Intimacy as the Opposite of Sin


The married Life:

Marriage proceeds from the mind first – and as a consequence results in a bodily, sexual event.  Satisfying sexual relationships are ones grounded on the trust, love, communication, and intimacy of two, real-life human beings who have covenanted to receive each other as husband and wife.  These intangible qualities exist first – and then spill-over into the bedroom.

This is because all creation consists of two basic aspects [2 Nephi 2:14]:

  • that which acts (called Spirit)
  • that which is acted upon (called Element).

The physical, the flesh, the Element is the component of existence that is acted upon.  Therefore, it cannot create any change in the Spirit.  The mind must be changed [“repentance”], the heart must be softened [“broken heart”], and the spirit must be crushed [“contrite spirit”] before anything genuine and lasting and joyful blossoms into material reality.

Adam and Eve were married before they even knew they were naked.  Their union as husband and wife was a solution to loneliness – not lust.

and the god YHVH said
it is not good that adam should be alone

[Genesis 2:18]

The sexual union is the chief means of physically expressing a genuine connection of Love between two people.  It is Love/unity dynamic of our sexual contact that distinguishes humans from other animals [who are sexual for procreation and pleasure].

In the garden, Adam and Eve lived in open-faced, fearless, and intimate fellowship:

  • with God
  • with each other

Once sin was conceived in the heart [Moses 6:55], it produced two alienations/separations:

  • from God
  • from each other

Thus, restoring the kingdom of God will:

  • restore the union of humans and God
  • restore the union of men and women

Intimacy [openness or “into-me-see”] is the opposite of what Satan suggested Adam and Eve do when they discovered their nakedness in the garden of Eden.  Before he found them – they were naked [Adam fully exposed to Eve and Eve to Adam],

and they were both naked
the man and his wife
and were not ashamed

[Genesis 2:25]

and it was Satan who taught them that such full-fellowship is shameful and showed them how to cover that shame with hiding and separation.

see
you are naked
take some fig leaves and make you aprons
father will see your nakedness
quick
hide

[The Garden]

It’s unfounded fears, rooted in this state-of-mind based on the concepts of sin, separateness, and shame – that keep us from having real community and bridging the gaps between the sexes.

An experience of Life that is founded on separateness:

The problem with any religious tradition that begins with the initial, out-right assumption that God is entirely separate from nature – is that it becomes impossible for the Mother and the Father to ever be one – because She is left with no voice and can never be His friend.

This idea that the “Supernatural” is something sitting on a throne, over-and-above our natural existence is killing any experiences of Joy.  Our lives just become a wasteland of stress and fear – where we all live out inauthentic lives, fulfilling purposes that are not truly our own, reliving and retelling the stories of a by-gone generation – having no Life.

We can never be one with God and with our neighbor from this perspective because we will always continue experiencing God and neighbor as something that is foreign and detached.  Attachment and connection become devalued – because they demand our vulnerability.  There is a fear that maybe if we really get into a relationship with another human that we might just start to care too darn much – or even worse, we might just lose our Self.  Like independence is the key to Life?  We are not separate one-person islands, our narratives are all intertwined with each other.

If your goal in life is Joy – then connectivity is key [see, Zion will not be Established by Unrelated Persons].  If you want to be “free” or “self-sufficient”, then you can knock yourself out with independence – but the way of Jesus is to stretch yourself out until you die to your “Self” as this all-alone and sufficient bag of skin.

Adam and Eve ate the fruit of a tree of duality and separation [see, The Tree of This-and-That] – and it’s the experience of being in Jesus Christ that is the fruit of Life that brings you back to non-duality [“I and the Father are one”] and interconnection [“all mine are thine”].

The revelation of God in the scriptures is that [instead of separateness], the most basic fabric of all existence is chesed, loving-kindness or compassion [“to be passionate with”].  It’s the image of a God who relates to the universe with the level of intimacy that is the result of berith, or a covenant.  It’s an image of existence that’s based on the single concept of unconditional love [call it chesed, agape, whatever].

All things are included, loved, gathered-up, forgiven, and knit together into a single, vast organism – God.  The only difference between God and humans is that humans still see a different between God and humans – because they are using a mind hardened by the basic concept of sin and separation to look [see, The Split-brain Model of the Gospel: The Fall of Man].

Having Life, or just having the image of it:

Religions become concerned with ethical behavior and doctrine – instead of changing people’s minds/hearts and how they view/experience their world.  The problem with approaching religion as though it were a method of relaying ethics and doctrines is that ethics only teach us how to live as though you were one with your neighbor.  You learn the modes of action that imply a compassionate relationship with another person.  It offers you incentive to act in a certain way – but it cannot generate the genuine feeling of it.

While there may be certain ethical implications of making a covenant with God – such things neither add to or subtract from current pool of human ethical wisdom.  It is not the domain of religion to be laying down specific “hither thou shalt come and no further” ethical guidelines for human behavior that transcendent time, space, culture, and circumstance.  Rather, religion is about providing the environment for people to experience the miraculous works of God and manifestations of the spiritual gifts – because once the experience is had – the very way in which a person approaches and experiences human problems/decisions will be altered.

The gospel is about that transcendent experience that smashes a hardened, left-brain sensation of separateness and opens a person up the fluid, right-brain awareness that all creation is a continuous and connected event that we are all a part of [see, Taking our Myths Literally].  The Supreme Being is all of creation – from beginning, until now, and on forever – as one continuous pattern, one symphonic arrangement.

Without the spiritual gifts, the power of God, the signs following the believers in Christ – Mormonism [or Christianity] is just another school of thought for civil policy and moral behavior.  When dead to the workings of the Holy Spirit – the gospel is used to work for people rather than working on them.  We use Jesus to meet our needs – rather than getting them judged by Him, falling to the earth and weeping at His feet.

It’s an approach to religion that mistakes the symbol for the Reality – the image for the Life – the stage-show act for the actual experience – the poetry for the prose.  It turns the preachers into the preached and pedestalizes the stories and experiences of someone else, making it into the one-and-only true formula.

It’s essentially idolatry [see, Making an Image out of God] – to look at the image that pointing and cling to and serve it, rather than to Look, Follow, and Live [see, …and the labor which they had to perform was to look…].

Next Article by Justin:

Previous Article by Justin:  Paul and the church at Judea

[In Search of a New Church Home].

Advertisements

Paul and the church at Judea


I was reading through the resurrection narratives in the four gospels, thinking about writing something about Mary Magdalene because of some comments I wrote on a Wheat & Tares post by Mormon Heretic [Smearing Mary Magdalene].

I was writing down the order of appearences made by Jesus after he resurrects from the grave, as given by each of the four witnesses that we have canonized currently.

The four gospel narratives:

Mark

  • Mary Magdelene, out of whom Jesus had cast seven devils
  • two of them as they walked and went into the country
  • the eleven

Luke

  • Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with him
  • two of them on the road to a village called Emmaus
  • Simon
  • the eleven

Matthew

  • Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
  • the eleven

John

  • Mary Magdalene
  • the disciples
  • Thomas

Paul’s letter to the Corinthians:

Though we think of Paul as coming later in chronology — in terms of historical dates for the written records — the authenticated letters of Paul are the earliest written Christian documents of the bible.  In other words, what got written down into [e.g.] Corinthian epistles was physically put to paper before the words that got written down as the Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John narratives.

1 Corinthians 15:5-8, then, gives what is the earliest [historically-speaking] written account of post-mortal appearances of Jesus, given as testimony that he did indeed resurrect from the grave.  Paul writes the appearances in this order:

  • Cephas
  • the twelve
  • over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto this present but some are fallen asleep
  • James
  • all the apostles
  • Paul himself

Of interest in Paul’s list is that the order is unlike anything seen in the four gospel narratives.  The risen Jesus is seen by Peter first — not Mary [she’s not there at all].

Then he is seen by “the twelve” — not the “eleven” [implying Judas was not counted out of the number of the quorum].

Then there is a large event where over 500 men see him at one time.  This would have undoubtably been a miraculous account, if only our canon contained it.  Paul was obviously using that appearance to lend the most verifiable credibility to his own testimony — because he makes it a point to mention that many of those men are still alive today — as if to say to the readers, “You can go ask them if you doubt me, they’re still around.”

Then James is mentioned separate from “the twelve” — presumably because this is “James, the Lord’s brother“, rather than the apostle who was John’s brother.  Also it is interesting to note that Peter, the twelve, and James are all mentioned as separate from “all the apostles.”  This suggests that what Paul considered an “apostle” is different from the Quorum of twelve male key-holders that we currently think of when we use that word:

salute Andronicus
and Junia
my kin
and my fellowprisoners
who are noteworthy apostles
who also were in christ before me

[Romans 16:7]

Paul’s bound-less concept of the gospel:

I was thinking of some reasons why this would be.  Paul seems to have thought about the church of Christ in terms that were broader in scope and more “bound-less” in understanding than did the brethren at Jerusalem.  It was his radical idea that if it is indeed true that every one is justified, sanctified, and purified by faith in the blood of Christ alone — then:

there is neither jew nor greek
there is neither bond nor free
there is neither male nor female
for ye are all one
in christ
Jesus

[Galatians 3:28]

… a message of a gospel of uncircumcision — egalitarian tribal anarchy — or complete liberty in Christ.

Paul, in fact, did not seem to quorum with the twelve at Jerusalem and Peter at all.  He makes it a point in his letter to the Galatian church to state that the gospel he delivered to them was given to him straight from the mouth of Jesus — and not from the oral tradition and records of the men at Jerusalem:

Paul
an apostle not of men, neither by man
but by Jesus christ, and god the father, who raised him from the dead
unto the churches of Galatia
I certify you
brethren
that the gospel which was preached of me
is not after man
for I neither received it of man
neither was I taught it
but it came by the revelation of Jesus christ

but when it pleased god
to reveal his son in me
that I might preach him among the gentiles
immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood
neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me
after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter
and abode with him fifteen days
but I saw none of the other apostles
save James the Lord’s brother
I was unknown by face unto the churches of Christ in Judea

[Galatians 1]

Paul also describes how Peter acted with “stiffneckedness and unbelief” [3 Nephi 15:18]:

when the brethren at Jerusalem saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me
as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter
[…]
and when James, Cephas, and John
who seemed to be pillars
perceived the grace that was given unto me
they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship
that we should go unto the gentiles
and they unto the circumcision

but when Peter was come to Antioch
I withstood him to the face
because he was to be blamed
for […] he did eat with the Gentiles
but when they were come [from Judea]
he withdrew and separated himself fearing them which were of the circumcision

but when I saw that they walked not uprightly
according to the truth of the gospel
I said unto Peter before them all
if thou, being a jew, livest after the manner of gentiles […] why compellest thou the gentiles to live as do the jews?
[…]
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law
but by the faith of Jesus christ
even we have believed in Jesus christ
that we might be justified by the faith of christ
and not by the works of the law
for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified

[Galatians 2]

In fact, the undisputedly authentic letters of Paul [Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, and 1 Thessalonians] are never addressed to:

  • “Bishop So-and-so, of the church at ______”

or to

  • “The elders of the church at _______”

etc.

But are always addressed to just “the church”, as a leaderless body of equals who gather together for worship.  It’s not until the disputed letters of Paul [1 and 2 Timothy and Titus] that you start to see a leadership hierarchy being given direction that they are to pass on to the lay-members.

The church of Christ in Judea went through all three stages of the church of God:

It started in stage one, built on the miraculous works of the Father:

and when the day of pentecost was fully come
they were all with one accord in one place
and suddenly there came a sound from heaven
as of a rushing mighty wind
and it filled all the house where they were sitting
and there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire
and it sat upon each of them
and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost
and began to speak with other tongues
as the Spirit gave them utterance

[Acts 2:1-4]

The church of Christ multiplied greatly, the word of God was preached with authority and power, the community of believers lived as Zion, etc.

By the time we get to the time at which Paul begins writing his letters [~40-50’s AD], the church of Christ has entered the stage two, built on the works of men.

The church in Judea governs according to their Judean culture, instead of the purity of the truth of the gospel alone.  The “stiffneckedness and unbelief” that Jesus mentioned to the Nephite church began to exert itself until manifestations of power began leaving the church.

The church of Christ begins to solidify into a hierarchy of religious brokers — who see themselves as having the jurisdiction over who experiences Jesus and how.

In the gospel of Mary Magdelene, it reads:

When Mary had [told the twelve what Jesus taught to her], she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her.

But Andrew answered and said to the brethren:  “Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.”

Peter answered and spoke concerning the same things.  He questioned them about the Savior, saying:  “Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us?  Are we to turn about and all listen to her?  Did He prefer her to us?”

Then Mary wept and said to Peter: “My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?”

Levi answered and said to Peter:  “Peter you have always been hot tempered.  Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.  But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her?  Surely the Savior knows her very well.”

Finally the history of the church of Christ passes through stage three [built on the works of the devil] — where at some point, it is wholly rejected by the Lord and ceased to have any power or authority.

Next Article by Justin: Intimacy as the Opposite of Sin

Previous Article by Justin:  Spicing up your church experience: Women’s edition

What’s the recipe for healing?

Vigilant Citizen web site link added to the blog


This is just a note to let everyone know that I’ve added a link to The Vigilant Citizen web site to this blog.  You can find it by looking at the column immediately to the right of any post, under the Education link category.  (Each page has four columns: a far-left column, a left column containing the posts, a right column, and a far-right column.  The Education link category is found in the right column, not the far-right column.)

About The Vigilant Citizen

I have been spending a great deal of time on the VC web site lately and I am impressed with much of its content.  The goal of VC is to expose the occult agenda of the world’s elite.  I, personally, do not believe that there is enough information on VC to actually do any damage, whatsoever, to the elite’s agenda.  Nevertheless, it is a good place to start at when first learning about this and does an admirable job at opening people’s eyes as to what is going on.

The coming discoveries

It is my belief that at some point, God will send again revelators among us, who, like Nephi of old, will “speak plainly…concerning [the elite’s] secret works of darkness” (Helaman 8:4.)  These revelators will name names, places, times, and deeds, revealing all the specifics of plans and actions done in secret, fully exposing the various secret combinations and abominations among us.

This will entirely undo their craft, for none of these abominations can be performed with the full knowledge of the people, for the people would not allow such wickedness to exist, if they knew about them, so these groups perform their acts either in secret, or they do them in the open, under guise of something else.

Unlike VC, which is powerless to affect much change because of the general nature of its information, the revelations given to these men inspired of heaven, which will contain all the particulars of the horrendous deeds, will present a clear and present danger to the elite, and their reaction will be immediate and swift to take the revelators of God down, just as the ancient elite sought to destroy Nephi.

Nevertheless, God works, or gives revelations, by inquiries.  If you inquire not, you are left, by God, in the dark.  Or, rephrasing Nephi, “if ye ask not, neither do ye knock,” then “ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark” (2 Nephi 32:4.)  Because of this principle, the elite will never be fully exposed unless and until godly men, who can inquire of God and receive revelations, start asking God to tell them exactly what the elite are doing, have done and what they are planning to do.  And here is where the Vigilant Citizen web site proves useful, for once we get a general inkling of what the elite are doing (thanks to VC), men of God can then inquire about specifics, bringing out the revelations which will destroy their craft.

Now, in particular, I foresee this happening because the Lord will not allow the mind control agenda to remain in place for very much longer*.  The innocent victims will need to be freed from their programming, so that everyone eventually will be able to make a conscious choice, either for God, or for Satan, that the dividing lines between the righteous and the wicked will be clearly marked.  In other words, God will allow Satan to continue to destroy agency through sin, but He will not allow him to continue to destroy agency through mind control.  At some point, this destruction of agency through mind control will be stopped.  It will not be accomplished by man fighting against these demonic forces, but by God using His revelators to expose the wickedness, and His healers to restore the minds of the victims back to wholeness, that they may then choose which side they wish to align with.

*This is because men inspired of heaven will use their agency to obtain power from God to reveal secret works of darkness and to heal minds, for they will be filled with desire both to gather the elect of God and to pull down the kingdom of the devil and rescue the innocent victims.  As long as men do not obtain and use such God-given and empowered agency to this end, Satan is and will be allowed by God to engage in his mind control agenda—which is patterned after the mind control he exerts on the fallen one-third of the hosts of heaven, meaning total control of the person, (except that mind control is forced control, not voluntarily-given control)—for God only works according to the faith of the children of men.  Nevertheless, because the devil must use deception to accomplish his purposes here on Earth, he is only allowed full sway until righteous men inquire of God to shine a light on all his dark deeds.  At that point, his mind control agenda goes up in smoke (for it is not sin-based, meaning that people voluntarily engage in sin, or voluntarily subject themselves to him through their sin) and therefore he must go back to subjecting mankind solely through sin.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Spicing up your church experience: Women’s edition


There are a growing majority of people starting to recognize the difference between the doctrine of Mormonism and the culture of Mormonism — and who are finding it harder-and-harder to deal with the culture of it.  For example, Mike S at Wheat & Tares has an “If I Were in Charge:” series based on this idea — covering topics such as who can be “Mormon”, the church’s for-profit ventures, and garments.

This culture of being “A Mormon” — like it’s a brand-name or product — is sending too many good people running for the hills.  We say “The Church is the same everywhere you go” — like it would even be a good thing if it were — but I’ve found that it’s really not anyway.

We might participate in role-played discussions with pre-perscribed responses, but the impression of uniformity among Mormons is just a facade of being built on a solid foundation — but this image is built on the works of men and may have success for a season, but when shaken — it will suddenly crumble into its true picture: an institution built on sand, smoke, and mirrors.

The diversity is there among Mormons already — it’s just everyone knows what to do/say to keep up the appearance of conformity so that it doesn’t manifest outwardly.  Any time we’ve gotten closer with other members and talked openly about the church with them — I’ve always been surprised at how similar our views actually are — once we get to know each other.  So how to you break the ice and get to know other members who feel the same way you do?

Introducing a bit of anarchy — this time with women in mind:

I took Melissa’s suggestion, and with the help of my wife, I came up with some things sisters can do to spice up their church experience.  This was written in the same spirit as LDS Anarchist’s list — and therefore, everyone [female or male, LDS or not] should feel free to run with any of them and encourage family and friends to do the same.

The more people that are doing these small things, the quicker the church can be de-culturalized — leaving only the diverse spectrum that the pure doctrine of Mormonism manifests.  But even if you don’t change the whole world — it’s always fun to introduce a little anarchy, shake up the cult of conformity, taking a little boredom out of your own church experience.

Now, all things are lawful for you, but not all things are expedient or edify [1 Corinthians 10:23].  Some church leaders are often witch-hunters, always looking for someone to judge as unfaithful, apostate, etc.  And the only valid reason, in their minds, for “contrary” points-of-view or “unapproved” behavior is worthiness issues.  Although the scriptural law is innocent until proven guilty, when leaders see dissension, they take a guilty until proven innocent stance. So the best course of action is always to act prudently and not say more than is expedient.  But even in a state of affairs where persecution for dissension can be common — much change can be effected without jeopardizing your good standing as a member of the church.

But, in any event, this list of small acts could go on and on.  The point is that once agents of change, acting in these ways, are found among various congregations — it becomes obvious to even the most close-minded member that something is afoot.  This can be what allows a healthy dialogue about what this whole “church experience” is really all about to begin.

Right now, the problem is we have no dialogue — and thus the status quo appears safe and sound.  But that’s just hard-packed sand.

So take these and have fun with them.

Vote “opposed” to church callings:

It would be easy to just throw up your hand as opposed for every calling.  Or, if you want, you could use the rational that D&C 121:39 states:

that it is the nature and disposition
of almost all men [not women]
as soon as they get a little authority
as they suppose
they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion

So that unless you know for certain otherwise — just vote in accordance with the most likely nature and disposition:

  • For all women who are called to a position, whose character you are unfamiliar with — raise your hand in the affirmative, unless the Spirit tells you explicitly to oppose.
  • For all men who are called to a position, whose character you are unfamiliar with — raise your hand in opposition, unless the Spirit tells you explicitly to affirm.
  • If you come across another woman who indicates that she believes in maintaining the power or influence of any priesthood holder by virtue of his priesthood office and calling — then make a note to vote against her next time her name comes up.
  • If you come across a man who indicates that he gives no regard to the priesthood office of another man, and that his only qualifications for following, or being influenced by, another person are those found in D&C 121:41-45 — then make a note to vote for him next time his name comes up.

Or just vote however your conscience falls on the matter on that particular day.  The point is — it does not matter what the reason for your vote is, it only matters what the vote is.  Even if your reason is totally ludicrous, your vote is still valid.

You might think that a single vote can’t change anything — because by majority vote, the calling still passes.  However, if each week there is a single vote against, the claim to unanimity can no longer be made.  Even closed-minded people are naturally curious — and every always remembers if there was a time that someone voted against a calling.  The event is powerful and eventually certain members of the congregation will approach you and ask why you raise your hand against.  That is a teaching opportunity which may lead to two, or more, inspired hands starting to go up.

In a secret ballot [like our state elections], a solitary vote against is essentially meaningless.  But in the church, we have an open vote, where everyone in the congregation can see that one, contrary vote taking place.  It can be quite powerful — especially if it becomes a common occurrence.  Add two votes to the contrary and it becomes downright dangerous to any would-be priesthood abusers.

We are told that the practice of taking a dissenting member aside to find out the reason for their dissenting vote is a way to see if they have information on the worthiness of the person being called, which if known to the leader might make them reconsider the calling. But that is just how it is presented.  In reality, taking aside and interviewing is a method of control.  Leaders know there are secret dissenters among every congregation, meaning members who have dissension in their hearts but do not actively manifest it — but to discipline them, they have to get them to divulge their angst and get some dirt on them by which they can either be forced to conform to the standard of unanimity or be disciplined in some manner.

This is why the leadership have gotten to the point where they don’t use the word “vote” any more.  The act of raising your hand for [not against] is called “sustaining” — while raising your hand against is always called “not sustaining” — and it is continuously taught that it is your duty to “sustain our leaders” [presumably by raising your hand for them].

By getting away from the word “vote”, which has no stigma if you vote your conscience — and by using the word “sustain”, the leadership have invented a new sin and multiplied guilt and fear.  Now everyone is afraid to exercise their voice of consent and the priesthood is free to engage in ecclesiastical abuse with nothing to hinder its progress — without the voice of the sisters to keep them in check.

Talk incessantly about Jesus:

Mormonism has much truth – but as a church, we’ve essentially transferred all faith to the truths, and thus none of it is on Jesus.

Carry on every conversation at church by always getting it back to Jesus.  This can be devastating to an idolatrous worship of prophets and of doctrines.  More often than not — our conversations are centered on prophets and apostles, obedience to leaders and commandments, blessings of paying tithing, attending church and temple, and every other conceivable topic that has nothing, whatsoever, to do with Jesus Christ’s suffering, death, resurrection and judgment.

Instead, force every conversation with another LDS that starts to be about the relative, periphery matters — about how this-or-that issue of the day can be talked about in light of Mormonism – and get it back onto spiritual experiences with Jesus Christ.  You’ll either grow closer to other members — or you’ll see them stumble, act vague, express doubt, and likely just say nothing at all because most people have nothing to say.

we talk of Christ
we rejoice in Christ
we preach of Christ
we prophesy of Christ
and we write according to our prophecies
that our children may know
to what source they may look for a remission of their sins

[2 Nephi 25:26]

Stop shaving:

Leg, armpit, and pubic hair develop at the on-set of puberty and are visual cues of an adult women.  However, the ubiquitous pornography-culture has essentially taught an entire generation that bodies and genitals are “sexy” when fully-shaven [appearing pre-pubicent].  So when the de facto means of sex education for an entire generation has been porn, it becomes conditioned to be aroused at the sight of bodies with no hair.  Sadly, like Pavlov’s dogs — any encounter with fully-shaven genitals will trigger such a person’s neural reward-centers to pursue the reward.

Also, the pheromonal scent on a woman changes throughout her monthly cycle, depending on her fertility.  When fertile, her scent becomes sweeter.  The problem is that it is really hard to smell anyone these days.  Men and women both use anti-perspirants and deodorants to cover up their smell — and women typically will completely shave-off their armpit hair.  And both sexes also add additional chemicals in their perfumes, shampoos, lotions, etc.  The hair follicle itself, embedded into the skin, is designed [upon movement] to stimulate the glands beneath and release a scent.

Every man and woman has a unique odor.  If a woman allows her scent to be smelled [instead of the smell of chemicals], then there will be a physiological response in any heterosexual man around her.  If he were to act on that initial attraction, then her specific scent would be linked to the attraction [olfaction being the sensory organ most closely linked to memory] — and all that is needed to re-stimulate the response would be to allow the scent to be smelled again.

Of course, none of this works if the body’s scent is masked with chemicals — or if all the hair is shaved clean off.  So let that hair that develops at the time of sexual maturity — the hair designed by God to act as a visual cue of womanhood — grow as it is intended to grow.  That hair is a part of the image of God considered as a woman — that every adult female reflects — and is beautiful.

Encourage your husband [and adult sons] to grow full beards:

Many men desire to stop shaving and allow their beards to grow-out full, but don’t because their wives are against it.  They may think a beard is too rough or prickly or that it tickles when they kiss him, etc.  However, facial hair in men [just like body hair for women] is a visual cue of manhood — and is a reflection of the image of God considered as a man reflected by every adult male.

A heterosexual woman is [by nature] drawn to bearded men because it is a sign of manliness — and women love manliness.  So don’t complain when your husbands or adult sons haven’t shaved in a couple weeks — instead compliment them on the fine beards they are growing.

No longer promote body modesty as a gospel principle:

It was Satan who introduced the concept of body modesty to Eve and Adam — instructing them to cover up their genitals out of shame.  This created an enticement for sin that could allure people into uncovering “the sinful/secret parts,” followed by the guilt of acting “shamefully“.

The target of virtually all talks on body modesty is females:  It is she who is told how and how not to dress — and usually by men.  All of this repression, if ever gets let out, leads to rampant breaking of the law of chastity [which is Satan’s plan].  And if it isn’t let out, then it leads to depression and an unsatisfactory marital sex life [again, Satan’s plan].

We teach our daughters [from as early-on as parents teach kids things] that clothing has nothing to do with their respect for God or for yourself.  We teach them that “modest” has to do with being simple, plain, inexpensive, humble, and unpretentious — not with how much of the skin of their thighs or shoulders are showing.  We teach them that their bodies were made modestly by God.

Now — we explain that the reason we wear clothes is for the sake of others.  We teach them that when you are with those who are weak, you should share their weakness because you have a desire to bring the weak to Christ. It is best to try and find common ground with people, doing everything you can that you might save them.

We put clothing into its proper perspective.  Religion has, unfortunately, lumped “modesty” in with sexuality — like being “pure” or having “high standards” — when modesty is really about living life in such a way as to not draw undue attention to yourself.

But nudity and modesty are not opposites, and can co-exist even beyond the context of married persons in the bedroom with the door closed.  So focus instead on teaching your daughters to live the law of chastity, while practicing nudism in your own home.  Because, remember — if God wanted us all going around naked, then we’d have been born that way!

Breast-feed openly and in public:

In most states, it is legal for a mother to breastfeed in any place she is legally allowed to be at.  Meaning, if this is the case in your state — then even when asked to “cover-up” or to “stop doing that here“.  You are free to openly keep your child on the breast as long as she/he desires to be.

The sex-culture has completely co-opted the breast and made it into another sexual organ.  It shows how disconnected we all really are from our Mother — that anyone would dare insist that a woman feeding, bonding with, and comforting a child should “cover it up” or “go somewhere else“.

The ability to completely sustain a human life by your breasts is a Divine attribute that makes a woman the high priestess of her family.  Such a thing should never be covered-up or hidden away in a spare closet.

Most LDS meeting houses provide a “nursing room” for mothers to go to when their children want to be on the breast.  Stop using this room — and instead, as the men manifest the calling of a priest by openly displaying the image of Christ in administering the sacrament — stay in the meeting room and manifest the calling of a priestess by openly displaying the image of the Mother by administering life and love to a child.

Mark your own clothing as priesthood clothing:

Tired of trying to wear the garment of the holy priesthood by having two sets of clothing [one on top of the other]?  Tired of one-size fits all, frumpy, poor-fitting choices from Distribution Services?  Tired of difficulty finding working sizes?  Tired of a second set of clothing getting in the way of everything you try to do — especially when it’s hot?  Tired of fretting about whether or not your clothing is covering your garments — about whether you ought to wear panties/bras under or over the garment — about what to do during menstruation, pregnancy, or while nursing?  Is shopping is difficult for you?

Then stop dividing your closet into two categories:  clothes and garments.  And stop trying to make wearing two sets of clothing work.  Don’t subject yourself to poor fitting clothing, and certainly don’t cease from wearing your priesthood garment altogether.  The covenant to wear priesthood clothing is important if you have indeed made it.

The Church Handbook states that:

Church members who have been clothed with the garment in a temple have take upon themselves a covenant obligation to wear it according to the instructions given in the endowment

and the temple recommend interview asks:

Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

Neither references the “standard LDS practice” of wearing the priesthood garment as just a newer and more sacred form of underwear — instead all the emphasis is placed on being in accordance with the actual ceremony.

Insofar as the priesthood garment is given to represent the coats of skins given to Adam and Eve when they were found naked in the garden of Eden — it should be a practical piece of clothing.  However, most find it to be quite the opposite:  an irritation and a generally unpractical thing to have to wear under your everyday clothing, and something that most definitely does not conform to the local environment or climate.

The intention of the priesthood garment is to cover your nakedness while you work out your mortal probation on the earth.  Given that purpose, it is obviously the intention that the priesthood garment [acting as the covering] be seen — rather than what is below the covering [the nakedness below].  Since it is the intention of the priesthood garment to be our covering — then why care so much about covering the covering?

Now — one is free to comply with the temple’s instruction to wear the priesthood garment both night and day by wearing two sets of clothing because the garment is still being worn, just covered up with other clothing.

However, one is equally free to wear only the priesthood garment that is the work of their own hands [D&C 42:40-41] by either making clothing from scratch or by converting their normal, everyday clothing into priesthood clothing by cutting and sewing in the marks — as you have been authorized and instructed in doing.

Modifying everyday clothing is more inline with what early LDS did.  In the minutes from an October 1870 meeting in Salt Lake it says that:

Some enquiry was made as to how many have their shirts marked — A few rose with them marked — President Young said he took scissors & soon made the marks.  Even if the shirt is colored, mark it — If there is flannel or buckskin between the shirt & garment, that also should be marked.  An overshirt worn as a vest should not be marked.

If anyone asks about your marks — tell them the symbolism you were instructed in during the ceremony.  Each marks directs the mind to Jesus Christ and represents a great missionary opportunity:

  • This mark suggests that I have exactness and honor in keeping the covenants I’ve made with Jesus
  • This mark suggests I keep an undeviating course leading to Jesus — and serves as a constant reminder that my desires, appetites, and passions are to be kept within the bounds Jesus has set — and that all truth may be circumscribed into one great whole
  • This mark suggests my need of constant nourishment from Jesus to both body and spirit
  • This mark suggests that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is the Christ

Non-members often joke about the garment being “secret, magic underwear” because that’s how many members treat them when around mixed company. When we do not hide the plain meaning and experience behind our garments — people respond openly with a, “Wow, I find that to be an interesting thing there that I could find value in…”

Now — it might bother the old ladies at church for my wife to wear a sleeveless dress to church [even though the marks of the priesthood are cut into the breasts] — but that’s what “spicing up your church experience” is all about!

Offer priesthood blessings to your family and friends:

It is not true that “men have the priesthood and women have motherhood,” — because the component to motherhood is fatherhood, and the component to being a priest is being a priestess.

The temple ritual establishes what’s called the “fulness of the priesthood” on earth – a priesthood order that is synonymous with kinship and salvation. There are no deacons, priests, or elders in heaven — only kings/priests and queen/priestesses.

The priesthood is the language of God — a language that uses the audible word and silent gestures to speak persuasion, patience, gentleness, meekness, kindness, and genuine love.  Every adult receives the rights of the priesthood when they receive the key-words [audible word] and signs/tokens [silent gestures] of the priesthood.

Receiving the rights of the priesthood comes with all of the associated keys — albeit in an unactivated state.  The various keys needed to perform the work of the Lord are then activated by the consent of the members of the congregation to which that person belongs [whether that congregation is the church or your family].

The Gentile LDS church [as it exists physically as a corporate entity] limits the roles of women in the church because the priesthood has been put into a Gentile power-pyramid or hierarchy [where the greater are “above”, and are obeyed by, the lesser] — instead of a gospel-based anarchy, inverted pyramid where the greater are “under”, and are the servants of, the lesser.  Thus, when we talk about the “Priesthood”, it’s as this administrative arm of the Salt Lake oligarchical patriarchy.  Women can’t be said to hold that “Priesthood” — that’s the “power” to pass bread, to sit in high seats, and to control budgets.

None of those things are evidence that a believer in Christ “holds the priesthood” — or has actual “power in the priesthood” upon them.  Whether or not LDS women should hold that “priesthood” [which I think they should] is a separate matter entirely.  I do think the Relief Society should get back to being a quorum of priestess with their own jurisdiction – however I also think that women shouldn’t imagine that holding that priesthood will give them anything more than the appearance of authority and power [which is all that the current leaders “hold”].

Instead — endowed LDS women should worry about holding:

the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church
to have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven
to have the heavens opened unto them
to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn
and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the father
and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant

[D&C 107:18-19]

For that is real priesthood — not just the image of it.  That’s the power to call down angels to minister to your family, to call down healing by the laying on of hands, to work miracles, and to prophecy and see visions.

Wash and anoint your husband’s feet:

then Mary took a pound of ointment of spikenard
very costly
and anointed the feet of Jesus
and wiped his feet with her hair
and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment

[John 12:3]

and did wipe them with the hairs of her head
and kissed his feet
[…] Jesus said

seest thou this woman?

[Luke 7:38, 44]

she hath done what she could
she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying
amen I say unto you
wheresoever this gospel shall be preached
throughout the whole world
this also that she has done
shall be spoken of for a memorial of her

[Mark 14:8-9]

There is a similar story in the Egyptian myths — the goddess Isis gently aroused her dead husband, Osiris, back to life by caressing his body with her hair. As a priestess, it is your right to perform this ordinance for your husband.  Without it, he is not prepared for his burial.  In fact, without the performance of this ritual — we cannot truly be said to have the fullness of the gospel — for the scripture says women would be administering this ordinance “wheresoever this gospel shall be preached.”

There is a lot of power in a woman’s head of hair — which is why male-power always seeks to cut it short or cover it up:

for if the woman be not covered
let her also be shorn
but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven
let her be covered

[1 Corinthians 11:6]

Long hair on a woman is wildly erotic and luxurious.  It suggests a type of freedom that “restrictive purity”-type religions have always considered “demonic”.  A liberated woman [like Mary, liberated from the “seven devils“] is often commoditized, objectified, degraded, or abused.

Instead of covering-up and hiding-away for fear that the insecure among the male priestly class will have some “indignation within themselves” — celebrate that priestess dynamic.

Hold family sacrament meals:

All believers in Christ should meet together in group worship often to:

  • Bring forth bread and wine
  • Sit down upon the earth
  • Have one man set-apart among the group to break the bread, bless it, and give it to the group in remembrance of the body of Jesus
  • Eat the bread until filled
  • Have the one ordained man take the cup, bless it, and give it to the group in remembrance of the blood of Jesus
  • Drink from the cup until filled

And to:

  • Fast
  • Pray
  • Hear the word of God
  • Speak about the welfare of each other’s souls
  • Preach
  • Exhort
  • Pray
  • Supplicate
  • Sing

The current dynamic of group worship in the church of God is based on the doctrines and commandments of men — which is why there is no one prophesying or healing or speaking in tongues, etc. during our meetings.  The commandments of men are never accompanied by any manifestations of power [just good advice, nice music, etc.]

We are missing a reliance on the Spirit — a state in which it is the Spirit that directs and guides the conducting of our meetings [and not any man or group of men]?  In a meeting directed by the Holy Spirit — I’d also say that it would mean that nobody speaks a word unless the Spirit came upon them and led them to speak that word.  And the scriptures say that everything must be done at the very moment, which means spontaneously, as the Spirit directs [not outlined in a program in advance].

Many families feel d-r-a-i-n-e-d after 3-hours of church on Sunday because our current way of “doing” church like a business “meeting” takes the religious experience and turns it into some commodity that is brokered by an all-male merchant-class who deal in religion and religious paraphernalia.  It’s all image and no Life — because all the Life and Joy has been suffocated by the Box we’ve put Her in.

Now — the Church Handbook states:

Family home evening is sacred, private family time under the direction of the parents. Priesthood leaders should not give directions as to what families should do during this time.

And Dallin Oaks has said:

All priesthood authority in the church functions under the direction of one who holds the appropriate keys. But the authority that presides in the family [whether father or single-parent mother] functions in family matters without the need to get authorization from anyone holding [church] keys.

Priesthood found within a family setting, when authorized by the family members, is recognized as valid by the Lord.  So take the time you meet together as a family and organize a family sacrament meeting and worship service.

Go outside to “sit down upon the earth“.  Encourage your husband to show the image of Christ in your family by having him administer the emblems of the body and blood of Christ.  Pray together for the spiritual gifts in the true order of prayer.  Break bread and drink until you and your family “are filled” — instead of trying to feast on a morsel of bread and a thimble of water.  Let the Spirit move on whomever She listeth [John 3:8] to speak a word, to sing, to exhort, to pray or supplicate.  Give the kids something better to do than just sit there and be “Shhhh“ed for an hour.

Start skipping Relief Society:

If you’re not already.

Most of us spend more of our time making sure our family looks good on Sundays than actually preparing to receive the word of God.  The purpose of classes and meetings seems to just be to put on a good stage-play or an act — except no one’s having fun or doing it for actual play.  This can be many people’s experience with attending 3rd-hour Relief Society meetings.

Back when my wife used to go to Relief Society — during a lesson, a woman made a tear-filled comment about her husband wanting to leave the church and get a divorce. The teacher went right back to discussing the lesson topic — so my wife interrupted to say that since it seemed she just wanted to go on with the lesson and ignore that this woman needed some love and attention, that they should all stay after the class was over to give her some support.

*Class ended*

Everyone got up and left except for my wife and this woman.  The show was over.

A couple more stories like that — and she quit attending altogether.

Instead — administer actual Relief, skip the stage-show.

But what about:

Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

Though the one question is really asking three questions:

  • Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made?
  • Do you strive to attend your sacrament and other meetings?
  • Do you strive to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

You only provide one answer.  And more weight is given to some of the components of the questions and less given to others.  For example, my wife answers this question “No” — and when the interviewer probes further, she tells him that she purposefully avoids Relief Society meetings.

In our experience — every interviewer has told her that, “No one is going to keep you out of the temple just because you don’t go to Relief Society.”

Other ideas?

This obviously just scratches the surface.  Consider them ideas to get you started.

If you have any others to offer — or if you have a report about having done any one of these, or others — share it.

See also:  The first “Spicing up your church experience

Next Article by Justin: Paul and the church at Judea

Previous Article by Justin:  Group worship in the church of Christ