An Inquiry into God as Our Heavenly Parents

Foundation Day

By Tyler Hendricks, Ecclesiastical Endorser, Unification Church of America

dr_tyler_hendricksI recall those boring accounts of the Church Fathers arguing over the Trinity. One of the views was that God is One who appears in different modes—sometimes as Father, sometimes as Son, sometimes as Holy Spirit. It is called “modalistic monarchism.” The view that came to the fore in the West asserted that God is not one person appearing in three modes, but is three distinct persons who are one. The problem with modalistic monarchism, they argued, was that it denied the personhood of Jesus.

How three persons could be one God they left as a mystery. Good for them!

I think that the view that God is our Heavenly Parent, who can appear as Father or Mother, is a repeat of modalistic monarchism. It’s not because I want to uphold the orthodox view of the Trinity that I say this. But I did want to begin by contextualizing the discussion in historical theology, and I do support, by and large, the Divine Principle view that God’s providence worked through the Western Church.

Now, to the main point.

I heard a story the other day on National Public Radio by a bisexual. It was one of their StoryCorps episodes, which are little vignettes of American life. The subject was a person who was born a man, married and fathered a child or children, and then changed his bodily make-up and became a woman. This person recounted how s/he related to the children he had fathered when a man. This person said, “I asked myself, am I their father or mother? I decided just to call myself their parent.”

By the doctrine that God is our Heavenly Parent, this person is the image of God.

This illustrates why I believe that the term “Heavenly Parent” is mistaken.

God as “Heavenly Parent” is androgynous. It is a trans-gendered existence that is neither male nor female in any common sense meaning. I find it hard to relate to such a transformer God.

Of course, men have feminine traits and women have masculine traits, but this does not compromise the principle of absolute sex, that each person has a deep identity as one or the other, a man or woman; in True Father’s lexicon, “convex” or “concave.”

All entities exist, act and multiply as part of a four position foundation with differentiated plus and minus or male and female partners. Without the differentiation between subject and object, there is no robust infusion of love, or Universal Prime Force, to instigate give and take action. God is not the exemption; God is the exemplification. God is a differentiated Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, two persons, so we address God as our Heavenly Parents. Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are two persons, just as are Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The full image of God is the two united as one. Men and women do not need surgery to stand in the image of God.

There is no “parent,” strictly speaking, in the universe; there are only parents. It takes two to parent.

God is love, and love is genderless, but love is not a person; it is power infused with principle. Love seeks the beloved who, other than the common base of love itself, is completely other. Heavenly Father is the person infused with that creative, initiating love impulse. Love also seeks to be loved by the beloved who is likewise completely other. Heavenly Mother is the person infused with that attractive and receptive love impulse. The “One” is love itself; love is undifferentiated.

God does not love himself as His bride; God loves an object partner as His bride.

Just as the Messiah raises up his bride, Adam was to have raised up Eve, and Heavenly Father’s creative, initiating love brought forth His Object Partner from nothing into full personhood, Heavenly Mother, equal in divinity, power, authority and uniqueness. And that task was completed in the creation of the world, on the level of the creation, and is continuing through the history of providence. And so the goal of all creation was achieved in the perfection of our True Mother. Just as Heavenly Father was, in a sense, completed in the perfection of True Father, so too Heavenly Mother was, in a sense, completed in the perfection of True Mother. And the age of woman ensued, the completion of the creation. The ultimate purpose of creation is the perfection of the object partner.

Since True Father and True Mother became one on earth, Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are one in Heaven. God is One, our Heavenly Parents.

I suggest that the view that I can relate to God as my Father, and then separately God can decide to appear as my Mother, is a picture of a God that is not One. I believe that gender is a core identity attribute. If God can be fully Mother and fully Father, then gender is not a core identity. If that is the case, then the next step is to consider gender culturally conditioned.

Based on that hypothesis, we see the social engineering to force elementary school boys and girls to sit together for lunch, or compel male soldiers to accommodate female soldiers on the battlefield. Sexual harassment is skyrocketing in the military. Who is shocked by that? Only those who think that sensitivity training seminars and new high command rulebooks can change essential human behavior.♦

Dr. Tyler Hendricks was President of UTS from 2000-10, and President of HSA-UWC in the United States from 1995-2000.

Response by Dr. Andrew Wilson, Professor of Scriptural Studies, UTS:

Quill_penWilsonI appreciate Dr. Hendricks’ efforts to understand that God is our Heavenly Parent, or better, he avers, our Heavenly Parents. I think it is wonderful, and fraught with potential for our own spirituality, to recognize that God is not only the “creative, initiating love impulse” of Heavenly Father but also the “attractive and receptive love impulse” of Heavenly Mother. In that regard, I view it of utmost importance that we seek out Heavenly Mother and come to know Her through prayer and spiritual experiences. Her spirit and truth is subtly different from that of Heavenly Father’s spirit and truth, just as in the family our mother and our father come at parenting from different standpoints and may have different views of what is best for their children’s growth and happiness.

I can contemplate the oneness of God, and yet, I can and do experience Heavenly Mother differently and at different times than Heavenly Father. I think it is only natural, given that this is the way we relate to our natural parents.

Dr. Hendricks also invites us to consider a version of the age-old question, “What was before God,” and posits that before there was Heavenly Parents there was Heavenly Father. The argument is rather thin and hinges on an analogy from restoration, namely that Father raised up Mother. But restoration was carried out in a world of gender inequality, with Christian expectation fixed on a male Messiah. I presume at the time of creation there was no such inequality. Is there any significance to the fact that the first sinless child of True Parents, the first-born of the new creation, was a daughter? ◊

See Dr. Wilson’s Towards God’s Ideal for Gender Relations” on this site.

Response to Dr. Wilson by Dr. Hendricks:

Quill_penI appreciate very much Dr. Wilson’s response. His final point is well-taken and deserves further thought, prayer and spiritual experience. Rev. Moon’s words to Japanese members on the day of their Holy Wine Ceremony, September 22, 1978, highlight the importance of going beyond the framework of temporality: “When the perfect plus appears, the perfect minus automatically manifests itself. This is the principle of creation. When someone becomes a perfect minus, the perfect plus will appear.” (“A Day When We Welcome the Blessing,” in God’s Will and the World, p. 460) ◊

21 thoughts on “An Inquiry into God as Our Heavenly Parents

Add yours

  1. Tyler, you say “God as “Heavenly Parent” is androgynous. ” I agree. You then say “God is two persons” and then you write, “I suggest that the view that I can relate to God as my Father, and then separately God can decide to appear as my Mother, is a picture of a God that is not One.” Am I missing something here? Are you contradicting yourself or am I am just not getting your point? You end with a criticism of women in the military. The ideology that believes men protect women is Traditionalism and the ideology that believes women protect men is Feminism. Arianna Moon wrote a glowing article about a Second Gen sister at West Point saying that she exemplifies the highest ideals of our movement. You seem to say the opposite. Feminist theologians have always pushed for a Heavenly Mother. Andrew Wilson has clearly said in his writings that he is a feminist. Tyler, I am not sure I know which side you are on.

    What is missing here is Father’s words. He explains why God is primarily masculine and is called Father and that is reflected in the Exposition book. Andrew would like to rewrite the Exposition book. Where do you stand, Tyler? Do you want to leave the Exposition book as it is or rewrite it?

    Unificationists have a choice to make on how they address God. Either we call God “Heavenly Father” as Steven Nomura writes brilliantly in his article in the UTS Journal or we have two gods as Andrew Wilson wrote in his article in the Journal titled “Heavenly Mother”. Both articles are online at Normura gives many excellent quotes of Father. Andrew has none and he quickly gets into the practical application of his view of God by pushing for the feminist ideology. The slippery slope of feminism is women in combat. Tyler, you write strongly against “female soldiers on the battlefield”. I agree this is an attempt to “change essential human behavior.” Feminists have no understanding of human nature. And this is why they despise the idea that men protect women. If you ever see someone campaigning against a patriarchal God you are looking at a feminist. They want to end the traditional family that is patriarchal. They want to end the role of men as the heads of their homes and the protector of women and children.

    So, my question is, Tyler, could you clearly state which side you are on? Nomura’s or Wilson’s?

  2. Thank you for your comment.

    In response to Jon’s first query, my point was that a God that can appear as authentically Father and authentically Mother alternatively is not “One,” because masculine and feminine are constitutive of personhood.

    Regarding Jon’s either-or between the two positions he describes, I’m offering a third way. It appears in this part of the text:

    “God is love, and love is genderless, but love is not a person; it is power infused with principle. Love seeks the beloved who, other than the common base of love itself, is completely other. Heavenly Father is the person infused with that creative, initiating love impulse. Love also seeks to be loved by the beloved who is likewise completely other. Heavenly Mother is the person infused with that attractive and receptive love impulse. The “One” is love itself; love is undifferentiated.…

    “Heavenly Father’s creative, initiating love brought forth His Object Partner from nothing into full personhood, Heavenly Mother, equal in divinity, power, authority and uniqueness.”

    This can be expressed more carefully and with greater lucidity. I think my exchange with Dr. Wilson’s comment is important in reminding us that we are speaking of matters non-temporal and beyond a certain point, as the Church Fathers understood, mysterious.

    Jon and I share a common ground in the perception of the social implications of feminism. As I say that, I counsel myself to look to the One, love itself, without which we may win the argument (or think we did) but lose the friends (1 Cor 13).

    Tyler Hendricks

    1. Thanks for responding, Tyler. You say you have a “third way” in response to my trying to pin you down on whether you side with Andrew Wilson or Stephen Nomura. Am I wrong in seeing there really is only two sides to this topic? Nomura elaborates on the Exposition book that says, “In recognition of God’s position as the internal and masculine subject partner, we call Him ‘Our Father.’” This means we would only use the pronouns “He”, “His” or “Him”. Wilson says this is wrong and we should use the pronouns “They”, “Them” and “Their”. He also uses the unisex language of He/She. Do you have a third way around this, Tyler? It seems to me that there is only two roads to go down here. Either we only use the masculine pronouns or we use other words. Either the quote I gave from the Exposition book is true or we have to write something else that disagrees with what it says. I vote for leaving the quote above alone and if True Mother or anyone else wants to rewrite it then they should consider quoting Father backing it up such as the quotes Nomura has in his excellent article.

      So, Tyler, when you address God, do you call God something other than “Heavenly Father” and what pronouns do you use? Isn’t this a clear either-or choice we all have to make? Either we call God what Father called God during his 60 years of ministry, “Father”, or we call God other names such as Heavenly Parent, Heavenly Parents, He/She, etc.

      This site is about practical applications of our theological beliefs. The consequence of the feminist ideas against calling God exclusively “Father” is male soldiers, as you say, “compelled” “to accommodate female soldiers on the battlefield.” When we reject the idea of God as Father and see an egalitarian god then we find ourselves on a slippery slope to egalitarian marriages and ultimately women in combat. Andrew Wilson’s vision is a world without chivalry.

      So, Tyler, what pronouns do you think Unificationists should use for God?

      Jon Quinn

  3. ” If God can be fully Mother and fully Father, then gender is not a core identity. If that is the case, then the next step is to consider gender culturally conditioned.”

    Clearly, gender is perceived, biologically or physiologically based. Gender roles are culturally conditioned. They can be shared. In the Taoist sense, the Ultimate Being is not gender based. Tao is a mystery yet its manifestations are many. Tao is neither fully male nor fully female. The Western conception of the Ultimate Being – God the Father / God the Son / God the Holy Spirit, has been ossified as a religious construct. However, it is subject to ( UC ) reinterpretation as Heavenly Parents – that encapsulates both Mother and Father. In the Ultimate Being, dual characteristics are inseparable and co-existent. Nevertheless, physiology is at the core of gender identity for human beings. As we know the physiological – basis of self identity can become unseated and doubted. Gender confusion is a psychological disorder that forces a type of accommodation. The argument for this kind of accommodation stems from a view of undifferentiated and gender-less love. While the impulse of love is undifferentiated, its manifestations are culturally, emotionally and morally defined within traditional gender roles. In other words, Tao … differentiated is the arousal of heart, righteousness, order and the basis of propriety.

    1. Robert, thank you for your comment. I am not well-educated in Taoism, but if I substitute the word, Love, for Tao, then I agree with you. I recall that at the Coronation of God, Jan 13, 2001, at the highest level True Father had two chairs for God, not one. It puzzled me at the time. And yet God is not two, because love makes one of two.

    2. Robert, I would question the first assertion, that “if God can be fully Mother and fully Father, then gender is not a core identity.” Only God is fully Mother and fully Father. Why would it follow that human beings are capable of the same? We are each in the image of either the Father or the Mother.

    1. It’s okay. I found an explanation at

      “Ecclesiastical endorsement is both a legal and technical term in chaplaincy. It is the official process by which a denomination evaluates chaplain applicants and certifies to hiring agencies that the applicant is qualified for a particular chaplaincy position.”

    2. Gerard: An ecclesiastical endorser is an officer of a denomination that verifies to interested public entities the recognition by the denomination of a person as a member of the clergy of that church. It comes up, for example, when a person applies to be a chaplain, whether in the military, a hospital or prison. One requirement to be a chaplain is that one be a member of the clergy, or recognized equivalent, for their church. The Ecclesiastical Endorser is the officer that provides that verification. It also comes up when young people apply for deferment of college award grants on the basis of participating in a mandatory church missionary program, to validate the bonafides of the program to the college. I started off in this function back in the 90s, when I was president. Dr. Jenkins did it while he was president, but after that the distinction returned to me.

  4. Tyler, I am not talking about physical parents on earth. I can only assume by your response that you use the plural pronouns for God and are therefore in Andrew’s, True Mother’s and In Jin’s camp. I’m sticking with the singular, masculine pronouns and addressing God as He wants to be called, “Heavenly Father” or “Father” for short. That is what True Father called God and I find his many statements why God is called Father to be intellectually satisfying and it feels right.

    As I understand it, the purpose of this forum is to apply Unificationism to our practical daily life. The consequence of denying the patriarchal nature of God manifests in denying the teachings of the Bible and Father’s magnificent words on the patriarchal nature of men. The road of feminism that Mother, In Jin and Andrew are going down leads to egalitarianism and that slippery slope ends with women in combat that you, Tyler, finds “shocking.” Recently in Las Vegas, Mother praised Israeli women combat soldiers.

    These are the Last Days. This is a time of judgement to decide if we are sheep or goats. Either the philosophy of Unificationism is traditional family values or feminist family values. There is no third way. Either you believe women are protected by men as Helen Andelin teaches in “Fascinating Womanhood” and her husband, Audrey, teaches in “Man of Steel and Velvet” or you believe women protect men by going to West Point and then leading men on the battlefield as Betty Friedan teaches in “The Feminine Mystique” and feminist men like Michael Kimmel find noble in his books. I could name more books on both sides of this debate but I am limited in space here. I write in depth on these two competing ideologies in my books. The choice is crystal clear. Either Andrew Wilson speaks for Unificationism advocating feminism in his books “World Scripture” and “Educating for True Love” or I write what is Unificationism in my books. In the subtitle to my book Practical Plan for World Peace I boldly use the word “Unificationism”. The book’s full title is “Practical Plan for World Peace: Unificationism — The Teachings of Sun Myung Moon”

    So, Tyler, it seems that Christians have 3 gods, you have two gods, and I have one Heavenly Father which leads me to use singular masculine pronouns.

    1. You say it can only be one way or the other, every thing I hear says when you come to that thought you should think again because usually there are other possibilities. For one example, in God original world, would anyone need to protect? Would here be danger or things to fear.

  5. This article calls to mind a certain subtlety similar to Lucifer’s questioning “did God say not to eat”. Ambiguity comes when there is a need to stir the thoughts of others in a somewhat different direction. It seems the question of the femininity of Heavenly Parent, in equality and oneness with masculinity, is quite a challenge to grasp. It has been a historical dilemma that lead to destruction & oppression of the most valuable part of man (and woman) – the other half. it is not how Heavenly Parent appears to us (as masculine or feminine), I would argue. It is to what extent do we have the ability to leave the realm of the eyes of the fallen archangel and begin to open our minds to a different realm which embodies the true meaning of love. The true love that creates oneness.

    In the simplicity of a peanut where there is a harmonious duality existing in the seed coat,to the abstract complexity of yin/yang elements of creation, there are great examples of two existing in a oneness. The scars of sin have left blindness (insight about the nature & existence of God) that we can only try to understand based on those scars. I believe that Divine Principle clearly explains the Parenthood of God as a harmonious dual existence of masculinity & femininity. Also the division of the harmonious one in the creation of men & women. How about when we exist as one in the spirit world? Husband and wife are supposed to exist as a ball of love separating from each other only when we need to be identified individually. The argument for Heavenly Parents while convincing would always suggest that the divided masculinity & femininity is the mode of existence for God but God exists as One Perfect, Harmonious Being and should not be reduced to gender assignments in a secularized, intellectualized context but mainly in the context of deepest spirituality and wisdom.

    1. I find all the comments very valuable and sincere. I would have argued against the position I have taken until recently, as contemplation of the “absolute sex” teaching, the two chairs at the Coronation Ceremony, and others of Father’s words led me to the position I am now exploring. I was a solid “God is One” and that God is the Father guy. I still am. God is the Father. The existence of Heavenly Mother / Heavenly Wife does not change at all the existence and all historical acts of God the Father. I don’t see how it is a secularized view. Yes, it is intellectual, but that’s who I am. In terms of my direct experience of God, best I can tell, I would say that God was, well, a lot like me. A rather soft-spoken male. So, no, I’m speaking more from my intellect and research than personal experience.

      Thank you for your responses, everyone.

  6. This is quite interesting. Thank you Dr. Hendricks.

    Firstly, I’d like to applaud this suggestion of reaching out to God as our Heavenly Parents, with an “s.”

    I love theology. I often pondered on this: If it is true and correct and principled to call out to God as the “Heavenly Parent” as in, a singular name, then how is it that the Spanish language can ever address God correctly? It would be impossible to call God a Heavenly Parent.

    In Spanish, “Padres” denotes the bipolar entity of Mother and Father. But if you were to say “Padre” this would only mean “Father” in English. Therefore, the singular form of “Parent” does not exist. Meaning that, this cannot be the perfect form, or best way, to call out to God. In this respect, Dr. Hendrick’s suggestion makes absolute sense.

    I really like this “God does not love himself as His bride; God loves an object partner as His bride.” This is a hallmark point in Dr. Tyler Hendrick’s blogpost. It is true–it reveals to us that the Heavenly Mother aspect of God, however united, cannot be in the same being. It must be in creation. This is taking us back to the “Mother Earth” concept.

    I have a question though. How is that we are to answer the everlasting question “Who is God?” Considering Dr. Hendrick’s approach, are we to say “God is the Heavenly Parents?” Or, what makes more sense, “God is the Heavenly Parent?”

    Your thoughts on this, please. Thank you.

    Jorge Cuello Espinosa

  7. Tyler, I am so glad you brought this up. I used to ask does the masculine aspect of God get joy from loving the feminine aspect of God. If we are the reflection? Kitty Davis W said, in prayer Heavenly Mother told Her that at the time of the fall She was so heart broken She couldn’t go on, and Heavenly Father put her behind or inside of Himself and told Her, He would fix it.
    I am paraphrasing what Kitty said 30 years ago, but it has always been dear to me.

    1. Wow. This is very powerful. Who is Kitty Davis W?

      Oh, and also, another point I’d like to make about Tyler’s article, which I liked and is connected to Arlene’s comment, is the idea of being able to relate with Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother separately. They cannot be the same parent, though they are united. And, saying Heavenly Parent, without an “s”, leads us to relate with both of them at once… it’s kind of funny.

      Am I wrong? Correct me if this is the correct viewpoint of what Dr. Tyler Hendricks tried to say. Thank you.

      1. We are in a realm where the intellect, spirituality, personal experience, politics and theology come together. Speaking of God is a holy of holies and in this place I think we need to respect and love everyone who ventures in.

        To Jorge, asking “who is God” is like asking “who are your parents.” Your parents are your mother and father. At the moment they became your parents, they were one. The institution of marriage is vital because it is the historical substantiation of the oneness of your parents, even as they are two persons.

        The sungsang-hyungsang unity is of one person’s two parts made into one; the male-female unity is of two persons made into one. I used to view the former as more sublime and important; now I view the latter as more sublime and important.

        I’ll share a citation from an as-yet unpublished memoir by Gil Ja Sa (who we in America know as Mrs. Eu, wife of the first UC president, Hyo Won Eu; she was once Regional Director in Texas, and is the author of the 3-color version of the DP). By the way, it is a wonderful, priceless memoir from the early church; I heartily recommend it once it comes out. Anyway, here’s the citation, that I just read this morning (part of a longer story, but this conveys the point).

        “So this lady told God, ‘Heavenly Mother! Please save me. What should I do now that Heavenly Father has abandoned me?’ She begged her desperately. Heavenly Mother then said, ‘Then wait, I’ll go ask Father.’ After much time, Heavenly Mother came back and scorned, her, ‘Why didn’t you keep your promise? Heavenly Father is extremely angry at you because your mind changes more than a dozen times a day.’ Then the lady begged for forgiveness, saying ‘Heavenly Mother! Please forgive me just this once. I will never do it again.’ Then She left after saying, ‘OK, I’ll go ask Him again and come right back.’ Then She came back and said, ‘Heavenly Father said there was no way for Him to forgive you but He will forgive you just this once because of Heavenly Mother.'”

  8. Wow. All these comments are starting to sound like how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Tyler, you make an excellent point to suggest we think of God as our heavenly parentS, and not just our heavenly parent. In this way we can recognize and relate to God’s dual nature of masculine and feminine. But DP tells us that God is masculine and feminine in his essential nature, and that in creating humans, “he” divided himself into his two essential natures, each nature embodying an element of the other. However, to suggest that God’s feminine nature was created by his masculine nature and equals a distinct feminine being raises the question: Why did God create man? DP says it’s because God needed an object partner in order to experience love. Perhaps I misread your article, but it seems from what you’re saying that God not already had an object partner with whom he could share love before creating humanity, but that God created that object partner. So why create man?

    Another commenter mentioned that there is only masculinism or feminism, there is no third way. That strikes me as weird. DP is clear on the concept that subject and object are equal in all respects, there is no subordination, no master-servant relationship. Therefore, feminism to the extent it does not deny masculinism is a valid existence, as is masculinism when it doesn’t deny feminism. Father once said that feminism was the response of the feminine to the oppression of the masculine. In my experience we Unificationists have always confused subject-object with Cain-Abel (because we confused Cain-Abel with a subject-object that embodied a master-servant nature)…and the masculinism-feminism conflict gets the same treatment. If God is a being embodying subject-object, then it’s silly to think that one half of God is inferior or subservient to his other half. But I suppose that’s no more weird than being told that God loves us, but disobedience to him will bring us eternal torture in a lake of fire.

    I think, Tyler, that you over-inflate the example of that bisexual parent. We have to remember that we are spiritual beings first and foremost, and that we inhabit our physical bodies, not vice-versa. Our physical bodies are not “us,” they express us in the physical world. Even though a person changes their gender physically, are they really a different gender in their fundamental form? In spirit world, have their spiritual genitalia switched? And even if they did, what does that mean to the essential human itself: the invisible, intangible being that exists beyond time and space like God? Personally, I think these gender-bending folks are in for a surprise when they wake up in spirit world, but that’s just my opinion. I have no evidence or even anecdotes to back that up. Still, conflating that bisexual person with God’s image because they’ve changed their physical gender (but not their essential gender, or even the physical brain in which they matured as a different gender) is a huge, and false, leap of logic. A gender-changed person is simply not the wholistic, integrated male-female, subject-object being that is God. At best they’re a fractured facsimile sustained by feminizing (or masculinizing, as the case may be) drugs and a willful mindset. None of that reflects God’s nature, which is a harmonious blend of natural elements.

    In the end, other than helping us think in better terms about God’s two-part masculine-feminine nature, I think your assertion raises a self-defeating question: If God created his own feminine nature as his object partner of love, why create man? And maybe that’s why I got the sense that the comments to your article were like the head-of-the-pin controversy: the notion is derailing, it leads us down a road strewn with logic mines. Or, as a final thought, perhaps God found his soulmate in his feminine side (or, rather, his distinct, trinitarian feminine object partner, as you seem to say), and together they decided they’d like to have kids. Hence, us. Based on my understanding of DP (which is poor, I admit), however, I wouldn’t go there, myself. I will start thinking of God as my parentS, because that’s a good point, but what that means in terms of God’s personhood? I guess we’ll have to break out the microscope and figure out just how big the head of a pin really is.

    1. Well-said! I would only add that as part of the creation, we struggle with understanding the concept of the oneness of the Creator and we view it in the context of our own human existence. For us to understand Heavenly Parent, it would require elevating our intellect from its current state and allow true inspiration to come from the Creator about the Harmonious masculinity and femininity.

Use the box below to submit a new comment (To reply, click "Reply" within a specific comment above)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Website Built with

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: