Wives, follow your husbands! – Patriarchy, androcracy and the egalitarian tribe


My text for this post are the following scriptural passages, written by the apostles Peter and Paul:

Peter: Wives, be in subjection to obedient and disobedient husbands

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conduct of the wives; while they behold your chaste conduct coupled with fear.  Let your adorning be not that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and wearing of gold, or putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.  For after this manner in old times the holy women, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands; even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord; whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do will, and are not afraid with any amazement. (1 Peter 3: 1-6 Inspired Version)

Paul: Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. (Colossians 3: 18 Inspired Version)

Paul: Wives, your husband is your head, submit and subject yourselves to him

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11: 3 Inspired Version)

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the Savior of the body.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5: 22-24 Inspired Version)

Androcracy

Androcracy is “rulership by the men.”  (From Webster’s 3rd Unabridged International Dictionary.)

Although there is little doubt that biblical patriarchy existed, what Peter and Paul taught under the gospel framework in the above scriptural passages was theological androcracy, not biblical patriarchy.  Patriarchy is androcracy with the added dimension of father-right.  Here are the definitions of patriarchy and patriarch, as well as matriarchy, from the same dictionary.

Patriarch

A patriarch is “the father and ruler of a family or tribe; one ruling his family or descendants by paternal right; –usually applied to heads of families in ancient history, esp. in Biblical and Jewish history to those who lived before Moses.”  The word comes from patri-, meaning father + arch, meaning a leader, chief.

Patriarchy

A state or stage of social development characterized by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family in both domestic and religious functions, the legal dependence of wife, or wives, and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line.  Patriarchy is distinguished from androcracy, or the physical and social supremacy of men in primitive society, patriarchy being held to involve, besides such supremacy, father right (adaptation of the Ger. Vaterrecht), or descent and inheritance in the male line.

Matriarchy

A state or stage of social evolution in which descent is reckoned only in the female line, all children belonging to the mother’s clan.  Such a system increases the mother’s social and political importance, making her the head of the family and the guardian of religious rites and traditions.  Hence, with many writers matriarchy means not only descent reckoned through the female line (called uterine descent, or cognation), but also rulership by woman.  Others, however, discriminate the rights and customs characteristic of uterine descent, as mother-right (adaptation of G. Mutterrecht), from the political or domestic supremacy of woman, known as gynecocracy, or gynocracy, “rulership by women,” or metrocracy, “rulership by mothers.”  Matriarchy in the narrow sense (that is, as “mother-right”) is found among many primitive peoples; whether it ever existed in the broader sense is disputed.

The priesthood is patterned after the egalitarian tribe

We modern LDS tend to view the the gospel in terms of only patriarchy and androcracy, but this view is only held because we are not numbered in functioning tribes.  The gospel, when lived tribally, encompasses patriarchy, matriarchy, androcracy, gynocracy, father-right and mother-right.  When taken out of the tribal context, some aspects of it manifest or dominate more, while others are suppressed, depending on the non-tribal culture we find ourselves in.  The gospel can be adapted to the cultures and societies of the world, but it is designed to be lived in egalitarian tribes.

Because of the gospel’s tribal nature, the organization of the priesthood mimics that of the egalitarian tribe.  Bishops, bishoprics, counselors, common judges, higher judges, lower judges, high councils, presidencies, apostles, seventies, quorums, etc., all have their counterpart in egalitarian tribal organization.

Tribal bishops

A man married to a woman acts in the office of a bishop.  The office of a bishop “is in administering all temporal things” (D&C 107: 68) and in being a common judge.  This is the duty of a husband, to provide the temporal (material) necessities of life for his wife and children, and to sit as a judge in his family.

His wife, as his helpmeet, may act as his counselor in matters of temporal administration or in judgment of family affairs, or may simply defer all judgment to him, allowing him to sit as a literal descendant of Aaron, without counselors.

The tribal bishop (with the single counselor) is superior to the church bishop because there is a covenantal bond between bishop and counselor.

Tribal bishoprics

When a man is married to two wives, the arrangement corresponds to a bishopric with two counselors.  The two wives are not equal to the man, just as a bishopric’s counselors are not equal to the bishop: he is the wives’ bishop (with responsibility to provide temporal salvation) and they are the husband’s counselors.  Because of the covenantal bonds between the man and his wives, this marriage bishopric is superior to a church bishopric.

Common judge

A husband in a tribe sits as a common judge of the wife with whom he lives and their children.

Higher judges the lower; lower judges the higher

The gospel principle set forth in the Book of Mormon of a system of higher and lower judges, the lower one judging the higher and the higher judging the lower, is based upon ancient tribunals (tribe-unals), or tribal judgment systems.

Higher and lower judges

When a man has more than one wife, his wives form a quorum or council of lower judges. Because common consent must reign supreme, the combined decision of his wives upon his head is the end of controversy concerning him. If a husband, a common judge, acts up the lower judges (the wives) can convene to decide the issue.

When a woman has more than one husband, her husbands form a quorum or council of higher judges. If she acts up, the matter can be taken before a council of her husbands, for judgment.

These are the true “courts of love,” for all these people are married to each other and are under covenant to love one another. They are superior to church higher, lower and common judges, as well as church higher and lower courts of love. The church courts are mere imitations of the tribal courts.

A jury of peers

In an egalitarian tribal system, the jury of peers consists of the husbands of your wife, or the wives of your husband. The modern jury of peers is inferior to the tribal peers, because there is no mechanism to link the peers together. In the tribal system, they all have a vested interest that justice and mercy be done, for they are all linked together through a web of marriage covenants.

Priesthood councils, presidencies and quorums

Every conceivable priesthood council, presidency and quorum is found within the tribal quorums and councils of husbands. Three husbands of one wife form a presidency. Twelve husbands of one wife who are free to travel, form a quorum of apostles (sent ones). Seven husbands of one wife who are free to travel, form a presidency of seventy. Seventy husbands who are free to travel form a quorum of seventy. 12, 24, 48, or 96 husbands form quorums of deacons, teachers, priests and elders.

The United Order

A woman who has multiple husbands essentially is married to multiple bishops, meaning she is married to men who are responsible for her temporal welfare. Her husbands form a bishopric quorum, or quorum of bishops, in which they share what they have with each other and with their wives and children, so that all have everything common. They are bound to the all the wives by covenant to care for them and thus are bound (or linked through her) to each other, also. In other words, this is the what the United Order is patterned after. The United Order binds men together by covenant to care for the poor and the needy and to dispose of their material possessions in their behalf.

Androcracy and patriarchy are found in egalitarian tribes

The egalitarian tribe is what Zion is based upon, nevertheless, an egalitarian tribe may or may not use the gospel as its tribal law. Just as a husband is free to “obey not the word” of God, so an entire egalitarian tribe is free to adopt or reject the gospel. But regardless of whether a husband obeys the word of God or rejects it, the gospel, being patterned after the egalitarian tribe, requires that wives submit or subject themselves to their husbands. This is a manifestation of androcracy. The husband is the common judge, the bishop. When there are multiple husbands, they constitute the high council, or higher judges.

When one husband lives with the wife and the other husbands live with other wives, the children of the one wife that lives with the one husband may be counted as posterity of the one husband, even though any of the husbands may have fathered the children and despite all husbands treating them as their own flesh and blood. But on the tribal records, all children may be written down as being fathered by the one husband living with the wife. This is a manifestation of patriarchy.

Gynocracy and matriarchy are also found in egalitarian tribes

When acting as a quorum or council, as a court, as a jury of peers, or when giving or withholding consent, the wives manifest gynocracy. All the children born to a woman are posterity of that woman and her lineage is recorded on tribal records. This is a manifestation of matriarchy or mother-right (uterine descent). If the woman lives with multiple husbands and not just one of her husbands, then uterine descent is the preferred method of recording lineage.

When a woman marries a man from another clan or tribe, she remains with her clan and her husband leaves his own clan to join with her clan, not vice versa. The gospel imitates this tribal function by instructing the man to leave his father and mother and become one flesh with his wife.

Gospel checks and balances

The gospel provides checks and balances to abuses that may result in relationships between men and women.  Although women are instructed to obey their husbands, even if the husbands are not themselves obeying the gospel, the law of common consent still applies.  Also, men are instructed to love their wives and to use only persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, unfeigned love, kindness and pure knowledge to influence their wives.  If any husband attempts to maintain his power or influence over his wives by virtue of his title of husband, or if he attempts to exercise control or unrighteous dominion over his wives, his authority as a husband is null and void and his wife is justified in withdrawing her consent from him.  But as long as that husband follows the gospel-prescribed way of influencing people, even if the man himself is an unbeliever, or was a believer in the gospel but has since departed from it, or even if the man believes in the gospel but his views of the gospel have become markedly different than the wife’s, she is still bound by the gospel to obey him.

Proper protocol: go through covenant lines of authority

Sometimes a woman is tempted to by-pass her husband and his divinely appointed leadership and go to an ecclesiastical (church) authority for direction.  She may feel justified to talk to her bishop, or perhaps even to her stake president, about her husband, because she feels that his beliefs about, and actions concerning, the gospel are incorrect.  She may feel that he is breaking his gospel covenants in some way, shape or form (even though he himself may not see them as broken).  Or, perhaps he no longer believes in the gospel.  Because of this, she may see him as a sinner and as a man no longer worthy of following, submitting and subjecting herself to.

If she goes to see the bishop or stake president for guidance and direction, by-passing her husband and tattle-telling on him, she will be guilty of committing sin.  Men and women are free to believe what they will and act however they want.  They are free to accept the gospel, modify the gospel or reject it outright.  As long as a husband is following the proper manner of influencing a wife, in other words, as long as there is no unrighteous dominion, the wife is to obey the husband.  That is the gospel law.  He can start drinking and smoking and swearing, he can start growing a beard and stop wearing ties, he can do all sorts of things that his wife may think are incompatible with the gospel, but as long as he is not exercising unrighteous dominion, she is bound by the gospel law to submit to his authority.

The reason why there is no gospel justification in holding a bishop or stake president’s authority above a husband’s is because the Lord considers the authority of a husband as carrying more weight than the authority of a bishop or stake president.  The bishop or stake president is under no covenant relationship with the man’s wife.  They have no vested interest in her.  They have not become one with her.  The husband, though, has become one with her and has a vested interest in her, and she in him.  Even without the priesthood, the husband still acts in the tribal office of bishop and common judge.  The Lord looks upon him as if he were an un-ordained priest, as if he possessed priesthood.  And the Lord fully recognizes the tribal authority of that man.

When a wife goes to a priesthood holder who has no covenantal relationship to her, for leadership and guidance, she shows by her actions that she has no respect for her husband’s tribal office, nor for the gospel law or their marriage covenant.  She disrespects both her husband and the Lord.

Proper priesthood protocol is to go through the lines of authority.  The first line of authority that a wife has access to is her husband with whom she is living.  This line is created by her covenantal relationship to him.  Her next lines of authority are all her other husbands, who do not live with her, but who also have covenantal relationships with her.  The next line of authority would be the wives of her husband, what some call the “sister wives.”  These wives are linked to her through covenants they have with her husband.  An ecclesiastical leader, who has no covenantal ties to her, is the very last line of authority she should resort to, and only after all tribal lines have been exhausted.

Not submitting is iniquity

Again, if a woman in such a situation, whose husband is not engaging in unrighteous dominion, does not submit to her husband, she commits the sin of rebellion and treason by ratting out his beliefs and actions which she believes are incompatible with the gospel to an ecclesiastical authority who has no covenantal relationship to her.  It is disloyalty and betrayal on her part, akin to cheating, by revealing family matters essentially to strangers and is unbecoming of a saint.  It also will create even greater problems in her family as now the ecclesiastical leader will often go on a witch-hunt and interfere in their covenantal connection.

If there are beliefs or actions that the wife doesn’t like, she and the husband need to work it out among themselves, and not drag persons who are not in a covenantal relationship with either one of them into the matter.  If there is genuine iniquity, it needs to be confessed to the offending party (the wife or the husband) and then forgiveness and reconciliation between the two needs to occur.  Ecclesiastical authorities are only to be called in for cases of unrepentant sins in which the offending party refuses to confess to a sin witnessed by two or more persons.  But in most cases a spouse should never testify against another spouse.  That would be an act of betrayal.

Speaking in terms of plasma theology, this would be like two planets linked to each other through a plasma column (the marital covenant) and one of them moves toward, or attracts, a third planet that has no plasma column linking it to the first two planets.  The resulting plasma interactions will cause disruption of the plasma column found between the first two planets.

Paul’s words

In a gospel-centered marriage, the man and woman have covenanted with each other, making them equals.  They have also covenanted with Christ, which binds both of them individually to Him.  This makes a triangle, with the husband, wife and Christ each taking a corner.

Paul’s words, though, about God being the head of Christ, Christ being the head of man, and man being the head of woman, creates a straight line of authority (a plasma column) : creating a patriarchy or androcracy.  What needs to be kept in mind when reading Paul is that this is only one frame of the picture.  If the full, tribal picture is not seen, if only the one frame is observed, it is understandable that the gospel may be understood as containing only patriarchy.  With only the single frame to see, patriarchy or androcracy dominates the view.

Paul’s words, then, must be viewed in light of the complete, tribal picture, that also contains matriarchy and gynocracy.  This makes it plain that the gospel is egalitarian in nature.  We cannot clearly see it now because we are not currently living in egalitarian tribes.

The head is the chief, which is the servant

In the gospel, the chief ones are to be the servants, by entrance into the priesthood.  So, when Paul says that the man is the head of the woman, it is because he is meant to be the servant of the woman.

But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.  But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: and whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.  For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Mark 10: 42-45, emphasis mine.)

Here is the same scripture, re-worded a little different:

But Jesus called them, and said to them,

You [Twelve] know that they who are appointed to be -archs(a) over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.  But among you [Twelve] there shall be anarchy(b); whoever desires to become great among you [Twelve], shall be minister of you [Twelve].  And whoever of you [Twelve] desires to become the chiefest, shall be servant of all.  For even the Son of Man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.  (Mark 10: 42-45, emphasis mine.)

(a) “-arch” and “arch” defined: -arch Function: noun combining form. Etymology: Middle English -arche, from Anglo-French & Late Latin & Latin; Anglo-French -arche, from Late Latin -archa, from Latin -arches, -archus, from Greek -arches, -archos, from archein, to begin, rule. : ruler : leader  (Taken from Merriam-Webster’s Online Collegiate Dictionary.)  -arch [Gr. archos chief, commander, archein to rule. See ARCH, a.]  A suffix meaning a ruler, as in monarch (a sole ruler). arch, a. 1. Chief; eminent; greatest; principal.  (Taken from Webster’s 3rd Unabridged International Dictionary.)

(b) anarchy Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler.  (Taken from Merriam-Webster’s Online Collegiate Dictionary.)

So, whoever wanted to be great, was not be be great (they were to be the least) and whoever wanted to be first (chief, principal), was to be last (servant of all).  The priesthood, then, is not an archy, but an anarchy.  The order is reversed: whoever wants to be first must be last.  There are to be no rulers, only servants.

Follow the Brethren

Although many LDS find this annoying saying (“follow the brethren”) to be counter-productive to a gospel-enlightened life, it actually does have some basis in truth.  In a tribal setting, in which a wife is married to multiple husbands, her husbands form a tribal quorum of “brethren.”  If these men hold the Holy Priesthood, they also form a priesthood quorum.  It is this quorum of husbands, or council of husbands, that the wife must follow.  When meeting together to decide issues pertaining to this woman and her children, they form a council of husbands.

In the church, the saying “follow the brethren” applies to quorums, or men who hold priesthood together as a quorum, and specifically to the highest two quorums in the church: the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

In a tribe, the highest quorum that has anything to do with a wife, being bound to her by covenant, is the quorum of her husbands.  If she is in a monogamous relationship, then she is to follow her “brother” (singular husband) until such time as she gets another husband.  So, the only “brother” or “brethren” that the gospel requires to be followed (by women) is the council of husbands.  For the men, we are to “follow the sisters”, meaning that quorum or council of our wives that decides issues in tribal settings.

Conclusion

A tribal view of the gospel helps us to see it for what it really is.  There is no aspect of the gospel that we need be ashamed of.  It is completely egalitarian in nature and divine.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Advertisements

43 Comments

  1. This article made me think of the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn. Unfortunately, I can’t remember where I read this (I believe it was on the Enterprise Mission web site) but I recall reading something about Bruce DePalma and his rotational experiments and how the solar system contains three suns, not one; that we tend to think of the Sun as the powerhouse in this solar system but that Jupiter and Saturn (and I think also Uranus) contain almost all of the rotational energy of the system; and that that rotational energy feeds into the Sun, making it hard to determine whether it is the Sun supplying power to the planets or the planets supplying power to the Sun.

    In the same way, men visibly appear to be the strong ones, shining forth, like the Sun, but women contain a “dark” or “hidden” energy, like the rotational energies of the planets, which empowers the Sun to shine, behind the scenes. It may very well be that if the planets were to be removed from this solar system, our Sun would be unplugged, contrary to popular belief that it is a self-contained source of power. (Plasma scientists state that the Sun’s power comes from outside of itself, that it is an arc-lamp hanging in the sky.) So, that being true, Jupiter and Saturn may be the bodies that plug the Sun into the galactic current, allowing it to shine.

    Mormon men who think that all power resides in the men, as well as the Mormon feminists who believe the same (coming to this conclusion from the doctrine found in the scriptures and the teachings of their male leaders), need to look at the cosmos to see that nature is balanced in power distributiion. The gospel is harmonious to nature; it contains the actual laws of the universe, therefore, it, too, must be balanced in power distribution. Which means that we aren’t seeing the full gospel picture when only patriarchy is assumed to be the norm.

    If I find the paper on the rotational energy of the solar system, I’ll link it here.

  2. Interesting essay.

    Anarchist, can you provide a link to that Bruce DePalma piece on Enterprise Mission.? A Google search doesn’t seem to provide me with anything.

  3. Rock, I haven’t read the paper in years and I also looked for it using Google, but came up empty-handed, like yourself.

    I began this essay on Saturday, a couple of hours before Feminist Mormon Housewives posted How Evengelicals Do Chicken Patriarchy. Kind of weird how that happens.

    Considering that you found the post interesting, while another voted it “very poor”, I look forward to seeing if its polarizing effect continues. To be honest, I don’t expect many Mormon feminists to get past the title. As for Mormon male chauvinists, I expect them to stop reading at the point where I mentioned women having more than one husband.

    As I wrote the piece, i found it interesting that the male nature is so strong and agressive that it dominates in both monogamy and polygyny. You would think that a man having multiple wives would be outnumbered, that the women would have their way with him and outvote him in everything, but it doesn’t work that way. The unfair arrangement only works as long as the wives are totally submissive to him, otherwise, he won’t enter it. So, patriarchy dominates polygyny.

    In monogamy, patriarchy also dominates, although the modern woman often fights tooth and nail against her husband, ending in marital problems, separation and divorce.

    Only polyandry evens the playing field and creates (in conjunction with polygyny) egalitarianism, where women and men share the power through their various councils. Simultaneous polyandry and polygyny (the multihusband-multiwife marriage system) brings women up to the level of men without reducing man’s own stature. It is the solution Mormon feminists have been searching for, but haven’t found because of their fear of polygamy. Mormon male chauvinists likewise fear it, because the thought of one’s wife being with another guy is too scary. And so we are stuck with monogamy. But as long as the people are monogamous, men will continue to retain the power and women will continue to lament it.

  4. The true existence of both matriarchal and patriarchal aspects that exist within our tribal relationships are why Hugh Nibley wrote:

    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.

    The article that this is from can be found here.

  5. Wow….I gotta say that I have never fathom or imagined such a scenario. I’m long time student of Patriarchy and Polygyny and this expands my understanding. God works in mysterious ways and teaches line upon line. Wow…Wow…I can see how this tribal relations give light to what Brother Joseph was trying to do with his practice of polyandry with other mens wives and law of adoption with men. uhm… Things that have been on my shelf waiting for understanding for a long time. I’m not yet saying tribal relations as hypothsised here is true or right as I don’t yet have a confirming testimony, but I’m open and looking into it. Initial repugnance is the thought of polyamorous mass orgies and Vegas style swinging. But those are simply sexual relations without holy covenant which is damning. If done with gospel principles and holy covenants then it might be righteous and exalting. The only difference in sexual relations being evil or righteous is the fact and presence of holy covenants. this is certainly a lot for our “natural man” to deal with.

  6. This was a difficult article to read for me. My wife currently is in relationship with another man. Sometimes the pain of my fantasizing them being together is almost more than I can bear, and I ask myself, “What’s wrong with me that she had to go elsewhere?” I am still in communication with her. I slept with her the other night but we did nothing. I felt like she belonged to another man. I am having a hard time forgiving the other man. Anyway, I am for monogamy. I’m not ready to share my wife, and I wish she would come back

  7. Hell Raising Love Monster:

    You’ve mentioned your heartache concerning your martial situation before. I had responded with what I feel is an important distinction to be made in being married/sexually active with more than one person — and loving more than one person:

    Multiple spousal systems are about expressing love to more than one person. In other words, human beings are capable of loving more than one person (poly+gamy) with all the heart and cleaving only to them. In fact, our Father in Heaven prefers it to be that way because that is the society that exists among the perfected men and women — the Gods and Goddess — in heaven.

    The current narrative is that God has made humans to only be able to love one person (mono+gamy) with all the heart — and that adding another person thereby takes away from your love/cleaving to the first.

    This is not true.

    However, if a person adds another spouse into his/her family at the expense of the first — then they are not initiating a tribal relationship.

    So I would say:

    1) To the extent that it offends a person that another person is loving your spouse and fulfilling his/her needs — this is selfish. If the second spouse will add to the fulfillment and love that a person feels, then why would someone be against it?

    2) To the extent that adding another spouse to better satisfy a person takes away from the original spouse — this is selfish. Before adding another spouse, a person must ensure that they are indeed capable of fulfilling another person’s emotional and physical needs.

    Monogamy and polygamy are about the number of people you love — not the number of people you are married to. A love-based relationship is about striving to meet the needs of the other person — not yourself. It is a need-based relationship that focuses on what my spouse does to fulfill me. From here.

  8. LDSA said: This article made me think of the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn.

    Of interest is that the sun is described with masculine [D&C 88: 45] pronouns — while orbiting planets, such as our Earth, are described as feminine [D&C 88: 45 and Moses 7: 48]

    This further reinforces the model that the sun is a polygynous husband to the sister planets of this system, and the sister planets give — by their common consent — power to the sun.

  9. I believe all the principles in this post are true. Praying about it was like praying about whether there is an earth or whether I have a body. To me it is self evident. I think if we understand the true nature of agency and love then certain principles bear sway and the false beliefs can be swept away.

    The eternal principle of agency requires us to have no ownership of other people. This also frees us from feeling burdened (a false burden) by their choices.

    Love produces the fruit of giving all the support and respect which is due to everyone. The most to our spouses and next to our or their children then extended family or tribe and friends and the rest of the community and world. All this is put forth beautifully in this post.

    A love which has a need to prevent the one we love from loving others is not love but is a degree of ownership. Jealousy, greed, refusal to share etc are all born of fear and not of God. The steak we are about to eat we do own (or will shortly) but even this can be shared (before we swallow it) if love calls us to do so. But we should not eat or consume our spouses or children. That sounds stupid. Yet when we put a limit on their ability to give and receive love from others we are trying to consume their agency an integral part of their existence.

    There is an eternal law that we can not believe a truth about our personal nature which we refuse to believe about another person’s nature. I am speaking of our eternal natures not our actions and mistakes in this life.

    If we see others as LOVABLE, then and only then can we comprehend ourselves as LOVABLE.

    Now plug in other attributes for the word lovable in the above sentence. All the following apply: free, forgivable, worthy, exaltable. Negative attributes such as liars, evil, unworthy etc. also apply which is a protection to us.

    This enabling or limiting factor of our personal belief applies to our comprehension of God our Father also; meaning if we see others and therefore ourselves as incapable of fully loving more than one person then we see God the same way. That God is capable of loving all with a full love is plainly manifest. It is our lack of belief which prevents us from having it also. And believe it or not when we don’t give that attribute to others we can’t give it to God nor have it ourselves. Eternal justice prevents this.

    It appears that in our current preparatory state the atonement allows us to not suffer the immediate effects of unrighteous actions by giving us a time to repent with the exception of our beliefs. What we believe, the way we judge produces immediate results which remain as long as we hold the belief. If we believe others are not free, then we have lost our freedom. If we believe our spouse cannot love us and others then we deprive ourselves of that ability. What we grant to others by our beliefs we grant to ourselves. What we deny to others by our beliefs we deny to ourselves.

    This I believe is what stands in the way of accepting these truths.

    Thanks LDSA. Now I will go and try to get Eve to partake. I will keep in mind that love and kindness is the most powerful force of all.

  10. There is a discussion going on at The Exponent blog which throws further light upon the principles in this post..

  11. The comment that I left there was essentially my wife’s response after we read this post.

    Her main issue she has had with the Church(TM) is that it preaches the pre-eminence of the family — while back-handedly focusing on Church organization/structure. In her point of view — if anything ever comes down to a Church function vs. a family function — she has always favored the family.

    It predates — and will out date — the Church.

  12. Got it. Thanks and God Bless.

  13. Most LDS can accept to some degree the idea of a man having more than one wife. It is hard to avoid since it was obviously practiced by righteous men in the bible and again for over 50 years since Joseph Smith. But the idea of women with multiple husbands is rejected outright by many. If there be those of you who wonder if the idea about a woman having more than one husband is valid and therefore are tempted to dismiss LDSA as a kook please read this.

    A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her lifetime. However, if she was sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased before she may be sealed to a husband to whom she was not sealed during her life.

    A deceased man may have sealed to him all women to whom he was legally married during his life if they are deceased of if they are living and are not sealed to another man.

    The above paragraphs are not from me or LDSA. They are from the LDS Church Handbook of Instructions.
    These women are sealed as wives to more than one man which sealing is held as valid after death. There are many things in the CHI which are in complete harmony with the words of the Lord we have in the scriptures. I believe these two paragraphs are an example of that.
    The law of consecration is not practiced today in the church. Does that condemn the law? No it is to our condemnation that we don’t live it. The same it true of the law of plural marriage.

  14. A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her lifetime. However, if she was sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased before she may be sealed to a husband to whom she was not sealed during her life.

    In my estimation, most take this policy to be an LDS version of the “kill ’em all — let God sort ’em out,” approach to warfare. For such people, it would be worded “seal ’em all — let God sort it out.”

    While I do agree with you dyc4557 — in my estimation, few will understand this to be a justification for polyandry [just as few view D&C 132:41 as such a justification].

    They think that since every person in the scenario is dead — we don’t know which one the woman wants to be sealed to. So we just seal her to all of them, and then they’ll figure it out in the world of spirits — taking as their rationale that if a person may choose to accept or reject a baptism in their behalf, then the woman will just accept the one sealing she most desires, thereby rejecting the rest.

    At least, this is how I view the attempted rationalization of what that section of the CHI is saying. Its presence is a relic — like how we raise our hands to “vote” each week. It is the form of godliness — but many deny or simply fail to comprehend its power.

  15. I thought of the dominating nature of the male when I read this.

    A rape culture is a complex of beliefs that encourages male sexual aggression and supports violence against women. It is a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent. In a rape culture, women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself. A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as the norm.

    In a rape culture both men and women assume that sexual violence is a fact of life, inevitable as death or taxes. This violence, however, is neither biologically nor divinely ordained. Much of what we accept as inevitable is in fact the expression of values and attitudes that can change.

    Humans connecting thru tribal relationships would end the progression of this male-dominated “rape culture”.

  16. There is a discussion going on at The Exponent blog that discusses the 2010 CHI’s language concerning the priesthood and the home.

  17. Although 1 Cor. 11 contains the “man is the head of the woman” teaching that feminists seem to dislike so much, I thought it important to point out that Paul also acknowledges in the chapter that:

    11 Among the Lord’s people, women are not independent of men, nor are men are independent of women. 12 For although the first woman came from the man — since then, every man has been born from a woman, with all things coming from God.

  18. Lol. I’m being ganged up on over there. A word to the wise, never criticize feminism on a feminist blog. Lol.

  19. I just rest in [what I take as] two success in the conversation there: this one and this one

  20. I’ve decided to stop following or participating in discussions on that blog. I received an email concerning my posts over there in which I was told, “we’ve gotten the distinct impression that much of your participation at our blog is strictly aimed at driving traffic to your own.” Apparently they think I’m plugging my site. They said, “we’ve opted to put your comments in moderation and approve only those that do not contain links.” One of my comments was being held up in moderation because it had a link to the Sex at Dawn web site. To me this smacks of censureship, which I don’t appreciate. It was censureship at another blog that caused me to start the LDS Anarchy blog. So, I told them to just delete my comments and ban me from their blog.

    Continue to comment there if you want, but I’m through with them.

  21. I received the same e-mail. Mine contained the exaggeration that “many of the comments contain more links than content,” which is demonstrably incorrect.

    The problem is that on the topics in which I’m interested at the site — my viewpoint causes most other readers to say, in essence, “What the heck are you talking about?” The way I see it, I could either write an exorbitantly long comment to answer — or largely sum-up my point with links to fully written-out posts explaining in more detail should someone want to click the link. Which one woman did and found some clarity. I thought that was the purpose of links? Since when have links to related information meant someone is just baiting for their own site?

    Besides, according to the site’s twitter update post, they were:

    Enjoying the discussion on our CHI post. Esp the dialogue between @zdblog’s Kiskilili and the gentlemen from @LDSA

  22. Yes, I brought those comments and tweets to their attention in my email back to them. I use links just the way you do. What I find really funny is that since I told them to delete my comments and ban me, all of my comments have suddenly received multiple thumbs down votes while those I responded to have received thumbs up. Lol.

  23. Ah, censorship. Sort of like what the gov’ts are doing to Mr. Assange these days.

    Back to the topic at hand, someone pointed out the following hymn as contained in the 1830 hymnbook compiled by Emma Smith. Of note, the 5th stanza/verse:

    “Go multiply, — replenish,
    And fill the earth with men,
    That all your vast creation,
    May come to God again:-…”

    Fill the earth with more of those heathen men. 😉

  24. P.S. Just for kicks, I went back and gave all your posts a “thumbs up”. Just trying to even the playing field.

  25. Ananas — I just gave your above comment a thumbs up for giving the comments there a thumbs up.

  26. So LDSA was censored at the blog mentioned above — and chose to ban himself.

    Elder Chantdown was censored and may or may not choose to ban himself.

    However, I remained “civil” in my discussions, kept links out of my comments, etc. — and was banned.

    I would modify LDSA’s advice to “never criticize feminism on a feminist blog.” to “never speak on a feminist blog.

  27. Lol. You know, Justin, I’ve noticed a recent up trend in the number of posts about feminism in various Mormon blogs. All of them have viewed feminism, however it is defined, as positive. I have been tempted to write a post myself about this topic on several occasions, but each time I’ve gotten the urge, I have reconsidered the matter and left it alone. I have two understandings about feminism that cause me to back down from discussing it.

    First, that feminism is doomed. At some point in the future, according to my understanding of the prophecies, even the feminists themselves will abandon feminism. That being true, what would be the point of me writing about something that is going to disappear anyway? It seems to me to be a waste of time and energy to take the topic up for this reason alone.

    Second, that the number of Mormon feminists is actually quite small. They do not represent the majority of Mormon women. Also, that those who call themselves Mormon feminists are largely barely active members and/or altogether inactive members. They don’t accept the entire standard works as their standard. They pick and choose what scriptures they will believe. In this respect, they resemble the Christians, who accept the Bible but reject the BoM, D&C and PoGP. It is hard to come to a unity of faith with people whose scriptural cannon is not the same. So, I don’t see feminism as being a force to reckon with in the church. My own writings are written with the mainstream Mormon in mind, not the minority. And this particular minority, the Mormon feminist, does not want to hear what I have to say about it, so again it seems a waste of my time to address the topic.

    I’d rather just let others broach the subject, which seems to be occurring with greater frequency on various Mormon blogs. But if you or any other contributors to this blog want to take up the topic of Mormon feminism, I won’t censure you. Lol.

  28. Ha HA! Sorry if I had any part in getting you banned Justin. But those moderators’ were bound to show their true colors eventually. Yeah it does not seem to be a movement that does anything but lip service (IF THAT) to real change let alone the specific changes for better that the true gospel of Christ demands of us.

    Still I have always had and continue to have a deep desire to see my sisters in faith liberated and empowered. I feel and see the Lord’s hand moving to bring that about recently. However, I see that it will be among the truly meek and poor in spirit that this heavenly power will be poured out. Like you said LDSA the mormon feminists do not represent the mainstream of mormon women and thankfully neither do the utah molly mormons. My heart rejoices when I realize that beautiful brown skinned mothers and daughters who have endured many things and hope to endure all things, whether currently baptized mormons or not will be a driving force in the gathering and establishment of Zion.

  29. feminism, and just about every other “-ism”, only seeks to serve itself, which is the opposite of charity. the gospel, as it has been discussed here, could, and would, “empower” women and give them voice, but they don’t want just that. they want the priesthood. they want to have authority over others. plus, i almost think they feel that only a woman can inspire other women and feminists to become agents of change, thus the [near] outright rejection of anything you have to say

  30. but they don’t want just that.

    It would require one of women coming to this site and participating to verify — but the conclusion my wife came to after I read the comments on that blog with her is that:

    When they were discussing heavenly Mother, complaining that the Church(TM) does not acknowledge her, etc. — I told them that in a tribal worship setting a woman could find the place to feel equal in communal worship [b/c the other member would be her husband, who respects her equality] and she would have an open place to discuss, seek after, and supplicate our Mother in heaven.

    When they were discussing the priesthood garment, complaining that their marks show thru their worldly clothing, that they have to struggle with panties/bras under or over the garment, that shopping is difficult for them, etc. — I told them that there is no covenant in the temple ritual to not allow the marks to show, nor does one covenant to wear the Church(TM) produced priesthood underwear, but per D&C 42:40-41, a person is free to make priesthood garments out of their pre-existing worldly garments.

    My wife noted that, in each case, they were shown that there is no real cause for complain. Don’t like the Church(TM)’s position on heavenly Mother — organize your tribe and relate with Her as you feel prompted. Don’t like wearing two sets of garments everyday — make your own and just wear one.

    Her theory is that that is why we were all censored/banned. No one [who wants to complain] likes having another person come and take away their reason for complaining.

    When left without excuse — people will manifest their true natures [this is why heavenly Father works in the same way, so that humans are left without excuse at the last day]. Give a person complaining a way out — and they’ll either accept it and be free, or they’ll just keep complaining in spite of it.

  31. Also, in response to feminism — I thought of Chuck Palahnuik’s book Choke:

    Women don’t want equal rights. They have more power being oppressed. They need men to be the vast enemy conspiracy. Their whole identity is based on it.

    I mean, I’m just tired of being wrong all the time just because I’m a guy. I mean how many times can everybody tell you that you’re the oppressive, prejudiced enemy before you give up and become the enemy.

    I mean a male, chauvinist pig isn’t born, hes made, and more and more of them are being made by women. After long enough you just roll over and accept the fact that you’re a sexist, bigoted, insensitive, crude, cretinist cretin. Women are right. You’re wrong.

    You get used to the idea.

    You live down to expectations.

    Even if the shoe doesn’t fit, you’ll shrink to fill it.

    I mean, in a world without God aren’t mothers the new God? The last sacred unassailable position. Isn’t motherhood the last perfect magical miracle? But a miracle that isn’t possible for men, and maybe men say they’re glad not to give birth, all the pain and blood, but really that’s just so much sour grapes. For sure, men can’t do anything near as incredible. Upper body strength, abstract thought, phalluses – any advantage men appear to have are pretty token.

    You can’t even hammer a nail with a phallus.

    Women are already born so far ahead ability-wise. The day a men can give birth, that’s when we can start talking about equal rights.

  32. good, nay great, observations…the only purpose for complaint is for the complaint itself. maybe they are gluttons for punishment? haha

  33. In the first comment of this post, I mentioned Bruce DePalma and the Enterprise Mission web site regarding the fact that Jupiter and Saturn contain almost all the rotational energy of this solar system. Rock asked me for the reference (in comment #2), since he couldn’t find it with Google. I responded (in comment #3) saying that I also couldn’t find it any more.

    However, I’ve recently learned that you can simply type the name of a web site into the search field of Ixquick and also whatever search terms you are looking for, and if it exists, Ixquick will find it. For example, if you are looking for a particular comment on the LDS Anarchy blog which you know mentioned, say, the bitter cup, you can just type: LDS Anarchy Bitter Cup, and Ixquick will list all the pages on LDS Anarchy that contain that search term.

    So, with this information on how to use Ixquick to search specific web sites, I typed in: Enterprise Mission Bruce DePalma, and went looking but did not find the article I was looking for. However, as I varied the search terms to Enterprise Mission Rotational Energy, etc., and began to look over the pages that came up, I finally came across a page that mentioned what I was talking about. Specifically, the page stated:

    But in the Hyperdimensional Physics Model, “the tail wags the dog” — in the form of angular momentum.

    It is an undeniable fact that Jupiter and Saturn — which possess only a tiny fraction the solar system’s total mass compared to the sun – are, in fact, a huge influence on the sun itself (and all of the other planets as a consequence). This is because they conversely possess most (almost 99%) of the solar system’s total bulk angular momentum.

    In the Hyperdimensional Model, it is this angular momentum — mainly from these two massive planets, transmitted through the “Hyperdimensional aether” — which ultimately causes the sun’s differential rotation.

    To quote directly from Dark Mission, Chapter 2:

    “… changes in one gravitationally-connected system on a large scale, like the planetary scale of a solar system, can therefore have an instantaneous, measurable effect on other bodies in the same system — providing there is a “resonance condition” (a matched connection) between those two objects via hyperspace. Thus, the Hyperdimensional Model argues that everything, even widely separated three-space objects like remote planets, are ultimately connected through this four-space interaction; meaning that a cause in one place (like Jupiter) can have an effect in another (like the sun) — without any measurable 3D force (such as an electromagnetic wave) having measurably traversed the three-space distance in between [emphasis added] ….”

    In this “classical” Einsteinian view of physics (after 1905 …), there is no “aether” — as it was called in Maxwell’s day (mid-1800’s) — to carry electromagnetic radiation’s transverse waves across the vacuum. In the Hyperdimensional Model (circa 1983 …), the aether is back — as “the actual transformation medium” between the higher spatial realities and our dimension — through something called “the torsion field .…”

    Once I read this, I realized I was using the wrong search term. The search term I needed to use was, Angular Momentum. So, I performed another Ixquick search with the term, Enterprise Mission Angular Momentum, and voila!, out popped the page where I had originally read this information:

    Hubble’s New “Runaway Planet”: A Unique Opportunity for Testing the Exploding Planet Hypothesis and … Hyperdimensional Physics Part II

    For those with interest in what the Enterprise Mission has to say about Bruce DePalma, just do an Ixquick search using the following term: Enterprise Mission Bruce DePalma. This one is a pretty good page to start learning about DePalma’s work:

    Von Braun’s 50-Year-Old Secret: The US Explorer I Discovery that Could Have Saved the World …. Part II

    If, after that, you find that you need to know everything there is to know about DePalma and his experiments and research, just visit the following web site:

    The Home of Primordial Energy – THE place for information from BRUCE DePALMA

    So, there you go, Rock. Nearly two years after you asked me for a link to the Enterprise Mission piece, I have provided it for you. Better late than never, right?

  34. You know its funny you mentioned that technique for finding blogs and comments. For the last week or so I have tried various search engines, to try and locate the comments you had made about string theory and the scriptures that say “their worm dieth not”… and at your suggestion now I also tried Ixquick but no luck. haha. oh well, I remember what you said mostly but I just wanted to link to it in a post I was writting.

    This information about Jupiter and Saturn is interesting and it backs up some of the things my patriarchal blessing emphasizes.

  35. Ask and it shall be given you:

    What the hell, I’ll throw this out, too.

    The phrase “where their worm dieth not” has reference to the “cosmic string of pearls” that is the Universe when viewed from outer darkness.

    The recent discovery that stars form like a string of pearls conforms to the laboratory tested electromagnetic pinch theory of plasma cosmology. (Taken from here.)

    (See also The Cosmic String of Pearls, by Marinus Anthony van der Sluijs in Aeon; A Journal of Myth, Science, and Ancient History, 6. 4 (2003), 19-46.)

    In other words, the entire Universe looks (from the outside) like a string of pearls, one sphere of light attached to another sphere of light by a plasma tube (a string), appearing very much like a string of pearls, or the pearls of great price.

    In outer darkness, though, at a great enough distance, it looks like a segmented worm, an everlasting or ever living worm (the worm dieth not) of light.

    This is the meaning of the scripture and the torment of those who are cast out, as they gaze upon the “worm” that might have been theirs had they received Christ and not denied Him.

    [Damnation]

  36. And so as a spirit personage gazes from outer darkness and mournfully see what he might have enjoyed (Marley’s ghost) surely there is suffering and pain and sadness.
    So if he then decided to exercise faith in Christ what would happen? And if you say, “It is ever lastingly too late…that is what it means ‘their worm dieth not….That’s why we have to repent now….”
    Then I will ask so what purpose is served by continuing to have a spirit child of the Gods one of our brothers suffer with no recourse? Why not disassemble the spirit so he has no memory? And Chantdown has some juicy info on the worm’s function in memory.
    And also ifit is part of eternal justice that these spirit continually suffer then how can the prophesy that says Christ will destroy the devil and all his works be fulfilled? Is there some one who can say that it was not the work of the devil which brings these spirit to outer darkness?

  37. It is most certainly a work of the devil since it says that they are cast out to “reign with the devil…where their worm dieth not.”

  38. I believe this is the scripture that you are referring to:

    He that continueth in sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (1 John 3:8)

    This doesn’t say that He will destroy the devil. It only says that He was sent that He might destroy his works. Is there another scripture that says the devil will be destroyed?

    As I read the above scripture, it seems to me that the context is merely the idea of continuing to sin. So, the devil is a sinner from the beginning, or is continually sinning. This is what his works consist of: continuing to sin. Therefore, anyone who also continues to sin is doing the works of the devil.

    There are two ways in which a person may cease sinning or cease doing the works of the devil: they can either exercise faith in Christ and repent of their sins, or they can be destroyed (die physically and spiritually.) Those that are destroyed in the flesh enter into the night of darkness (hell), in which no labor can be performed (because they are prisoners.) The sons of perdition and the devil and his other angels will be cast out into the everlasting night of darkness at the last day, so their works of sin within the inner kingdom of light will have an end, meaning all the works of the devil will eventually be destroyed.

    The devil and his angels and the sons of perdition cannot continue to sin in outer darkness, for no labor can be performed in that endless night of darkness. The compound-in-one that makes up outer darkness is powerless, because it has no contrast to its darkness. Agency requires contrast. Although the devil, his angels and the sons of perdition are there, and have understanding of light and dark, good and evil, in other words, although they are aware of contrast, they cannot enlighten the compound-in-one that surrounds them because they are now beings of darkness. It requires light to “wake up” the compound-in-one, to split it and create agency, or power. Thus, the devil and his angels will be powerless there. They will perceive the light in the distance, even the worm, but will be powerless to do anything, good or bad, for such power is to be had only within the inner sphere of light. Thus, Christ will put an end to all the works of the devil, so that sin altogether ceases.

    In comparison to the compound-in-one, the devil and his angels will be as gods in outer darkness, having awareness and knowledge of contrast and the marvelous works of the Father found in the inner sphere of light, but they will have no power, whatsoever, to do anything, good or bad. And thus they will “reign” in outer darkness, over a powerless kingdom, as powerless, all-knowing kings. They will have vast knowledge, in comparison to the compound-in-one, but no faith. They will have desire to split the nothing into this and that, to create their own universe patterned after their own thoughts, but will be unable to do so, because that requires light, or contrast.

    (I suppose I could take this further, but I’ll stop for now.)

  39. The Devil is a title. Satan is a title Lucifer is the personage of spirit.
    So wehat is destroyed is the position of devil not Lucifer our brother.

    D&C 19 :3 Retaining all power, even to the destroying of Satan and his works at the end of the world, and the last great day of judgment, which I shall pass upon the inhabitants thereof, judging every man according to his works and the deeds which he hath done.

  40. Apparently, I used the wrong search term (again!) I used, “devil destroy” instead of “Satan destroy.”

  41. I didn’t feel like taking this subject any further, but I will at least attempt to answer the questions posed:

    dyc4557 asked, “So if he then decided to exercise faith in Christ what would happen?”

    The interesting thing about faith is that it requires light, even the light of Christ. If a person is completely immersed in darkness, they are incapable of exercising faith. The light or spirit of Christ is a necessary component to faith. In the case of those who return to outer darkness, their situation is one of nearly complete darkness, except for that distant worm of fire or light.

    God is not a sadist. He takes no joy in anyone’s suffering. All that He does is for our benefit. Even the placing of these kicked-out spirits in their horrendous situation must be for their benefit. Although they are there because of the demands of justice, yet there is an element of mercy that remains.

    Satan and his kicked-out followers are enlarged beings, having tasted the contrast. Were they to return to outer darkness, after having resided this long time in the sphere of light, and be encompassed by nothing but darkness, would not their torment be infinitely greater than to have something on which to fixate their vision, some bit of contrast? Surely God could hide the spheres of light in darkness, so that upon entering outer darkness, none of these souls could ever see anything ever again, never again knowing where the kingdom of light resided. Surely that would be a totally hopeless situation, would it not?

    I wonder what effect being immersed in total, or absolute darkness would have on evicted spirits as opposed to darkness with a worm of light/fire seen in the distance? Which situation would be more or less miserable?

    We are told to look to the light of Christ. In outer darkness, the light of Christ is the worm. Evicted spirits, which are used to the contrast, surely will naturally fixate on the only shimmer of light seen, even the worm, would they not? Where else could they look? What else would there be to see, other than the worm?

    Now, we are not told what the end of these spirits will be, but I find it awfully curious that they are put into a situation in which all they can see is the light of Christ.

    Anyway, to answer your question: Yes, if they exercise faith in Christ they can leave outer darkness. Unfortunately, they cannot exercise faith in Christ while being outside of the sphere of light, and they have no power to get to the worm, it being far off in the distance. Like the poor souls in hell, the only way out is for someone to bring the light of Christ to them.

    More questions: “What purpose is served by continuing to have a spirit child of the Gods, one of our brothers, suffer with no recourse? Why not disassemble the spirit so he has no memory?”

    If an evicted spirit is placed by God in outer darkness, to forever gaze at the worm of light, with immense knowledge (compared to the nothing) but no power, whatsoever, he is there because it suits the purposes of God. In other words, that evicted spirit serves some purpose. If there were no purpose in his being there, he would be, instead, annihilated, becoming again part of the compound-in-one, unaware of any prior existence. That these enlarged, evicted spirits are not annihilated, indicates that there is some divine purpose in their existence, meaning that there is still a role for them to play in the future.

    It seems to me that it is the worm of light/fire that keeps these evicted spirits from annihilation. I imagine that if any one of us were evicted and the kingdom of heaven completely hidden from us, so that we truly had nothing upon which to fixate our eye, only blackest night surrounding us in all directions, no sound, no movement, nothing, being unable to move, having no power to do anything, whatsoever, if such were our situation, then I think hopelessness would overcome us and we would naturally disassemble, becoming again part of the compound-in-one, losing all of that body of experience we retained in our brains.

    But this is not the case. The evicted spirits retain their memories and body of experience and do not disassemble, so there must be something still in store for them, for God is no sadist. Surely He has some purpose for them, to be fulfilled at some point, and their residing in outer darkness is but a preparation, albeit quite a long one, for that future purpose. It is hard to imagine almighty God creating a single thing for nothing. In other words, it is hard to imagine that God would allow even one bit of His creations to be lost to the nothing. Would that not diminish His majesty and might? He says He is a jealous God, so I think He’s got something planned even for the rebellious spirits who end up getting evicted, so that it all eventually works for His glory and their happiness.

    It is true that the scripture says that for some (the sons of perdition) it would have been better that they had never been born, but this only applies to mortal birth, not to them coming into existence from the nothing, and it only means that they would have ended up with a happier existence had they never been born into mortality. It doesn’t mean that they will never, ever receive some measure of happiness.

  42. I didn’t expect to read through this whole article, but I have, and then read the comments. Thanks for helping me to come closer to an understanding of a topic that has always been difficult for me. For the sake of reference I am LDS, active, female, unmarried. For clarification, where would the unmarried fit in this egalitarian order?

  43. For clarification, where would the unmarried fit in this egalitarian order?

    That’s a really good question. The unmarried are the children of the tribe, whether through blood or adoption. When these children reach adulthood, if they remain unmarried, they have tribal roots, but are not bound by covenant to any person. In my mind they appear to correspond to the Servant Planets. They have lineage, but are free floating, not bound to reside in any one place. I suppose together they could also form a quorum. Each tribe would have to figure this out for itself.


Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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