Masculinity, Femininity, and Gender


This is a topic about which I have much more I could write and spend more time coming to understand personally — however, considering the general interest on LDS blogs over the topics of:

I thought it expedient to expound on what I currently understand the nature of these questions to be.  Each point could be illuminated on further if a reader finds any jumps in reasoning that they perhaps cannot follow.

Male/female gender vs. masculine/feminine aspects:

Every intelligence that was created from nothing by God chose a gender for itself at the point when it was made independent in that sphere in which God placed it.  This was its first “act for itself” – choosing to be either male or female in gender.

All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. [D&C 93:30]

Masculine and feminine, however, refer to aspects of character – not to gender.  Whether male, female, or of no gender [things] – all aspects of existence may act in either masculine or feminine aspects, and thus may be considered as male or female.

The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God. [D&C 88:45]

The sun is considered as a male because it fulfills a masculine role of emitting light, while the moon is considered as a female because it fulfills a feminine role of receiving and reflecting light.

A better example of the distinction between gender and aspect/role is in considering Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost:

Personal harmony:

The Eastern concept of the yin and yang is a symbol for explaining the dance that goes on between the masculine and feminine aspects within each individual person.  Whether we chose to have a male or female gender as a personage – we are all comprised of masculine and feminine particles, aspects, and characteristics.

Just as an atom – though it contains some particles called protons [positive charge], some neutrons [no charge], and some electrons [negative charge] – may manifest [over-all] either a positive [e.g., sodium] or a negative [e.g., chlorine] charge.  And it is this over-all charge that allows the atoms to interact with each other and form the molecules of life [sodium+chlorine = salt].

Every person [whether created male or female in gender] contains in their make-up the masculine aspects [yang] – or those of creation, acting upon, the left-brain-mind, the right side, etc. and the feminine aspects [yin] – those of resting, yielding, the right-brain-heart, the left side, etc.  [See also, the Split-Brain Model of the Gospel]

When in balance within an individual person, the right-brain-heart will receive [feminine/yin] inspiration and the left-brain-mind will act upon [masculine/yang] that idea and be the tool that carries out the will.

The key to harmony in this system is for masculine and feminine aspects to be in balance.  It would be improper to ask the moon [feminine] to shine like the sun – or the sun [masculine] to reflect like the moon.  Each has its proper role, power, purpose, and way of doing things.  Activity must be balanced with rest.  Contemplation must be balanced with creation.  Etc.

The two cannot be mixed together or pitted one against the other – as though “on” could ever gain victory over “off” or vice versa.  The masculine and feminine are to come together and become one – joining together, but retaining the masculine and feminine aspects undiluted, untainted, and unmixed.

Tribal harmony:

The masculine aspect pertains to males by virtue of a male birth, and the feminine aspect pertains to females by virtue of a female birth.

Humans are not born into this world absolutely free.  That is not to say that I think we are slaves to some nature that we must overcome – nor do I think we are born in any way enslaved.  I simply mean that we are all limited.  The natural completion of any one human can only be found in the joining of two humans.  The natural completion of any two humans [a marriage couple] can only be found in the joining of them to God.  Man or woman [alone] know but one part of human nature.

The male is born into this world with the symbolic wand, scepter, or sword [covered by a hood].  This is God considered as a male.  It is the will that acts to bring about something from nothing [creation].  It is the tool to penetrate the mystery.

The female is born into this world with the symbolic cup and orb [again covered by a hood].  This is God considered as a female.  It is the sacred chalice of divine compassion.  It is the fertile soil yielding to and receiving the seed.

Husbands are [by virtue of a male birth] to act in the masculine aspect of a priest.  Wives are [by virtue of a female birth] to act in the feminine aspect of a priestess.

Males must embrace and magnify their masculine aspect – while at the same time honoring feminine-ness by loving their wives.  Females must embrace and magnify their feminine aspect – while at the same time honoring masculine-ness by yielding their consent to their husbands.

For there to be true equality between males and females, matriarchy must exist along with patriarchy and gynocracy must exist along with androcracy.  There must be a balance of power, and power must be shared – not concentrated in the hands of a few.

Women are to hold the keys of common consent by which they are free to authorize, validate, and direct the work of the priesthood.  Men are to hold the keys of the priesthood by which they are to act as the voluntary slaves of all and minister the gifts and powers of the Spirit.  Though wives are to submit to or follow their husbands – this is balanced inasmuch as the priesthood of the husband cannot be handled without the consent of those it is intended to serve [the servant must hearken to his masters in all things].  All things must be done by common consent, or else disharmony and tyranny result [rather the men or the women are at fault].  Men and women are judged by God according to how they use their respective set of keys and how they treat each other.

There is no need to consider the particular aspects of the feminine nature [or the male nature] to be a burden.  Nor do we have to somehow neutralize the difference between woman and man in the quest for some androgenous equality of andro-gyn-archy where we demand the sun reflect light and the moon emit it.

What we are to understand by the division of masculine and feminine natures is that man or woman [alone] are but half of a true person – just as a person’s flesh is incomplete without his/her spirit.  However, it is being half that allows the whole to be constructed without denying each part what it truly is.

What of Heavenly Mother?

All Gods, irrespective of gender, are masculine aspects – or are to be considered as male.  When they become the feminine aspect [the mystery, that which is penetrated], they enter the passive, sleep-state of outer darkness — and we do not relate to them here in the created universe.

The exception to this is Jesus Christ during his life on earth.  For though he was God, and therefore did not consider “Godhood” to be something he needed to cling to – he gave up or emptied himself of the masculine aspect of God, took upon himself flesh, appeared in human form, humbled himself in obedience to God, and suffered death on the cross to have his bowels filled with compassion for humanity [See Philippians 2:6-11].  Thus, for that duration of time, Jesus Christ [being God] was considered as a female while being a male personage.  However, thereafter he is seated at the right hand of God [masculine] and all humanity is subject to him [masculine] – and is therefore, as God, he is currently considered as a male.

The created universe [associated with the left-brain-mind/right side] is a masculine aspect, therefore – whether a God is a priest/king or a priestess/queen, He or She is considered as a male by humanity.  We refer to all of them as Gods [rather than Goddesses] – and we must relate to them as masculine, as in yield to the Spirit and submit our will, etc.

Outer darkness [associated with the right-brain-heart/left side] is a feminine aspect.  It is the mystery [a sea of “nothing”-ness] that is penetrated by the will [expansion of the sphere of light].  It is the passive state of non-existence that is contrasted to the active state of existence.

Thus, the Gods are all considered as males and we must relate to them in that way.  The difference in the offering of Cain [fruits of the earth] and of Abel [animal sacrifice] is that Cain could not act in faith towards God while approaching him as a feminine aspect [fertility worship].

As Gods, the purpose is to begin the Arthurian quest to drown in the cup of the Divine Feminine.  Once a God [whether male or female in gender] achieves this state of progression – they return to a state of passivity and rest in outer darkness.  The cycle of creation and expansion of this created universe must be balanced with the rest and withdraw of outer darkness.

The nature of all energy is a wave.  There is no static position in nature.  The full moon will be immediately replaced by the waning gibbous.  Once the moon’s light is altogether withdrawn — a new moon phase begins with the waxing crescent.  The sun goes thru similar phases of active solar activity and more quiet periods.  The earth wobbles on its axis to form seasonal intervals.  The sun moves thru the sky from the summer solstice to the equinox to the winter solstice and back.  Etc.

Eternal progression does not defy this natural pattern by being linear.  The course is one eternal round – or that of an undulating wave.  The kingdom of God is associated with “on” [yang, creation, left-brain, masculine] and outer darkness is associated with “off” [yin, rest, right-brain, feminine].  The point at which any God [male or female] reaches the crest of the wave – they pierce thru the created universe and begin the state of rest [as was counseled to be so since the beginning].

This state is the Divine Feminine, what people call the Heavenly Mother – this is God considered as a female.  This substance is what yields to the universal sphere of light [the seed].  This substance is what the power of creation [pro-creation] uses to bring something out from nothing.  Once any Goddess [male or female] reaches the trough of the wave – they become awake to their left-brain-mind and spawn a new universal sphere of light [a seed].

Outer darkness is, in every facet, the right-brain-heart of God – it is the Mother or Goddess – the waning or sleep state.

The created universe is, in every facet, the left-brain-mind of God – it is the Father or God – the waxing or active state.

This principle – explained in three tiers:

I.  As a person [rather born male or female], each of us must seek to harmonize the feminine and the masculine aspects inherent in our person.

This is done by subjecting the flesh [feminine] to the spirit [masculine] – and by placing the right-brain and the left-brain into their proper harmonious roles.

II.  As a marriage couple [who are made up of one male and one female], the wife and the husband must seek to harmonize the feminine and masculine aspects inherent in the role each one is to play.

This is done by women acting in the aspects of the feminine and men acting in the aspects of the masculine.  Wives [feminine] must follow their husbands [masculine].

III.  As the church of God [who are made up of the foundational unit of marriage families], we are all – as the bride of Christ – to seek towards harmonizing ourselves as the feminine with our masculine Bridegroom and Father.

This is done by all believers acting in the aspects of the feminine by relating to God only as a masculine aspect [even the Gods that are female in gender, i.e. the Holy Ghost].  The church [feminine] must subject its will to the will of the Father [masculine].

Next Article by Justin:  Zion will not be Established by Unrelated Persons

Previous Article by Justin:  Punishment

About these ads

26 Comments

  1. Interesting how Eastern philosophy is brought in to help explain the missing “Mother in Heaven.” I have Western philosophy somewhat hard-wired into my brain from my upbringing, which sometimes makes the Eastern stuff hard to grok. Nevertheless, the West-East dichotomy may be another example of masculinity vs. femininity, and a harmony of both is perhaps necessary to correctly understand God and God’s universe.

    This may also be reflected in Mount Zion + Old Jerusalem vs. Zion/New Jerusalem. From masculine Zion goes out the law, and from feminine Jerusalem goes out the spiritual teachings. Possibly a fixation on the masculine/western aspects of Mormonism is the reason for the Church leaders’ emphasis on obedience and strict hierarchy. The neglect of the female/eastern side has created an ever-increasing imbalance. This is manifested in the increasing suppression of women in the Church; whereas they were originally considered as Melchizedek Priesthood holders after receiving their endowment, they then became relegated to giving blessings solely by the power of faith, and finally they are simply left to pray for the sick. Likewise correlation placed the Relief Society fully under the control of the male priesthood.

    This brings up the question of whether balance will be brought back, or rather, when and under what circumstances balance will be brought back. Does it happen before the coming of Christ, or as an effect of it? Is Zion to be established under the unbalanced emphasis on masculinity, and Jerusalem later restored to bring back the balance?

  2. The neglect of the female/eastern side has created an ever-increasing imbalance.

    People are generally bothered by the idea of “nothing”. Anything close to “nothing” like sleep or rest is seen as a waste of time, a manifestation of a lazy attitude. The right-brain/left side is victimized in human language [which the left-brain controls]. Women have been subjugated since the dawn of history. The negative and the empty are seen as pointless at best. Mercy is for the weak.

    All of these are cases where people wrongly seek one aspect at the expense of the other.

    Despite our general terror of it — “nothing” is actually quite powerful. Despite the common wisdom, it is actually the case that you can’t have something without nothing. Where has there been an outside of a cup without there also being an inside?

    Also Jeremiah — you may be interested in the Tree of This and That too, if you have not yet read that post.

    This is manifested in the increasing suppression of women in the Church

    This is true as well. Not only has the nature of women ministering in the Relief Society as an independent quorum of priestesses been suppressed — but so has the nature of women commanding the keys of the church to direct the work of the priesthood by the vote of common consent been suppressed.

    Does it happen before the coming of Christ, or as an effect of it? Is Zion to be established under the unbalanced emphasis on masculinity, and Jerusalem later restored to bring back the balance?

    It is my belief that Zion must be established prior to the 2nd coming of Christ occuring. He’s been “coming quickly” for the last several centuries b/c there must be a Zion people to receive Him at this coming.

    Zion is a common morphic field that will exist among a group of sanctified believers in Christ who outwardly manifest and organize themselves according to the principle of charity. It is also my understanding that this community will also be created by people who have also been sanctified in the flesh unto the renewing of their bodies — possessing transfigured flesh.

    Though the Lord’s timetable is fixed according to the 1,000 year scrolls [and whether it be we who fulfill prophecy or another group we know that of] — the timetable is also variable according to what the people who are still currently considered the church of God chose to do/work towards.

  3. Each point could be illuminated on further if a reader finds any jumps in reasoning that they perhaps cannot follow.

    I can understand this post, but only because I have read the entire blog. It strikes me as a Deep Waters-type of post. Some of the concepts, such as creatio ex nihilo are not believed by LDS. Others, such as “a state of passivity and rest in outer darkness” I think will go entirely over people’s heads because they are entirely new concepts. I can’t imagine anyone understanding the concepts presented here if this is the first blog essay they read. I’d love to know if I’m wrong in this assessment. To any new visitors who comment after me, I ask, did this post make sense to you?

    Btw, I thoroughly enjoyed the essay and found it stimulating.

  4. I can understand this post, but only because I have read the entire blog. It strikes me as a Deep Waters-type of post.

    FWIW — I did tag this as “Deep Waters” in the categories when I wrote it. Also, when I read it to my wife prior to publishing it — her response was: “Sorry — but Goddess don’t go to sleep in hell.

    To add more:
    I was thinking about the Baptism of Fire post — and the balance of the feminine element [water] with the masculine element [fire].

    In the OP I wrote that:

    All Gods, irrespective of gender, are masculine aspects – or are to be considered as male [...] all believers [must act] in the aspects of the feminine by relating to God only as a masculine aspect.

    Thus, when I read:

    John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: [Luke 3:16]

    I again see this balance where humanity acts in the feminine [John may baptize with water],
    While God acts in the masculine [Jesus may baptize with fire and the Holy Ghost].

    Baptism is described according to the balance of gender aspects and of the primordial elements — though we are missing the element of earth.

    John: Water [and Earth assumed] = feminine
    Jesus: Fire and Air [pneuma meaning the same as breath or wind] = masculine

    Thus Jesus being baptized by water was expedient [or fulfilled all righteousness] b/c it was a part of Him taking upon Him the feminine aspect/role.

    Also, ditto:

    To any new visitors who comment after me, I ask, did this post make sense to you?

  5. Baptism is described according to the balance of gender aspects and of the primordial elements — though we are missing the element of earth.

    Wouldn’t our physical bodies be the element of earth? Tabernacles of clay, “for dust thou wast, and unto dust shalt thou return” and all that?

  6. LDSA:

    That makes sense. Perhaps that’s why the element is just assumed [or taken as granted] and therefore not mentioned in the formulation of — “I shall baptize with water [you already being earth], and then God will come and baptize with fire and the Holy Ghost.”

    Christ “taking flesh” upon Him is a feminine aspect — therefore associating the flesh with the earth makes sense to me.

  7. [...] the whole doctrine of eternal gender roles is deeply problematic. The problem with modesty/chastity isn’t just the [...]

  8. Hey Jeremiah Stoddard you read Stranger in s Strange Land by Heinlein also Huh? I love to use that word grok. But since most people don’t get it I haven’t used it much.

    Well LDSA I guess I am one of those who don’t believe in “creatio ex nihilo” if that means that intelligence is created out of nothing. And Justin this is what struck me in the third paragraph. The rest of the post I liked and didn’t have a problem with. But I have read most of the posts here so LDSA might have a point.
    But back to my point or question. Now I really don’t feel like digging up tyhe scripture reference in D&C 93 but it does say “intelligence cannot be created or made” am I right? And then Joseph Smith said man is co-eval with God. There is a part of man which was not created but has always existed. And I understand that to be my intelligence. See I do have a problem with saying that there is a part of me or any of us, no not a part but in fact every part of us at sometime or other did not exist and so each part was non existent till it came into existence. You see the way i see it if that is the case then it is certainly possible and in fact a strong probability or even a certainty that there will come a time when all of me and you cease to exist.
    Which is harder to grok, that there is a truly unlimited amount of raw matter or energy which can be transformed to matter and a truly infinite supply of intelligences which are in the pipeline to be added upon and better organized till they too become as the Gods in all ways and share all things OR that everything is made from nothing and once made it will remain forever?
    Or did I miss the point please enlighten me.

  9. There are probably posts which explain it. So if so just point me to them please

  10. D&C 93 but it does say “intelligence cannot be created or made” am I right?

    Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

    This is referring to outer darkness. The “substance” there has no power or purpose — therefore, cannot be said to have existence. God did not create outer darkness [and the "light of truth" substance there] — neither could He have created it b/c it has no purpose.

    There are probably posts which explain it. So if so just point me to them please

    That would be this post — Lehi’s model of the universe

    There is a part of man which was not created but has always existed. And I understand that to be my intelligence.

    You are not composed of three substances — spirit, element, and intelligence. There are but two components to the creations of God. Spirit and element. The “you” spirit component that is the steward/ruler over your organized body of other spirit particles came into existence when God placed you in the sphere as an independent entity with power to act for yourself [which means prior to this you were not existing, did not have independence, and could not act for yourself.

    Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

    These “intelligences” are the independent spirit entities that had yet to have been organized into spirit children of God. The use of the word “intelligences” here is not the same use of the word “intelligence” that was equated with the “light of truth” in D&C 93. All humans born to this earth were made rules over their bodies of organized spirit particles — thus all of us were among the noble and great ones spoken of here.

    There are probably posts which explain it. So if so just point me to them please

    That would be this comment from The nature of authority: the Lord’s stewardship law

    All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

    There is a component of creation that is from nothing — and that is when the truth [physical element], and all intelligence also [spirit particles], were brought into the created universe [sphere] from outer darkness.

    There is a component of creation that is forming pre-existing materials — and this is when intelligence were organized into spirit bodies with rules/stewards placed in charge over the bodies [as well as the formation of the physical components of the universe, etc.]

    There is a component of creation that is from the very substance of God as well.

    There are probably posts which explain it. So if so just point me to them please

    That would be this post — Creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex materia and creatio ex deo are all true doctrines.

    I should have probably prefaced with links to these posts at the start of this one — as I did with the Tribal Relationships post.

  11. In light of this post I just read at Wheat and Tares on the identity of women in the church — I found this post titled, The Lost Art of Masculinity. To sum up the author’s point:

    Starting in the 60s, peaking in the 70s, and continuing on through today — a generation of women have ended up parenting [for the most part] alone, and a generation of boys has ended-up being raised [for the most part] without a father-figure.

    The battle of the sexes — with its attempt at creating some leveling of the playing field has resulted in casualties. In the absence of a father-figure, an angry, faux matriarchy emerged. And a generation of men really did screw up. They abandoned or abused families, cheated on wives, and generally used women and dumped them. Fathers bailed.

    So, in the absence of real men, justifiably angry women raised a group of boys who became men who have a bad taste in their mouth about men. Which is hard to live with — being a man and all.

    She goes on to list Strength, Chivalry, and Romance as the lost aspects of manliness that women desire men to reattain.

    She wrote, in conclusion:

    There’s more and more being written about the divine masculine and the divine feminine. There’s been plenty written about the wounded woman. There’s little to nothing being written about the wounded man.

    It’s time for men to claim their wounds, and in claiming them, start healing themselves into wholeness.

    Many women are realizing that they want to be with men who are proud to be men. So guys, stand up, hold your head high, own those man-parts, and walk forward into the equal-but-different future of a world beyond the sex and gender wars.

  12. Heh, dyc4557, I guess I need to get out more. It didn’t occur to me that people might not understand the word “grok.”

    Oddly, I didn’t catch the creatio ex nihilo being taught in the third paragraph until it got pointed out. It’s an interesting concept, though, that the first act of intelligences would be to choose their gender. I would have speculated that gender might be based on innate properties (the nature) of a particular intelligence, but I suppose the two ideas aren’t mutually exclusive. An intelligence which was more feminine in nature would likely choose to be female when enabled to act, and the same would go for a more masculine intelligence.

    Though I’m not entirely sure that intelligences would have distinct properties either; I might also speculate that the unorganized intelligences make up a uniform substance. But it’s easier to believe in an eternal identity even if not well formed before being clothed in spirit. Additionally, I would assume that some disuniformity were necessary, or else all intelligences would have chosen the same gender…

  13. I guess I need to get out more. It didn’t occur to me that people might not understand the word “grok.”

    When you said “grok” — this is what I thought of.

    Oddly, I didn’t catch the creatio ex nihilo being taught in the third paragraph until it got pointed out. It’s an interesting concept…

    Jeremiah — do you interpret the phrase in D&C 93:30, “otherwise there is no existence.” to mean something other than that prior to being placed in the sphere to act for itself — neither truth nor intelligence had existence [i.e., did not exist]?

    Or how about this from the Lectures on Faith: “Without it [faith], there is no power, and without power there could be no creation, nor existence!” Does this not also seem to suggest that prior to being organized [created], the material that comprised things existed in an unorganized or disorganized state. The opposite of organization is disorganization.

    But Joseph also mentions that without God’s faith, there would not have been any existence. Existence is listed as something separate from organized. The opposite of existence is nonexistence. Therefore it seems that God’s faith is what causes both creation and existence.

    Prior to the God’s faith was exercised, the sphere of light being created, and light and truth being placed into the sphere — nothing was created and nothing existed. All things were compound in one — having no purpose, power, or existence. Just a big, black abyss of possibility — only discerned by God’s right-brain [imagination], but taking an act of will [the left-brain] to bring it into existence

    t’s an interesting concept, though, that the first act of intelligences would be to choose their gender. I would have speculated that gender might be based on innate properties (the nature) of a particular intelligence,
    [...]
    Though I’m not entirely sure that intelligences would have distinct properties either;

    My only qualms about putting that sentence in this post was over a concern of choice being informed. I had worried that perhaps there would not have been able information on the ramifications of either option available to a newly created particle of spirit matter to make a well-informed choice one way or the other.

    However, the only innate properties a particular spirit particle would have had at the moment of creation would have been a capacity to act and a love for God by virtue of His charity manifested by inviting that particular particle into the created universe to share in the glory of His mansions.

    I see nothing else we would have come into existence with — essentially coming in as blank-slates. I would speculate that given our inherent trust in God because of the love wherewith He first loved us — by inviting us in — we would have implicitly trusted any counsel He may have given one way or the other in regard to our first act of choosing gender.

    I might also speculate that the unorganized intelligences make up a uniform substance.

    I believe this to be the Light of Christ — an extension of the presence of God. I would consider this to be a “pool” of spirit matter from which spirit bodies are organized at the time they are made rules/stewards over the respective bodies.

  14. D&C 93:30 is a tough one; I’ve got no interpretations as metaphysics is the gaping whole in my religious philosophy at the moment, one that has led me to this site I suppose. I expect my journey to fill it in will take years — a lifetime — of reading, discussion, correcting errors that come to light in discussion, and repetition of the process.

    Were I to venture an interpretation, I would say that this verse appears to equate existence with action — at least for intelligences. If, then, they are in a dormant state — like potential energy in physics — they would be nonexistent by the use of this term. They would be this pool of intelligence or spirit matter you referred to. The Tao Te Ching reads:

    The Valley Spirit never dies
    It is named the Mysterious Female.
    And the doorway of the Mysterious Female
    Is the base from which Heaven and Earth sprang.
    It is there within us all the while;
    Draw upon it as you will, it never runs dry

    This, then is God’s right brain, the feminine; and the faith/power that draws upon it is God’s left brain, the masculine. We generally only think of God in terms of the latter, and that is what we worship — which I think is the point of this post — or rather, the inverse of the point of this post (the post points out that what we think of as God is only half of the picture).

  15. When I say D&C 99:30 equates existence with action, I meant action or at least the ability to act. “All truth is independent… to act… otherwise there is no existence.” So having been formed and placed in a position to act for itself it exists, now being independent from the “Valley Spirit” or “pool of spirit matter.”

  16. Well grok means to comprehend a thing in its entirety going far beyond what the human mind normally equates to having a knowledge of a thing. to grok it means to have a full knowledge of a thing in all its aspects even from its beginning. The only thing that I can see which fulfills this in human experience is that God groks us. Or that we may grok a thing if we receive it through the power of the Holy Ghost.
    And that leads to this. Many of the things spoken of in this post are doctrines which probably can’t be understood correctly unless we were to receive it by revelation. I believe many have received such visions. And often they are forbidden to relate what they were shown or told. And it is apparent that when some things of heaven are shown the people who have been shown them are powerless to convey them via normal human communication.

    The changes which have come into my life as a result of acting upon the principles which I have preached here have been so wonderful and dramatic, that I am inclined to not concern myself about doctrines which have no impact on the choices I make in my daily life. I have stopped attending the LDS church. Why? I find it debilitating to my relationship with God. Jesus spoke a simple doctrine and then said “And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.” 3 Ne 11:40.
    I can’t help but believe that requiring men to wear a white shirt and tie in order to pass the sacrament or saying that the drinking of wine disqualifies someone for heaven and a literal myriad of other LDS doctrines constitutes “more than this” as spoken by the Lord. I have found the need to detox from all the garbage which i was fed being raised in the LDS church.
    But far from losing my faith I have increased my understanding and trust in God.
    The doctrines I have taught I have begun living as much as I am able. I have not allowed fear of excommunication by the LDS church stop me. The result is I have found the most wonderful woman ever to marry. After 30 years of marriage without true love from my wives I have been lead by God to a woman who loves me dearly and deeply. And God has blessed us to come together and enjoy peace and love. I won’t testify against myself in this thing.
    But I do testify that by deciding to stop fearing the men and women of the LDS church but rather fear to not trust in God He has richly blessed me.
    We are expecting a child and I believe God is going to give us some land for our inheritance. I feel like I have died and gone on to a better world. I can understand why people often do not return from death. If they feel like me the world they lived in was so screwed up they can’t imagine going back to it. I am still in this mortal sphere, yet the blessing and love I have come to receive not just from my wife but from many others also is so great it is as if I am in paradise. I am not sure, time will tell, but it seems as if I will be instrumental in bringing hundreds of souls to Zion when the time to gather is ripe. They all admire me and they feel the love of God from me. I believe as things develop they will readily receive advice on when and where to flee to Zion.
    For my part I am just trying to be a true follower of Christ and act upon love for all people.

  17. dyc4557, congrats on the new wife and coming child. I wish all of you the very best.

  18. I said, in the OP:

    Males must embrace and magnify their masculine aspect – while at the same time honoring feminine-ness by loving their wives. Females must embrace and magnify their feminine aspect – while at the same time honoring masculine-ness by yielding their consent to their husbands.
    For there to be true equality between males and females, matriarchy must exist along with patriarchy and gynocracy must exist along with androcracy. There must be a balance of power, and power must be shared – not concentrated in the hands of a few.
    Women are to hold the keys of common consent by which they are free to authorize, validate, and direct the work of the priesthood. Men are to hold the keys of the priesthood by which they are to act as the voluntary slaves of all and minister the gifts and powers of the Spirit. Though wives are to submit to or follow their husbands – this is balanced inasmuch as the priesthood of the husband cannot be handled without the consent of those it is intended to serve [the servant must hearken to his masters in all things]. All things must be done by common consent, or else disharmony and tyranny result [rather the men or the women are at fault]. Men and women are judged by God according to how they use their respective set of keys and how they treat each other.

    The general idea of this I tried relaying in comments #1-2 here and #9 here.

    At the latter link — I was drawn to comment by a previous quotation someone provided by Hugh Nibley — it was essentially teaching the same thing:

    There is no patriarchy or matriarchy in the Garden; the two supervise each other. Adam is given no arbitary power; Eve is to heed him only insofar as he obeys their Father—and who decides that? She must keep check on him as much as he does on her. It is, if you will, a system of checks and balances in which each party is as distinct and independent in its sphere as are the departments of government under the Constitution—and just as dependent on each other.
    [...]
    Even in the garden mankind were subject to temptation; but they were not evil by nature—they had to work at that. All have fallen, but how far we fall depends on us. From Cain and Lamech through the Watchers and Enoch to the mandatory cleansing of the Flood, the corruption spread and enveloped all the earth. Central to the drama was a never-ending tension and conflict between the matriarchal and patriarchal orders, both of which were perversions. Each has its peculiar brand of corruption.

    The matriarchal cultures are sedentary (remember that the mother stays home either as Penelope or as the princess confined in the tower), that is, agricultural, chthonian, centering around the Earth Mother. The rites are mostly nocturnal, lunar, voluptuous, and licentious. The classic image is that of the great, rich, corrupt, age-old, and oppressive city Babylon , queen of the world, metropolis, fashion center, the super mall, the scarlet woman, the whore of all the earth, whose merchants and bankers are the oppressors of all people.
    [...]
    The patriarchal order lends itself to equally impressive abuses. It is nomadic. The hero is the wandering Odysseus or knight errant, the miles gloriosus, the pirate, condottiere, the free enterpriser — not the farmer tied to wife and soil, but the hunter and soldier out for adventure, glory, and loot; not the city, but the golden horde, the feralis exercitus that sweeps down upon the soft and sedentary cultures of the coast and the river valley. Its gods are sky gods with the raging sun at their head. Its depradations are not by decay but by fire and sword. As predatory and greedy as the matriarchy, it cumulates its wealth not by unquestioned immemorial custom but by sacred and self-serving laws. The perennial routine calls for the patriarchal tribes of the mountains and the steppes to overrun the wealthy and corrupt cities of the plain only to be absorbed and corrupted by them in turn, so that what we end up with in the long run is the worst of both cultures.
    [...]
    but matriarchy and patriarchy must always be mortal enemies. Why? Because of the last part of the word, the -archy. In Bailly’s dictionary, the first definition given for the word -arche is “beginning, specifically the origin of a quarrel or a murder’“; the second definition is “command, power, authority,” which is what the quarrel is about. The suffix -archy means always to be first in order, whether in time or eminence; the point is that there can only be one first. To be first is Satan’s first principle: “Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.” Whatever the game, the object is to be Number One.
    [...]
    So one must choose between patriarchy and matriarchy until the Zion of God is truly established upon the earth. It is that old Devil’s dilemma, in which we are asked to take sides with Gog or Magog as his means of decoying us away from our true dedication to that celestial order established in the beginning.

  19. Also, from one of the W&T’s posts I linked to above — a commenter named Dan was disagreeing with the use of the word “whore” in the apocalyptic vision of Nephi/John. His assumption was that the authors of the vision were being sexist, essentially confusing gender with aspects of character — as I described in the OP.

    Dan found the “whore of all the earth” analogy improper b/c the whore [as a female entity] is only a whore by virtue of what a man has done to her. Though our positions were in disagreement — I think he expounded on a certain principle quite well:

    Thus, “the whore of all the earth” is an entity that man defiled willingly.

    The evils of the world are what men have made of it.

    The whore is neither a male or a female. It is what man has defiled — as such, it is considered as a woman.

    Dan had further wrote:

    until a man chooses of his own free will to take her, she’s not a whore. Thus, “the whore of all the earth” is an entity that man defiled willingly.

    Which I thought to be a wonderful exposition of the scriptural language there.

    The whore figure here is the reverse aspect of the waiting/adorned Bride figure. Though aspects are considered as female — because both of them represent a relationship between humans [both male and female] and God. And in that dynamic, God is considered as the male — and the humans [whether whore or bride] are considered as the female.

  20. This post reads like neo-Egyptian babbling… Have you watched too many documentaries on the Pyramids or taken the Mystery Schools too seriously lately? *grin*

    Information & knowledge of things Godly is grounded in the realities of things Earthly. In this post you seem to describe one god that is considered in two aspects; when, frankly, there are two gods of two sexes & one species. I can sorta understand how you might arrive at this corruption, given modern political culture, the dominance of the gender binary, and trans/queer theory…

    God the Father possesses the keys to creative power, God the Mother possesses the creative powers herself. A physical union between celestial man & woman enables them to create spirit children & seed a terrestrial world, recursively promulgating the Plan of Salvation for all eternity (there is a lot more to consider here, like how populating worlds works alongside celestial polygamy, how many gods the mother for each planet, etc., but I’ll save all that for another time).

    What I want to insist upon is: There is a Heavenly Mother with the physical body of a woman who is the breeding partner to God the Father with the physical body of a man. There is no mystery here… (Mystery is the whore of Babylon, not fit for worship or consideration, and not some feminine aspect of godhood. In other words, there is no mystery, there is only knowledge & lack of knowledge.)

    Another thing about Zion… At this point, it will only happen in Kansas City, Missouri. If you’re not in KCMO, you’re shit outta luck (especially those of you that remain in Utah)! *wink*

  21. What I want to insist upon is: There is a Heavenly Mother with the physical body of a woman who is the breeding partner to God the Father with the physical body of a man. There is no mystery here…

    I didn’t mean to imply that there is only numerically one God who is considered two different ways.

    I was saying that rather we’re talking about a Mother or Father God — we still consider them as masculine [calling them all "Gods", instead of Goddesses] and relate to them as such from our current perspective as mortal humans. All Gods, irrespective of gender, are considered as males — because rather male or female in gender, they all perform a masculine role with respect to humans.

    Further — LDSA seems to believe that our Mother in heaven is a disembodied female God — thus I would part ways with him and agree more with you in saying a Mother God is physically embodied.

  22. Derek,

    Your comment above strikes me as written from a Fundamentalist Mormon point of view, but I may be wrong. I had recently been spending some time on a Fundamentalist Mormon Facebook group and had been taking note on how they talk and what their doctrinal views are and I see a similar speech pattern in what you wrote. Do you have Fundamentalist leanings?

    What I want to insist upon is: There is a Heavenly Mother with the physical body of a woman…

    How do you know this? What scripture(s) are you basing this idea on? (I have yet to find a single scripture that mentions a heavenly mother.) Or, are you basing this on something extra-scriptural, such as something Joseph Smith or Brigham Young said? Or, on a hymn that someone wrote? Or, is this just the logic your brain has arrived at? Or, perhaps you have received personal revelation and the Spirit told you this? I’m not picking on you. I genuinely want to know where this idea in Mormonism comes from.

    One more thing, why is it, in your view, that mortal, flesh-covered males and females come together and produce mortal, flesh-covered offspring, while an immortal, flesh-covered Heavenly Father and an immortal, flesh-covered Heavenly Mother, come together and produce immortal spirits not covered in flesh? Why is it that all things on Earth produce after their likenesses, while, in your view, the heavens produce dissimilar things?

  23. Derek,

    I too will be interested in your response. And curious to know why you think that what Justin wrote specifically, contradicts what you believe? I see overlapping views here but maybe its just my view point. I don’t see Justin’s post as so mysterious. I mean when children are born and in their earliest stages of development they know NO distinction between MOMMY and themselves. So to add to LDSA’s sincere questions….I would ask, how old or in what stage of your spiritual development do you consider yourself to be? How can you know? Do you see no connection between The Holy Spirit and The Holy Mother? Does it not sound true at all to you that the connection could be us? Ok that was like 500 questions instead of just one….LOL….Looking forward to your response.

  24. From a comment LDSA wrote at the-exponent site before he banned himself and I was banned:

    The word equality has 8 shades of meaning. Equality can mean “exactly the same,” so that, for instance, if you have a balance scale and you put one troy ounce of gold on one side and one troy ounce of gold on the other — that’s equality. That is one way to arrive at it.

    But another way is to take the ounce of gold away from one side and replace it with two half ounce silver coins. The gold and the silver are different, yet still balanced. Again we have equality.

    In a gospel sense, men and women are like gold and silver. Just as you would never use silver for gold or gold for silver, so men and women have their distinct and unique divinely ordained purposes.

    One is not more important than the other. When bringing them together, equality is achieved through balance, not by making one exactly like the other, or even remotely like the other. For just as it is the goldness that makes gold precious, and the silverness that makes silver precious, so it is the manliness of men and the womanliness of women that makes them precious in God’s sight.

    What Justin and I have been attempting to explain, I think, is that the gospel fully allows and provides for this balance. This balance can be seen (at least, I see it), as long as one doesn’t become preoccupied that the silver isn’t doing what the gold does.

    Gold and silver have unique properties. You can’t use silver to stop corrosion like you can gold and gold does not have the anti-bacterial properties of silver. Men and women are different as silver and gold are different, yet both are children of God as silver and gold are metals. They are not equal in the sense that they are equivalent, but they are equal in the sense that they are equally, but distinctly useful, and that they balance each other out, meaning they are complementary.

  25. I read the scripture:

    no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

    and I had the question — what if someone isn’t trying to come unto the Father, but seeks to come unto the Mother?

    How would he/she do that? What is that way?

    In the “Hero’s Journey” archetypal story — the budding male aspect is sent/goes on the journey to find his Father.

    The male usually has the more overt/obvious role in these myths/rituals, [the enactment of the cycle of going, finding, and returning to the community].

    Now, this male-dominated story is largely a function of the conditions of human life. Man is out there in the world, and woman is in the home. Our stories currently deem man’s work more heroic than woman’s heroic deeds. Making money gets more advertisement. Motherhood has no novelty, and so we largely ignore it.

    The female myths we have aren’t really found in our current scriptures. We only really have them in fairy tales — the stories about a girl who doesn’t want to grow up to be a woman. At the crisis of that threshold, she’s hesitating. So she goes to sleep until a male-figure [prince] comes through all the barriers and gives her a reason to think it might be nice on the other side of womanhood after all. All of the dragon killings, tower-climbing, and threshold crossings have to do with getting past being stuck.

    In primitive society, the rituals of initiation are all grounded or have to do with killing the child and bringing forth the adult, whether it’s the girl or the boy.

    This ritual is harder for the male than for the female because life overtakes the female [at menstruation, that's really her initiation]. She becomes a woman whether she intends to do it or not — but the male has to intend to be a man.

    The male first has to disengage himself from his mother, find his center that’s in himself, and then begin Life. That’s what the myths of “Young man, go find your father” is all about.

    But as I was thinking about all of that — thinking that the gospel is that male-centered journey of going out and finding the Father — what do we have for the female, for the reconciliation with the Mother?

  26. I thought of this post when I was reading through Alma 42 and noticed that “justice” is personified as a Male — and “mercy” is personified as a Female:

    for behold
    justice exerciseth all his demands
    and also mercy claimeth all which is her own
    and thus
    none but the truly penitent are saved

    The same is seen with the Sun and the Moon/Earth in D&C 88:

    The earth rolls upon her wings
    and the sun giveth his light by day
    and the moon giveth her light by night
    and the stars also give their light
    as they roll upon their wings
    in their glory
    in the midst of the power of god

    These are all things that — despite being of no gender — have aspects that may be considered as either masculine or feminine — thus making them personified as male or female in language.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 157 other followers