Clint, in a comment on the Marriage without a marriage license is ordained of God post, quoted D&C 132: 7 and raised the issue that, among other things:
So the problem to me is that we have a doctrine that is very clear in stating that in order to get to God we MUST do certain things, and then makes it almost impossible after the growth of the church for them to be done in a literal way and even at its doctrinal inception as far as I know this principle was not followed.
I attempted to write an exposition on that verse and the issues Clint raised in a comment. However, it grew to be too long for just a comment and so I have decided to publish my response as a post. This way, Clint’s comments can be read by a broader audience than those who follow the comments regularly — and also others can weigh in on the subject.
D&C 132:7
And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.
The conditions of this law:
All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations […] are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.
The default state of all things is to have an end when humans die. All binding arrangements [including even expectations] are assumed to be in a state where they will come to an end upon mortal death.
To tie this back to LDSA’s original post, he wrote:
When two people come together and make love, the love demonstrated and generated is intended by God to continue on forever. It is supposed to remain. The marriage bonds keep people connected (and gathered) so that they continue to nurture and grow the love generated between them. God is love, so the scriptures say, therefore, He is all-loving and never stops loving. To come together and make love and then leave (separate from one another) is akin to stop loving (stop becoming one). God wants us to continue to manifest our love for one another, through the marital covenants. In this way we learn to become like Him, all-loving and continually loving.
Because God does not want all things to end when humans die, it is possible that the above-delineated binding arrangements may be:
[…] made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power […]
So, to avoid the default state of a binding arrangement ending upon mortal death, it must meet certain conditions:
- Made by the Holy Spirit of promise
- Entered into by the Holy Spirit of promise
- Sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise
- By one who is anointed
- For the stated duration of both time and all eternity
- In a most holy manner — by revelation and commandment through the medium of the one who is anointed [for this anointed one holds the keys to this power].
In addition to those six conditions, there is the paraenthetical phrase,
(and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred)
which adds a seventh condition:
- Joseph Smith was the “one who is anointed” mentioned above at the time the revelation was given. Further, only one person on the earth at a time will act in this position of the “one who is anointed“.
Parenthetical Phrases:
Scribal additions often come by way of parenthetical phrases. These attempt to clarify or expand on what was written in the original text. Though there is not necessarily anything nefarious about, for example, adding that:
And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day.
to clarify that Ai was still in a state of desolation at the time the scribe was writing that text.
Or in adding:
For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
to explain what, “In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water,” meant to the people there at the time — who would have known what it meant.
However, as I have read all 66 verses D&C 132, that parenthetical phrase strikes me as internally inconsistent with the rest of the section. For example, the Law of Sarah says:
And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.
In this portion of the revelations that make up section 132, the Lord says that it is the wives who hold the keys of this power — the keys that the parenthetical phrase says that only Joseph held at the time the revelation was given. However, verse 64-65 tells me that if it was anybody — it was Emma who held them at that time.
Further, because of my understanding that God honors the consent of free-agents and that He would not favor either androcracy or gynocracy over the other — I can say that the law of Sarah is applicable to both men and women.
The revelation was spoken to Joseph in regards to his wife — therefore it is addressed in “she then becomes the transgressor” language. However, what makes any person a transgressor according to the law of Sarah, is forbidding to administer the keys of the power of consent to a marriage covenant [this is according to D&C 49:15 as well].
Keys of Consent [or Power]:
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. The test demonstrates if the person will consent only to righteousness — while always condemning or voting down wickedness.
In a tribal setting, a woman sins when she do not obey her righteous husband[s], meaning she refuses to submit her consent [power] 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:
- She can grant her consent, making her ordained of God, because her husband is acting righteously and she is not swayed by feelings of inadequacy or jealousy.
- She can withhold her consent, making her not ordained of God, because she is withholding power [for that is what her consent is] for charity to be manifest.
Woman with unrighteous husband:
A woman is married to a man who treats her with force and control and/or refuses 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:
- She can grant her consent, in which case she would be ordained of God, because she is not forbidding to marry. However, no one is under any obligation to submit in iniquity — therefore,
- She can withhold her consent, in which case she would still be ordained of God, because 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.
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 because 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 because 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 because he or she is “tired” of the first spouse — or because he or she desires to take further covenant obligations, express charity, and expand the tribe?
Is a person withholding consent because he or she is uncomfortable with the idea of another spouse, is selfish/stingy, etc. — or is the person withholding consent because unrighteous dominion is being used?
D&C 132:7, 64 — Combined and Clarified:
So, to re-word the original verses with what I expounded on above taken into consideration — it reads:
And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations,
that are not (1) made and (2) entered into and (3) sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, (4) of him who is anointed [the one holding authorized priesthood keys], (5) both as well for time and for all eternity, and (6) that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power,
(7) (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred),
are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead […]
[…]And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power [which are the keys of consent that authorize the priesthood], and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood [meaning he uses persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, etc.], as pertaining to these things,
then shall she believe and administer unto him [give her consent], or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
So, the conditions of the law are that all binding arrangements must be administered by one who is holding authorized priesthood keys. And by what power are priesthood keys authorized [rather for the church or the tribe]? They are authorized by the vote of consent.
Conclusion:
D&C 132 divides Mormons into three groups:
- those that believe all 66 verses are a revelation from God,
- those that believe none of them are a revelation from God — or that all of them are a revelation from the devil,
- those that pick-and-choose to believe only some of them.
By virtue of my own experience and revelations, I operate under the assumption that D&C 132 is true. It is only once unity over whether the revelation is entirely true, entirely false, or partially true and false [with agreement over what parts are true and what parts are false] — between people can discussions on the section be fruitful.
Only if we approach it as the word of God and desire to discuss what the principles and doctrines proposed therein actually consist of, and would actually look like when implemented in the real world — will discussions have a real benefit.
Most of the issue that was raised against D&C 132 is based on the inclusion of the parenthetical phrase:
(and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred)
I would conclude that if this portion was given at the same time of the revelation and written down by Joseph, it would, first off, not even be in parenthesis — but in addition to that, it would read:
and I have appointed unto you, my servant Joseph, to hold this power […]
much like is written in verse 45:
For I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood […]
Thus, I see that parenthetical phrase as a later addition by the Utah saints in an attempt to put the doctrine of plural marriages under their control [the One True Successors to Joseph].
But besides that, for me — it is the inclusion of polyandry that must be explained away prior to labeling the revelation misogynistic, endorsing only Brigham’s polygyny, etc.
If we are going to discuss things assuming that D&C 132 is a true revelation, then we must read it in light of what we know about God,
[that He does not regard anyone as more or less by virtue of their genitalia, that He honors the agency of His children, that He does not concentrate power in the hands of the few, etc.]
instead of in light of what we know about the Church™ and the way Brigham, et al have interpreted, implemented, or tampered with the revelation.
Only when viewed as a true revelation [all 66 verses], can its spiritual meaning and application be discussed. If it is the word of God, then there is real benefit assigned to it.
Next Article by Justin: Punishment
Previous Article by Justin: The Tree of This and That
12 Comments
LDS Anarchy 
“Only when viewed as a true revelation [all 66 verses], can its spiritual meaning and application be discussed.”
Seems to me that you are viewing this revelation in literal or carnal terms rather than spiritual. When truly viewed in spiritual way, Section 132 takes on a deeper meaning that doesn’t have much to do with plural wives.
Please enlighten Anonymous. We are interested in what you have to share.
If the original meaning is not known, then there are as many interpretations as there are persons interpreting. When we do this, our standard works cease to be a standard by which we could measure anything.
The spiritual application [liken it to myself, etc.] ought to build upon the original intent/physical meaning — not vice versa.
We must start with the finite, and then work outward to the infinite — not vice versa.
When we start by likening all things to the self first, finding the spiritual application, etc. — the original meaning is just one of the many infinite valid ways one can interpret the scripture.
We must begin with the original meaning so as to be properly grounded — and then may the Spirit add other meanings thru the principle of expediency and thru increased scriptural understanding.
The original/physical must always remain an integral part of the gospel — in which we seek to incorporate it into our lives. Otherwise most gospel discussions just turn into mental masturbation where we all sit around and talk about “What this scriptures means to me” and “How can we apply this in our daily lives“, etc.
As good as that aspect of scripture study is — it must not be where we begin.
Anonymous — to address your comment directly:
My desire is to view it in literal terms first and then go on to the spiritual way. I do view this revelation in literal terms — but not “rather than” spiritual terms.
My concern among most LDS that I have talked with about D&C 132 is that they view it in spiritual or metaphorical terms rather than literal/carnal ones. When not viewed in literal terms, section 132 loses all meaning whatsoever.
Anonymous, would you be willing to expound on the spiritual insights that you have received from D&C 132 that are not related to the literal meaning of taking plural spouses?
I think interepreting that verse to mean that Emma held the keys of sealing power is a gross misinterpretation. Elijiah gave those keys to Joseph Smith. If I recall, Emma was never in the Kirtland temple when Elijiah appeared.
I said:
[Edited — sorry Clint, I typed too fast]
John said:
I am not suggesting that Emma held the keys of the sealing ordinances of the temple. I am pointing out the inconsistency of the parenthetical phrase stating that only Joseph held “this power and the keys of this priesthood” at the time the revelation was written — and that only one person on the earth holds them at a time.
Because verse 64-65 says that a wife “holds the keys of this power” — and it is a wife who believes and adminsiters unto the husband.
Elijah committed the keys of this dispensation to Joseph Smith. Those keys are also termed the keys of the power of turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers. I mentioned how verse 45 says, “For I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood…” referring to Joseph Smith.
But — what is “this power” that a wife holds the keys to? By what authority is the wife “adminsitering unto” the husband?
Just FYI John Coltharp made the above comment about Emma and not myself.
I agree that if the parenthetical comment is taken out of the D&C 132:7 it becomes much less restrictive, and also becomes much more feasible to execute the conditions therein. The things that bothers me about this though is that the parenthetical comment is not written as commentary, it is written as the voice of god dictating verbiage.
As far as I know the supposed history is that Joseph dictated it to Willard Richards in 1843. This document was then discovered in Joseph Smiths things after his death in 1844, at which time Brigham Young took possession of it and produced it as revelation once the saints were in SLC in 1851.
I am unaware of Joseph Smith in his lifetime ever proclaiming himself to be the sole authority able to seal any Covenant, so in terms of you comment:
… there was certainly motivation in this context, but this creates the secondary issue of, would these edits be restricted to parenthesis? I mean they show that they are willing to impersonate “God” to meet their agenda, this creates a pretty big trust issues for me.
I do not know if the LDS Church™ actually has the original document for this, although I am pretty sure that if have not made it publicly accessible, so actual analysis of the document does not seem feasible. As you pointed out earlier one can perform some verbiage analysis of different writing styles and such, but I don’t know that I can trust myself (or someone else) to accurately tell me what is (or is not) true based on such a method.
So I come back to a few scenarios (or perhaps problems):
This relation should be taken literally in the whole of it’s 66 verses: in this case I am back to the issue of only one man can make any covenant valid, this would include baptism, sealing, and all other covenants … which as I stated earlier has staggering implications and which no-one ever seems to be talk about
There are things in this section which are not literal and/or were intentionally or accidentally written outside of there intended context: in this case it makes it very hard to know what is true, and what is not, you can say go by the spirit, but if we can just do that, then what do we need scripture for in the first place, and why don’t we all get the same answers
The LDS Church has this power, but does not exercise it in the prescribed manner of section 132 because they received further knowledge on this matter, the source of which they have not revealed: this might be a true blue Mormon response, but if doctrines can just change, and if the brethren (or whoever) have no obligation to produce them, how can we have any faith that they are genuine and if they contradict previous doctrine, why would we think that the new doctrine cannot also be contradicted/changed?
… Actually, I was going to continue with this list of potential scenarios, but I would rather just ask the simple question of, who do you think has the sealing power on earth right now? Or do you think that it is not on the earth and that this will all just need to be taken care of in the millennium.
By the way, personally I do not think a revelation to show that polygamy is OK is necessary. I think that restrictions on it are on based on the human habit of interfering with the freedom of other based on their own supposed righteousness. I think many traditions we consider as the moral high ground have no basis in reality as superior, they are just conditioned by social norm and in this case laws.
Also I appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion on this issue. I am trying to be objective in my reading and interpretation but I will admit that I do have some underlying objections that are personal that I try not to let slip into my analysis, but they very well may.
Clint — I edited the original comment to reflect my mistake. Sorry about that.
I pointed out in the post that given:
(a) The phrase is written in parenthesis in the first place
(b) When read aloud, the phrase sticks out to me just like a scribal note [like the two examples from Joshua and John that I quoted in the OP]
(c) It does not refer to Joseph as “you” as is done in the rest of the revelation
It seems to walk like a later addition, talk like a later addition, etc.
Contextually, D&C 132 appears to be an amalgamation revelation — along the lines of D&C 130, and 131.
When I read the revelation aloud, it seems to me that verses 1-40 are the Lord’s revelation on the law of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, verses 41-50 are another revelation in answer to a different question concerning adultery, verses 51-61 address Emma specifically, and verses 62-66 answer concerning the previously stated “law of the priesthood.”
These would have been given throughout different periods ranging from 1831 – 1843.
All persons who have received the Melchizedek priesthood receive all of the keys of the priesthood — albeit in an unactivated state. Specific keys of the priesthood must be activated by the voice of the people, or common consent, which are the keys of the church.
Currently, the only person who holds all priesthood keys in a fully activated state is Thomas Monson. The keys of the church still reside with the Gentle LDS Church — and until that Church is broken up into Gentile Mormon sects — their voice constitutes the majority.
The tribe is a different matter entirely. As a holder of the Melchizedek priesthood, I hold all of the keys [just in an unactivated state]. Should I attempt to use any of them in matters relating to the church, they would need to be activated prior to my actions being held as binding [or locked, to use the vernacular of keys]. However, in the tribe it is the vote of the other tribal members that activates the same priesthood keys that I currently hold for use within the tribe.
My last point before my concluding remarks on D&C 132 in the OP were:
Thus, in my tribe, my wife may believe and administer a plural wife unto me [and likewise I a plural husband to her] by virtue of the keys of her consent, which activate the keys of the priesthood that I hold to be used for that purpose.
It was intended that the Gentile LDS church carry out this function of sealing plural spouses together — so as to bind the Gentile Ephramites into a bone-fide tribe of Israel. However, the Gentile church has rejected the doctrine of kinship — and have opted for a doctrine of creeds and shared belief.
Thus, these ordinances may be administered as tribal ordinances among individual tribes — but they will have to wait until after the cleansing of the church before they can be sealed as ordinances of the church of Jesus Christ.
Do you guys think the Quorum of the Anointed still exists today, or has it been lost? From the evidence I’ve seen, both men and women held Priesthood authority within that organization. I have a feeling that many of the things we associate today with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually belong to the Quorum instead, and cannot be properly administered separate from it… Heber C. Kimball said all the temple ordinances pertain to the Church of the Firstborn. But now, they don’t? Something’s not right. Going through your first and second anointings is how to made your way into the Quorum.
Justin said: I do view this revelation in literal terms — but not “rather than” spiritual terms.
I could not agree more. I have been in the boat of failing to see one side or the other before (spiritual or physical) and without fail have always come to learn, or at least be shown as part of a learning process, that the two are inseparable.
I am still genuinely interested in what the Anonymous commenter has to share…as I had been thinking of these things mentioned in this post in depth over the last few days and had thought of them all in conjunction with some other more “spiritual” points. But since the spiritual realm is matter as well, then I really don’t see any way of saying that, focusing on the “deeper meaning”, “Section 132 –doesn’t have much to do with plural wives.” (don’t forget about plural husbands, Anonymous)
Honestly….I know that many are afraid of taking a literal view of things. But TBMs are loosing their unjust stranglehold more and more these days….And furthermore, there is no need to worry fellas as priesthood functioning at the tribal level has no desires or plans to step on any real toes. Just do your thing but watch yourselves when/if you come around to the house/lands.
”All covenants…not…sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise…” includes our baptismal covenants. They are not valid unless the Holy Spirit ratifies them. Yet we never think of the requirement to have a prophet present for this to happen. In fact the ordinances are like an eternal marriage which happens after this life. The marriage is made eternal by the keeping of the promise of the parties and God will see to it that the ordinances required are attended to. That is why the atonement can become of immediate effect in a person’s life before he is even baptized. Alvin Smith was in Heaven before the proxy ordinances were even revealed let alone performed. God holds no one back.
We have been corrupted to think the a church , a religion has something to do with whether God our Father will allow us to return to Him.
Justin said:
Thanks for framing this early in the discussion. It can become confusing what is meant when reffering to spiritual experiences or interpretation. The usage of this phrase ranges from “an emotional experience” to “something timeless” (and we would expect a spiritual world or state to be timeless).
I agree it is hard look literally at D&C 132 and not see direct application to taking plural spouses. Here is what I think the most important points presented in this section are:
1. The doctrine of having many wives and concubines = the New-and-Everlasting-Covenant
2. If ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned
3. All covenants, not sealed by the Holy-Spirit-of-promise, have an end when men are dead
4. The Holy-Spirit-of-promise is a person, or multiple people
5. If you are sealed by Holy-Spirit-of-promise into the New-and-Everlasting-Covenant, then you are guaranteed the highest degree of glory and to become a god (unless you murder someone who is innocent)
6. If you are NOT sealed by one with authority into the New-and-Everlasting-Covenant, then you are damned (partly defined as never being able to reach the highest degree of glory and/or becoming a god, and also that you are a servant to those who do meet the conditions listed in item #5
Both the idea that polygamy is a requirement and that if someone is sealed by the proper authority, they get a free pass to heaven give me pause in terms of whether these concepts contradict past doctrine.
I have appreciated the feedback here, one of the main reasons I posted my comment on this topic here is because I was interested in hearing the view-point of someone who really believed D&C 132 to be accurate in a literal sense.
That being said, I feel even the removal of a parenthetical phrase is pretty big in terms of one saying the believe the whole thing literally. On the other hand, the concept that something the LDS consider scripture can be subjective to past events or may have been tampered with, or be untrue to any degree is something that had not even really entered my mind until less than a year ago.
I have tried to find the source of where the doctrine of sealing’s in the millennium comes from in a scriptural since, but haven’t had much luck yet. I am hoping once I can research that doctrine more, some of this will make more sense to me, because right now, reading this literally without outside sources to change its context, D&C 132 seems pretty firm in the concept that following or not following its requirements in this life is what determines ones FINAL state.
I appreciate the brief explanation of priesthood key use outside of the institutional Church. I will probably go back and read more on this as I am interested in this topic and pretty sure it is covered in other posts on this site. I was wondering, when you say the keys can be activated by the tribe, does a nuclear family count in this context?
dyc4557 said:
This sounds directed at me, so I will simply reply by saying that this isn’t necessarily what I believe, but it is what I get from a word for word reading of D&C 132, parenthetical phrase and all. Also you said:
I tend to agree that you are correct, but not sure I agree that is what I get from D&C 132.
Finally, in the context of the whole Tribal thing, I am sure that you have hit upon something important that has been missed in the corporate LDS Church. When Christ gave the great commandment, we can understand that all other laws are subsidiary to it, and if we have not unity with and love for our fellow humans, then it matters not what excuse we make, we are deluding ourselves regarding our spiritual state. Most or many of us can experience this in nuclear family, but transcending these bounds is a huge leap toward the goal.
A tribe is a form of human organization that is bound by kinship and shared belief. Your nuclear family can function as a tribe — with your wife and any baptized children acting as the voting holders of the keys of the tribe.
From the initial nuclear family, there are two ways to go on to grow your tribe — horizontally with plural marriage sealings for you and your wife — and vertically by having as many children as the Lord will permit. I discuss that principle some more in the Tribal Church post.
I’d also read Tribal Rituals and Tribal Worship Services if your interested in what a functioning tribal family can start to look like.
Re: the doctrine of plural spouses — the first post that I authored on this site expounds on the multihusband-multiwife tribal families in which human kind has its origins. When I formulated the ideas that would become that post — it was a combination of having read LDSA’s posts: How many wives? How many husbands? and Establishing the tribes of Israel: the real reason for plural marriage and then reading the Sex at Dawn research.
There is much here that you can continue to read and comment on as you figure more of this out for yourself.