The Written Records

Jesus didn’t write any scriptures.  The apostles didn’t write the gospels down as things were happening.  They didn’t sit in that upper room during Pentecost, making sure they got everything written down so they could go out and organize the church of Christ based on the authority of their scriptures.

The point with written scriptures is that they must be understood as the product of believers in Christ organized as his church – not what believers in Christ need to use to become organized as his church.  The written records are the trail that’s left behind – not the hand guiding us through.

The scriptures are just printed ink on processed wooden pulp.  Destroy every copy of the written word of God – and it wouldn’t do a thing.  Because a group of believers in Christ would just produce more scriptures.  Only dead congregations, who have no real connection with God through the spirit of prophecy and revelation, would be scrambling – because they lack the ability to produce anything new.  They can only re-tell the stories they’ve inherited from a by-gone generation.

It’s essentially idolatry [see, Making an Image out of God] – to look at the image that’s 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…].

The church of Jesus Christ is not established on scriptures:

A book cannot authenticate itself.  It takes an outside authority to do that.  Written records become “scripture” when the church of Christ covenants to be bound to that written record by common consent.  That means that the 66 books that make up the King James canon have authority as “the Bible” by virtue of the Catholic Church’s word alone – not by virtue of them simply being “the Bible”.

Further, you accept the English word-choice of the King James translation by virtue of the word of the Church of England alone – God did not dictate the creation story to Moses, or the epistles to Paul using 1611 English words.

The reason the King James text is also known as “The Authorized Version” is because, prior to its commission – there were many attempts by English commoners [i.e., not clergy or royalty] to translate the Bible into English [the language of the unlearned common-folk].  This threatened the power of the elites – who believed that the translations of the commoners did not, “conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy.”

So, a new state-sanctioned English translation was commissioned that would render phrases in such a way as to justify and legitimize the hierarchical authority of the crown and of the church.  And it would be the only one “Authorized” by the state and the church for use.

Joseph Smith’s view of the bible:

• It can be ambiguous,

“The teachers of religious understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.”

This ambiguity in the meaning of revelations happens when interpreters make false assumptions about the Bible and then just start guessing away at the correct interpretation.

They’ll assume the scriptures are cryptic [that they’ll say “A”, when they really mean “X”], are relevant [that all the narratives can be applied as personal lessons], and are perfect [that there are no contradictions, missing pieces, or extraneous material].  Their guessing either takes place horizontally [applying the past to the present] or vertically [applying the physical to the spiritual].

The meaning of the word of God should not be guessed at in this way.  Guessing is what Laman and Lemuel did.  Guessing is what Judeans did with Jesus’ parables.  Guessing is what the brethren at Jerusalem did [see, And they understood me not, for they supposed].  The meaning of scripture [in a gospel context] has only one signified attached to it.  And there is only one way to “figure out” what it means –to ask God what it signifies.

• irrelevant,

“The Bible contains revelations given at different times to different people under different circumstances.”

The blessings promised in the scriptures pertain to the people to whom they were spoken.  The laws outlined in the scriptures were tailored to the conditions under which they were given.

For example, at Wheat & Tares I commented on the definition that “hot drinks” in D&C 89 means “tea and coffee”.  The standard interpretation used by the church in regards to verse 9:

and again
hot drinks are not for the body
or belly

[D&C 89:9]

says that Joseph and Hyrum Smith all told members that “hot drinks” meant “tea and coffee”.  Sounds pretty straight-forward.

But – so what if Joseph or Hyrum in fact did say that “hot drinks” meant “tea and coffee” to this-or-that member back in the 1830’s?  That’s all well-and-good because that’s what the saints were in the habit of drinking hot at the time the revelation was given.  Brigham Young reasoned:

I have heard it argued that tea and coffee are not mentioned [in D&C 89]; that is very true; but what were the people in the habit of taking as hot drinks when that revelation was given? Tea and coffee. We were not in the habit of drinking water very hot, but tea and coffee — the beverages in common use.

Now – to follow his reasoning – if the saints ended-up falling out of the habit of drinking tea and coffee hot and started drinking other things hot or started drinking tea and coffee cold — then the revelation still calls us to be guided by the general concept of avoiding the habitual drinking of hot liquids [rather than be bound to the specific conceptions of tea and coffee per se].

The revelation meant “tea and coffee” for them [because that’s what they were in the habit of drinking hot] — but it does not necessarily mean that for us today [if we get in the habit of drinking other liquids hot or drinking tea and coffee cold].

When the Lord said “Don’t drink hot drinks,” Joseph/Hyrum rightly took a look at what the saints were in the habit of drinking hot at that time — and they concluded that it was tea and coffee — so the leaders rightly taught the people to not drink tea and coffee.  But the interpretation of “tea and coffee” pertains to them – given under conditions where the people were in the habit of drinking tea and coffee hot.

• transmitted erroneously,

“I believe the Bible as it came from the pens of the original writers.  Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, and designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.”

If our understanding of some particular point of doctrine is based on a scripture that is the translation of a translation of a translation – that was taken from a copy of a copy of a copy – and somewhere along the line [there are centuries between the original and what we have extant, in many cases] a rendering was screwed-up [whether accidentally or maliciously] – then it may well reveal how weak some of our beliefs could be.

Our centuries long history and traditions of scriptural interpretation, some of Joseph’s wording choices in the Book of Mormon, and much our the temple endowment ceremony are all based on the scriptural renderings common at the time [taken from the King James English text].

I’ve heard people say that:

You’ve got to believe that God created the universe in six 24-hour periods because it says it right there in Genesis, ‘And the evening and the morning were the ____ day.’  The Bible clearly says ‘day’.

When, in reality, the Bible clearly says “yohm”, as it was recorded in Hebrew.  That’s a word that could mean a variety of things in English.

And even getting back to the original Hebrew can be more complex than it might seem at first.  The Meru Foundation found that the origin of the Hebrew characters lie in a series of ritual hand-gestures — or sign language.

Also, the Chronicle Project has found an alternate system for how the written Hebrew characters work, and publishes alternate, “original meaning” renderings of the Hebrew scriptures.

• and incomplete.

“Much instruction has been given to man since the beginning that we do not now possess […] to say that God never said anything more to man would be claiming a new revelation – because such a thing is nowhere said in that volume by the mouth of God.”

In The Concept of Race, in the Gospel, I wrote:

The best thing to do is to take it as granted that the current scriptural record we have in the Bible is a pretty incomplete picture concerning the affairs of God throughout the whole human race.  The Bible is the book that’s come by way of the Jew and is their record — and so we find that it deals primarily with Arabians [go figure].

Until the scriptural record is more complete — until we receive the prophets of the other nations, tribes, and people, with their prophetic records that will come forth from Western and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Pacific Islands, etc. — we cannot speak with certainty of how God has dealt with the other races and if there are promises made to them that we know that of.

Now, I’m not trying to say that we can draw no good lessons from our historical translations and traditions.  I’m not saying all current Biblical teachings should be repudiated.  Rather – it’s that any explicit meaning we’re going to gather from them ought to be accepted with the understanding that it comes skewed.  That the scriptures come to us as time-and-space artifacts of a particular culture – given in their language and suited to their circumstances.

What we have is just what we have.  It’s better to be honest about what we’ve got with our scriptural record — rather than try to pedestalize it into something it’s not meant to be.

Religions become concerned with ethical behavior and doctrine, and using the scriptures as an all-encompassing moral rule-book – instead of being concerned with changing people’s minds/hearts and how they view/experience their world, using the scriptures as a collection of stories that motivate believers to go live-out their own stories.

The problem with approaching religion as though it were a method of relaying ethics and doctrines from “the Good Book” 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 having made a covenant with the fundamental Reality of existence – such things neither add to or subtract from current pool of human ethical wisdom.  It is not the domain of religion to lay down specific “hither thou shalt come and no further” 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 of a direct connection with God — one that smashes a hardened, left-brain sensation of being separate 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 .

Next Article by Justin: The Revelation of God in Jesus Christ

Previous Article by Justin:  The Concept of Race, in the Gospel

(What R. U. Scared Of ?)

The Nature of God’s Love

INTRODUCTION

This is a long post but I want to cover a lot of bases so that more people might be helped by the post. I also make no reference to LDSA’s post which has a masterful explanation of God’s love and should be read for a fuller understanding of the scriptural basis for the ideas of this post. So that post is here. And if you don’t take time to read it just keep these ideas in mind, “All are alike unto God” and from the post this paragraph, “There is only one type of charity: God’s charity.  If you don’t have an overwhelming desire and willingness to share everything you have with everyone else, you don’t have charity.”

If as you read this you think you are in complete agreement and are therefore wasting your time reading it (and you might be right) I encourage you to skip to the last section entitled in bold letters THE TRUE NATURE OF LOVE OR THE NATURE OF TRUE LOVE. There was something I learned while researching this which I have not seen expressed elsewhere. I think it is very important to understand.

NEW DOCTRINE

I was recently made aware that there is an official LDS church policy/doctrine/tradition of the brethren stating that God’s love is conditional.

It appears that the church has not always had this as a doctrine/policy/tradition. In 1992 the Church News had a small article talking about God’s love and it quoted F Enzio Busche in a 1982 conference talk where he pretty much said God’s love is unconditional. You can read it yourself here.

In the February 2003 issue of the Ensign there was printed an article attributed to Elder Russell M. Nelson. The article is named Divine Love. You can view it here.

I don’t know how much earlier this was taught, but from this time on the church’s policy is that it does not believe God’s love is unconditional. The thesis statement says:

“While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. The word does not appear in the scriptures. On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love—are conditional.”

Now you may wonder what difference it makes whether the church calls God’s love conditional or if we believe it is unconditional?

God is love. If I have a distorted concept of His love then I have a distorted concept of Him. To become like God I must understand what He is like. Give a man the wrong blueprint and the structure will be wrong. And to take if even further I believe the concept that God’s love is variable towards us it will prevent us from obtaining eternal life.

DEFINITIONS

I am speaking of the love of one member of the God family for other members of that family or the love one human has for another human. And this requires that I explain that humans, all of us are children, actual genetic offspring of God and His relatives. In this mortal sphere humans are not yet perfected but there is no fundamental difference between the species of Gods and us anymore than there is a species difference between a 2 year old human child and the adults who procreated his body.

I will define love as this:

The person who loves desires all that is good for the people they love.

Unconditional means it is not subject to conditions. As applied to love it says there are no requirements for the one being loved to meet. This love is given regardless of the actions of the one being loved.

Do we have to define love? Yes we do because there are those who think love is something which in fact it is not. And I think we might see that this subject gets at a deep problem among many humans, especially LDS humans today.

So my definition means a person who has unconditional love “desires all that is good for the people they love” regardless of the developmental state, the mistakes, the choices or actions of the other person. Now God wants to share all that He has with all of us. But if we are not ready to receive it, it would be a detriment to us. I love my 6 month old son with all my heart. But I am not about to put him behind the wheel of an automobile. It would not be good for anyone.

One of my daughters took a religion class at BYU on Isaiah. She told us part of what she learned in that class, The instructor had taught her, “There is nothing you can do which will make God love you any less nor any more than He does right now.” That is not in harmony with the current teachings of the LDS church. But it may have been back when he said it. My daughter took that class in 1999.

The fact that there was a shift in doctrine/policy/tradition of the brethren on such a fundamental principle should give you cause to think about this.

VALENTINE FROM RUSSELL M. NELSON – ENSIGN 2003

Now let’s look closely at that quote from the Ensign. The thesis statement of the article says:

“While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. The word does not appear in the scriptures. On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love—are conditional.”

Now I see a major problem with that statement. The problem is that the statement is erroneously trying to conflate God’s love and God’s spiritual blessings. And this problem just gets worse as you read the full article. The thesis statement says that divine blessings stem from God’s love. And later in the article he places God’s love and blessings on the same footing by saying:

“Understanding that divine love and blessings are not truly “unconditional” can defend us against common fallacies such as these:…”

Do you see what fundamental concept of the gospel as preached by Joseph Smith is contradicted by this pairing?

AP NEWS FLASH SLC, UTAH This morning the LDS First Presidency announced changes in the wording of certain scriptures to be in harmony with the correlation committee’s doctrine.  Section 130 versus 20 and 21 will now read,

“20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 But when we obtain any blessing from God, it is predicated upon how high the level of God’s love is for us.”

How much God loves us does not determine whether we receive the blessings of the gospel. That is what imperfect mortals do. They limit how much they love others and then limit what they are willing to do for them. And when we conceive of God as having a higher or lower level of love for us based upon our actions we make unto ourselves a God who has one of the worst of mortal failings. All are not alike to such a being.

God established the conditions of obtaining exaltation based upon each of His children’s use of their agency. It is not based upon higher or lower levels of love which some believe God feels towards us. If it were then what of our agency?

If we look closely at that thesis statement it is very confusing.  It says:

”On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us… are conditional.”

Okay it says Father and Jesus feel higher levels of love for each of us but it is conditional. That means they don’t feel it for those who don’t meet the conditions. So how can they feel it for each of us? Why was it worded that way?

Elder Nelson quoted several scriptures to back up his doctrine. In none of the scriptures does it say that God will not or does not love people who do wrong or don’t honor Him etc. Here are some quotes from the Ensign article.

“If ye keep my commandments, [then] ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.” 

I always thought that when a person quoted a scripture and placed a word in [brackets] that word was different, in fact it might be one word to substitute for a whole phrase, but it in no way changed the meaning. As I write these words it is about the 6^th draft of this post and I just searched the scriptures to see what the [then] replaced. I trusted “Elder” Russell M. Nelson that the scripture actually reflected a meaning of “then” or “therefore” or “in that case” or at least some other phrase which he replaced with “[then]”. You know what? I am upset. No, the word is disgusted.

The scripture is found only in the gospel of John chapter 15 verse 10. It has come to us without any words or phrase which the “[then]” would replace. It simply reads as follows:

“If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.”

If Russell [Misleader] Nelson was on a debate team and pulled that stunt he would be torn to shreds for false quoting by the other side. If he was testifying in a court of law and pulled that stunt he would be guilty of perjury or lying. This is a blatant case of perverting the word of God. By placing [then] in there Russell [Misleader] Nelson has tried to change its meaning. As the scripture actually reads it indicates that abiding in God’s love is an action on the part of the person, that keeping the commandments is the action of abiding in God’s love. It has nothing to do with God’s love for us changing.

So if I do not abide in a house does that mean the house does not exist? God’s love continues regardless of whether we choose to place ourselves where we can experience it. It is so ego centric and immature to think that we mortals can control whether or not God loves us.

I know that each human and God also has the ability to choose to love a person without any regard to that person’s actions. And this is where I get people saying, “When someone does bad to you why would you want to love them?”

Eternal truth is constantly shining on us. As we respond positively and resonate with it (follow the promptings of that light) we feel peace and we receive more guidance. If we choose to go contrary to it we damage ourselves and diminish in our power and darken in our minds. We can’t ignore the truth that we are humans and that we need love and that love is good for us. So when we refuse to love others we are convicted in our hearts. When you love someone less, you know you are doing wrong.

I lived for years in an abusive marriage. God did not want me to remain in this marriage. But it was not necessary to decrease my love for my wife in order to act upon ending the marriage. She took a lot of things from me. Money, possessions, my good name, my future, 4 of my 5 children, my love of myself, my health, my self respect. All were gone because of her lies and emotional torture. I did get my self respect and my self love back once I stopped listening to her lies. But she never was able to make me stop loving her. And I never had to. Even when I found she was truly insane. Of course you can understand that made me have more compassion for her. But it didn’t change whether I could be around her. Due to the nature of her sickness I was told by a psychologist that barring an outright miracle she would never recover. He also explained she could easily decide to kill me without out any provocation on my part. So he strongly advised as little contact as possible for the rest of my life.

That is an extreme case. But it illustrates the fact that there are times when even, despite our love we can not allow ourselves to be around another human. As humans we are extremely susceptible to being effected by the communications and actions of other humans. So if you are around someone who is constantly telling you lies about yourself or about life or maybe they are tearing you down and destroying your faith you really can’t afford to subject yourself to that barrage of Satan inspired communications.

Which is precisely why I do not attend the LDS church anymore. Sometimes you need to leave the community to allow yourself to progress toward truth. And hopefully you do it before they pass around the poison kool-aid. But even if not there is time to get your head on straight after death. I hear it is harder though. My point is why wait and delay happiness and progression? I am sure God wants us to live and learn rather than allow someone to abuse us.

So although it does not fit the classic look of love, cutting off contact with someone or a group of people can actually be inspired of God. And yet to this day I do not leave my ex wife entirely alone. I still pray for her and at times send priesthood blessings and thought forms over the miles to help her along in her progress. No I am not carrying a torch for her because I don’t believe in limiting my love to one person and that includes women. I love all of them. And it is the same with men. But I also don’t believe it is a correct principle to stop loving a person, any person. That is the way I believe God is also.

There is an eyewitness account of this fact in the book Return From Tomorrow by George Ritchie. He saw a huge place where the spirits of men and women who had died were gathered in a never ending combat of hate and viciousness aimed at each other. Their emotions of  anger, hate, fear and guilt kept them locked in this battle. They needed no food and there was no physical contact being made so the conflict continued non stop. He was being shown these things by Christ who was with him. He asked the Lord why there was no help for these most wretched of souls? He was then made aware of the presence of large bright beings hovering over each of the benighted spirits on the plain. These great and loving spirits were so bright that George had not realized they were there before. He had just perceived them as the bright sky above them.   This is an example of how, although the people in hell seem to be totally cut off from God He is still feeling after them. Is this verified by the scriptures? Who says the scriptures contain all the truth of God? And where would be the justice if God made people suffer even when the price had been paid? I believe where there is suffering there is an opportunity for growth; otherwise God is a sadist.

I have heard the question asked, “Why do we want God to look that way?”, meaning why do I think it is important to believe God’s love is without conditions? As a mortal I have no real idea how close I am to knowing all the truths of God that I will need to understand and live in order to live with Him and be like Him. From my own experience I have seen how I thought I knew how things really are only to find out later that my understanding was so lacking and in some cases down right wrong. So if God’s love for me is conditional upon my actions and choices then what is the real state of it now? Since I don’t know exactly what I still need to change I have no way to measure where I am on the higher level/lower level of God’s love. That is doubt and uncertainty. Faith in God unto eternal life can not be built on such a foundation.

Back to the article.

“If you keep not my commandments, [then] the love of the Father shall not continue with you.”

Again there is no word nor words which [then] replaces in this scripture. It is in there courtesy of Russell [Misleader] Nelson. The phrase “the love of the Father” is not congruent to “God’s love for you” is it? The words “the love of the Father” would actually refer to our love for the Father.  Just as the white fruit in Lehi’s dream which is explained to be “the love of God” can not be equated exclusively to God’s love for His children. And is there anyone reading this who does not realize that it is only when we love a person that we can sense their love for us? And is there anyone who thinks we can cause God to decrease in His love for us? Yes there are plenty who will believe this lie.

Here look at my analogy. My teenage son asks to borrow the car and I say he can. And then I say now if you will do such and such then you will be safe and be blessed. Perhaps I am even inspired and stating a prophecy. This is what God always does when He tells us truths. So if my son does what I tell him he does in fact remain in a blessed state which we can refer as “the love of the Father.” And that accurately describes it because out of love for me he is keeping my sayings. It is a safe and blessed state. But if he disobeys me then it is he that has departed from his love for me. And he surely will think I don’t love him when bad things start happening.

But I am sitting at home waiting to see if my son will chose to trust in my word, perhaps again by a fatherly foreknowledge I already know he is getting into trouble. So when I become aware that he is disobeying me what is my reaction? According to Elder Nelson in such a case God decides to start loving us less.

But I know that is not what happens in my heart. If there is any change in my emotions it will be that  my compassion will increase and my desire for my son’s welfare will increase (more love) as I learn that he has not trusted my word and is in trouble perhaps even the car is wrecked.

It reminds me of Matthew 7:11 when Jesus  said, “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” If I being a man know how to love then how much more God knows how to love?

Okay another quote from the 2003 article.

“If a man love me, [then] he will keep my words: and my Father will love him.”

This scripture may have been worded so as to work upon our minds as the Lord mentioned in D&C 19. But again we need to see the real scripture and not take big [M]’s word for what it is talking about. It is a misquote from John 14

Here it is:

“21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.”

The scripture does not say if a man keep not His commandments then God loveth him not. That fact is sufficient to make the point of this post. But this 2003 article was spun so as to pervert the truth of God and yet in the attempt there are a couple of places where the scriptures quoted condemn the 15 seers of the LDS church. And this scripture is one of them.

Okay so lets venture into falseidealand and pretend that God does love us more if we keep His commandments or to use the church’s words, that God has a “higher level of love” for us if we keep His commandments. If that is true please note the even greater problem it creates for the leadership of the LDS church.

On 2 April 1843 in Ramus, Illinios Joseph Smith remarked about that chapter and verse. The remark was recorded in the William Clayton Diary and written also by Willard Richards at the same event. It was also placed in the D&C in section 130, verse 3.

“3 John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.”

What does such a belief say about the 15 apostles of today? None of which have ever claimed to have been visited in person by God. And there hasn’t been an apostle who did claim such a visit since John W Taylor, son of the 3^rd president of the church who was first removed from the quorum because he was in disagreement with the other 11 and then later excommunicated for continuing to practice polygamy after the manifesto.  And yet he claimed openly to have been personally visited by Jesus Christ. Are you thinking of Lorenzo Snow being visited by he Lord? It does not change anything since he was called as an apostle prior to John W Taylor so again the truth remains none of those called as apostles since John W. Taylor have claimed a personal visit of Jesus Christ. Since the first apostles of this dispensation were told their apostolic calling was not complete until they had received a personal visit by Jesus Christ it makes you wonder how the latter ones can claim to be true apostles.

So if Elder Nelson is correct that this scripture proves God’s love is conditional then wouldn’t the facts of the last 100 years prove that God the Father doesn’t love the seers of our day?

I am not saying that. The doctrine of the LDS church as applied to this scripture says it. For my part I believe God does love those 15 men and all of us without condition. When we receive a blessing from God even the greatest of all gifts the gift of Eternal life it is because we love God enough to trust in His Word.  Yes blessings are 100% conditional. But blessings and gifts of God come based upon obedience to law, not based upon the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for us. What that really means is that we are the ones whose choice to love God determines whether we will become like Him.

“I love them that love me; and those that seek me … shall find me.”

But I the Lord don’t love those who don’t love me? What the ?? Don’t we teach young children and teenagers to treat others nice and love them even if the other person is acting mean?  So what is this? We hold God to a lesser standard? He is less loving than a spoiled brat? Even typing the question seems blasphemous.

“God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”

But those who do not fear Him He has no respect for? No that would violate the first clause. Again look at the wording “accepted with Him.” Does that mean accepted along with Him? And who accepts God as God? All of His creations with the exception of us, His children. And we are in the process of making our choice whether we will accept God as our God or not. That is the truth of the matter regardless of the way we interpret this scripture. Because God got to be God by His choices. And He has promised us the justice of it being our agency and our choice which will determine whether we are like Him and not the level of his love for us.

Is the problem here that these people don’t know the difference between love and acceptance? Come to think of it my fifth generation LDS ex wife did not know the difference either.  I am not jesting. This is dead serious. There are those who in all sincerity have been raised by parents who never gave love but always controlled their children (and their spouse) by giving or withholding acceptance. They do not actually comprehend true love since they were never given it by their mother. And if you think of it this is exactly what the church does to its members; it controls them by the offer of acceptance and the threat of withdrawing that acceptance.

Back to the article.

“The Lord “loveth those who will have him to be their God.”

Again the fact that He does love group “A” does not prove that He does not love group “B”.

Then we read this in the 2003 article:

“Understanding that divine love and blessings are not truly “unconditional” can defend us against common fallacies such as these: “Since God’s love is unconditional, He will love me regardless …”; or “Since ‘God is love,’  He will love me unconditionally, regardless …”

My close friend and I have gone around and around on this. He asked at one point, “If God’s love is unconditional then what would be the motivation for being good?” Now the answer to that question is the real heart of why this doctrine is damning to our souls.

WHY OBEY GOD IF HE LOVES ME NO MATTER WHAT?

There are many possible motivations for obeying God and living a principle of the gospel. Most any motivation will be included in one of these groups.

Fear of punishment

Desire for personal gain or money

Desire for acceptance or praise

Sense of obligation or DUTY (perhaps a higher harmonic of fear)

A good result in your life, good feelings or even blessings (perhaps just a higher harmonic of personal gain here)

Your love for God and others which is one and the same

Which of these groups would enable you to claim the same inheritance as Jesus Christ? Which of the above motivations were involved when Jesus suffered the atonement and death on the cross?

There is no higher love than God the Father giving His Son Jesus to suffer and die for people who are in a sinful state. He acted upon that love before the foundations of the world. Has His love waxed and waned since?

Looking at the various levels of motivation we can see that all contain the element of fear but the last. Even the desire for good results or blessings means we are doing it out of fear that we won’t get these things if we don’t do it.

Can we rationally have faith to obtain His glory if we must be motivated by the threat of losing His love? Was Jesus motivated by the threat of losing God’s love? Or can it be that the greatest motivator possible is the fact that no matter what we do or have done He did and always will love us completely. Then the question of whether we receive His glory is whether we receive and reciprocate His love.

Telling some one that you will love them more if they obey you is what you do when you want to control them. When you use this carrot of love and stick of less love you don’t want an equal with whom you can share all that you have. You want a slave who is controlled by the fear of losing your love.

But if you give your love without price then it is up to the other person to make an unfettered choice to love you back. So by your love they are motivated to be as you are. Love is the greatest power of influence in all existence. If it were not, Satan would win and God would be toppled and cease to be God.

But the idea in the minds of humans that God’s love is variable will force them to resort to the motivation of fear. And that is why Satan wants it to be part of the doctrine of the LDS church.

And why do some people like the doctrine of God’s love being variable? Well I don’t know exactly but think of this. If I believe that God loves me completely no matter what I do, then I know without doubt that if I do not love Him and others in that way I am being unjust. The responsibility to love others as He loves me is then left to my personal choice. It means that when I have less love for one person here than another that I stand convicted in my conscience. But if I accept the belief that God has higher levels of love for some and obviously lower levels of love for others then I can be justified in being the same way.

I said something once to one of my daughters when she was 14 years old. I said, “I am going to tell you something and you can spend the rest of you life thinking about it. When we love some one all we can do is give them our love. That is our choice. And then we hope they will love us in return. That is their choice. If we try to force them to love us it will not make us happy because it is not love. Love is freely given or it is not love.”

Now if we think of how we might go about “forcing” or even pressuring someone to love us we can see that it amounts to the same concept of a God who will apply the threat of not loving us unless we obey Him. There are many who won’t believe me on this, but it doesn’t work. What you get in return is not love. And when you are trying to manipulate you are not giving love. Motivation by pure love is the most powerful of all motivations. Motivation by fear is what Satan has always done.

Injecting fear into our relationship with God destroys our ability to actually obey out of love.

THE TRUE NATURE OF LOVE OR THE NATURE OF TRUE LOVE

In researching for this post I received an inspired understanding of the nature of love, how it should be. I was then able to see how the Babylonian culture has perverted what real love is.

There are 4 words in Greek which mean love. The definitions of these words are all stated in terms of which group of people are loved in this way. The words are:

Agape – This love for your spouse and children. It is seen as unconditional and self sacrificing and compassionate. It can also be applied to all the world of people.

Eros – This is sexual or passionate love. But Plato explained that it can also be without physical contact, still based on the beauty and sexual appeal of the other person but with a respect and admiration of them as a beautiful creation or an ideal to be admired even if there was not partaking. The latter is the actual meaning of platonic love.

Philia – This is termed brotherly love and is viewed as having its main focus on the community. But family is also included. I will show you in a second why all of them overlap.

Storge – This is often not mentioned. It is a love that accepts a person as they are. It is used to maintain a love for the ruler even when he is a pain at times. But also a family member immediate or extended who is well know to be a jerk at times but this love accepts him so we are willing to retain him as a member of the family/community rather than abandon him and cut him off.

As I studied these something suddenly occurred to me. The four types of love do not apply to four different groups. And by viewing it that way we miss the point and meaning of the different types. They apply to 4 types of actions we take towards everyone. We need all 4 types at all times with each person. Eros with our children? Eros is based upon our sexuality but it does not require sexual intercourse. I love my brother and I hug him and even kiss him and admire his manly body (its easier to admire in that way than mine) but I don’t need to have sex with him. Same is true of my sons and daughters and nieces and nephews etc. They are sexual beings. I should admire and be aware of that. But it is of no blessing to them to be intimate with them so out of love I do not.  Love always responds to the needs of the person you love.

Here is an example of how it applies to a spouse. Yes we can see our passion and desire to be intimate with them coming in to play. But we can also in our agape see sacrificing our lives for them if needed. And on a daily basis we serve and act out of kindness in a philia type love for them. But sometimes even the best of spouses can be a jerk. And when that occurs we need to have storge love for them and not cast them out.

But see what we have been taught? How many of us have heard this? “If you ever have sex with another person our marriage will be over.”

Or imagine you and you spouse have some real close friends another married couple. You have known each other for years. You love the guy like your brother or maybe more than your brother. You never want to lose him as a friend. But what would happen if he and your wife fell in love and are intimate with each other? It would be the real common thing to hear someone say. “If he ever had sex with my wife I would want to kill him.” Or maybe you hear the not so cruel, “If he had sex with my wife that would be the end of our friendship.” Your friendship with who, your friend or your wife? And in all sincerity why?

So what happened to your agape, philia and storge love? They are totally wiped out by the over-emphasis on eros love. All types of love are made of zero strength by being made insignificant compared to our worship of eros. This is where eros has been perverted. The S&M and pedophile effects himself and those he directly touches. And there may be millions involved. But there are billions who have perverted love by believing the Babylonian enforced monogamy laws and the popular media’s version of one true love songs which are a denial of actual God given human nature.

And if we are willing to see it for what it can be then ask yourself what about the love which developed between your spouse and the other person? Why is it evil? The only evil is your selfish demand that they deny their love for each other. And what makes your love for your spouse good? A government marriage license? Please don’t insult us all by thinking anything like that. Oh you had an agreement a covenant to not love any other people in that way and you are enforcing that same promise on your spouse. Is this not part of the covenant with death spoken of in the scriptures? Now if your spouse is stopping their love for you that is a different thing. And it should be addressed. But as always if you are trying to force them even with a previous covenant then you are not acting upon love. No in fact it may be you who had stopped loving them first.

But there is nothing in our nature as humans which prevents us from loving fully, in every way, multiple people. And by maintaining all types of love for our spouse we can honor their right to love all others as they honor our right to love all others. And then we both honor the way God made us in His image. And I believe that is what God wants us to do. I believe that is the way God is.

LDS Lingo Liberation

The following is a list of words and terms. Many of these words may seem invented. Isn’t all language invented? As you examine this list pay special attention to the factual etymology taken from “official dictionaries” which when placed side by side with the imaginative flexing of these words and terms, can shed much light. Words are not merely invented but intended.

The intention behind the presentation of these words and terms is liberation. Linguistics is not the root of liberation neither spiritual nor temporal. It is not the root of anything. But words, or (S)words, as Justin has taught us to see them, are indeed valuable tools when wielded for good. The good word tells us that the issues of life come out of the heart (Right Brain). And as they come from the heart they pass through the mind (Left Brain) with its linguistic and mathematical centers. Here abstract lines are organized into little symbols known as letters and digits. These are then strung together to create words and numbers. These then issue forth out of the mouth. Jesus taught that by our words we are justified and by our words we are condemned. (Matt. 12:37) The Book of Mormon advises us to watch our words. (Mosiah 4:30)

I invite and encourage my brothers and sisters to use this list of words and terms. Put it to work for you as helpful tools as you work in the vineyard of the Lord. I am not attempting to change anyone. I am asking, as Alma, that we EXPERIMENT ON THE WORD. I find no fault with your hearts. I do however know personally of the blocks which have been set in our minds which need to be cleared if we are to prepare the way of the Lord and make His pathways straight.
Do not look at these as re-de-fining. Look and see the finery that is there. Why would we want to de-fine terms which when seen God’s way are “just fine” the way they are, since “the way they are” is not defined or limited but limitless in the heart, mind, mouth, eyes, ears and hands of the Lord. As you look at and look to implementing this versatile vocabulary, remember God’s words to us in Moses 1:4 “my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease.”
Have fun!

Churtch
n.
1.An assembly of sacred (scared) rulers convened in Christ’s name to execute his laws (saints).
[Notice the word “hurt” concealed in the word cHURTch. The roots of this word refer to a Crux/Crutch; an instrument used by the rulers to first, beat Churtch-goer’s legs and then issued to the victims to keep their bruised bodies hobbling in and out of the Churtch building in regular attendance.]

Churtch Culling
n.
1. Sometimes spelled “Church Calling”. The act of culling as performed by the Churtch. Culling is the process of removing breeding animals from a group based on specific criteria. This is done to both reinforce certain desired characteristics and to remove certain undesired characteristics from the group. For livestock and Churtch-goers alike, culling usually implies the killing of the removed animals/saints.
[cull (v.) c.1200, originally “put through a strainer,” or “SIFT” from O.Fr. coillir ]
Alma 37:15 – “And now behold, I tell you by the spirit of prophecy, that if ye transgress the commandments of God, behold, these things which are sacred shall be taken away from you by the power of God, and ye shall be delivered up unto Satan, that he may sift (CULL) you as chaff before the wind.”
3rd Nephi 18:18 – “Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, ye must watch and pray always lest ye enter into temptation; for Satan desireth to have you, that he may sift (CULL) you as wheat.”

Christ-Shun
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ but not actually believing in Him.
2. Claiming the qualities or spirit of Jesus while actually shunning Him.
n.
1. One who professes in Jesus as Christ but actually shuns Him.
2. One who claims the qualities or spirit of Jesus while actually shunning Him.

Faux-thority
n.
1. False authority. Used by the Churtch in impressing and controlling the saints. Usually written, “authority” as in “General Authority” with the F-X (effects) implied.
[from Fr. faux “false” and auctor “master, leader, author”. Usually spelled with a -c- in English till 16c., when it was dropped in imitation of the French. Meaning “power to enforce obedience” is from late 14c.; meaning “people in authority” is from 1610s. Authorities “those in charge, those with police powers” is recorded from mid-19c.]

Saltican City
n.
1. City where the Latter-Day Churtch is headquartered.
2. Term for the body which makes policy to which victims of the Churtch must adhere.

Ghost-Spell
n.
1. The basic belief upheld by most Churtch-goers that external forces whether slight or firm are the basis of righteous discipleship.
2. Policy declared from the Saltican City.
3. The effects of this belief and the policy that perpetuates it upon people’s minds; placing power with the disembodied spirits (Ghosts) known as “The Third” or the “Fallen” who, operating under Lucifer, dictate directly to the entity known as the Churtch who in turn dictate to the body of believers.
[Compare with Gospel (Good News)]

Shamily
n.
1. A one-time family of spiritual and or biological relation which has been reduced to a flimsy, loosely knit and easily separated group of individuals; Often marked by internal strife and persecution.

TEMPle Mirage ™
n.
1. A disservice provided to Churtch customers for an annual fee of 10% of a family’s income which purports to be the only way to seal the family together for time & all eternity. But this, in reality, is not within the ability of the Churtch to offer.

Her’s-band & Wrife
n.
1. A term for a mutually oppressive relationship between man and woman wherein Church & State loan their otherwise exclusive rights to the bodies and minds of the two primary parties involved out to the couple under conditions of jealous ownership and access to any and all progeny. [see Spounsers]

Bothers & Cysters
n.
1. False Brothers & Sisters who, to the degree of falseness which is in them, make it their responsibility to bother, suck, discourage and hinder their siblings from following God in freedom.
2. Resulting status from overuse and misapplication of the words Brother and Sister; a deterioration from true terms of endearment to terms of en-dure-ment. [from O.Fr. endurer (12c.) “make hard, harden; bear, tolerate; keep up, maintain,” from L. indurare “make hard,” in L.L. “harden (the heart) against,”]

Church Dis-Tribe-UTion Center
n.
1. An operation of the Churtch that focuses on assimilation and deprivation of the Tribes of Israel through elimination of all outward dissimilarity. This is accomplished by “flooding the earth” with assembly-line products that promote Utah Cult-sure.

Liarhona
n.
1. The Churtch’s international instrument of lie dissemination. Often entire segments which are included in the English counterpart will be omitted or changed.

Reliegion
n.
1. Religion as used by Lucifer and his followers to effectively disseminate lies.

Spounser

n.

1. A man or woman who enter into a monetized marriage arrangement commonly known as monogamy where both parties agree to give their intimate love in exchange for certain monetary or service considerations. Prior to the marriage contract being finalized the women do their utmost to see how much future money their sex appeal can buy. And the men see how much sex appeal their future potential earning power can buy.

Relygion
n.
1. The particular brand of Reliegion promoted world-wide by the Churtch and diffused through various outlets including but not limited to the Saltican City. Its major tenet is reliance on the arm of flesh.

Selfishient
adj.
1. Contraction of “Self-Sufficient” showing the true nature of the Churtch’s doctrine of Self-Sufficiency for the anti-Zion CONcept that it is.

Trance-slated
tr. v.
1. Induced to a state of boredom bordering between waking and sleep that renders one unable to discern and only open to whatever indoctrination or programs he is presented with: After apostle Richard G. Scott took the stand, there were many trance-slated beings found in the congregation.

Pharisites
n.
1. Class of unrighteous rulers found in the upper echelons of the Churtch which subsist off the work of the people and devour any would-be saviors on Mnt. Zion.

Testiphony
n.
1. A declaration of blind and complete allegiance to the Churtch; may incorporate one or more of the following phrases: “I know the Churtch is true.” “I know the Churtch leaders are called by God.” “With every fiber of my being.”

Godvernment
n.
1. The entire metaphysical body of Satan consisting of Lucifer as head and Churtch & State as the left and right arms, legs, hands and feet.
2. The ungodly union between Churtch & State.

Sperm Sorting Function

Background on this post: This is just a hypothesis, based upon some scientific research I have read. I first wrote this as a “note essay” back when I still had my LDS Anarchist account on Facebook. I decided not to publish it here because of its more scientific nature, but I have now changed my mind. So, here it is, in a slightly modified and updated form.

The relationship of Sperm Sorting Function to menopause and fertility

All women have designed into their reproductive organ a Sperm Sorting Function (SSF), the purpose of which is to sort through the various sperm deposits in the vaginal cavity and choose the best genetic material for conception.

As long as the SSF is operative, menopause never happens. Menopause is directly related to SSF shutdown.

If sperm never enters the vagina (as in the case of virginal old maids), or if only sperm from one man enters (as in the case of monogamous relations), the SSF is not activated, because it requires the sperm from two or more men for activation.

The greater the number of sperm donors, the more active the SSF (because there is more sorting to do.) The more active the SSF, the more fertile the woman will be. Fertility is directly related to SSF activity.

Fertility, then, is not solely determined by the female, nor solely by the male, but also (and principally) by the NUMBER of male partners a female has in a given sexual period.

Only when SSF is inactive is fertility dependent upon other factors. In other words, when fertile females (who have not, yet, reached menopause) are in monogamous relationships, fertility is determined by other factors. When she engages in polyandrous sexual relations, the SSF takes over in determining fertility and vastly increases her chances of getting pregnant.

SSF and sperm competition complement one another

SSF and sperm competition are complementary, so that for the multiple males engaging in sexual intercourse with the female, their bodies produce genetically superior and more fertile sperm, to compete with the sperm of the other males, as well as greater quantities of it, increasing the likelihood of impregnation. It is almost as if the testicles know that the SSF has been or will be activated and therefore makes the best sperm it can so that the SSF ends up picking its sperm over that of other men.

The greater the sperm competition and the more active the SSF, the more excellent the genetic make-up of the offspring will be. This process reduces or eliminates genetic mutations, resulting in biologically superior children which continues with each succeeding generation as this mating model is followed.

The reason for menopause

Nature is such that good breeding habits, in which genetically superior children are produced, are prolonged while bad breeding habits are shut down prematurely. Menopause is nature’s way of shutting down bad breeding habits. In monogamous and polygynous arrangements, genetic mutations are still passed on, so the SSF, if it is not sufficiently activated, eventually will shut down completely, causing the onset of menopause.

On the other hand, in polyandry in which sperm variety is continually present, the SSF is continually active and keeps menopause from happening, indefinitely. This is done so that genetically superior children continue to be produced.

In cases in which women are promiscuous (such as prostitutes), but who terminate pregnancies or use contraception, menopause may initiate regardless of high SSF activity, due to the body not being able to follow its natural course and produce offspring.

Just as muscles which perform the same exercises over and over again will become accustomed to them, adapt and then stop growing new muscle tissue—which necessitates changing exercise routines to create muscle confusion, allowing continuous muscle growth—the SSF may also adapt to multiple sperm and eventually shut down, initiating menopause. This happens when the same group of men continue to deposit sperm over time with no introduction of a new sperm variable. The SSF will always pick the same genetic makeup (the best) when presented with the same group of men over and over again. The body will eventually not even recognize the inferior sperm and will function as if there were only one sperm donor, with no need for SSF activity.

To continue to keep the SSF active, a woman needs to alternate the groups of men she has intercourse with. A woman who is married to ten men, then, who has sexual intercourse with this same group of men, will inevitably enter menopause. She must, from time to time, be introduced to new husbands, and change the group of men she has sexual relations with, in order to keep the SSF “guessing” or trying to figure out which sperm is best.

The implication of this, assuming that the above speculations are true, is that a woman could conceive children throughout her entire life, by using a strategy that allows the SSF to always be activate.

All of the above assumes familiar sperm (through marriage) because the introduction of unfamiliar sperm through one night stands and other fleeting relations may cause the female body to react in ways that are detrimental to herself and any offspring that may result.

Gospel applications and speculations

This might explain how Adam and Eve were able to populate an empty world. If Adam lived 930 years, perhaps Eve did, too, or, as is normal for women of today, perhaps she outlived him. If Eve had multiple husbands and her daughters had multiple husbands and so on and so forth, always with a change-up in “sperm line-up” so that the SSF had to constantly figure out which was the best sperm, the earth would have fairly quickly filled up and Eve and her daughters may not have entered into menopause until the very end of their lives, if at all.

A woman today can get pregnant every ten months—nine months of pregnancy and one month of recovery. (This is how my own mother did it with three of her children, in back-to-back fashion!)  Women today typically give birth to one child per pregnancy. Sometimes twins are produced, but this is rare. If the human reproductive system is based upon the heavenly birthing process, though, it means that women are, by design and under the right conditions, to give birth to twins, a male and a female. This is because the planets are born by electrical expulsion, in which two planets come out at a time, one out of the north pole, one out of the south pole, one a “female” planet and the other “male.” Or, it may be that women are designed to give birth to first a male (or a female) and then at a later pregnancy a female (or a male.) But however is the design, we do know that females are capable of giving birth to twins, so the capacity is there.

If Eve and her daughters gave birth like the planets, two at a time, one male and one female, and they were exceedingly long lived and always fertile, never entering into menopause, each one of these females may have produced a vast posterity. Just using an imaginary number and saying that Eve was able to give birth 1000 consecutive times, once every 10 months, during a period of 833 years, and supposing that she gave birth to twins each time, a son and a daughter, this would mean that she gave birth to 2000 children, of which 1000 were daughters. Those 1000 daughters, doing the same as her, would each give birth to 1000 daughters. This would give Eve 1000 daughters and 1,000,000 grand-daughters. And so on and so forth: 1 billion great grand-daughters, 1 trillion great great grand-daughters, etc. Obviously, these are just imaginary numbers, not taking into account premature deaths, etc.

Now, looking ahead at the Millennium, if the multihusband-multiwife system is re-introduced among the people and becomes the marriage model for those thousand years, we end up with people who will live just as long as Adam and Eve and will be just as fertile and produce just as many offspring as they did, but with one exception: the first thousand years started with two people only, while the seventh thousand years will start with a vast multitude of people. A thousand years of such peace, progress and posterity will overflow this planet with people. When this planet is filled to the brim with people, the very next year the population will more than double, requiring a second planet upon which to reside. Each succeeding year the population explosion will require more and more planets for all the people. We look at all the planets in the heavens and wonder what they are for, just floating around, supposedly not serving any purpose. Well, it may be that they will find a very important use in the Millennium.

And when all the planets of this solar system are filled to the brim with people, the very next year’s population growth will require an additional solar system’s planets. And so and so forth, until this galaxy is full of God’s children. Now, with such thoughts in mind, we might begin to understand why the Millennium is called the great Millennium by the Lord. It is when the vast majority of His children will come down from heaven to receive bodies and populate the planets of this galaxy.

Assuming that the Millennium is, by divine design, when 99.9999% of the plan of salvation will take place, meaning that 99.9999% of God’s children will be saved at that time, polygyny and monogamy may have been used during the preceding 6000 years to limit the number of children coming to earth. The time just preceding the Millennium, though, may be the right time to bring back (or restore) the multihusband-multiwife marriage system, in preparation for the great Millennium.

Some scriptures that come to mind:

“and [they] did multiply exceedingly” (4 Ne. 1:10)

“there were not…bond and free, but they were all made free” (4 Ne. 1:3.)

“For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband” (Rom. 7:2)

“The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39.)

This makes me think of the multihusband-multiwife marriage system. A wife under this system may become free to marry other men, without being bound to only one husband, thereby allowing her to keep her SSF highly active, making her highly fertile and allowing her to “multiply exceedingly.”

SSF reactivation after menopause (menopause reversal)

Can the SSF be reactivated once it is “permanently” shut down? Sarah was barren and then had her womb open in her old age. We call it a miracle (which it was) but what if there is also a natural and scientifically explanable way to take a woman out of menopause? If the SSF activates with multiple semen deposits and eventually turns “permanently off” with a lack of such semen, could the re-introduction of multiple semen deposits re-start the process? Semen isn’t just deposited and then drips out. It actually gets absorbed into the woman’s blood stream through the vagina. Science likes to isolate individual components of substances, trying to figure out the “active ingredients,” but sometimes isolation is not the name of the game. Like a fruit cocktail, sometimes it is the combination of ingredients that produces the effect, and not any of the individual components. Semen from multiple men may create just such a cocktail. We know, for example, that semen contains testosterone, estrogen and other hormones, such as prostaglandins (made in the prostate gland), luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone. Not all of the chemicals in semen have been identified (or isolated.) Could it be possible that male semen might actually regulate the female reproductive cycle, switching it both on and off?

For example, this is an excerpt from an article by Beth Rosenshein, called, Preventing Menopause:

We have all been taught that ovarian failure is inevitable and that there is nothing that can be done about it. A recent study would suggest otherwise.1 [1 Refers to a study on WebMD Medical News called, Age of Menopause getting later, found on webmd.com]

The timing of ovarian failure can be influenced. Ovaries fail for one reason and one reason only: they run out of eggs. The ovaries contain a certain number of eggs at birth. After puberty, when the ovaries begin to recruit eggs every month, the store of eggs goes down. As long as things go well, the number of eggs recruited each month is approximately the same. Based on the number of eggs at puberty and the number of eggs recruited monthly, a woman’s ovaries should last her until she is in her seventies.2 [2 Refers to Gougeon A, Ecochard R, Thalabard JC. Age-related changes of the population of human ovarian follicles: increase in the disappearance rate of non-growing and early-growing follicles in aging women. Biol Reprod. 1994;50(3):653-63] All goes well until a woman reaches her late thirties, when the ovaries begin to use more eggs than necessary every month. As a result, the store of eggs goes down faster than normal, and the ovaries run out of eggs about 20-30 years sooner than necessary. The reason ovaries begin to use more eggs is because the ovaries are not getting what they need to function well. Like any ailing organ, providing what is needed helps the ovaries work better.

So, menopause is caused by ovarian failure and ovaries fail because they run out of eggs, and they run out of eggs because they start to use up more eggs than is necessary every month, and they begin to use more eggs because they aren’t getting what they need to function well. So, the big question is, what do ovaries need to function well? My hypothesis is that they need a variable semen cocktail (no pun intended) from multiple men who are familiar to her (no one night stands but from long term relationships, such as marriage) on a regular basis, and that this semen cocktail needs to be regularly varied so that not the same group of men contribute to it all the time, but a differently mixed semen cocktail is regularly received into the vagina, because this will keep the SSF activated and will regulate the ovaries, keeping them in perfect heath.

(As far as re-activating the ovaries once they have failed, due to using up the store of eggs, please see the Addendum below at the end of this post.)

There are a set number of eggs in human females that can be fertilized. When they are used up or discarded, that is it, right? But how many does she have?

From a web site:

A woman has the maximum number of potential eggs (primary oocytes) while still a fetus, more than 7 million. By birth the number has fallen to 1 or 2 million, and by puberty to about 300,000. Only 300 to 400 reach maturity.

Why such large numbers? Could it be that these numbers fall due to mutations via generational monogamy? Could it be that the re-introduction of the multihusband-multiwife model might reverse the fall of these numbers, leaving a higher number that reach maturity, so that if females live longer, they would also remain fertile longer? Could the tribal model be some kind of a preparation of the organs of reproduction for the Millennium, in which people will live a thousand years again? Again, all hypothesis, but it would not surprise me if all our numbers are wrong as to how many humans have lived on this planet.

Abstracts

Okay, drum roll please….Here is abstract #1, in which some researchers cast doubt upon the findings of another group of researchers. The doubting scientists say in their abstract:

A group of scientists from Harvard Medical School (Johnson et al., 2004) claims to have “established the existence of proliferative germ cells that sustain oocyte and follicle production in the postnatal mammalian ovary”

And then they go on to contradict those claims. Here is the entire abstract, called Eggs Forever?:

A group of scientists from Harvard Medical School (Johnson et al., 2004) claims to have “established the existence of proliferative germ cells that sustain oocyte and follicle production in the postnatal mammalian ovary,” expressing no doubts about their methods, results and conclusion. Johnson et al. based their conclusions of oocyte and follicular renewal from existing germline stem cells (GSC) in the postnatal mouse ovary on three types of observations: (1) A claimed discordance in follicle loss versus follicle atresia in the neonatal period and in the following pubertal and adult period; (2) immunohistochemical detection of proliferating GSC with meiotic capacity using combined markers for meiosis, germline, and mitosis; and (3) neo-folliculogenesis in ovarian chimeric grafting experiments with adult mice.Oogenesis is the process that transforms the proliferative oogonium into an oocyte through meiosis, followed by folliculogenesis and follicular and oocyte maturation. The most crucial part in producing a functional oocyte is firstly, initiation and completion of the first meiotic prophase, and secondly, enclosure of the resulting diplotene oocyte in a follicle. Neither of these two events has been shown to take place in Johnson et al.’s study of the postnatal mouse ovary. We hereby address the observations underpinning their hypothesis and conclude that it is premature to replace the paradigm that adult mammalian neo-oogenesis/folliculogenesis does not take place.

Now, the original group of scientist who made the initial claim then responds to this abstract with another abstract of their own, called, Serious doubts over “Eggs Forever?” In this abstract the researchers categorically state:

While we agree with Byskov et al. that our work represents a radical departure from the age-old dogma that mammalian females permanently lose the capacity for oocyte and follicle production during the perinatal period, careful examination of all of the available data leaves no doubt that adult female mammals retain the capacity for oogenesis and folliculogenesis.

This means that menopause may be reversible. So, based upon this abstract, I will stick to my hypothesis that the key to all of this is a variable, multimale sperm cocktail regularly received into the vaginal cavity and that such a cocktail might actually take menopausal woman out of menopause and back into fertility, or, to use the scientific language, cause oogenesis and folliculogenesis. Here is the entire abstract:

A recent commentary in this journal by Byskov et al. (2005) claims that, despite published results from numerous independent lines of investigation from our laboratory and others, there does not “exist any evidence for neo-folliculogenesis in the adult mammalian ovary.” While we agree with Byskov et al. that our work represents a radical departure from the age-old dogma that mammalian females permanently lose the capacity for oocyte and follicle production during the perinatal period, careful examination of all of the available data leaves no doubt that adult female mammals retain the capacity for oogenesis and folliculogenesis. These findings do not change the fact that exhaustion of the oocyte pool occurs with advancing chronological age–a process responsible for driving the menopause in women–but rather question the basic mechanism underlying age-related ovarian failure. In this regard, studies of aging male mice have demonstrated that testicular atrophy is associated with a dramatic decline in the number, activity and quality of germline stem cells that maintain spermatogenesis during adulthood (Zhang et al., 2006). Therefore, to the contrary of the opinion of Byskov et al. that such a process would be “considered exceptional among stem cells,” it is certainly reasonable to hypothesize that a similar deterioration of female germline stem cell function underlies the decline in oocyte quality and the onset of ovarian failure in aging females. Further, while we accept that a departure from conventional thinking can take years to gain widespread acceptance, we feel this resistance to change should not be construed as the sole means to voice opinions about the validity of our data or the maturity of our principal conclusion.

Yet another abstract, this one, in my opinion, very interesting. It is titled, Systemic signals in aged males exert potent rejuvenating effects on the ovarian follicle reserve in mammalian females.

Through the use of parabiosis in mice, aging-related deterioration of skeletal muscle and liver has been linked to a loss of systemic factors that support adult stem or progenitor cell activity. Since aging-related ovarian failure has recently been attributed, at least in part, to a loss of de-novo oocyte-containing follicle formation associated with declining oogonial stem cell activity, herein we tested in mice if aging-related changes in systemic factors influence the size of the ovarian follicle reserve. Ovaries of young (2-month-old) females parabiotically joined with young females for 5 weeks possess comparable numbers of healthy and degenerative (atretic) oocyte-containing follicles in their ovaries as those detected in non-parabiotic young females. Joining of young females with young males significantly increases follicle atresia without a net change healthy follicle numbers. Surprisingly, young females joined with aged (24-month-old) males exhibit a significant increase in the number of primordial follicles comprising the ovarian reserve, and this occurs without changes in follicle growth activation or atresia. Blood of aged males also induces ovarian expression of the germ cell-specific meiosis gene,Stimulated by retinoic acid gene 8 (Stra8), in ovaries of female parabionts, further supporting the conclusion that the observed changes in the follicle reserve of females joined with aged males reflect increased oocyte formation. Thus, factors in male blood exert dramatic effects on ovarian follicle dynamics, and aging males possess a beneficial systemic factor that significantly expands the ovarian follicle reserve in females through enhanced oogenesis.

The implications of the above abstract might be that the sperm cocktail must have variety not only in that the men who put their part into it are different than the last cocktail’s group of men, but that the men themselves ought to be of variable ages, young men, middle aged and old men. In other words, that the female reproductive system responds greatest when there is the greatest diversity and variety in the cocktail. Taking this even further (don’t you just love to speculate every once in awhile?), racial diversity may also engage the SSF and subsequent oogenesis and folliculogenesis to an even greater degree.

Some experiments that could be done using this working hypothesis: a monogamous mouse pair living alone as control; a polyandrous mouse arrangement with two or more (young) male mice and one female mouse living together so that the female mates with each mouse; a polyandrous mouse arrangement in which the female lives with all of the males but she is allowed to mate with only part of the group for one sexual period and then is allowed to mate with a different part of the group for the next sexual period, always with a rotation and mix-up so that no two succeeding sexual periods have the same “sperm cocktail.” A fourth group could be polyandrous like the third, except that each part of the group that mates with the female will consist of diverse ages: young, middle-aged and old. Then, we could see what kind of children result from these various mating strategies. Also, each of these mice in all of the various arrangements would be taken from monogamous lines, to see if sperm mutations are affected by any arrangement. For the third and fourth arrangements, it may be easier simply to make the ratio of males to the single female quite high, so high in fact that she is incapable of mating with all of the males in a given sexual period, thereby eliminating the need to herd her into one particular group of males (and away from the others) at a time.

Another aspect of this theory is where does inbreeding fit in? If sperm competition genetically upgrades the sperm of all sperm cocktail donors, and if an activated SSF routinely selects the genetically superior sperm from a variable sperm cocktail, would sexual relations with close relatives (inbreeding) pose the same risks of manifesting recessive or deleterious traits in offspring as the inbreeding found in monogamous or polygynous or polyandrous settings?

If the answer to that question is no, then this could explain why the children of Adam and Eve could inbreed without danger, by adopting a multihusband-multiwife model which allowed the women to sleep with multiple groups of husbands, regularly varied, so that the sperm cocktail was always different each sexually active period. The mouse experiment proposed above could test this out.

Here is an excerpt from, Female multiple mating, inbreeding avoidance, and fitness: it is not only the magnitude of costs and benefits that counts:

For example, models of hymenopteran offspring relatedness and number of mating partners suggest offspring heterogeneity increases steeply when the number of partners increases from one to five and sperm use is random (Page and Metcalf, 1982; see also Yasui, 1998).

I find the above number five quite significant. Five may be the basic husband group unit for minimum female fitness:

In contrast to Bateman’s principle, there is now increasing evidence that female fitness can depend on the number of mates obtained.

(Excerpted from The Evolution of Polyandry: Sperm Competition, Sperm Selection, and Offspring Viability.)

Addendum

On April 8, 2012, I came across the following article which seems to indicate that the findings of oogenesis and folliculogenesis have been established as fact. Here is the article:

Scientists rewrite rules of human reproduction

And here is a quote from it:

Generating an unlimited supply of human eggs and the prospect of reversing the menopause was made possible by a series of breakthroughs led by Professor Jonathan Tilly of Harvard. 

In 2004 he astounded the world of reproductive biology by suggesting that there were active stem cells in the ovaries of mice that seemed capable of replenishing eggs throughout life.

For half a century, a dogma of reproductive biology was that women are born with their full complement of egg cells which they gradually lose through life until they run out when they reach the menopause.

“This age-old belief that females are given a fixed ‘bank account’ of eggs at birth is incorrect,” Professor Tilly said.

“In fact ovaries in adulthood are probably more closely matched to testes in adulthood in their capacity to make new germ cells, which are the special cells that give rise to sperm and eggs,“ he said.

”Over the past 50 years, all the basic science, all the clinical work and all the clinical outcome was predicated on one simple belief, that is the oocyte pool, the early egg-cell pool in the ovaries was a fixed entity, and once those eggs were used up they cannot be renewed, replenished or replaced,“ he added.

Last month, Professor Tilly published pioneering research showing that these stem cells exist in human ovaries and that they could be stimulated in the laboratory to grow into immature egg cells.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist