I Am Unapologetically Raising My Daughters with A Bold Faith in Jesus Christ

Relationships matter. Faith and hope matters. In life, we are going to have hardships, disappointments, and tragedies. As a Latter-day Saint Christian, it is my duty and obligation to help raise my children according to the values and teachings of our faith. Yet, today, this parental responsibility is under attack. Faith in Christ is under attack. State Governors and circumventing the First Amendment of the Constitution and creating barriers to worship and engage in religious services. Atheism is well rooted like a petulant weed in our American Society and Culture. The rise of communist and Marxist ideals is sweeping like a tumor in our social fabric. Many are claiming that we are at the threshold of the last days.

Yet here I am - a father, a strong believer in Jesus Christ and His restored Gospel, and worried about the type of social culture and environment my children are being assimilated into. More importantly, how I am an influence and impact on my children's lives matters the most. Not what society says is the best way. Today, more than ever, our children need to be raised up with a strong and bold faith in understanding and knowing who Jesus Christ is.

So, when it comes to parenting - we all have our different values, beliefs, and perspectives. Yet, are they detrimental to the spiritual growth and influence we have as parents? I ask this because I happened to scroll through my Facebook news feed and noticed a link to Amelia Kibbles article entitled: I am Unapologetically Raising My Daughter Without Religion. Catchy title and with curious interest, I clicked on the link. Read the first few paragraphs. An anecdotal story of her coming home and sharing what she learned in Sunday school.

I can see how that is humorous. Unfortunately, she appears to use this innocent anecdote to make an interesting premise and judgment:

The story is hilarious, and never fails to get a few chuckles at family gatherings. However, it has darker implications, and my fearful reaction to the idea of a judgmental God who doesn’t respect one’s privacy perfectly illustrates why I have decided to raise my daughter in a non-religious household.

Yes...I had to read that paragraph numerous times to process what the message is being relayed. A judgmental God? A God who does not respect a person's privacy? The context here (if you have not clicked on the link above) is that she reports having taken a bath - I screamed, “STOP WATCHING ME, JESUS!” And, to even further understand the context of the conversation - she reports having discussed with her mom how God watches us all the time.

Reading further, Kibbie raises the question of morality and how to teach children a sense of morality as they grow up. It pits modern day moral fluidity with traditional and conservative moral standards and upbringings. For instance, Kibbie comments:

When I want to teach my daughter a lesson, like not to take another child’s toy, I focus on the fact that her action was wrong because it hurt someone. Not that it was wrong because an ancient text said so and that an invisible deity is always watching, waiting for her to make a mistake. The right thing to do is the right thing to do because it’s right, because it’s good, because it’s fair, and it makes people feel good. And that’s all there is to it.

This appears to beg the question - where does the idea of morality stem from? The concept of right and wrong? How is it wrong to take another toy from a child? Is this not based on the draconian law given by some mystical deity - THOU SHALT NOT STEAL? Or, is it also based on the draconian law given by some mystical deity that we are not to covet?

Morality and Human Volition

William Lane Craig makes an astute and valid observation when it comes to understand the nature and purpose of morality. According to the website - Reasonable Faith - the answer to Kibble's question (and our own question as parents) is this: Can we be good without God?

https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU

Moral Objectivity is based on Harm

The argument is focused on differentiate the difference between subjective morality versus objective morality. Christianity teaches that there is objective morality. Specific laws governing how to live our lives and to what extent we may violate those objective moral laws. Subjective morality is more fluid and flexible based on the person's ideals. This includes what one may culturally differentiate a sense of morality.

This also includes the argument and principle truth of human volition. How our decisions influence our sense of morality. The impact choices have on others. And the heart of this debate is not as black and white as we want to believe. Objective morality is not rigid. There is fluidity within a more practical understanding of determining right from wrong.

Morality requires us to avoid doing bad things, again, by definition.  Hence we all have a moral duty not to harm other living things.  This moral duty exists objectively because harm exists objectively.

For example, if you walk into the store and have the money and means to buy an apple - yet you pick up the apple and walk out without paying for it. You are in violation of the law. You've stolen, and therefore violated moral standards and expectations. However, let us say you do not have the means to pay for the apple and it's been three days since you've eaten anything. You walk in and take the apple and leave. Is that morally wrong and violation of the law? Yes. However, there is a greater and more objective moral law at play here. Granted, this is hypothetically and utilized to establish a sense of truth.

Eric Dietrich, Ph.D writes in his article - Morality is Objective - the relationship between facts and moral objectivity:

There is however, a clear path to a universal and powerful moral objectivity, the view that morality (or most of it, anyway) is just as objectively true as science and mathematics. The key ingredient is the notion of harm.

Dietrich further expounds his thoughts:

Harm is marked by pain, fear, hunger, thirst, sadness, frustration, . . . any negative emotion or feeling.  We live in a universe that randomly dishes out harm — consider the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs, as just one example.  But we humans can check both human-initiated intentional harm, which is under our control, and other types of unintentional harm, e.g., environment damage caused by human industrial development.

And,

The question now is “Why ought we to check (or mitigate) such harm.”  The answer is because it is harm!  Harm is bad by definition.  Morality requires us to avoid doing bad things, again, by definition.  Hence, we all have a moral duty not to harm other living things.  This moral duty exists objectively because harm exists objectively. Just as 1 + 1 = 2 is objectively true, so “we should not harm other living things” is objectively true.  This truth is based simply on the fact that harming exists and should be checked.

What this means is that when we look at how our decisions impact and harm other people, we have a moral obligation to avoid doing so. This is central to the message of Jesus Christ. Despite what Kibble may say. And, it is not draconian in nature.

The Central Theme of the Gospel Message is Love

What people miss about the Scriptures, religion, faith, and following Jesus Christ is the central theme of the Gospel Message. It simply means The Good News and based on unconditional love:

• God's love toward us
• Our love toward God
• Our love toward others

The scriptures expound upon this. Ancient and Modern-day teachings expound on this. Objective Morality is based on this. We either are operating out of love or operating out of hate. And most of the time, we are not operating out of one or the other. We are operating on a spectrum between love and hate.

Since the central theme of the Gospel Message is love then objective morality is born out of love and not hate. Unfortunately, Kibble holds to a false view of God as being judgmental and invasive of one's privacy. Out of God's divine love, there is also divine judgment. Kibble will be hard pressed to disagree.

Disagree for the simple fact that as a parent, we love our kids, yet also are responsible in disciplining them when they engage in behavior that harms another person. Imagine if our child sees us as (unless you are dealing with a teenager) judgmental parents. That we are invasive to their own privacy. If they treated us the way most of us treat our relationship with God - how heart wrenching and disappointing will that be?

Yes, God is judgmental. I am not disagreeing with that. However, He is justified in his judgment just as much as we are justified in our judgment when someone engages in behavior that harms another person. It is all born out of love and respect for one another. Without love, I personally believe, there is no objective morality. As long as I am doing something that makes me feel good (subjective morality) what harm is there? This is arrogant ignorance and grandiose self-love and pride. And yet, our society is operating out of this false belief. Teaching children these false beliefs and subjective morality.

Scripture adequately distinguishes the two different natures of objective morality and subjective morality.

Character Traits of Love and Objective Morality

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7, KJV)

Character Traits of Selfish and Subjective Morality

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

So, then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8: 6-7)

God's nature is love. Our objective moral stance is to love God and others. Outside of this is to be carnally minded. It pits us against God and against others based on our own subjective sense of morality.

Raising my daughters with Bold Faith Love and Righteousness

It is not good enough to raise children with a sense of subjective morality. No, it is more important to instill upon them the understanding of what it takes to live out a courageous faith that is born out of love for God and live out the values and beliefs that lead to a meaningful, purposeful life that is righteous.

From The Family: A Proclamation to the World - the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revealed this simple truth:

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

I am unapologetically raising my daughters with a strong conviction and bold faith that is based on love and righteousness in Jesus Christ. They ought not to walk in fear of God. Hope they do not come to a place where they believe that God is awaiting to punish them for every wrong behavior or act they commit. Instead, my hope that if they do walk in error that they are courageous enough to seek out their Loving Heavenly Father and walk in forgiveness and repentance.

President Russell M. Nelson taught:

“When our youngest daughter was about four years of age, I came home from hospital duties quite late one evening. I found my dear wife to be very weary. … So I offered to get our four-year-old ready for bed. I began to give the orders: ‘Take off your clothes, hang them up; put on your pajamas; brush your teeth; say your prayers’ and so on, commanding in a manner befitting a tough sergeant in the army. Suddenly she cocked her head to one side, looked at me with a wistful eye, and said, ‘Daddy, do you own me?’

“She taught me an important lesson. … No, we don’t own our children. Our parental privilege is to love them, to lead them, and to let them go” (“Listen to Learn,” Ensign, May 1991, 22).

This is how we teach our children. It is how we empower them. Help them find their own faith and testimony in Jesus Christ. And, even when they walk in error, we stand ready to rush toward them with forgiveness and love (see, Luke 11:15-20; Parable of the Prodigal Son).

According to the revelations recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 68:25-28, we have these truths:

1. Responsibility to teach our children the doctrine of repentance and forgiveness
2. Faith in Jesus Christ
3. Administration of the sacred ordinances of Baptism

And, according to Doctrine and Covenants 93:36-40, we are to raise up our children in light and truth.

It is not enough to send children off to Church. We have to actively live out the Gospel of Jesus Christ in our lives as a living sacrifice and testimony to the power and grace of God's sovereign love toward us and Christ's infinite atonement. Unfortunately, many children who have been brought up (as it appears Kibbie shares) within a Christian faith and Church did not have the spiritual attention and reverence needed to lay the foundation of a bold and courageous faith in Jesus Christ.

As I contemplate this - I remember an instance when my daughter's mom had sent me a message. It was a picture of our daughter in Church, head bowed, arms crossed. She looked beautiful and radiant. A friend had seen it and made the comment of how wrong it was to teach her to be submissive. An observation born out of sheer judgment and lack of understanding.

Submitting to God's divine will and purpose is a worthwhile venture. Understanding our need for His love, direction, counsel, and guidance is more important today. Especially navigating the social climate that is against Christian faith, God, holiness, and righteous living.

May my children stand on the legacy of my own personal testimony as a light in the growing darkness. A testimony of their own personal faith in who Jesus Christ is and the Gospel message of His love and redemptive power. 

The Joy of Recovery and Sobriety: Becoming Clean through the Atonement of Christ

 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness's are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Isaiah 64:6, CF Romans 3:19-23

The term utilized in the passage of Isaiah refers to the particular cloth that was used to clean up from the woman's menstrual cycle. Such imagery is not for the palatable and feeble minded individual. Yet, it holds significant truth as it relates to the human condition. Despite our own efforts, good will and desires, we still remain stained and filthy. This is particularly true when people enter into recovery. Many want to get their life back on track, stop using and stay clean, and not use anymore. And, when it comes to recovery and sobriety, there is no joy to be experienced. Only pain, emotional distress, vulnerability, raw sense of shame and guilt, grief and loss, and inability to manage one's own life.

However, there is hope through Jesus Christ and His infinite and divine atonement. This is where the heart of our joy comes from. And it is the heart of how we move toward experiencing lasting joy in our lives as we engage in recovery and maintain an active and sober lifestyle. But first, we must get ourselves cleaned and experience what that may look like for ourselves.

What does it mean to be clean?

How one answer's this question is entirely up to them. Generally - the best way to respond to this is through what Neil L. Anderson shares in his book The Divine Gift of Forgiveness. He describes a childhood memory of going with his father and getting a steer that had wandered off and eventually was hit by a vehicle. Anderson described what it felt like when he came home and showered:

I went back to the house. ... I remember clearly the satisfaction of removing my shirt. Peeling off each layer of clothing brought relief. I began washing - first my hands, then my arms to the elbows. It was not the kind of dirt that would disappear quickly. Then I showered, first washing the ears, then the hair, back to the hands and fingernails, and to the hair again. It was some time before I felt satisfied that the cleansing was done.

Anderson also shared:

Slipping into a clean pair of pajamas, I lay awake in bed for a while reliving the experience, but the feelings of tiredness did not approach the sensational satisfaction of being washed and clean.

Anderson transitions his thoughts toward the sacredness of spiritual cleansing that occurs through the atonement of Jesus Christ. The removal of the sin that stains our souls surpasses any formal understanding of joy one may experience. He recounts the parable of the Prodigal Son and how it relates to the nature of the healing power found in Christ's atonement.

We experience joy as the love of our Savior assures us that we can yet be clean, that we will one day be home again. This happiness comes only through repentance.

The Divine gift of forgiveness p. 11; Anderson, N. l.

Seeking forgiveness and engaging in the repentance process is at the heart of early recovery. It sets the foundation and tone for how we maintain long term sobriety. We first, must peel off all the layers of our false beliefs, expectations, thoughts, emotions, and strip ourselves of who we believe ourselves to be - whether an addict or an alcoholic - in order to move forward toward personal growth, transformation, health, and wellness. Without engaging in the process of repentance and forgiveness, we will inevitably revert back to what we are: filthy rags that are easily discarded.

I, personally, am able to relate to what Anderson shared about his experience with the shower and how refreshing it is to feel washed and cleansed. Many times, have I spent working in the grime, dirt, and getting filthy. Coming home, exhausted, tired, smelling raunchy, and all I wanted was to get cleaned up. The feeling of how the water splashes and washes away the dirt and grime, the stench going away, and stepping out of the shower with a sense of renewal. Even such an experience pales in the comparison of truly feeling cleansed and forgiven by the Lord and experiencing the power of the atonement.

Turn and be healed

Christ's infinite atonement does more than washes us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. It heals us. Anderson quotes 3 Nephi 9:13-14 and Alma 36:19-21.

Many times, we see Christ interact with those who are experiencing leprosy, deformities, and other ailments. His commands always included some action that was based on their faith. To the one who had a deformed arm, Christ requested he stretch forth his arm (see, Matthew 12:13). To the person unable to walk since birth, Christ asked him to take up thy bed and walk (see, John 5:8-16). There was a specific call to action.

For those in recovery, Christ is asking for you to -

• Return to Him
• Repent of your sins
• Be converted

In order to be healed. We have to take the steps. There are some Christians who may disagree with me on this. However, in recovery, we have to do the work necessary to bring our sins, our shames, our guilt, our distressing emotions to the alter and offer them up to God in order to receive forgiveness and healing. We are called to repent of those things we have done wrong. Without true and sincere repentance, we may not fully experience the joy and forgiveness that Christ offers us.

Another concept here is that we are to turn away from our old way of living life. Without turning away from the active substance use, the people that may continue to enable us and support our continued use, an individual is never truly ready to experience the joy of recovery and sobriety. Seeking after forgiveness, through sincere and heart felt repentance means we are willing to turn our lives over and around in the direction of where our Heavenly Father desires for us to go.

This reminds me of the story of Naaman in 2 Kings 5. According to 2 Kings, Naaman was considered a mighty man, a person of valor, yet suffered leprosy. When the Prophet Elisha encountered the captain of the Syrian army, the request was for Namaan to go and wash in the river Jordan seven times in order to be healed of his leprosy. At first, Naaman refused. However, as we read, he reluctantly followed Elisha's instructions and once he completed this - he was healed of his leprosy:

Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.

2 Kings 5:14, KJV

Many of us are like Naaman. We have a condition that is not culturally acceptable (due to social stigma). To be told we must do something in order to experience being cleansed and healed causes grave consternation. We want a more simplified solution. Yet, we eventually come to our own Jordan River and follow the requests on cleansing ourselves.

Eternal Promises are Provided

One simple truth that many fail to understand is that there are eternal promises attached to our own personal redemption, forgiveness, and healing. This is true in recovery as well as in spiritual rebirth. However, it is a process that takes time. This is the reason for the effectiveness of the 12-steps. They may be recommendations and suggestions. However, one does not stop at step 12 and say - I am done and now I'm clean. We go back and look at and continue to peel off those layers. Our spiritual maturation requires we continue to take a fearless and courageous moral inventory, seek out forgiveness as we walk in forgiveness toward others.

Anderson shares this insight on how these eternal promises are provided:

Repentance is the perfect spiritual remedy for sin. Each sin we leave behind through our faith in the living Christ - both those of commission and those of omission - opens spiritual doors.

He continues:

We must be converted to daily repentance. Jesus provided an example of daily prayer: "when ye pray say ... forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."

This daily walk in humility, as Anderson shares, is a way Our Heavenly Father, through Jesus Christ and the power and authority of His Holy Spirit, reveals to us our own personal weaknesses. This is the part where we engage in self-discovery to understand who we are. Even those weaknesses and areas that need to be let go and given over to God. It also requires us to walk in true honesty and transparency. After all, God sees and knows all. Nothing can be hidden from Him.

Repentance and Forgiveness - the birth pains of healing in recovery

There is no doubt that when we fully come to our own personal Jordan River, it is not without pain and suffering. These are only the birth pains to feel the depth and breadth of Christ's infinite atonement in healing. And it is something that we are committed to engaging in.

Bringing into the world a new life is painful. Ask any mother who has given birth to a child. Yet, ask them if it was worth going through the process of enduring the pain and most likely the answer will be a resounding yes. How is that? The simple answer is the joy experienced when that newborn child is placed in the mother's arms for the first time. The joy of knowing how precious that child's life is.

In recovery, we are birthing a new life for ourselves, and it is painful. Ask any person who has established a healthy and long-term sobriety from their active lifestyle if it was worth going through the painful early stages of recovery and they may respond with a resounding yes. That does not mean they enjoyed the process. Yet, the outcome, the healing, the new life experience surpassed all the pain endured in those early days.

It all begins with being honest with us and with God. It also requires that we honestly listen to the still small voice as it reveals to us those character defects we may want to work on.

So, what does it mean to be clean? It means we take our time. We endure the painstaking process of peeling away those grimy character defects. It means we take our time and focus on thoroughly washing ourselves. To be clean means we experience the fullness of joy that comes through our sincere repentance and forgiveness of sins that is only through Jesus Christ alone. 

Part Three: The Work and the Glory of God is to Bring to Pass Man's Eternal Life and Immortality

This article is the third and final part of a three-part response to Biblical Gender Roles article regarding the nature of God, the question of masculinity and femininity, and specific gender roles as established within the context of the Bible. A careful and thoughtful review of the article has required an adequate response to some assertions that may be misleading, irrelevant, and potentially harmful concerning such ideology and perceptive interpretation of scripture.

The first part of this response focused on the context and foundation of the assertion being made, the question that is being addressed and answered, and whether or not the writer has given due diligence in providing an accurate, scriptural response and answer to the question postulated. Along with this,  second part of that article briefly introduced some of the main assertions that are cause for questioning and examination and how they falter in meeting true scriptural teaching on the nature of God, masculinity, femininity, and gender roles. The third part explored a more in-depth analysis of the presenting issues derived from the main points of the article itself and how a more appropriate answer is given to the misinformation of the article under review. 

In the second part, it was contended that there is a linguistic issue regarding the Hebrew and Greek languages. Namely, that all languages have masculine, feminine, and neutral aspects. From here, the third part of this article focused on understanding the nature of how the Bible has some symbolism toward a divine and sovereign feminine gender role within the Divine Council and provided evidence as it relates to a Divine council of Heavenly Parents - God, the Father, and Goddess the Mother. The response examined the nature of human gender roles in light of Divine gender roles, and the divine institution of marriage and how this is represented in the symbolism of the New Testament of Jesus Christ, his parable of the ten virgins, and the reference to Christ being the Bridegroom and the Church being the Bride of Christ. 

In this third, and final, essay; the concept of human existence and experience involves answering the initial question - Life's meaning and purpose. The writer of the article: Why God's Identification as Male is Key to Understanding Life Meaning becomes a misnomer in answering the question it sets out to answer. 

False assertion and failure to appropriately answer the question

In the concluding remarks of Why God's Identification as Male Is Key to Understanding Life's Meaning appears to be a misnomer. Meaning, the writer attempted to answer the question from a more misleading and misapplication of Masculinity context where life meaning and purpose may be derived from. Furthermore, femininity is tied into understand woman's role is to be aligned with her image bearer of God. 

But in this world and in this life, God has made “male and female”. If we are born in a male vessel than our life’s mission is to be the image bearer of God. We are to display his masculine attributes throughout our life. If we are born in a woman’s vessel, then we are called to find and dedicate our life to serving a person in a male vessel in marriage. This service of the female vessel to the male vessel was designed by God to picture the relationship between himself and his people.

And what I have just described answers the most important question that we as human beings can ever ask and that is “Why I am here?". If we not only accept that God identifies as male, but accept why he identifies as male then we as men and woman, can know the meaning of life. But if we do as so much of the world today does and reject the fact that God identifies as male and why he identifies as male then we reject our very purpose for being here.

While the writer of this article attempts to harmonize how God sees men and women as equal, the writer appears to have painstakingly presented a position that women were not created as equal with the man and that she is not a divine image bearer nor is she equal in partnership with the man - even in marriage. The position the writer appears to take is that the woman is subservient to man because she is in need to be aligned with God's image bearer. 

This does not bring about any real truth to the meaning and purpose to our human existence and life. It also appears to dehumanize the nature of womanhood and the specific gender role of women in a more perverted form of misogynistic representation of femininity within the scriptures. For the woman, as assumed by the nature of the article's presentation, life's meaning is to be aligned with the Man as the masculine concept of God is defined as his servant. And, for the Man, the meaning of life is to be the image bearer of God. Both being brought into marriage for this time alone. 

The article fails to address both gender roles from a more divine and eternal worldview. Neither does it answer the existential question of Why am I here?  Unless, of course, one relies solely on the provided answer that woman is to be a servant to man for this life alone, through marriage, and Man is the only essence and nature of God in this life alone. Wherein, there is no significant meaning and purpose to our human existence. 
Contrary, there is a more deepening and enriching answer to the quintessential question. One that provides a more hopeful and meaningful understanding of our human existence. 

Divine glory of God is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life - brief introduction to theosis

Respect and praying on nature background

In the Book of Moses - a modern day revelation of scripture contained the Pearl of Great Price - we read the following: 

For behold, this is my work and my glory - to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. 

While modern Christians appear to scoff at the seemingly esoteric construct of the Book of Moses, one finds that this revelation of scripture mirrors those of Ancient Jewish texts (of which are no longer contained in present day English translations of the Bible). This is extensively reviewed and provided in E. Douglas Clark's scholarly article - A Prologue to Genesis: Moses 1 in Light of Jewish Traditions.  In fact, the entire understanding of the Book of Moses and God's divine purpose for humanity is referenced in the following articles at the BYU Studies. Clark makes this observation:

The Joseph Smith prologue further tells that as Moses sees the creations stretch out beyond what he could ever have imagined, he asks God: “Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them.” God responds, “For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me” (Moses 1:30–31), and that “only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you” (Moses 1:35). Why? Because, as the Lord had explained earlier, “no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth” (Moses 1:5).

Similarly the Zohar, in speaking of God’s revelation to Moses and “the worlds [that] were designed and came into being,” explains that up to a certain “point only is it permissible to contemplate the Godhead, but not beyond, for it is wholly recondite.” According to one Talmudic passage, upon receiving the Torah from God, Moses asked “that He should show him the ways of the Holy One.” God’s answer is the same as in the Joseph Smith version; says the Talmud: “God would not grant Moses’ wish to behold all his glory.” Even if some of the answers were reserved for later, Moses learns, as recounted in the Joseph Smith prologue, the great secret behind all of God’s expansive and eternal creative activity—that his work and glory is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

The question: What is God's divine glory and purpose in bringing to pass the eternal life and immortality of humanity? In his article - Where is Thy Glory? Moses 1, the Nature of Truth, and the Plan of Salvation  - Dan Belnap provides this insight into the nature of Moses 1:39: 

With this, God now goes back and adds insight to the first answer: “For mine purpose.” In verse 39 he tells Moses, “For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” By now, the cumulative effect of truth upon truth allows Moses to understand the implications of this statement. The endless nature of the creations and the awareness of all things are to bring to pass the exaltation of man. This is his purpose behind the Creation, to bring others to the same state as himself. This work culminates in recognizing that all mankind, like Moses, can become chosen and blessed sons and daughters of God. By knowing this, Moses can understand how the work of God does not differ, except perhaps in scale, from his own work. By experiencing the manner in which truths build upon one another in his encounters, Moses comes to understand exactly what it means to be a son of God.

And it is at this point that Moses 1 becomes applicable for us today as it provides a pattern of experiences in gaining and understanding knowledge that leads to salvation. It begins with the reception of basic truths, namely who we are and what we are to do, followed by the experiences with adversity and trial where those truths are tested and we are challenged as to the way things seem versus the way they are. In this manner, our salvation is worked out through our acquisition of knowledge. During this process, we understand that God’s promise that he is always with us is true and that he is ready to provide revelation for us at any time if we remain worthy. Finally, the successful passing of the trials of mortality allows us to experience eternal life and godhood by knowing who we really are and what our work really is. There we find that the work we have been performing is in fact the same work that God himself is engaged in. Thus, one of the more important legacies of Moses is that all can come to comprehend God and the truths that define this existence and, in so doing, understand our own glory.

This idea being put forth is known as Theosis and is not something that is new. While most Evangelical Christians have trouble with the doctrine of Theosis. They fail to realize that there is, not only Biblical references and teachings, actual early doctrinal teachings on exaltation and Godhood. This understanding of teaching comes from the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christian Church. According to the doctrine of theosis in orthodox tradition: 

In the Orthodox Church, this concept is neither new nor startling. It even has a name: theosis. Theosis is the understanding that human beings can have real union with God, and so become like God to such a degree that we participate in the divine nature. Also referred to as deification, divinization, or illumination, it is a concept derived from the New Testament regarding the goal of our relationship with the Triune God. (Theosis and deification may be used interchangeably. We will avoid the term divinization, since it could be misread for divination, which is another thing altogether!)

Many Protestants, and even some Roman Catholics, might find the Orthodox concept of theosis unnerving. Especially when they read a quote such as this one from St. Athanasius: “God became man so that men might become gods,” they immediately fear an influence of Eastern mysticism from Hinduism or pantheism.

The reason, according to this writer's perception, that many modern Western Christians fear the doctrine of theosis is because of the misinterpretation of the lie Satan appeared to tell the woman in the Garden and the temptation to become like God. In the creation account, the conversation Eve has with the serpent brings into the connotation of the following: 

But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. (See Genesis 3:4-7, ESV). 

 When we continue reading the account of Adam's transgression of partaking of the fruit from the tree of  Knowledge of Good and evil, we have the following statement being made:

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” (See Genesis 3:22)

What we see here is the understanding that Adam and Eve - created in God's divine image and likeness - may not have obtained particular knowledge. In his efforts to tempt Eve, the adversary attempts to mix some half-truths within his crafty disguise. A lengthy article appears to shed some interesting light on this subject matter. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and Ronan James Head published an article - Mormonisms Satan and the Tree of Life where the focus is on the scope of Mormon doctrine of the plan of salvation. 

God's glory to bring to pass immortality and eternal life - the Plan of Salvation

Human existence is predicated on the nature of God's divine glory and purpose. Namely, that God desires to bring to pass the eternal life and immortality of mankind (both male and female). We briefly introduced the idea and doctrine of theosis. Here, the discussion focuses on the nature of the Divine Plan of Salvation. 

In Christ's priestly prayer recorded in John 17:3-5: 

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

These verses reflect some interesting truths. First, Christ prays that humanity is to come know God and Jesus Christ. This is reflective of the divine plan of salvation as Christ refers to himself as being sent by God. Second, Christ reflects on how he has Glorified the Father by accomplishing his divine mission and calling (which is referencing the sacrificial death, his burial, and resurrection). Third, Christ requests that the Father glorify Christ in a unified glory that Christ had with the Father prior to creation. This simple priestly prayer of the savior reflects the nature of the Plan of Salvation.  

In his commentary on the Johanniane Gospel account, John Calvin makes this claim:

3. And this is eternal life He now describes the manner of bestowing life, namely, when he enlightens the elect in the true knowledge of God; for he does not now speak of the enjoyment of life which we hope for, but only of the manner in which men obtain life And that this verse may be fully understood, we ought first to know that we are all in death, till we are enlightened by God, who alone is life Where he has shone, we possess him by faith, and, therefore, we also enter into the possession of life; and this is the reason why the knowledge of him is truly and justly called saving, or bringing salvation. Almost every one of the words has its weight; for it is not every kind of knowledge that is here described, but that knowledge which forms us anew into the image of God from faith to faith, or rather, which is the same with faith, by which, having been engrafted into the body of Christ, we are made partakers of the Divine adoption, and heirs of heaven. 

We know and understand that Salvation comes through Jesus Christ. And, it is through Christ, we understand the nature and power of God's divine plan. Calvin continues with his commentary:

To know thee, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. The reason why he says this is, that there is no other way in which God is known but in the face of Jesus Christ, who is the bright and lively image of Him. As to his placing the Father first, this does not refer to the order of faith, as if our minds, after having known God, afterwards descend to Christ; but the meaning is, that it is by the intervention of a Mediator that God is known.

The only true God. Two epithets are added, true and only; because, in the first place, faith must distinguish God from the vain inventions of men, and embracing him with firm conviction, must never change or hesitate; and, secondly, believing that there is nothing defective or imperfect in God, faith must be satisfied with him alone. Some explain it, That they may know thee, who alone art God; but this is a poor interpretation. The meaning therefore is, That they may know thee alone to be the true God 

Salvation is also contingent on knowing Christ and through Christ, we are able to know the Father. We further read Calvin's thoughts on these verses in order to understand the nature and relationship between Christ's divinity and that of the Father's divinity. What is striking is that we also see, within these verses, Christ brings distinction to himself and the Father and that both hold a divine and glorified distinction: 

Christ, appearing in the form of a man, describes, under the person of the Father, the power, essence, and majesty of God. So then the Father of Christ is the only true God; that is, he is the one God, who formerly promised a Redeemer to the world; but in Christ the oneness and truth of Godhead will be found, because Christ was humbled, in order that he might raise us on high. When we have arrived at this point, then his Divine majesty displays itself; then we perceive that he is wholly in the Father, and that the Father is wholly in him. In short, he who separates Christ from the Divinity of the Father, does not yet acknowledge Him who is the only true God, but rather invents for himself a strange god. This is the reason why we are enjoined to know God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, by whom, as it were, with outstretched hand, he invites us to himself.

As John Calvin points out, we have the oneness of the Godhead in the salvific ordinance of humanity. 

It will be of importance for us now to bring into one view those three articles of faith; first, that the kingdom of Christ brings life, and salvation; secondly, that all do not receive life from him, and it is not the office of Christ to give life to all, but only to the elect whom the Father has committed to his protection; and, thirdly, that this life consists in faith, and Christ bestow, it on those whom he enlightens in the faith of the Gospel. Hence we infer that the gift of illumination and heavenly wisdom is not common to all, but peculiar to the elect. It is unquestionably true that the Gospel is offered to all, but Christ speaks here of that secret and efficacious manner of teaching by which the children of God only are drawn to faith.

While Calvin approaches this from the standpoint of predestination of the divine elect, the nature of this - within the Mormon worldview and perspective goes back to the nature of the Pre-existence and how some chose to rebel with Satan. The Plan of Salvation includes the reality that many who come and take on the mortal body of humanity may not fully come to grasp the doctrines and salvation provided through Jesus Christ. They will still experience the resurrection (as recorded in Daniel and Revelation, as well as throughout some of the Pauline Epistles). Concerning the nature of the two resurrections: Gotquestions.org has this:

Daniel 12:2 summarizes the two very different fates facing mankind: “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Everyone will be raised from the dead, but not everyone will share the same destiny. The New Testament reveals the further detail of separate resurrections for the just and the unjust.

Revelation 20:4-6 mentions a “first resurrection” and identifies those involved as “blessed and holy.” The second death (the lake of fire, Revelation 20:14) has no power over these individuals. The first resurrection, then, is the raising of all believers. It corresponds with Jesus’ teaching of the “resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:14) and the “resurrection of life” (John 5:29).

The first resurrection takes place in various stages. Jesus Christ Himself (the “first fruits,” 1 Corinthians 15:20), paved the way for the resurrection of all who believe in Him. There was a resurrection of the Jerusalem saints (Matthew 27:52-53) which should be included in our consideration of the first resurrection. Still to come are the resurrection of “the dead in Christ” at the Lord’s return (1 Thessalonians 4:16) and the resurrection of the martyrs at the end of the Tribulation (Revelation 20:4).

Revelation 20:12-13 identifies those comprising the second resurrection as the wicked judged by God at the great white throne judgment prior to being cast into the lake of fire. The second resurrection, then, is the raising of all unbelievers; the second resurrection is connected to the second death. It corresponds with Jesus’ teaching of the “resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29).

The event which divides the first and second resurrections seems to be the millennial kingdom. The last of the righteous are raised to reign “with Christ a thousand years” (Revelation 20:4), but the “rest of the dead [that is, the wicked] lived not again until the thousand years were finished” (Revelation 20:5).

What great rejoicing will attend the first resurrection! What great anguish at the second! What a responsibility we have to share the Gospel! “And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire” (Jude 23).  

Therefore, Christ came to provide the necessary sacrifice for our Sin, and to also conquer death. Since Christ is the first fruits of the resurrection. In fact, 1 Corinthians 15 is the Pauline expository understanding of the Plan of Salvation.

John Calvin continues his commentary on John 17:1-5 and continues his observation on the nature of Christ seeking glory, which is the glory he possessed in the beginning with the Father:

4. I have glorified thee. His reason for saying this is, that God had been made known to the world both by the doctrine of Christ, and by his miracles; and the glory of God is, when we know what he is. When he adds, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do, he means that he has completed the whole course of his calling; for the full time was come when he ought to be received into the heavenly glory Nor does he speak only of the office of teaching, but includes also the other parts of his ministry; for, though the chief part of it still remained to be accomplished, namely, the sacrifice of death, by which he was to take away the iniquities of us all, yet, as the hour of his death was already at hand, he speaks as if he had already endured it. The amount of his request, therefore, is that the Father would put him in possession of the kingdom; since, having completed his course, nothing more remained for him to do, than to display, by the power of the Spirit, the fruit and efficacy of all that he had done on earth by the command of his Father, according to the saying of Paul, "He humbled and annihilated himself, by taking the form of a servant. Therefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, (Philippians 2:7, 10.)" 

5. The glory which I had with thee. He desires to be glorified with the Father, not that the Father may glorify him secretly, without any witnesses, but that, having been received into heaven, he may give a magnificent display of his greatness and power, that every knee may bow to him, (Philippians 2:10.) Consequently, that phrase in the former clause, with the Father, is contrasted with earthly and fading glory, as Paul describes the blessed immortality of Christ, by saying that he died to sin once, but now he liveth to God, (Romans 6:10.) 

The glory which I had with thee before the world was. He now declares that he desires nothing that does not strictly belong to him, but only that he may appear in the flesh, such as he was before the creation of the world; or, to speak more plainly, that the Divine majesty, which he had always possessed, may now be illustriously displayed in the person of the Mediator, and in the human flesh with which he was clothed. This is a remarkable passage, which teaches us that Christ is not a God who has been newly contrived, or who has existed only for a time; for if his glory was eternal, himself also has always been. Besides, a manifest distinction between the person of Christ and the person of the rather is here expressed; from which we infer, that he is not only the eternal God, but also that he is the eternal Word of God, begotten by the rather before all ages. 

Here, the attempt is made to show the reader that God's divine plan of salvation is summed up in the nature and mission of Jesus Christ himself. This is important, because, we also understand the nature and doctrine of theosis within the verses of John 17:1-5. The purpose and mission of Christ.

God's divine work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity through exaltation

While the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox holds to the doctrine of Theosis. The Church of Jesus Christ teaches the idea of eternal progression and the doctrine of exaltation. This coincides with the divine plan of salvation. It brings an enriching and deeply empowering understanding of our main purpose in this life. 

Through our human experience, the mission and atonement of Jesus Christ, our understanding of God's nature helps us define life's meaning and purpose so that we may potentially reach exaltation. Or, in other words, become like our Heavenly Parents. The entire glory of God's divine work in creation culminates in us obtaining and securing an exalted and glorified body of flesh and bone. This is accomplished through the various sacred ordinances and covenants we make. Namely, through the ordinance of Baptism (Romans 6), participation in sacred ordinances pertaining to the marriage ceremony (as previously discussed in the second essay response), and coming to fully realize our own potential. 

Our identity is not only tied into the creation of God's image and likeness, our identity is specifically tied into the nature of God's divine plan for man and woman. Elder Tad Callister gave a speech on - Our Identity and Our Destiny at a BYU Devotional:

First, our identity. There is a sentiment among many in the world that we are the spirit creations of God, just as a building is the creation of its architect or a painting the creation of its painter or an invention the creation of its inventor. The scriptures teach, however, a much different doctrine. They teach that we are more than creations of God; they teach that we are the literal spirit offspring or children of God our Father. What difference does this doctrinal distinction make? The difference is monumental in its consequence because our identity determines in large measure our destiny. For example, can a mere creation ever become like its creator? Can a building ever become an architect? A painting a painter? Or an invention an inventor? If not, then those who believe we are creations of God, rather than His spirit offspring, reach the inevitable conclusion that we do not have the capacity to become like our creator, God. In essence, their doctrine of identity has defined and dictated a diminished destiny.

On the other hand, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe that we are the spirit offspring of God with inherited spiritual traits that give us the divine potential to become like our parent, God the Father. As to this identity, President Packer has written:

You are a child of God. He is the father of your spirit. Spiritually you are of noble birth, the offspring of the King of Heaven. Fix that truth in your mind and hold to it. However many generations in your mortal ancestry, no matter what race or people you represent, the pedigree of your spirit can be written on a single line. You are a child of God! It is this doctrine of identity that defines our potential destiny of godhood. If one does not correctly understand his divine identity, then he will never correctly understand his divine destiny. They are, in truth, inseparable partners.

What, then, has God revealed to us about our destiny? He has spoken clearly and frequently and forthrightly on this subject from the very beginning. When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, they lived in a state of innocence—meaning they only had a limited knowledge of good and evil. Lehi described their condition as follows: “Wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin” (2 Nephi 2:23).

In order for us to understand, as Elder Callister teaches, for us to understand the meaning of life, we come to understand our identity. Through our identity, as revealed in scripture and modern day revelation, we then can begin to understand the very nature and heart of our life meaning and purpose. Namely, we were created for a divine purpose to carry on not only God's image in this life, to also progress and endure in order to inherit divine nature of God.  Elder Callister points to scripture references where we are Heirs and Joint-Heirs with Christ. 

Conclusion 

In this three part essay, this writer made an attempt in responding to the erroneous understanding and teaching of Biblical Gender Roles article on: Why God's Identification as Male is Key to Understanding Life Meaning. This required some examination to objections noted as the main points of the article: 

• Objection One: Nature of God and the Creation of Humanity as it relates to likeness and image. Objection Two: The perpetuation of a second century gnostic teaching and the understanding of God's ontological nature and anthropomorphic scriptures 
• Objection three: Linguistic survey of Biblical languages
• Objective four: The specific nature a divine Heavenly Mother/Goddess and the correlation of femininity, womanhood, and motherhood as evident in Ancient Near East tradition and Biblical accounts
• Objection five: the nature of the Wedding ceremony and it's symbolism to the nature of gender roles as specified within the marriage. How this wedding and marriage is of an Eternal design 

Finally, the focus was on answering the question that the writer at Biblical Gender Roles attempted to set out and answer. Namely, humanities identity and divine destiny as it relates to life meaning and purpose. 

The reality is that the writer fails to properly capture the nature of God's divine nature, Humanities divine identity and destiny, and the real answer to life's meaning. 

Part Two: An LDS Perspective on Why God's Identification as Male Is the Key to Understanding Life's Meaning

 This article is a second part of a three-part response to Biblical Gender Roles article regarding the nature of God, the question of masculinity and femininity, and specific gender roles as established within the context of the Bible. A careful and thoughtful review of the article has required an adequate response to some assertions that may be misleading, irrelevant, and potentially harmful concerning such ideology and perceptive interpretation of scripture.

The first part of this response focused on the context and foundation of the assertion being made, the question that is being addressed and answered, and whether or not the writer has given due diligence in providing an accurate, scriptural response and answer to the question postulated. Along with this, second part of that article briefly introduced some of the main assertions that are cause for questioning and examination and how they falter in meeting true scriptural teaching on the nature of God, masculinity, femininity, and gender roles. The third part explored a more in-depth analysis of the presenting issues derived from the main points of the article itself and how a more appropriate answer is given to the misinformation of the article under review. 

In this second part, we will contend that there is a linguistic issue regarding the Hebrew and Greek languages. Namely, that all languages have masculine, feminine, and neutral aspects. This will be a brief examination and exposure to the linguistic style of the Biblical text and how one is able to recognize such stylistic writings and expressions. From here, the third part of this article will focus on understanding the nature of how the Bible has some symbolism toward a divine and sovereign feminine gender role within the Divine Council. This is based on the available scholarship and literature concerning a Divine Consort that is derived from some of the more figurative and symbolic language of the Scriptures. From the attempt will focus on the true nature of the gender roles, as revealed in scriptures, and the importance of a divine marriage through Priestly authority, Temple Symbolism, and Jesus Christ's wedding parables and teachings. Through this process of examination, the reader is invited to draw their own conclusions by carefully examining the presenting information. 

The Nature of Linguistics and Biblical Exegesis 

A problem arises when a person fails to commit to proper interpretation of scripture. The common problem with proper scripture interpretation is where Christians, and many others, employ an intuitive or feels-right approach to interpretation (Duvall and Hays, 2008). This occurs in two ways: First, people may see a text as something that may be directly applied and, therefore, make attempt at direct application. If there is no direct application, then a person may take a spiritualization approach to the meaning of the text. Duvall and Hays refer to this as a possible bordering approach to allegorizing the Biblical Text. Another observed phenomenon is mere ignoring of a particular passage and missing the context altogether. 

Duval and Hays observe that those who take an intuitive approach in scripture interpretation blindly wade out into the river, hoping that the water is not deep enough. This is contrasted to those who attempt to spiritualize the text where they attempt to jump the river in one grand leap. And, for those who ignore passages is to remain on the far side of the river. 

Therefore, to understand a proper approach to scriptural interpretation is to understand it through the cultural - historical context and the literary context. This also includes understanding the nature of the original language (linguistics). 

Since Linguistics is the discipline study of language and languages, we take careful note that the Bible was not originally written in modern English. The Bible is translated from several different languages. The two prominent languages being Hebrew and Greek. There are some Aramaic and Chaldean language influences within the Biblical text. All of these have masculine, feminine, and neutral language styles. 

David E. S. Stein published an article on the specific linguistic Gender Representation in Biblical Hebrew. And, over at Ancient Hebrew Poetry, an article entitled: Gender Representation in Hebrew, we find this:

(1) If the subject or subjects of a verb are exclusively masculine, the gender of the verb must also be masculine. (2) If the subject or subjects are feminine, the gender of the verb must also be feminine. (3) If the subject or subjects of a verb comprise masculine and feminine of a given species, the gender of the verb will be masculine, unless the verb has an explicit compound subject in which one of these subjects is to be spotlighted, in which case the gender and number of the verb will agree with the subject to be spotlighted, not the gender and number of the compound subject. (4) If the grammatical gender of a noun is feminine, but the social gender of the referent subject is masculine, the gender of the verb will be masculine. (5) I can't think of any examples offhand of the opposite, in which the gender of the noun is masculine, but the social gender of the referent subject is feminine. 

Here, we see some examples of what the writer at Biblical Gender Roles appears to refer to the use of feminine imagery within a social gender role. He mainly refers to particular characteristic traits and not definitive gender-roles as defining whether God is masculine, feminine, neutral, or collectively above social-gender identification.

The Brill Reference Library of Judaism has this publication on the Gender Challenge of Hebrew with a preview of the first few pages of the second chapter: Language and Gender in Classical Hebrew. Malka Muchnik makes this distinction of the creation account and the specific gender roles of male and female within a linguistic context and interpretation. 

(1) zaxar uneqeva bara 'otam - 'Male and female created He them' (Genesis 1:27)It is worth looking at the etymology of these words. According to the Ben Yehuda dictionary (1960), zaxar ('male, masculine') originated from the name of the male sexual organ and related to 'stab' or 'dam', while neqeva ('female, feminine') is derived from neqev, meaning 'hole'. Similarly, the well-known biblical dictionaries, Koehler and Baumgartner (1958) and Brown, Driver, and Briggs (1974), state that zaxar is the name of the male organ, whereas neqeva means 'perforated, holed'. Both dictionaries relate the noun zaxar to the same root as the verb, meaning 'remember'. It appears that this has generated the interpretation that only male persons are now supposed to receive and transmit the family heritage, so that it is remembered by coming generations.

Based on Muchnik's observation that the term remembering appears 229 times within the Biblical text (possible reference to the Old Testament Text), that this is more of a second person masculine form.

The above is an example of how important linguistic interpretation of scriptural passages are important. This also shows that the concept of remembering being of heritage shows the initial text that gender-roles are specific divine heritages from God. This does not conclude that God is a divine dyad of masculine and feminine roles. What this shows is that there is a more complex issue surrounding our divine heritage as defined by our gender roles. Meaning, God created male and female for a purpose. A purpose that will be defined in the third part of this response.

The question posited here is this: creation of specific male and female gender roles may very well hint at a more Divine and Godly aspect if male and female gender roles. More specifically, we know that Christ created all things. This includes the human anatomy - male and female. Scripture also reveals that when Christ appears a second time, we (humanity - both male and female) will see Him as we are - resurrected and glorified in image and likeness. Since we will see Christ in his resurrected and glorified body of flesh and bone - because we shall rise up (male and female) in resurrected bodies of flesh and bones - our very nature will be that of Christ's divine nature. In addition, since we know that Christ is in the express image of God, we shall know that we also shall be in the express image of God, our Heavenly Father. And, if we were created, male and female after the image and likeness of God, does that mean women were created after the image and likeness of a divine Mother?

Divine Symbolism of a Heavenly Mother and the Scriptural Role of Women and Motherhood

Photo by Taryn Elliott on Pexels.com

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) teach that humanity traces their origin to Heavenly Parents. While revelation and teachings on a divine Heavenly Mother are vague, there are some specific statements and positions the Church has taken over the years:

In 1909, the First Presidency taught that “all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity.” Susa Young Gates, a prominent leader in the Church, wrote in 1920 that Joseph Smith’s visions and teachings revealed the truth that “the divine Mother, [is] side by side with the divine Father.” And in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” issued in 1995, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles declared, “Each [person] is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny.”

In Western Christianity, the idea of a divine Heavenly parenthood, and humanity being spiritual offspring of a divine Heavenly Father and Mother, seems quite foreign. Yet, when we come to approach the scriptures, we find that there are some symbolisms that may reveal the doctrinal truth that we not only have a divine Heavenly Father, that there exists a Divine Heavenly Mother as His consort. These symbolisms of Divine Heavenly Parents may help us understand the nature of gender roles as it relates to our human existence and purpose.

The creation of Adam and Eve is the definitive beginning of our understanding. In the second creation account of Genesis 2:4-25; Eve was created as a Helpmeet for Adam. This appears to come about when Adam is naming the animals and all the animals, who were brought to Adam, appear to have mates themselves.

Jeff A. Benner provides this insight - What is a "helpmeet"? - at the Ancient Hebrew Research Center Website:

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (KJV, Genesis 2:18)

While the KJV translates the Hebrew phrase עזר כנגדו (ezer kenegedo) as "help meet for him," other translations provide additional translations including; "a helper fit for him" (RSV), "a helper as his partner" (NRS), "a helper comparable to him" (NKJ) and "an helper as his counterpart" (YLT). What exactly does this Hebrew phrase mean?

The first word in the phrase, עזר (ezer, Strong's #5828), is simple and means "helper." The second word, כנגדו (kenegedo) is a little more complex. The base word is the word נגד (neged, Strong's #5048), which will be discussed shortly, with the prefix כ (k) meaning "like," and the suffix ו (o) meaning "of him" of "his."

The word נגד (neged) comes from the verbal root נגד (N.G.D, Strong's #5046) meaning "to be face to face." This verb is always used in the causative form where it would literally be translated as "to make to be face to face," and is always used to mean "to tell" in the sense of causing another to come face to face in order to tell them something.

The noun form, נגד (neged), is often used for something that is face to face with something else. An example can be found in Genesis 21:16 where Hagar went and sat down "opposite" her son. Even though she and her son are a distance away, they are sitting "face to face."

Putting all of this together, the phrase עזר כנגדו (ezer kenegedo) literally means "a helper like his opposite." In my opinion this means that Eve was to be his "other half," like him, but with the opposite attributes. 

The creation of woman was not an after thought. Nor, was the creation of the woman as a worldly creature without bearing the image of God. According to the writer at Biblical Gender Roles, makes this statement:

God did not just flip a coin and put men in charge of women. He put men in charge of women because the male human being “is the image and glory of God”. And because Piper and most Christian teachers refuse to acknowledge this truth that is staring them in the face – they cannot fully understand the purpose in why God placed men over women. 

This assertion is further supported by this statement:

The fact is that woman is NOT modeled after God or man while she does share common attributes with man whom she was taken from and therefore God as well because man was made in the image of God.

I used to say in error “Man is the image of God, and woman is the image of man” but I realized that statement is also theologically incorrect. The Bible never states that woman is the image of God nor does it state she is the image of man. She shares a common human nature with man but she is not his image as her nature is still very different.

Woman was given her core human traits like self-awareness, creativity, the ability to feel emotions, the ability to appreciate beauty and the ability to learn to make her a “help meet” (Genesis 2:18) for man. Man was given these same core human traits and then addition traits of increased strength, competitiveness, aggressiveness and many other traits we understand as masculine for a different purpose.

Man was given his masculine human nature to image God and thereby bring him glory. Woman was given her feminine nature not to be God’s image bearer, but instead to be a HELP to his image bearer. This is the truth of the Word of God.

The unfortunate truth is that the writer misunderstands the nature behind the creation of humanity - both male and female - as the image bearers of divine Godliness and the very image and likeness of God. The error here is that of the creation of woman not being modeled after the nature of God.

At the end of Benner's article, we find this observation:

In Genesis 1:27 we read that Elohiym filled the Adam (a Hebrew word meaning human) with his shadow, meaning he placed a representation of himself in the man. We also read in this verse that Elohiym filled them, male and female, meaning that he placed within each his attributes, his male attributes to the man and his female attributes to the woman. We do not normally think of Elohiym as having male and female attributes, but there are many passages in the Bible reflecting this idea.

If, according to Brenner, that God placed His divine representation of himself in man what then of the creation of woman? What over her divine representation? We know and understand that the masculine - feminine dyad of God is from the Second Century Gnostic teaching of Saint Valentinus. Therefore, Man being God's image bearer, does that mean the creation of woman is the image bearer of a divine Heavenly Mother? Not only the very attributes of a divine Father and Mother, the characteristic traits of masculinity and femininity whereby we enrich our understanding of the texts meaning: after His Image and Likeness?  In other words, after the image and likeness of God the Father and our divine Heavenly Mother?

On the Nature of the dyad concept of Elohim, Jeff A. Benners argues against the writer of Biblical Gender Roles concept that God only placed his Masculine attributes into man as man is the image bearer of God. Benners argues that male and female carry the dyad attributes of God himself - both masculine and feminine characteristics, attributes, and qualities:

Notice that in this verse it states that Elohim made humans in his image, but then it defines this image as male and female. From this we can conclude that the attributes of God are both masculine and feminine. We can then surmise that he placed his masculine attributes within the man and his feminine attributes within the woman and when a man and woman come together and become one (See Genesis 2:24), they together become the image of Elohim.

While I agree with Benner regarding the characteristic attributes and how male and female come together to be one complete image of Elohim. I go further and disagree with Benner in that God placed masculine and feminine attributes where male and female are image bearers of divine Heavenly Parents and that when man and woman come together, they become the image of Elohim - Divine Father and Mother. 

This is evident in understanding one of the most controversial scriptures of Mormonism. The Book of Abraham contains a unique description and commentary of the nature of man's creation. It also contains an interesting observation of what Adam stated in relation to the nature of marriage: 

Interestingly however, when the book of Abraham describes the creation of man it states that “the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them” (Abr 4:27, emphasis added). If Jesus Christ and the noble and great ones did not assist Heavenly Father in the creation of man, then why does it say “the Gods” rather than simply God? Who was the other God that created us with our Heavenly Father? When we understand the doctrine of Heavenly Parents, the answer is clear. This verse is one of the few scriptural references of our Heavenly Mother and it shows that she, along with our Heavenly Father, is our creator. Our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, “the Gods” as they are called in this verse, joined together to create all of us as spirits, and again to create the physical bodies of Adam and Eve.

This interpretation is confirmed by an official statement by the First Presidency, which states that “all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity. ‘God created man in His own image.’ This is just as true of the spirit as it is of the body” (The Origin of Man, 1909 republished in February 2002 Ensign). This is also supported by the Family Proclamation, which states that, “All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny” (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, republished in Nov. 2010 Ensign).

Understanding that mankind was created as the literal children of Heavenly Parents helps us understand an important verse in the next chapter of Abraham that also refers to our Heavenly Mother. Like the accounts of creation found in Genesis and Moses, the book of Abraham first gives a general overview of the creative periods followed by a more detailed explanation of these events in the following chapter. It is in this inspired scriptural commentary that we read that “the Gods” (still referring our Heavenly Father and Mother) not only created the bodies of Adam and Eve, but later sealed them in eternal marriage (Abr. 5:7,14; Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:71). It was after being sealed to Eve that Adam observed that “a man [shall] leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh” (Abr. 5:18).

Leave his father and his mother! How can Adam leave his father and mother unless he has and knows both his father and his mother? It is apparent in the book of Abraham that this is a direct quote from Adam and is therefore a clear reference to our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother who raised Adam as his earthly parents as well as his Heavenly Parents. It was from observing Their perfect marriage relationship that Adam learned that husbands are to cleave to their wives and together they are to be united as one.

I noted earlier that we understand Christ created all things. This is consistent with new revelation and scripture. What is interesting to note here is that when it came to the creation of humanity in God's image - we have a new perception that when God said "Let us" this may very well be referenced in the divine creation of man and woman after the image of God the Father and God the Mother, and the specific commands of the male and female gender roles. One of which coincides with the marital relationship - having dominion, and bearing offspring. 

Again, this idea is foreign to modern Christian thinking. However, as we explore the understanding and nature of human gender roles, the creation of humanity, and what the scriptural truths are concerning men and women - we gain a deeper sense of understanding God's divine nature. 

This understanding brings to mind that all of humanity are the image bearers of Adam. the Apostle Paul hints at this in what some reformed Christians teach as the Federal headship of Adam and Christ. This is based off the rendering of the Epistle to the Romans and is contained in the latter part of the fifth chapter: 

Simply put, federalism has to do with representation, with one person acting on behalf of another. God has appointed two representatives in history: Adam and Christ. Adam did not represent the race well; he disobeyed God. As a result, all of his descendants are born with an inclination to sin, and they all share in his guilt and suffer the same penalty he received—death. This is what Paul means when he says in verse 12 that “all sinned.” In today’s verses, Paul seeks to support this argument.

This teaching is usually combined with the doctrines of predestination and divine election. While this writer does not subscribe to the concept of predestination and election; there is some truth to the doctrine of federal headship. 

Adam does stand at the forefront of human history. First, Adam and Eve are the image bearers of divinity (as we established). Second, through Adam and Eve, we now possess the capacity and knowledge of Good and Evil. And, yes, we also possess a mortal body like that of Adam and Eve and are subject to all ailments, to include physical and spiritual disease and death. Likewise, Christ is the firstborn and only begotten of God. He also is the preeminent first born of the Resurrection of humanity and we shall bear the same image and likeness of his resurrection. When we stand before God, we will also see our Heavenly Parents as we are - resurrected and glorified bodies of flesh and bones. 

Adam and Eve stand as representatives of divine heavenly parents. We are their offspring after their own image and likeness as they are after the image and likeness of divinity. 

Tree of Life, Virgin symbolism, and further symbolism of Divine Motherhood

The Book of Mormon Central focuses an article on the vision of Lehi and Nephi's interpretive summary. In this article - What does the Virgin Mary have to do with the Tree of Life? - the BMC staff observes: 

In 1998, Daniel C. Peterson noted a fundamental connection between the tree and virgin. The adjectives describing the virgin (“most beautiful,” “exceedingly fair,” “white”) compared to those describing the tree (“exceeding all beauty,” and “exceed[ing] the whiteness of the driven snow”), are synonyms (1 Nephi 11:8).

Just as the tree bore fruit, the virgin bore a child (1 Nephi 11:7, 20). “Clearly,” Peterson noted, “the glimpse given to Nephi of the virgin mother with her child is the answer to his question about the meaning of the tree. Indeed, it is evident that, in some sense, the virgin is the tree.”

As Peterson goes on to explain, scholars have recently come to accept that in ancient Israelite religion, there was a belief in a divine mother goddess named Asherah, who was represented by the tree of life. The symbolism is widespread throughout the ancient Near East, and can be seen in association with different goddesses by various cultures.

In 2011, Egyptologist John S. Thompson went on to explore additional connections between different Egyptian goddesses and sacred trees. Thompson notes that while most ancient Near Eastern cultures sexualized the tree goddess, the Egyptians emphasized the motherly role, often depicting tree goddesses nursing a child. The Israelite Asherah was likewise more focused on the nursing mother and less sexualized—she was the “mother of the gods” and also regarded as the mother of the Davidic kings.

In the essay by Lowell K. Handy - The Appearance of Pantheon in Judah - and published in the collective work edited by Diana Vikander Edelman - The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms we read the following: 

A series of works have recently appeared that conclude that there was, at least, a goddess in the cults of Israel and Judah in the heydays of their independence, and it has long been maintained that several gods were both recognized and worshiped in Judah at least at various times in the nation's religious history.

In the footnote, we read the following commentary: 

The first modern popularization of the notion of a goddess in the official cult of Judah or Israel, despite its now being clearly dated by more recent scholarship and archaeological discoveries, can be traced to the work of R. Patai, The Hebrew Goddess  (New York: Avon Books, 1978). 

This refers to the Hebrew word Shekinah and how it means "dwelling": 

Shekinah is the English name of God in its feminine, motherly manifestation. The original word means the dwelling or settling, and denotes the dwelling or settling of the Divine Presence of God, especially in the Temple in Jerusalem. It is closely related to the word: “mish-kan,” the Tabernacle.

This increases our understanding as we see that the Old Testament refers to the LORD (YHWH) and the ELOHIM (Most HIGH) and their relationship together. Many times, there is the scriptures where it speaks of YHWH and then the Most High God collectively. This includes the reality that the Biblical text still contains some reference to multiple deities that were not foreign to the divine worship and adoration of Ancient Israel. The very idea of there being a divine heavenly council is evident in various Jewish and Christian scholarship understanding of the Biblical Text. This includes the understanding that there is a divine Goddess consort. For more information on the nature and teaching of a divine Heavenly Mother, her role, and understanding a more concise teaching, please read A Mother There by David L. Paulsen. 

Divine Motherhood and A Woman's specific gender role 

Photo by Anna Shvets on Pexels.com

When one views the Mormon teaching on motherhood and the specific gender role of women, one finds specific characteristic traits and attributes that define the calling of motherhood. Yet, LDS teaching on the divine calling of motherhood is not unique. Rachel Jankovich at Desiring God writes the following article: Motherhood is a Calling. She makes this initial observation: 

Motherhood is not a hobby; it is a calling. You do not collect children because you find them cuter than stamps. It is not something to do if you can squeeze the time in. It is what God gave you time for.

Christian mothers carry their children in hostile territory. When you are in public with them, you are standing with, and defending, the objects of cultural dislike. You are publicly testifying that you value what God values, and that you refuse to value what the world values. You stand with the defenseless and in front of the needy. You represent everything that our culture hates, because you represent laying down your life for another — and laying down your life for another represents the gospel.

This divine calling is taught as a partnership with God: 

Elder L. Tom Perry taught, “Motherhood is the noblest and greatest of all callings. "While not all women have the opportunity to be a mother, God does entrust all women with the divine responsibility of mothering, nurturing, and guiding his children. You are not alone in this divine role. You are partnered with Him, our all-knowing and loving Heavenly Father.

President Thomas S. Monson has said, “May each of us treasure this truth; one cannot forget mother and remember God. One cannot remember mother and forget God. Why? Because these two sacred persons, God and mother, partners in creation, in love, in sacrifice, in service, are as one."

Because of this eternal partnership, you are able to rely on Him when the challenges and joys of motherhood come your way. In one of his addresses, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland shared the humble words of a mother who completely understood her role and partnership with God. She told him, “Through the thick and the thin of this and through the occasional tears of it all I know deep down inside I am doing God’s work. I know that my motherhood is an eternal partnership with Him.”

This begs the question: How is motherhood a partnership with God as it relates to the nature of creation, love, sacrifice, service, and all true feminine attributes? Again, we see motherhood as an eternal and divine symbolism of an Eternal and Divine Heavenly Mother. Since Adam is the head of all of humanity, and through Adam, we bear the image and likeness of mortality and divinity; so also Eve stands at the head of all. This goes back to our initial duality of human nature. Adam created after the image of God, the Father. Eve, the Mother of all living beings created after the image and likeness of a divine Heavenly Mother. Together, they come into a unified representation of the Divine nature of Father and Motherhood through the marriage ceremony.

Adam and Eve, Symbolism of the divine and the Covenant Marriage of Heavenly Parents

Our modern translation of the Biblical text does not refer to Adam and Eve as being married. However, the implication is there. Roseann Benson makes this observation in her article - The Marriage of Adam and Eve: Ritual and Literary Elements: 

Marriage between man and woman lies at the heart of Judeo-Christian family tradition, the roots of which are found in the Old Testament story of Adam and Eve. Ritual elements in the marriage of Adam and Eve point to its covenant nature. The following legendary depiction of the first marriage provides a starting point in discussing Adam and Eve’s marriage by illustrating several key elements.

Benson, further, expounds on the nature of how this covenant marriage operated in relation to the marriage of Adam and Eve:

In Genesis 2, the origin of man and woman’s kinship is declared as the physical body of Eve is created from the side of Adam (see Genesis 2:21–22).  Although many commentators view the rib story as figurative, this imagery, whether read as literal or figurative, indicates that Adam and Eve had a very close relationship.  Adam recognizes Eve as being like him in more than just a “general” sense. Unlike other creations of the animal kingdom that have arms and legs but also fur, scales, or some other sort of covering, woman has man’s same type of flesh and bones. Adam identifies this similarity when he said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23). Adam underscores their close origin by announcing, “She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Genesis 2:23). God’s creation of woman “out of man” emphasizes the couple’s similarity to each other and their uniqueness from his previous creations. Adam therefore rightly concludes that Eve had a closer relationship to him than did any other creation. Sealing their kinship, God places them both in the Garden of Eden as companions: God “gavest [her] to be with [him]” and, in the words of Adam, “commandest that she should remain with [him]” (Genesis 3:12; Moses 4:18).

The Hebrew verb נתן (nathan), “to give,” has the meaning of giving either chattel (property or slave) or a maiden. For example, in the following passage, Saul gives his oldest daughter Merab to Adriel “to wife,” indicating that the Hebrew verb nathan is often synonymous with marriage (see 1 Samuel 18:19). Thus the phrases “gave her to be with him” and “commanded that she should remain with him” indicate that God is marrying Adam to Eve and stipulating that their relationship is binding.

God’s command “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” and the narrator’s reference to “the man and his wife” (Genesis 2:24–25) further define Adam and Eve’s relationship. Jesus, in responding to questions from the Pharisees regarding divorce, reiterates this phrase and adds, “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6). When the Pharisees continue to press, Jesus teaches that God intended for this relationship to be binding; however, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:8). Echoing the teachings of Jesus against divorce, the Apostle Paul states that the Lord commanded, “Let not the wife depart from her husband. . . . And let not the husband put away his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:10–11). Throughout this chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul establishes “a steady theme of loyalty to a married partner once that relationship is made.” The definition of the relationship between husband and wife is intended to be permanent.

Here, not only are we defining the nature of Adam and Eve's specific gender roles as it relates to their own creation; we are defining their covenantal roles as husband and wife. Again, this appears to be the very reflection of God's divine providence in creating humanity. Meaning, there is a definitive and eternal purpose in the creation of humanity. The very heart of what the writer at Biblical Gender Roles attempts to address. Not only are we defining their covenant as husband and wife, the Biblical text further defines their gender roles as it applies to covenants as Father and Mother in nature to their own offspring.

David Kyle Foster, at Focus on the Family, observes the following in an article - The Divine Order of Marriage: 

And so we see from Genesis 1 and 2 that God created woman from the side of man so that the man would not be alone. From the teaching of the New Testament, saints have since discovered that He also created the Church from the side of the second Adam—Christ—for the same reason—for intimate fellowship.Back in the Genesis account, we note that the newly created Eve was Adam — his very flesh and bone, and for that reason, the Bible says, Adam called her woman, and, for that reason a man is to leave mother and father and be united to his wife to become one flesh (v24).

For what reason is man to marry a wife? Because woman was originally a constituent part of man, she must return to become one with him again, so that the full expression and design of God's image in human beings can be revealed.This is evident with modern day revelation of the sacredness of marriage: 

Marriage is sacred and was ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. Jesus Christ affirmed the divine origins of marriage: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (see Matthew 19:4-5)

Not only do we understand the richness of our divine heritage, the marriage of Adam and Eve is symbolism of the eternal purpose of marriage as it relates to a divine Heavenly Parenting. Through Adam, we have the priestly authority and fatherhood of God. Through Eve, we have the divine attributes of Motherhood. Together, Adam and Eve became the representatives of Heavenly Parents. And, this is evident in the unifying of  man and woman in their specific gender roles as Husband and Wife. 

Today, Latter-day Saints attend temples for sacred and divine ordinances as it relates to the plan of salvation, eternal and celestial marriage, and associated with divine covenants. While modern Christians may scoff at such practices and rituals - there is no other sacred symbolism of such rituals as that contained in the New Testament and the parables centering around Marriage. 

The most prominent is that of the parable of the virgins and the Ancient Jewish Wedding Ceremony. From the Bible Study Tools, we read the following introductory observation: 

Although various sources describing the practice of Jewish marriage at the time of Christ differ in the details, there is general agreement concerning its major elements. Unlike Western marriage practices, the Jewish marriage has a greater degree of formalism involving numerous steps:

Jewish marriage included a number of steps: first, betrothal (which involved the prospective groom’s traveling from his father’s house to the home of the prospective bride, paying the purchase price, and thus establishing the marriage covenant); second, the groom’s returning to his father’s house (which meant remaining separate from his bride for 12 months, during which time he prepared the living accommodations for his wife in his father’s house); third, the groom’s coming for his bride at a time not known exactly to her; fourth, his return with her to the groom’s father’s house to consummate the marriage and to celebrate the wedding feast for the next seven days (during which the bride remained closeted in her bridal chamber).

When a person carefully studies the nature of the New Testament, one will come away from the deep enriching symbolism of Christ being the Bridegroom, the Church His Bride, and the culmination of the Wedding Ceremony (or Exaltation). This central theme appears to be conflated with various Christian doctrines and teachings. Despite this, many scholars of the New Testament, and many commentaries, reflect the nature of such a powerful analogy.  

In his dissertation - Exegetical Analysis of the Parable of Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13) - Gary H. Everett remarks: 

The setting of the Parable of the Ten Virgins falls within the context of a traditional ancient Jewish wedding ceremony, which John MacArthur describes as "the most celebrated social event" in such cultures, involving the entire community. Only a limited knowledge of ancient oriental weddings exists through ancient writings, and such customs are believed to have varied from one geographical location to the next. Jeremias believes this passage is an accurate description of a traditional wedding of its day. Leon Morris gives a simple ... description of an ancient Jewish wedding as best as can be sketched with existing scholarship. The ancient Jewish wedding was preceded by a lengthy period of betrothal, as seen in the narrative material of Joseph and Mary. This betrothal was binding and only dissolved by divorce proceedings. The wedding ceremony itself was preceded by a processional, where the bridegroom comes to take his bride, and together they make their way to the wedding feast. A description of an ancient Jewish processional can be found in 1 Maccabees 9:37-39, in which the bride, accompanied by a great processional, went out to meet the bridegroom and his friends at a prearranged location. ... The wedding party made its way to the house of the bridegroom's father or to a designated location where the wedding and the marriage feast were to take place. 

While this is important to understand, the other aspect of the wedding ceremony is the nature of how the Bridegroom and Bride are referred to: 

On their wedding day they are called the King and Queen.  On this day, tradition says that they stand without spot or blemish as they are united.  For two years or more (for us, 2000 years approximately since our Bridegroom went back to His Father’s house) the servant, represented for us by the Ruach ha Kodesh, works to prepare the Bride to perfection for her marriage to the perfect Bridegroom, Yahushua.   From I Corinthians 1:4-9: “I thank Elohim always concerning you… that you are not lacking in any gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Master Yahushua Messiah…”  I Thessalonians 5:23: “And the Elohim of peace Himself set you completely apart, and your entire spirit, and soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Master Yahushua Messiah”.   From Ephesians 5:25-27: “...Messiah also did love the assembly and gave Himself for it…in order to present it to Himself a splendid assembly, not having spot or wrinkle,…but that it might be set-apart and blameless”. The Bride has purified herself, and made herself set-apart unto Him alone!!

Furthermore, we also come to understand that the Husband and Wife abide forever: 

After the marriage the Bride goes to live with her Bridegroom as the Queen of the Almighty Elohim and King of Israel.  She remains with Him, by His side, for eternity.  When Father comes, and brings His city down (Revelation 20-22), the Bride is found still with her Husband (Revelation 22:3-5). 

The New Testament is clear that the Church (Bride) will forever abide with the Bridegroom (Christ). In this symbolism, we have the nature of a Celestial Marriage reflected between the relationship of the Church and Christ. This is based on a covenant made through Christ. And, what we draw from this is that Christ and the Church reflect the nature of Eternal Marriage as incorporated between the Husband and Wife. The Husband a King and Priest, the Wife as a Queen and Priestess after the order of the Divine Heavenly Council. Christ himself being the High Priest (after the symbolism of the High Priest of the Temple).

Therefore, the eternal and scriptural revelation of gender roles is specific to the nature and purpose of marriage between Husband and Wife. 
This is because: 

• Husband and Wife possess divine knowledge of Good and Evil (Behold the Man has become like one of us to know good and Evil Genesis 3:5)

• Husband and Wife are to maintain dominion - under divine priesthood authority (which is through the Man as God's bearer of Priesthood dominance and Image Bearer). 

• Husband and Wife are to participate in the creation of children (Go therefore and multiply and replenish the earth). 

• Husband and Wife are created with divine meaning and purpose in their respective gender roles that are not only of a Divine nature and heritage - they become one in reflection of the image and likeness of Heavenly Parents within the divine concept of marriage.

This is consistent with a more appropriate understanding of scripture. It also provides a more sound and revelation with regard to the specific purpose of gender roles. Something other than that which Biblical Gender Roles defined in their article. Again, the attempt here is to provide the information and allow the reader to draw their own conclusion through proper research and mindful attention to specific scholarship and interpretation. 

Whether one accepts the position of this writer, the reality is that what Biblical Gender Roles attempts to argue is a poor attempt in: (1) Defining Masculine and Feminine Gender Roles as it relates to the Nature of God the Father; (2) Grossly undermining the sacred gender role of women and their divine heritage and creation; (3) Misapplying the masculine and feminine attributes to a dyadic-concept of God; and (4) Failure to attend to and answer the posited question as to the nature of God, masculinity, femininity and the purpose of our human existence. This latter will be treated in the final part of the response to Why God’s Identification as Male Is the Key to Understanding Life’s Meaning