Rebecca [from the-exponent blog] once asked me:
In your ideal world, I’d assume there is no church outside of the family unit. Is this the primary appeal of anarchy within the LDS context for you?
It is evidence of the “Catholic-ization” of the LDS church that members refer to the leadership in Salt Lake as “the Church” – as opposed to the group of believers that meet together. Like the Catholics – I often hear LDS refer to “What the Church has said” about such-and-such or what “Our leaders haven’t taken a position” on such-and-such. LDS will speak of “the Church” as if it is some entity completely removed and separate from the members. Where was there ever a body without parts? The church is the people who make it up.
The church is a tribe; your tribe is the church:
As LDSA outlined in the Wives, follow your husbands! – Patriarchy, androcracy and the egalitarian tribe post:
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.
The principle described here is entirely correct. What most LDS understand as the church structure is actually a tribal structure. Currently, the Gentile Mormon church uses the structure of wards and stakes with presiding bishops and presidents over congregations and quorums – however this is a mere copy [an incomplete/improper copy] of the tribal structure in which the gospel is designed to be lived — a structure of clans and tribes with presiding husbands and tribal elders.
This is seen as LDS refer to their local congregation as the “ward family”, their fellow-members as “brother” and “sister” so-and-so, etc. This is also why even official Church™ policy is to acknowledge [in word at least – though not in deed], that the family is the central unit in the gospel of Jesus Christ, with the Church being only an appendage.
Therefore, the priesthood holder in the home is the central priesthood leader – and the church priesthood holders are appendage leaders – in other words they are secondary as compared to a woman’s husband.
Much of what is wrong in the LDS church originates with wives not considering their husbands to be their priesthood/church leader – which itself originates with the Church™.
In the eyes of the Church™, the husband is not a priesthood leader with keys – only a quorum member without keys. Leaders have keys, and members do not. Because, in the eyes of the Church™, husbands do not have keys – they could not leaders. Quorum members report directly to quorum leaders, and as a quorum member, the husband is an agent of his quorum president.
This view is then passed on to the wife, so that when a wife thinks of a priesthood leader, she will think of someone who holds keys, such as a bishop or stake president. Thus, it becomes that in the eyes of a wife, her husband is subordinate to the priesthood leaders found in the Church™.
This is why we find wives by-passing their husbands and going behind his back to a bishop or stake president [see comment #87 and #102 here]. Any LDS wife who does view her husband as her priesthood leader typically does so insofar as the husband is following the direction of the Church™ leaders. An easy way to discern this is to have the husband do something different than what the church leaders council him to do [like baptize children or administer the sacrament without a bishop’s approval]. Then the wife’s true loyalties will manifest and she will likely side with the Church™ authority. Only when there is conflict between a Church™ leader with “keys” and a husband without them can it be seen who a wife really believes her church leader to be.
The Church™ is actually a religion:
What most LDS refer to as “the Church” is, therefore, not actually a church at all [it not being bound by covenant bonds between members]. It is a religion. When seen from the tribal point-of-view [where church = tribe], the church is an entirely new people-group, nation, or tribe separate from any of the nations or tribes of the earth – the church of Jesus Christ being the tribes of Israel. A tribe is merely a form a human organization that is based on two features: kinship and shared belief. Where these two things exist, there exits a tribe. Where one or both of these things lack, there is no tribe.
Currently, in the LDS church, we have shared beliefs, but not kinship. We may call others in our “ward family” by the names “brother” or “sister” so-and-so, and we may tend to all be of the same tribe [that of Ephraim] – but most members will view their blood family [kinship] as distinct from other LDS.
The purpose of the restoration of the gospel in the latter-days was to convert a diverse assortment of people [from every nation, tribe, and people-group] into a new kind of people. The vision is a tribe, united under the bonds of a new and everlasting covenant, and restored to the ancient Hebrew notion of a holy nation/separate people-group. No matter what the former culture was, any converts are adopted into a new family – formed on the basis tribal covenant bonds and shared beliefs. Status in this group is not determined be virtue of what you believe or how many people you could tell what to do – but instead by the covenants a person has assumed and how many people you serve.
Without both kinship bonds and shared beliefs, we are not fully organized as the Lord’s tribes of Israel. Groups that are bound by only shared belief are referred to as “religions”. When Adam was praying, after having been removed from the Garden of Eden, there entered the god of this world in answer to his prayer:
So, you want religion, do you?
Religion is what Satan has been offering as a substitute for tribal relationships with our Heavenly Parents, Jesus Christ, and our fellowman since the beginning. It is religion and the associated creeds that have prevented humans from coming to Jesus and the Father individually – instead forcing people to jump thru hoops, observances, rituals, classes, advancements, programs, etc. Satan will always give a people religion, and it will be largely based in the left-brain-mind, professing God with the mouth [the left-brain-mind words] but having [right-brain-] hearts is far from Him.
A religion is just a branded belief. Two people can be of different religions – and still be of the same nationality, work for the same companies, belong to the same social groups, etc. There is nothing really distinct between the two, other than what they are doing for a few hours on Sunday.
The LDS church has taken direct action to remove any of the original elements of being a separate tribe/people-group, which are an impediment to popular acceptance. Distinctions are minimized to remove any conflict between LDS and the state they reside in. Any commitment to public relations will cause any movement, idea, or product to become less distinct – to boil down further and further, trying to find a least common-denominator and mass appeal/acceptance. This is the story of Correlation™ and it has been handled in detail elsewhere.
Joseph Smith said that he:
cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations [religions], because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.
Establishing an institution with orthodoxy and checklists – and then requiring uniformity of belief/thought in order to belong to the orthodox religion is the way of the Christians. They are bound together not by tribal family bonds but instead by their confessions of faith and their creeds.
If we really want to come up “into the presence of God, and learn all things,” then we’d be wise to seek out and avoid the creeds of religions that “set up stakes” and demand that we “come no further.”
Within such an institution, one will find that if he/she:
wants to have the manifestations of the spirit in the place where I go to church, then I had better go to a church where we share all things in common… When you attend a church which spends $3 billion on building a shopping/commercial center right close to the temple and exactly $[zero] on implementing the law of consecration, I would hazard a guess that the odds are pretty close to 3 billion-to-zero that an abundance of the gifts of the spirit are [not] going to [be] in that church.
So now you may say well there isn’t any church or group that lives with all things in common. How about forming your tribal organization and getting on with living that way? That is what I am going to do.
I want to live the full gospel of Jesus Christ. I am going to start by having all things in common in my tribe so I can claim the blessings God has offered to those who obey the law given for that blessing.
Truly, one can not do this within the LDS church. Such blessings are found only in communal worship that adheres to the word of God, the spirit of expediency, and the law of common consent. Currently, this can only be achieved within tribal organizations.
Two ways to grow your tribe:
The discussion on plural marriage at Wheat and Tares taught me that most LDS will consider any discussion on organizing multihusband-multiwife tribes as “communes for unbridled secret sex at night.”
However, a tribe is merely a form a human organization based on two features: kinship and shared belief. This is the earliest form of human community – predating cities, states, churches, and even recorded history. Tribal affiliations exist naturally among humans – when states don’t exist to break them up. God does not look upon an individual as an isolated creation, all alone. He sees people as they are connected to everyone else. He sees all the tribal bonds and recognizes the tribal affiliations – even if we ourselves are not even aware of them or allow their functions to remain dormant.
God and the gospel are tribal in nature – always working to connect humans together into His tribe [which is composed of the tribes of Israel]. Our lineage is plainly manifest to Him and so when we begin to act tribally, He recognizes the tribal authority because it has been there all along, among the other conventional things we place upon it [e.g. political affiliations culture, religion]. All that is necessary for us to obtain tribal authority is to exercise it. If we just need to assert it, God will recognize/validate it because it really is there and has been there all along. We just haven’t been aware of it or acknowledged it.
The steward of a tribe is free to grow/enlarge his tribe or allow it to stay dormant. While I intertwine multihusband-multiwife marriage systems together with my tribal understanding of the gospel, there are functions of tribalism that can be activated currently with a one-husband:one-wife tribe. Tribal plural marriage is simply the means whereby a tribe grows or is enlarged horizontally. In like manner, having children is the means whereby a tribe grows or is enlarged vertically.
Growing horizontally:
Tribes are grown horizontally as new adult members are converted and desire to join. As tribes must be bound by both kinship and shared belief, once conversion to the gospel takes place [shared belief], he/she must then be married into the tribe [kinship] as a part of the other entrance ordinances, e.g. baptism.
Growing horizontally is a function of tribal missionary work. This has been discussed in the comments of dyc4557’s CHI #5 post. Currently, LDS missionary work is comprised of sending never married, non-father elders into the mission field – following the pattern of the celibate, Catholic priesthood. These celibate elders are sent by an “across the board” calling of all 19 year-old young men – instead of having any elder with the desire to travel, and calling of the Spirit to preach the gospel, approach their bishops to obtain license to do so by church vote.
In the comments on that post, LDSA touches on some principles for initiating the preaching of the gospel from a tribal point-of-view. Briefly, they include:
- A married man with children having an advantage over a never-married, non-father young man with regards to relating to families [husbands, wives, fathers, and mothers].
- Distraction not being an issue when a person goes on a preaching mission only when he has a desire to go and feels called to do so by the Spirit.
- Leaving the length of a traveling mission open, instead of a fixed two-years, so that the Spirit can have flexibility in keeping a man in the mission field for short or long time periods.
- Utilizing all married men within a tribe [the priests, bishops, elders, seventy, apostles, high priests, and patriarchs], who are under the same commandment to travel and preach when their circumstances allow, to open up a larger pool from which to fill a mission field.
- Multihusband-multiwife tribes having less of a burden with traveling missionary work because when husbands leave to preach, wives and children will be taken care of by the tribe or other husbands.
- Not leaving converts [harvest] in the care of others who, hopefully, will take care of them – instead, either sending these people back to the tribe or, after the mission is complete, returning with them to the tribe, so that tribal integration can be complete.
- Marrying converts while still in the mission field so that, while there, a tribal missionary will have new tribal members to support him, giving him food, drink, clothing, shelter, and a family love and environment – fulfilling the commandment to travel with purse or scrip. Also – retaining and building on the connection that a missionary makes with the converts he or she has taught.
Growing a tribe horizontally is essentially founded on multihusband-multiwife plural marriages. It is this aspect that would likely make converting non-LDS into a tribe easier than converting LDS. Many LDS come with cultural indoctrination [as both Americans and Mormons] that state-sanctioned monogamy is superior to any other form of marriage. Polygyny is either valid insofar as it is state-sanctioned and First Presidency™-approved or was valid in the mid/late 19th century but is now just a relic of a less-enlightened time gone by. Polyandry is completely unheard of or considered and makes a mockery of God’s ordered system of paternity [which is why most LDS will always use “polygamy” when they really mean “polygyny” – polyandry not even being a consideration for them].
Monogamy is not sin. If one spouse [or both] has emotional needs that necessitate him/her requiring a spouse to commit to not loving any other people, then [if the other spouse is willing to submit to that] they may take vows of exclusivity upon themselves. These vows are ordained of God, as long as both persons consent, and are in accordance with the new and everlasting covenant revealed in D&C 132. As I stated previously, there are functions of tribalism that can be activated currently with a one-husband:one-wife tribe – however such a tribe will be limited horizontally.
Polygyny is not sin given that a woman gives her consent to the husband to take additional wives [releasing him from any vows of exclusivity he may have been under] – he is justified in taking on additional wives, for it is marriage with consent and thus a marriage ordained of God.
Polyandry is not sin. In the new and everlasting covenant, there are two ways in which a woman get take an additional husband:
- One way is that she is simply sealed to a second [or third, etc.] husband.
- The other is that her husband breaks his marriage vows [commits adultery], whereby she is married to another man. She remains married to the first husband because there is always the possibility of repentance and reconciliation.
Outside of the new and everlasting covenant, a woman [in the same manner as stated in the polygyny section] may obtain a second marriage thru the consent of her current husband or husbands. This [like polygyny] is ordained of God insofar as all parties involved give consent.
Not giving consent to marry is the sin. When a man wishes to take an additional wife and his current wife or wives do not give their consent [which are the keys of this power], then they become sinners because they are forbidding him from marrying, making them not ordained of God. Likewise, were a woman to desire an additional husband and her current husband or husbands do not give consent, then the husbands become sinners by virtue of forbidding her to marry.
This is the law of Sarah [in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage] and it is applicable to both men and women. “Wrongness” consists in forbidding marriage, which makes the person doing the forbidding not ordained of God – whether the forbidder is the state, the Church™, parents, or a spouse.
Growing vertically:
Tribes can also grow vertically. This is done as married couples come together via sexual intercourse and provide physical life to children. The two methods [horizontal and vertical] are related. Just as parents are capable of loving more than one child with all of their heart – spouses are capable of loving more than one spouse with all of their heart. Just as parents are commanded to have as many children as possible, not forbidding any spirits from entering their family – spouses ought to seek as many additionally spouses as possible, never forbidding one another from loving other people.
The Lord has commanded parents to be fruitful and multiply:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:
The secret combinations of central planners all establish two children per woman as their goal. They have achieved this goal in the countries referred to as “developed”, and they are approaching success on a global scale. The reason being that two children [replacement reproduction] breaks the commandment to multiply and “fill” the earth with humans – only replacing the two parents with two children. The scriptural minimum for the number of children per family would therefore be three, with there being no associated maximum.
They have used various tools to achieve their satanic goal. One need only search [population control eugenics] in a search engine to find plenty of resources on the subject. To be brief, they would include: barrier and hormonal methods of birth control, drugged hospital birthing experiences, circumcision, bottle-feeding, abortion, vasectomies and elective hysterectomies, focusing on “equal” employment for women, reducing sperm counts thru administered chemicals and diet, and sterilants in food/vaccines/water/etc.
A tribe based on the gospel of Jesus Christ will never restrict themselves to a set number of children – utilizing hormonal, barrier, or surgical forms of birth control thereafter. They will not plan their number of children around their desired lifestyle, but will plan a lifestyle around the number of children they have. They shall also teach their children to pray, and to walk uprightly before the Lord. They will teach their children to read and write, having a language which is pure and undefiled. They will teach their children diligently and freely to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands – before the age of eight [lest the sin be upon their heads and it be the cause of their affliction]. Then shall their children be baptized for the remission of sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands. They will engage in continual tribal rituals to strengthen the common morphic field that exists among disciples of Jesus Christ.
Next Article by Justin: The Will of God and Faith
Previous Article by Justin: Tribal Rituals
51 Comments
LDS Anarchy 
Hey great Justin really great.This brings so much together. I think it will help explain what is meant by tribalism.
And thank you so much for improving the clarity of my comment regarding the lack of the gifts of the spirit etc. I went and edited the comment so it is more clear.
I give it as my faith and belief that when a man or a woman denies to allow another person (spouse included) the opportunity to give and receive more love the Lord is displeased because they are being selfish with that which they do not own.
Or as the Lord said they covet that which is not their own.
This brings so much together. I think it will help explain what is meant by tribalism.
That was my hope. During the Sustainable Polygamy conversation, I found that most LDS respond with a very knee-jerk reaction to a tribal view of the gospel b/c of the hippie/wife-swapping connotations that tribal plural marriage arises in their minds and b/c of the immediate association of Brigham’s polygyny whenever another LDS mentions “polygamy” or D&C 132.
the opportunity to give and receive more love the Lord is displeased because they are being selfish
Which is essentially the principle of charity, without which we are “nothing”.
Wow..while reading this I had an interesting spiritual epiphany. It occurs to me that this is just what Enoch did and even Lehi. Read 1 Nephi chapter 1 with our modern day church in context as Jeruselum. Wow…what a revelation. Lehi saw the wickedness of the church, tried to help help change things, they sought to kill him. He fled babylon with his tribe to include his buddy Ishmael and his pretty girls in preparation for the coming redemption and deliverance of the coming Messiah. Isn’t the BOM written specifically for us in the latter-days for a guide for us? Should we be doing what Lehi and Nephi did in preparation for the coming Messiah (2nd Coming) and destruction of the corporate church? Very curious indeed. What think ye?
Okay we know in the Book of Mormon there were certain things which were included in order that we might profit from them. Moroni said that is why he included an abridgment of the Jaredite record. So there were two accounts of how the secret combination does destroy nations.
But lets count how often someone was commanded to leave a people and set up somewhere else. Lehi, then after his death Nephi left his brothers. Then King Mosiah in the Book of Omni lead a bunch of people away from the main body of Nephites. Alma the Elder and Lamoni any body else I missed? Oh Hagoth probably had some of that going on too. Oh and it happened twice in the book of Ether Jared and company then later a dethroned king and followers and then they came back after the destruction. So that gives us at least 7 accounts of the Lord leading a group out from an apostate majority.
It would appear that second to the message of the mission of Christ that is the most common teaching.
I think you are on to something there jew1967. BTW love the handle.
The “Fleeing Babylon” theme plays out often in the Book of Mormon — as dyc4557 mentioned:
Lehi [1 Nephi 2: 2-4]
Nephi [2 Nephi 5: 5-6]
Mosiah [Omni 1: 12-13]
Ammon’s people [Mosiah 22: 2]
Alma [Mosiah 23: 1-5, 24: 20-25]
The pattern seems to always include: warned by revelation, left material possessions behind, brought provisions and family, and pitched tents.
My wife and I also like the Nephite women in 1 Nephi 17: 1-2. They homebirthed, ate a paleolithic diet, breastfed, were strong, and didn’t nag.
Here are some scriptures that I ought to have included in the post — but didn’t to save space:
Ephesians 2:
18 For through [Christ] we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets — Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Galatians 3:
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek [cultural distinctions], there is neither bond nor free [political distinctions], there is neither male nor female [patriarchal/matriarchal distinctions]:
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
D&C 23:3
…Wherefore thy duty is unto the church forever, and this because of thy family. Amen.
The reason that even ordained missionary elders, elder’s quorum “home teachers”, and bishops must respect and submit to a husband/father of a family [even if he is not a member of the church] is b/c of the preeminence of the tribal organization in the eyes of the Lord.
God recognizes any man who is the husband of one wife as the bishop of that family. This is an office of tribal priesthood and is held by any married man whether he holds church-authorized priesthood or not.
The church organization is subservient/submissive to this tribal organization — or as D&C 23 puts it — the only reason we have any duty unto the church is because of the family. If it is not serving the tribe, then it is beyond the bounds of church authority.
Joseph Smith history 1:
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) — and which I should join. 19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
This answer from the Lord to Joseph is a true key that still applies today. If any of us were to enter the grove in 2011 [or any other year], the answer would still be the same. Joseph wanted to know which religion he should adhere to — God’s answer was to avoid all religions. No one will find truth in the creeds of any of the religions — b/c those waters are always muddied.
Joseph was instructed later to establish the church of Jesus Christ — not b/c we needed the true religion on the earth — but b/c all that existed was religions, and God wanted Joseph to restore the tribes of Israel.
Wow. The last comment hit the nail on the head. I have been debating whether or not to go back and reinsert myself back in the church, or the religion, called The Church. Deep down, I don’t want to, I want to be part of a tribe that lives the law of consecration. I was talking to my friend about polyamory. We concluded that the only way it would work would be for all the men in a polyamourous relationship to form a tight bond of love under the law of Christ, and be of one voice and one heart, and then share that law with the wives. It would have to begin with this bond of love among men. No homophobia.
A short while after the tribal worship services post went up, our tribe and two families who are likely to join the tribe in the near future had a FHE about The Church vs. The Family. And we made that same discovery. It does indeed seem to be one of the most key messages of the BoM.
Very intriguing post, Justin. I enjoyed it very much. I do have one point that could use clarifying for me – the part about ‘denying marriage is a sin’. Your post states that it is a sin for the wife or husband to deny the other marriage, but wouldn’t this really just be a rubberstamp then? I mean, what is the point of the wife “asking” her husband if she can take another husband, if her husband has no choice but to agree or be a sinner? And likewise, what is the point of the husband going to his wife to get her consent for him to take another wife, if he knows that she has to say “Yes” or be a sinner? Where does Free Will enter into this negotiation? What if the wife does not want the husband to take another wife? I’ve read an earlier post (I think is was LDSA or you that wrote it) that if the spouse truly has love for his/her counterpart, then he/she will want them to love other people. But what is stumping me is even with having love for your spouse, wouldn’t/couldn’t Free Will say “no” to your counterpart? In other words, if having true love for your spouse means that you will ALWAYS want them to love other people (take on more husbands/wives) then why go through this rubberstamping process of even asking? I don’t see why you need “consent” if you have to give it no matter what, or be a sinner? (I hope my cloudiness makes sense)
Daitoryu asked:
The simple answer would be that anyone is free to be a sinner — however, I’m sure that that would not satisfy.
As I started to write a more complete answer — it became longer than I would have thought. It may take some time to read thru, but let me know if anything remains unclear afterward.
The purpose of consent:
Just as priesthood keys are given as a test to priesthood holders [in judging how they use them] — so to are church keys [keys of consent] intended to prove all church members [or spouses]. The test demonstrates if the person will consent only to righteousness — while always condemning or voting down wickedness.
A woman sins when she do not obey her righteous husband[s], meaning she refuses to submit her consent to him — with “righteous” meaning there is an associated qualifier that her husband[s] do not exercise unrighteous dominion — this is because she is not giving honor where honor is due and is removing power from the priesthood.
A man sins when he does not love his wife[ves], meaning he refuses to be motivated by charity towards her — there is no associated qualifier as was the case with women.
Woman with righteous husband:
A woman is married to a man who does not exercise unrighteous dominion with her. This man, acting out of charity, desires and feels called to bring another wife into the marriage. The woman has two choices:
(1) She can grant her consent, making her ordained of God, b/c her husband is acting righteously and she is not swayed by feelings of inadequacy or jealousy.
(2) She can withhold her consent, making her not ordained of God, b/c she is withholding power [for that is what her consent is] for charity to be manifest.
Thus — there exists free-will and choice.
Woman with unrighteous husband:
A woman is married to a man who treats her with force and control and/or refusing to act out of charity towards her. This man, acting out of a selfish desire, wants to have a new wife at the expense of the first. The woman has two choices:
(1) She can grant her consent, in which case she would be ordained of God, b/c she is not forbidding to marry. However, she is under no obligation to submit in iniquity — therefore,
(2) She can withhold her consent, in which case she would still be ordained of God, b/c she is using her God-given power of consent [the keys of the church/tribe] to stop unrighteous dominion — she is not consenting to evil.
Thus, there exists free-will and choice.
What the righteous husband can do:
In the first example [with the righteous husband] — if the woman gives her consent, then he is free to take the second wife into their tribe and thus it grows horizontally. If the woman withholds her consent, then he is ordained of God only in using persuasion, long-suffering, etc. in dealing with the issue.
Should he go out and marry the second wife anyway — then he would not be ordained of God b/c he is ignoring the keys of consent that God has placed in charge of him. The servants [priesthood holders, husbands] must hearken to the voice of their masters [church members, wives] in all things.
For all we know — the woman may have a reason for why she requires exclusivity [like Starfoxy in comments #24, 30, 42, and 46 found here], and the righteous husband may be moved with compassion for her and instead choose to submit himself to monogamous vows rather than press the issue of polygamy. This is according to his free-will and choice in dealing with his wife.
What the unrighteous husband can do:
If the woman submits her consent to his selfish desire for a new wife, then the unrighteous husband’s true nature will manifest. His love will not multiply, but will instead transfer from the woman to the new wife — this causes him to break his marriage covenant with her b/c he vowed to love her without qualifier and makes him not ordained of God.
However, his true nature may manifest in the other direction. In seeing what his selfish desires for a “new” wife [instead of a second wife] has done to his first love — he may be moved towards repentance and the woman has done him a favor.
Since she was likewise free to withhold consent [given that the husband is acting with unrighteous dominion], the husband’s true nature could again manifest. Will he respond to her refusal with anger and control — taking a new wife anyway without her say-so? Or will he reflect inwardly on why she withheld consent, speak with her about it, and repent of his unrighteous behavior — possibly opening up the woman’s heart to another wife? This will be according to his free-will and choice.
Men and women are judged by the Lord according to how they use their individual sets of keys and how they treat each other:
Is a person seeking after a second spouse b/c he or she is “tired” of the first spouse — or b/c he or she desires to take further covenant obligations, engender charity, and expand the tribe?
Is a person withholding consent b/c he or she is uncomfortable with the idea of another spouse, is selfish/stingy, etc. — or is the person withholding consent b/c unrighteous dominion is being used?
Thanks Justin for your thoughtful response. If I’m correctly understanding it, then it is not always a sin to deny the partner another spouse. This makes sense to me and I believe that I had read in another post that “it is always a sin to deny marriage” or something similar.
I’m mollified in reading/learning that in this forum, especially in your follow-up response, that the contrary is the case; that giving consent is really based on free will and not a rubberstamp. And more importantly, a spouse can refuse consent and still be ordained of God.
Please let me know if I am correctly understanding this.
Many thanks,
Daitoryu
LDSA wrote on the Marraige without a marriage license is ordained of God post that:
This is perhaps what you have in mind when you’re remembering: “I believe that I had read in another post that “it is always a sin to deny marriage” or something similar.”
As far as I’m concerned, “witholding consent” is not the same thing as “forbidding”. I don’t know if LDSA would agree with that or if he would apply that to his above quote. I do agree that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God is a true key that can always be applied.
However, I’m not convinced that the woman with the unrighteous husband that I described above is a “forbidder”. The purpose of the keys of consent is to provide a check/balance system to the keys of the priesthood. Thus it is my interpretation that the woman in that example is not bound to consent to the additional marriage of her unrighteous husband. To me — that’s the point of the keys of the church [consent].
Another example of this is the Law of Sarah:
Thus, were the husband to act without persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, etc. — this law would cease to apply to him.
Thanks again Justin for the clarification. And yes, that was the quote from LDSA that I was remembering.
The issue I have with that quote/concept is that it seems to be taken as an absolute, meaning that there is no gray area. I beleive LDSA is teaching that it is absolutely a sin to forbid marraige and that forbidding marriage is always not ordained of God. If this in an accurate interpretation of what LDSA intended to teach, then I have a few issues with which I am not able to reconcile.
First, I don’t believe it is an absolute because parents would certainly not allow two 8-year-olds to marry, just because they both have “puppy love” for each other. The same would be true for two 13 or 12-year-olds. We know that parents are instructed to teach their children the correct concepts and principles of the Gospel and good Christian living, and doing this would certainly make the parents “ordained of God”.I think you see the picture that I’m painting here – just because someone desires marriage doesn’t mean that it will be allowed or permitted.
Second, I supposed a clarification of the term “forbid” might be in order? When we use “forbid”, do we mean for ever and ever? Or just “not at this time, maybe later”? The “maybe later” mitigation, as I believe, brings in the Free Will issue and removes the rubberstamping problem that I noted above. One thing we should have learned as children is that we do not always get everything we desire, and not always exactly when we desire it.
These are just the first couple of issues I have with this concept that all marriage requests must be approved for fear of being a sinner and not being ordained of God. I tend to agree with your scenarios of what might constitute sinful behavior versus righteous behavior in responding to a marriage request.
I invite LDSA to respond and provide further enlightenment- to correct anything that I may have miscomprehended.
I also should have included the issue of ‘common consent’ as another point that I cannot reconcile, if forbidding marriage is “always” a sin.
As I understand the Common Consent posting, God cannot do anything without the common consent of the people. The people can veto and reject anything and everything that God has planned and He has to respect that or cease to be God. So, if God has inspired a husband that it is His will for him to marry another, but if the wife does not consent, then God does not have the consent of the people and where is the sin in this? I suppose one could argue that the wife is not ordained of God, and we’d have to define those terms more specifically, but I cannot see where one could label the wife a sinner. If there is no common consent, then God cannot judge or condem. This common concent concept really turns on its head the long-held Christian expression of “not my will but Thy will be done”, doesn’t it?
This common concent concept really turns on its head the long-held Christian expression of “not my will but Thy will be done”, doesn’t it?
No. I think this is the very essence of granting/giving consent. Giving our will to His will. Reconciling our desire with His desire. This can only be done with free will/agency.
IMHO. Thanks
Jew1967, very interesting point and I would agree with it except that I don’t believe that Free Will is a synonym for doing what God wants us to do. Lucifer wanted to force us to do his will. So this expression of “not my will but thy will be done” would be a very accurate statement under his rule.
I believe there is a larger, fundamental difference than simply “reconciling our desire with His desire.” We have evidence that the people can have desires that God does not. For example, when the early church members wanted to live the Greater Law of Consecration, they were told “No”. They cajoled and prodded the Prophet to keep petitioning (just like we do with our governments) and eventually God said “Okay, good luck”. Is this not the opposite of God’s will being done? I believe that God will allow us to make choices, even those that He knows will fail or are not right for us, but he does so because of common consent and free will. (another evidence is the bogus Word of Wisdom commandment, taken as it is currently taught, we are told that the church members wanted it to be a commandment. Even though this is not accurate, I believe we can still use this to show evidence that the will of the people through common consent rules supreme, even for God).
I believe that this is the major difference between a lucerfarian Earth and a Christian Earth.
In line with what you’re saying Daitoryu — another example of God honoring what would otherwise be considered “unrighteous” b/c the people manifested in favor of it is the golden calf idol in the Exodus story.
When punishment is dealt out for the idolatrous behavior — notice that there is no punishment meted out to Aaron. Why? Because Aaron, as the Lord’s administrator, was submitting to the will of the people in providing a calf for them to worship. He was not an accessory to the crime.
Verse 35 of chapter 32 says:
And the Lord plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made.
In other words — though Aaron physically made the calf — it was the people who were plagued b/c their consent is what really made it.
“except that I don’t believe that Free Will is a synonym for doing what God wants us to do.”
Correct. It is a prerequisite to doing God’s will. It expresses we have a choice and our decision in so choosing. There are always consequences good or bad to what we exercise our given agency to choose.
“Lucifer wanted to force us to do his will. So this expression of “not my will but thy will be done” would be a very accurate statement under his rule.”
This might be incorrect. I think that Lucifer wanted to force God’s will and take away our agency so that we could not choose not to do God’s will. We would all be saved and exalted with no negative consequences and no sin. Agency requires presence of opposition and consequences. Without such agency does not exiist. Lucifer wanted the easy way with no sin or wickedness and total obedience and compliance to God’s law and will and for his cleverness he wanted the glory of exalting us all. Notice how Lucifer’s plan does not require a savior to redeem us?
Oh…and I think it was because Aaron genuinely repented upon learning the will of God that he was spared. Many of the people chose to continue to be rebellious and thus suffered requisite consequences.
another evidence is -%&%$#%#%$%RR&/T/&Y/(Y/(/Y/GHIOUPUYRFYTFDT2+1=5
Even though this is not accurate, I believe we can still use this to show evidence that the will of the people through common consent rules supreme, even for God.
And here are a few more “Eternal Truths” :
Pontius Pilate´s hands were 100% clean
God only commanded plural marriage because the mean old missouri mobs had killed so many of the men that it became a necessity.
Stay in the mainstream of the church. The combined voice of the 12 and the first presidency will never lead us astray.
When the early church members wanted to live the Greater Law of Consecration, they were told “No”. They cajoled and prodded the Prophet to keep petitioning
(what is the law of consecration “greater” than? The law of tithing? …which is actually part and parcel with the law of consecration…and is the current flat tax just a lesser law than the actual law of tithing? or is it a perversion and thus “no law at all” to paraphrase Augustin.)
Is God´s law eternal or not? I believe it is always there and it is a question of whether we are ready for it. If we are not ready for it though we will not HEAR it. If we hear some string of words which symbolize and illustrate the eternal law of the heavens even coming out of the mouth of a prophet have we heard God declare his law? We may at that same moment hear the voice of the lord but if we do it will be through us in response or testifying to the truthfulness of the concept represented by the words reaching our physical ear drums. And if we then do not follow we are divided against our SELF and will eventually go on to destruction. Make sense? Hope so.
A good (recommended) book on this subject is “Satan’s War on Free Agency”. The scriptures don’t speak of any plan of “force” by Satan. According to that book, which I enjoyed, we weren’t going to be “forced” to do anything, rather sin and the consequences of sin were going to be removed. There’a fairly compelling story in the book about how Satan would have had to sell his plan to his potential followers. In selling the plan, he was going to have to convince his potential followers to go against God – an supposedly perfect, loving being. In order to do so, which is more likely to work: (a) that you’ll be forced to be righteous, losing out on the ability to choose, or (b) that you can still choose for yourself, but the consequences of the bad are removed.
From the description of the book:
forgot the link: http://www.amazon.com/Satans-Free-Agency-Greg-Wright/dp/193098006X
johnq, thanks for the info on the book. I will look into it. This seems more correct to me too. I reall y dislike the term “free-agency.” It doesn’t exist. Agency is not free, though we think that because we speak of it as being a free gift without price, but is that really true? I think that it is satan/lucifer that is applying the idea of “free” (meaning without negative consequences). How many times have we heard the idea that we have free agency thus I can choose to do as I please and feel justified in our choice and not have to suffer any negative consequences, accountability or responsibility? Our agency, though a gift requires our accountability and responsibility. Wasn’t it Spiderman who said that with the gift of great power comes with it great responsibility. Agency is itself a great divine power.
From Mormon Mysticism:
In the author’s POV — agency means that one is an agent of a covenant, and that it is therefore only related to our idea of free-choice.
Justin, thanks for this little gem. I downloaded the book. I’m getting excited about all this. It’s feels great to know that there are others out there being so guided by the Spirit too. I have been studying into Cabala / Kabballah and jewish mysticism as well.
God works in mysterious ways to guide his children! 🙂
dyc4557 said on the ‘Round Midnight post:
and he said on zo-ma-rah’s Apology post:
I think this nicely illustrates what “the Tribal Church” was trying to say. The spiritual gifts are expressly for our group/communal worship dynamic. They cannot be obtained in my personal prayer/fasting worship relationship — b/c they simply are not for personal consumption.
If your only group worship dynamic takes place in “the ChurchTM” — then you will lack the gifts of the Spirit b/c of what dyc4557 described above. Your group worship dynamic must align with the word of God [For example, D&C 70:14 or 1 Corinthians 11:30 (which I outlined here)] — which is what [for me] this whole “Tribal” dynamic is all about, i.e. giving people a properly functioning group worship dynamic that will manifest the gifts and power of the Spirit.
So does this mean you two have given up in seeking after the gifts?
No. However, over the last two months I had been seeking the healing gifts for both a family member and myself — and I went thru a period of disappointment and frustration when I did not so much as receive a manifestation of the gift [let alone receive the gift itself].
Reading dyc4557’s comment at zo-ma-rah’s page made me think about that other quote of his from ‘Round Midnight — and I saw in that the solution to my frustration.
I was seeking the healing gifts as a personal endeavor. And as you quoted me:
They must be sought for in my communal worship dynamic. Were that dynamic to solely be the ChurchTM [which is really a religion, not a church], then the healing gifts cannot manifest [b/c of temporal inequality and administering the sacrament in an unworthy manner, etc.]
Quite the contrary — I haven’t ceased to seek for the spiritual gifts and signs following the believers in Christ — it is that I have realized that my efforts had been focused on obtaining them as a personal exercise/endeavor, and that I need to place the seeking as the key component of my tribal church’s communal worship.
Especially with respect to the healing gifts — I think 1 Corinthians 11:30 is saying that their absence can be traced to the improper [unworthy] administration of the Lord’s Supper [teachers and deacons administering, priests administering in the presence of elders, congregation seated instead of kneeling, using pinches of bread and thimbles of water, etc.] — and this is something I can only remedy by my tribal observance of the ordinance — thereby seeking the gifts in that setting from now on.
Also, re: dyc4557’s comment — in what you quoted LDSA, he went on to say:
This is the part that spoke to me on this subject. Where do we “go to church”: at the ChurchTM or with our tribes? To me, the answer to that question decides whether seeking the gifts will be a vain effort or a fruitful one.
In the post, I mentioned:
I read this article today that mentioned:
I, for one, have experienced and seen many manifestations of Spiritual gifts. I have seen and participated in miraculous healings, been given interpretations of dreams, seen visions, had the scriptures opened to my understanding., received understanding on some of the mysteries of godliness, and been instructed by heavenly messengers.
I am the weakest of the weak, a nobody. I believe these things are taking place. If I am experiencing these things, surely there must be many, many others. You don’t know my name, so I don’t have any reservations about posting the above. Maybe they are occuring in your life, are you seeing them?
Deej,
I have had best gift manifestations happen to me. I received revelatory dreams. I have received knowledge and wisdom thru miraculous means. I have been miraculous healed one time.
I lament that faith to posses these gifts is not present in myself or in my congregation. I cannot call down revelatory dreams whenever I seek after one. I cannot call down spiritual gifts of knowledge or wisdom whenever I seek it. I cannot miraculously heal my family or be healed myself at the moment I ask for it.
For me, that’s my main concern. I’m sure the gifts still manifest at times according to the mercy of the Lord — but I have not seen them in the general possession of LDS such that they manifest according to the faith of the saints.
deej,
I’ve seen angels in vision, but never had one visit me personally. You said that you have “been instructed by heavenly messengers.” I assume this means that you’ve had angels visit you (as opposed to seeing them in vision.) Could you tell us what that was like? Was it a vision or a visit? Was it unexpected, or were you “praying down an angel?” Did you shake the angel’s hand? Also, what was the message communicated? Or was it for personal use only?
I have not heard of anyone in my generation receiving a visit from an angel, and have been under the assumption that such visits had altogether ceased because angels declare “the word of Christ unto the chosen vessels of the Lord, that they may bear testimony of him,” and because I don’t hear of anyone bearing testimony that they have received a visit from an angel and that the angel said “[fill in the blank],” so “that the residue of men may have faith in Christ, that the Holy Ghost may have place in their hearts.” So, if you have had such a visit, this would be heartening information, indeed, because it would mean that Mormon’s warning in Moroni 7 about what it means if angels cease appearing to men does not fully apply to our times and that there is still hope for humanity.
yeah…yall have no idea how my heart lept in my chest upon hearing Jeffrey Holland share a second hand experience from Bro. Barrus in his Conference talk in 08 entitled “the ministry of angels”…I even thought immediately after it became apparent that this brother had NOT recived divine deliverence or an actual heavenly visitaion…”Oh how silly of me.” but now my faith and hope in such things is renewed. NOT BECAUSE I HAVE ACCEPTED THAT THEY HAPPEN AND PEOPLE JUST DON’T SHARE SUCH THINGS….but because I have come to terms with the hard truths that Moroni shares with us….describing the lack of faith that we have fallen into and the effects it has…like they say the first step to repentance is recognition.
Oh. I thought the Ministry of Angels was deacons collecting fast offerings and helping widows.
😉
My instruction by heavenly messengers were in visions. The messages communicated were all of a personal nature. As for the visions, I wasn’t asking at that time for any kind of a visit. Other manifestations of gifts happened upon request, but not the visions. My mother had visits that were more of a face to face encounter, she wasn’t carried away, or it didn’t happen in a dream vision, more of one person talking to another.
I won’t say who I’ve seen in vision, but please don’t make ridiculous assumptions that because it isn’t discussed publicly, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I’ve been instructed to keep my mouth shut with regard to details and only my wife knows one of the experiences. Of course, some of these things should be borne publicly when the Spirit directs, but it isn’t always the case that it’s necessary to state these things publicly. I’m reminded of a story of Hugh B. Brown’s, which I believe wasn’t shared publicly.
Hugh B. Brown, who had served as President McKay’s first counselor, resumed his seat as an apostle. A few months later he would confide in his nephew, N. Eldon Tanner, that he missed the intense involvement of the First Presidency. In failing health, he could attend meetings of the Twelve only infrequently, so Eldon became one of his few regular contacts with General Authorities. Following one visit, President Tanner wrote in his diary, “I am sure it is difficult to adjust after being in the First Presidency.” He added an experience related by his uncle that had helped President Brown adjust to these years of declining responsibility.
“He said it was not a vision, but the Lord appeared to him, very informal, the same as I was sitting talking to him. The Lord said, ‘You have had some difficult times in your life.’ Uncle Hugh responded, ‘Yes, and your life was more difficult than any of us have had.’ In the conversation Uncle Hugh asked when he would be finished here, and the Lord said, ‘I don’t know and I wouldn’t tell you if I did.’ Then He said, ‘Remain faithful to the end, and everything will be all right.’”
[Pp. 254–56 in Durham, G. Homer. 1982. N. Eldon Tanner: His Life and Service. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company.]
The Lord works with us on an individual basis. If these things aren’t happening to the LDS faih in general or in others lives regardless of religion, it doesn’t mean they aren’t happening. I grew up in a home where these things happened and it wasn’t talked about publicly, but in our family it wasn’t hid. I didn’t grow up LDS, but I knew from my grade school days, long before becoming LDS, that these things happened. As I’ve grown, I have experienced these things for myself. Joseph’s experience is incredble, but it’s his. Mine are sacred to me, but they are mine. I long for the day, when we’ll all know the Lord.
Thanks for reporting back, deej.
I wonder how brothers Hugh and Eldon reconciled the Lord’s omniscience with the “I don’t know” statement of the Lord in the visit to brother Hugh?
Thank you Deej for the little bit of personal experience you did share. As far as bringing more third and even fourth party claims, well, we could read that book for ourselves. I heard it was in the discount section at Deseret Books even!
It reminds me of when a stake president was trying get me to stop my beard from growing out. He told me that one time “in the 60s” a general authority was speaking with a young man who had let his facial hair grow. The young man says well Jesus had a beard and the GA said “Not the last time I saw him.” The stake president looked at me smiling after sharing that and I said simply, “But that is just a story, not the truth” The brother’s smile dissapeared and he quickly acknowledged that to be the case.
LOL….sorry for any disrespect….LOL. 🙂
Justin:
I thought you might like this article on monogamy. The interviewee had a rather classic line, which I quite enjoyed, and in discussing monogamy referred to it – and the issues it brings to a marriage – as the “marital industrial complex.”
LDSA brought a Christian ministry — New Tribes Mission — to my attention.
Though they seem to be focused on taking the Christian gospel to 3rd world tribal areas — instead of established people here as tribal groups. According to this post from one family’s blog the group calls their training centers “MTC”s. The specific family’s blog linked to is called “Tribe or Die!” — well Amen to that Justin and Lauren Rees.
It was an interesting site to look into — even though they seem to focus on established churches among tribes rather than the other way around.
[…] you’ve ever visited LDSAnarchy’s blog you have probably heard about tribal church meetings. This is something that is frequently discussed there. Now I’m not sure if I understand it […]
Thought you might like this [Why do women have children with married men]:
I had a dream one night not too long ago, where a Spirit told me to look up “iron bedsted principle” on the internet when I awoke. He said “don’t forget!” In the morning, I did as the Spirit directed me, and searched yahoo for “iron bedsted principle”:
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7k0hJ_xNxGMAAjxXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDUCMyNzY2Njc5BF9yAzIEYW8DMARmcgNzZnAEZnIyA3NidG4Ebl9ncHMDMARxdWVyeQNpcm9uIGJlZHN0ZWQgcHJpbmNpcGxlBHNhbwMyBHVuZGVmaW5lZAN1bmRlZmluZWQEdW5kZWZpbmVkA3VuZGVmaW5lZAR1bmRlZmluZWQDdW5kZWZpbmVk?p=iron+bedsted+principle&fr2=sb-top&fr=sfp&type_param=
These two results were near the top:
Alexander Campbell’s Parable of the Iron Bedstead.
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/cb/POTIB.HTM
Salvation, by Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1 …
http://jod.mrm.org/1/1
This is no coincidence. I had no idea what an “iron bedsted” even was before this dream, and I’d never even heard of the term before.
Both Alexander Campbell and Brigham Young essentially say the same thing. Alexander refers to Catholics, while Brigham Young refers to Mormons.
The members of the Church “measure [other members] by the ‘Iron Bedstead principle’—’if you are too long, you must be cut off; if too short, you must be stretched,'” says Brigham Young. This is EXACTLY what the Church™ does to its members today. I suggest reading both links above, especially from Alexander Campbell. I believe this supports what Justin is saying about the Church™ in this post.
On the subject of growing one’s tribe vertically, my wife and I were looking into adopting a couple children the age of our younger ones — so they can have someone close to their age to play with, etc.
We learned this from LDS Family Services:
We wanted to use the church’s service because we’re members and they charge 10% of a family’s income [instead of some flat rate]. However, it seems the church’s adoption services are just like the welfare services — if they can find one bit of evidence that they might not need to provide services, then they won’t.
Does it occur anyone at LDS Family Services that couples still of reproductive age might want to adopt children — while still planning on having more children of their own?
Isn’t the goal to get as many kids into the homes of parents as possible? Why exclude homes where the parents can still reproduce?
OK — so now the website doesn’t show a Documented infertility assessment requirement any more…
…are you reading this LDS Family Services?
So — I removed the cookies from the site and the infertility requirement is back again. What happened?
Ah, cookies! Of course! I didn’t think of that…
You’ll have to ask Derek that one. I’m sure he knows the whys and wherefores.
Oh yeah — but when I emptied the cache on IE, the requirement was still not showing up.
I just decided it was a sign from God that we should ignore it and apply anyway.
[…] their lands through tribal methods. For more on this, check out an abundance on the subject LDSAnarchy. My brother brought the subject up to me years ago after his mission. He quoted Joseph Smith saying […]
[…] point tying Satan’s plan and this topic, pulling from Justin at the ldsanarchy blog: So, you want religion, do […]