 2007

I’ve been taught that Elohim was the plural of “El” which is God. That just as the plural for a seraph is seraphim, and cherub is cherubim and even the plural for shamay (heaven) is shamayim (heavens). So Elohim means more than one god.

I guess I just assumed that meant God and Jesus and or the H.G.

What if it means God the Father and His wife, Mrs. God? We never hear about Mrs. God and her duties, tasks, responsibilities. What if everytime we were referring to Elohim, or God the father we were really referring to both God and Mrs. God?

We are commanded to leave our father and mother and cleave to our spouse and we will become one flesh. How one-ness is that one flesh?

Does having this veiwpoint change anything? Is it wrong, right or doesn’t matter?…or is this just another rant from a deranged mind?


  1. I’ve heard some LDS writers attempt to deal with the plural by saying that it refers to God’s superlative and multiple attributes. That doesn’t work for me particularly. Of course, El was a term shared by many cultures anciently throughout the levant as the title for the head deity. Most LDS seldom use the term outside the temple, preferring “Our Father In Heaven” in prayers, talks, and lessons.
    As far as referring to our heavenly father and mother cojointly, who knows? I’ve never understood why a doctrine opened up by Joseph Smith is sooo taboo in the modern church that people have been x’ed for writing on it (ok, Janice Allred and Margaret Toscano may have taken it a tad too far, but I’ve heard far more “outthere” speculation done concerning BOM locations and other topics). So your theory at least follows a line of reasoning.

    Comment by larryco_ — January 4, 2007 @ 1:37 pm

  2. I like the idea. When I was married, the sealer looked at me and pointed to my wife and said – you cannot progress to perfection without her, and then turned to her, while pointing at me and said – you can’t prgress to perfection without him. This would make sense that Godliness requires conjoining male and female into one divinity – that would not preclude individuality of each being, but they are not “God” without being joined together.

    That would open the door to the idea that the trinity is a bastardization of the doctrine of the joining of husband and wife into one flesh.

    Comment by Gilgamesh — January 4, 2007 @ 1:56 pm

  3. I like this idea, too.

    My favorite line in Oh, My Father is “In the heavn’s are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason; truth eternal, tells me I’ve a mother there”. This is mostly because of the quiet nature of Her existence, and this song helps me to remember that She does exist.

    How often do we, as married couples, like to be referred to as “together”? I love to be seen as an individual with just as much worth as my husband, but I also rejoice at the prospect that we are “one” (as was mentioned).

    That said, in the scheme of doctrinal salvation, I don’t think it really matters (what “Elohim” really means). But, I don’t think it should be dismissed, either. It’s a very interesting question, one that I think I’ll ponder on some more…

    Comment by cheryl — January 4, 2007 @ 2:42 pm

  4. “What if everytime we were referring to Elohim, or God the father we were really referring to both God and Mrs. God?”
    that is exactly my understanding.

    Comment by cchrissyy — January 4, 2007 @ 7:26 pm

  5. What I heard was that He actually said, “Eloi” which means a plurality of Gods. I guess that could mean what you say.

    Comment by annegb — January 4, 2007 @ 8:34 pm

  6. I’ll take the last one, a deranged mind:)

    I think it could be referring to God and His wife (or wives). Some have concluded that our Father in Heaven’s wife is purposefully left out most of the time to protect Her name from all the horrible grief His is put through. I don;t kniw if that’s at all true but I like the idea.

    Comment by Bret — January 5, 2007 @ 12:34 am

  7. There was a post I liked at Feminist Mormon Housewives once. One of the posts talked about whether MiH needed protecting, and what that theory says about women in general–as shrinking violets who need to hide behind their husbands’ skirts to be shielded from their own children.

    I know that’s a popular theory that seems sensible, but on the other hand, what kind of mother is that to emulate?

    Comment by Joanne — January 5, 2007 @ 6:13 am

  8. Yeah, I’m with Joanne on this one. It seems like a folk story with the purpose of explaining why we don’t know/talk about MiH.

    Comment by Rusty — January 5, 2007 @ 8:00 am

  9. My understanding is that the MiH being protected (not needing protectiong) idea comes from some comments by Richard G. Scott given at a conference. I got this third hand and have never found a record to verify it, however.

    I know GBH publicly discouraged prayer to a Mother in Heaven in conference around 1990, as we are instructed to pray to our Father in Heaven. I do believe there must be a unity there as described in your post.

    I do not buy the concept of MiH = HG, which I have heard thrown around on occasion.

    Comment by Matt W. — January 5, 2007 @ 10:06 am

  10. I was at a know your religion a few years ago on the topic: “what did Joseph teach ” and the BYU proffessor Bro. Bott said that he felt that Joseph taught that Elohiem ment both heavenly mother and father.

    Comment by adam — January 5, 2007 @ 2:12 pm

  11. Joanne,
    I hadn’t thought of it that way before. (being a man and all, I guess:)

    Comment by Bret — January 5, 2007 @ 8:57 pm

  12. You may find my paper on this subject of some interest.

    Comment by Kevin Barney — January 6, 2007 @ 11:36 am

  13. “purposefully left out most of the time to protect Her name from all the horrible grief His is put through.”

    Because she’s not strong enough to take it, but He is?
    I like to believe goddess-hood is rich enough, elevated enough, powerful enough to handle that sort of thing.

    Comment by cchrissyy — January 6, 2007 @ 3:15 pm

  14. cchrissy–
    Then why is She never mentioned, except in hushed tones, occasional hymns, and once-in-a-while GA talks/firesides? I mean, if She isn\’t mentioned because of God\’s desire to protect Her, then what\’s the reason? I\’ve always thought that reason was pretty good, but it could be wrong, and if it is, then what is the reason?

    Comment by cheryl — January 6, 2007 @ 7:32 pm

  15. I heard years ago and have since been okay with the idea that Elohim could mean both Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. After reading Adam’s comment (#10) I realized I learned this in a missionary prep course taught by Brother Randy Bott–for whatever that’s worth.

    Comment by Amy — January 6, 2007 @ 8:19 pm

  16. I believe that the Proclamation on the family is the first official church statement since correlation (or earlier) to refer to a heavenly mother.


    The second paragraph 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, …

    Note the plural of parents. Ipso facto…

    So there you have it, right there in an official document.

    Comment by Bookslinger — January 7, 2007 @ 9:15 pm

  17. The Arabic Allah is also plural. Muslims, like most Christians, point to the multiplicity of divine attributes of God–similar to the 99 names of God.

    Comment by jose — January 8, 2007 @ 4:21 pm

  18. Cheryl,
    The reason isn’t known. your theory (protect Her) tries to fill the gap with explanation.
    There may not be an explanation, but my other ideas are 1) because we haven’t asked 2) because we’re not ready to hear yet 3) because it’s just one of the parameters of Earth life, we’ll learn why afterwards. We know that God will “yet reveal many things pertaining to the kingdom” so it doesn’t bug me at all that we don’t have good answers yet for many interesting questions.

    My favorite is this- God (He+She) speaks to us as one united voice but our cultural/historical context causes us to register that as His voice, His scripture, His answer to prayer.

    I think the “protecting Her” explanation falls seriously short
    1) it requires an exalted being to be “too soft” to handle affliction
    2)It credits Heavenly Father with the decision, not that it was Her move or a joint, united plan.
    3) it requires modern stereotyped gender roles to apply ot their relationship- he’s “tough enough” she’s too weak so she willingly falls back. Or worse, She wants to be involved with us, but she’s obedient- that is, under Him, not equal to Him in authority and power after all.

    All 3 of these points have zero scriptural support. Perfected, exalted beings, with power to create and destroy, who are perfectly united as one, just don’t have scriptural or prophetic descriptors such as “weak” “can’t handle it” “subservient” “puts aside own judgment” etc.

    so, there are my thoughts on the subject. It’s a minor pet peeve :)

    Comment by cchrissyy — January 11, 2007 @ 1:22 pm

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI