Who Loves Ya Baby?

Back in the 1970’s there was a TV detective series named Kojak. Telly Sevalas played the title role. He was totally bald with a thin mustache and usually had a small lollipop he was sucking on. As I think about it this might be where Brad Pitt’s movie characters get their habit of constantly eating from. It’s a very similar effect. Besides constantly sucking a lollipop Kojak made heavy use of the phrase “Who loves ya baby?”

Now that you know how that quote entered the US popular culture let me explain what I plan to do with it. Each time I say the phrase Who loves ya, baby? I want you to consider the actions of the person or people just mentioned as an indicator of the quantity or quality of love they have for the people they acted toward.

So first let’s try and establish the “Gold Standard” of love.

Who loves you the most of anyone in the universe? You might have answered God and you’d be right. And of course by the term/title God we mean a group of exalted humans who are so united in all things, so much “one” as Jesus referred to in John 17, that it really doesn’t matter which of them was the direct Father and Mother of your spirit body. All of them are related to you. All of them are omnipotent, omniscient and they all have the same love for you. Each and every one of them will share everything they have with you and everybody else up there. Of all beings known to us none has a more hands off attitude towards your right to choose, your agency that God. In all He has ever done and said your agency has been preserved 100%.  Who loves ya, baby?

Heaven, the highest realm of the celestial kingdom. Wow think of it a place where there is no murder, no rape and every child is loved by all adults as if they were their own. It reminds me of the place in China I read about starting on page 167 in the book Sex at Dawn. You can download it for free right here.

The society are called the Mosuo and their group of about 50,000 people has existed for probably over 1000 years. Marco Polo reported about it when he passed through in 1265. The people were still living the same way in 1955. The only thing which has been partially successful in disturbing the peace of these people is the Communist Chinese government’s policy of enforcing monogamy laws via lies and terrorism. Yeah that same government who in the next few years attended to the death and murder of about 60 million of their own people in order to prevent them from using their agency. Who loves ya baby?

The most striking feature of Mosuo society is the fiercely defended sexual autonomy of all adults, women as well as men. There is no marriage as western culture thinks of it. And yet there is another kind of marriage. There is the freedom to be intimate with whatever woman or man you both agree to. The fidelity of this culture is their faithfulness to the agency of each person and the children these relations bring. Any attempt by a member of this culture to require exclusive sexual access to another person is met with intolerance as a very shameful act by the community. In any given night the sexually mature women all sleep in rooms with access to the outside. The women control who is allowed in. They can have several partners in one night or none. The strict requirement is that all of their lovers for the night must be gone by daylight. Also there is strict attitudes of not discussing the loves of the night. The adult siblings live in the same home and the brothers all care for the children borne by their sisters. The men are expected to not sleep in the family house but to go and be with women from other families. If a man is just not up to it he must sleep in another building away from the house. The word for father and uncle are the same. There is a word for mother but the word for aunt is literally “little mother”. The result is a place where there is not even a word for murder or rape. There are also no single moms and uncared for children. Each child is safe and loved in every home in the community. I said there is no marriage as the western culture considers it. Yet there is a joining or marriage of a very real sort. All men are married to all women. No man or woman is without sexual intimacy unless they desire to be without it. There is no competition. None of the women are owned by any man. None of the men are owned by any of the women. There is no divorce or broken homes. No jealousy nor loneliness of lack of intimacy. Who loves ya baby?

Now consider the western (western European and its descendant cultures such as US) culture Judeo-Christian monogamous marriage covenant and the culture it engenders. A covenant has been made to not have deep love for anyone except your spouse. If either spouse does start loving another person and desiring to be intimate with them it is grounds for divorce.

Notice I said if one spouse loves another person not if they have sex with another person? In fact if a spouse has sexual relations to someone other than the other contractual party of the marriage it can sometimes be forgiven if they can convince their contractual partner (spouse) that they didn’t love the other person. But if one spouse says they love the other person deeply and there has been no intimate relations but they will not “repent” of their love for the non contractual person the marriage will certainly be ended by the “innocent spouse”.

The divorce or separation (some legal jurisdictions do allow divorce) very often lead to single parent homes with all the attendant emotional scars of millions of children. Due to the inherent “risks” of marriage in these cultures many people have zero intimacy for the vast majority of their lives and some never experience this blessing for  their entire life. Rape is present if not common. Bitterness, hatred, endless legal wrangling in child custody and divorce matters is a huge part of this society. Huge amounts of resources in time and money are diverted to the legal, logistical  and emotional nightmares of these divorces and separations. And these divorces or separations often cause life long anger and even murder by one spouses in anger over their demands and expectations generated in the marriage contract. These are not isolated events which are only felt by a small minority of the population. All of us have people we know well or work with who have endured the pains and disastrous results of divorce. I had a work associate whose friend was always prone to have intimate relations outside his marriage. His loving wife finally took matters into her own hands got a gun and shot him in the back of the head. The point is it is not such an isolated event. Who loves ya baby?

What if you end up associating with a person who is kind to you. And you are kind to them and you both end up loving each other and wanting to be intimate? Does God frown on us loving someone so much that we want to be intimate with them? Did He frown on it when you started feeling that way toward your present spouse? As a rule through out the history of the world has God prohibited plural marriage? In case you are not sure the answer is no He did not. The ban mentioned Jacob chapter 2 of the Book of Mormon was the exception rather than the rule. Did you know that Joseph Smith taught and practiced polyandry (one woman having more than one husband)? Did you know it was a practice among the people generally until 2300 BC? Did you know it is allowed for in D&C 132? Do these fact make it appear that God also honors our sexual autonomy? Who loves ya baby?

Let’s consider a hypothetical situation (ever wonder what would happen if there were no hypothetical situations?). Suppose you have a friend who is married to another of your friends. So there are two married couples and they all are friends. We will call them couple A and couple B. No suppose one person from A has a lot of very natural association with a person from B. And these two realize they love each other so much they want to be intimate. They want to be the AB couple. Both members of the proposed AB couple still love fully their AA and BB spouse. And both the AB people honor the fact that they both want to retain and always be “married” to the normal spouse. So there is absolutely no thought of tearing apart a small family since they (AB) feel like part of a larger family.

Now imagine yourself as one of the AB couple. So you have someone you love in addition to your spouse. And that person loves you in addition to their spouse. So here is someone who is happy with you loving more than one person. They do not forbid you to marry. But your normal spouse does not give you that sexual autonomy even with some they know and “love”. Who loves ya baby?

Which person’s love is more like the love which God has for us?

And speaking of not being married like the Mosuo people mentioned in Sex at Dawn, I had a thought hit me on the answer of Jesus to the Sadducees regarding resurrection. This is found in Matthew 22 verse 30, Mark 12 verse 25 and Luke 20 verse 35. Because of the words in D&C 132:16 we are lead to think that the people mentioned in the three gospels are all second class non exalted beings or the servant class of those in the highest degree of the Celestial world.

 ”16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.”

As LDS I was always taught that Jesus knew the Sadducees were not going to be converted by His answer, their minds were made up, so He did not give them a straight answer. But the wording in Luke 20 is particularly striking. As I read it this time I could not help but believe that Jesus was not talking about second class angels.

 “35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”

That part, “…they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world,…” sounds and feels to me like Jesus is speaking of the highest degree. The place where they continue to bear children. And with that in mind then look at what it says in Matthew 22.

“ 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

Moroni was certainly worthy to receive the highest glory in the celestial world and he introduced himself as and angel sent from the presence of God. I think Jesus was talking about the real heaven, not a lower servant class people. I could be wrong but I have heard Jesus say some things which were just to mess with people’s heads when the people were not serious about knowing the truth. He wasn’t lying or misleading just planting a thought which could someday make them say, “Now wait a minute, maybe I have been looking at things all wrong.”

And in our Babylonian programmed personal lexicon the word marriage refers to an agency limiting legal agreement. So my point is the angels spoken of in D&C 132 might not be the same angels spoken of in the gospels. The angels referred to in the gospels  might be the exalted ones and in Jesus’ mind there is not “marriage” in the celestial kingdom.

Hey wait a minute what am I talking about? There isn’t any marriage in heaven. Jesus said it straight up. Exactly as the scripture reads it makes perfect sense as applied to those in the highest kingdom.

 “they neither marry, nor are given in marriage…”

“Given in marriage” is when the woman under the mosaic law gave herself to her husband as his property thus limiting her autonomy and preventing her from having another husband. According to Jesus’ own words that law was given for the hardness of the people’s hearts. In other words the men would not have accepted the celestial order.

And so the men also were entering into a non celestial legal agreement. If for no other reason it was non-celestial because it violated the woman’s agency. So when Jesus used those terms He was 100% accurate and the scripture correctly says there is none of that agency limiting garbage going on in the Celestial world.

You might counter with, “Yeah but the Lord referred repeatedly to “marriage” in D&C 132.”  Well he was talking to a bunch of Victorian Era prudes who could not comprehend being joined without an old testament like marriage.

That reminds me of when Gordon B Hinckley once said in giving counsel to the youth and young people of the church, “We do not want you to be prudes.” Haha So way too late for that wish.

The LDS from the time of Joseph on have been the prude’s prude!. But God did want them to enter into life long and in fact eternity long bonds of love. He had to work with what the minds of the people at the time could comprehend. Just like The Written Word post explained.

But no covenant God would be part of would destroy the agency for people to love more than one person. Who loves ya baby?

What do you say? Can we accurately refer to a society which allows all members to be intimate as having marriages? Or are they all just sealed to each other?

 Who loves ya baby?

PS  Some of you might be in the situation described above. You are ready to live plural marriage but your spouse is not. And you might feel like they don’t love you as they should. What to do? Or more importantly how can we view this in a way that does not paint our spouse as the “bad guy” and end up feeling less love for them? Because if we do that then we really are being influenced by a bad spirit.

I believe it helps to realize that most people love others as much as they can. And a love which is less than divine is the result of fear and not being “healed” as Jesus says.  So their healing to see it not as a fearful thing but a great blessing is what we should seek and pray for.


  1. In response to three and four paragraphs ago on marriages.

    While walking up the stairs in the conference center in Independence MO April 1992 during the RLDS conference that year. I heard the voice of Wallace B Smith, church president say “We all belong to each other”. This touched me to my very core, Tears flowed uncontrollably for nearly 10 mins, For at that time I realized this was the essence of the gospel!

    For LDS people at least for me this sums up “the new and everlasting covenant”.D&C 132:6&7.

    Marriage(union)can be defined as Union or one. Where in mormon cosmology is there separation in relation to God, (ourselves)? Wilford Woodruff quoted Joseph Smith as saying “…you have got to learn how to make yourselves God…” (Wilford Woodruff journal April 7 1844) to learn that the whole of mormonism is a, or is the drive to this realization of Union, one, god, because essentially we are God!

  2. So true jon. I believe the most important thing that happens or should happen with sexual intimacy is connection. And it is well known that it can be lifelong connection and by all means it should be.an eternal connection.
    I read an account of a near death experience which related that all creation is God experiencing himself. That sounds a little like it removes us as individuals from being significant self existing beings and was therefore hard to accept. But since reading that I have come to better understand exactly what you said here. We are all God. My father is not me and yet I surely am a part of him and my son is a part of me. Everything my son does I experience in a very real way. And when the blinders of temporal existence are taken off and when we can see as we are seen and know as we are known the experience will be very real and full.
    The point is that “we” meaning all created things are part of one whole therefore eternal truth requires we act like it.
    I believe the biggest stumbling block to living true plural marriage is the refusal of people to allow their spouse to share and that is because they refuse to share their love with others.

    When seen in its proper context sharing is the key to exaltation. I am sure that a refusal or even reluctance to share would bar us from being exalted. If we can conceive that as a future reality then why not accept it as the present reality which it surely must be. So could it be true that the reason we are not presently celestial beings is our reluctance to share?

  3. I read a book some time back on the influence that translation differences between the Hebrew OT and the Greek OT had on the early Christians [who only used the Greek OT] — specifically as it related to writings about sexuality and gender roles.

    I’ll need to find the book to get the quote right — but this post made me think of a part where the authors stated that, in the Greek, the two great commandments of: Love God, and love neighbor are identical to the two dynamics in 1 Corinthians 7:5

    do not deprive each other
    except it be with mutual consent
    and only for a time
    that you may instead give yourselves to God
    in fasting and prayer
    and then come together again
    that satan may not tempt you
    because of your lack of self-control

    that of prayer to God and sexual union with spouse.

    Meaning — the early Christians associated “loving thy neighbor” with “loving thy wife” — in other words, having your neighbor be your spouse.

    You prayed to God to show love/union with him — and you came together with your neighbor as spouses to show love/union with them.

  4. Found the quote from the book I was talking about above. It was pointing out the connection between Ephesians 5:33

    each of you
    should love his wife
    as himself

    and Leviticus 19:18

    you shall love your neighbor
    as yourself

    noting the use of “neighbor” to refer to the Beloved in the Song of Solomon — describing an analogy between the two great commandments, and the need to sometimes be alone to pray and sometimes engage in sexual intercourse with one’s wife.

    From the book, “The implicit association of the latter with love of neighbor is remarkable.”

  5. Notice that self love is prerequisite for any and all of this. Self love is the seed and we never love anyone else without loving ourselves first in that same way. This includes sexually or any other man made category which we call bad. We either feel the love of God coming through us and allow it to flow like Jesus showed us, or we start hacking at it and chopping it up into categories of appropriate and inappropriate. Until we teach ourselves to experience it all as good and stop analyzing it, thereby transmuting love and life into death, then anything that comes out will not be love. The pure love of Christ is all inclusive, all powerful.

  6. As I study and write about this it becomes clear to me that what anonymous said is true. Love is not separated into sexual and non sexual. Love responds to the needs of the person you love. As Gods and the children of Gods we need sexual intimacy to be fulfilled and happy. If you love someone you supply their needs. Intimacy is a part of our connection to all others.
    People who have compartmentalized love end up believing that sexual relations are not love. It makes you wonder what they are planning to do when they account for their lives. How will they justify being intimate with their spouse if it was not love?
    The answer to that boils down to the fact that they really don’t believe the Gods (exalted humans our parents) engage in sexual activity.

  7. ” Of all beings known to us none has a more hands off attitude towards your right to choose, your agency that God. In all He has ever done and said your agency has been preserved 100%.”

    He has often stated that men have their agency, but where has God ever said our agency has been preserved 100%? Perhaps the Adversary has been quite successful in his attempts to take away our agency. Perhaps part of salvation is to have your agency restored to you 100%.

    Something to mull over.

  8. Thanks Jamie for the comment and a good point.
    In my wording saying, “In all He has ever done and said your agency has been preserved 100%.” I am speaking of the actions of God. Nothing He has done has diminished our agency.
    Now the actions and words of Satan et al is a totally different case. Since he turned to evil and became the devil I suppose all of his efforts have been focused on decreasing our agency, not so much decreasing as stealing it, directing to be under his power. He does this by lies which cause fear, which leads to loss of faith, which brings a destruction of truth in our hearts and minds thereby limiting our choices so that we feel there is no choice.
    But Christ is the restorer of faith and truth and the destroyer of the devil for all in due time and for each as soon as we choose His way.
    It is possible that salvation is nothing more or less than to have all or our agency and therefore power restored to us.

  9. God is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. Jacob 2 and 3 are the rule with no exceptions in that polygamy is an abomination unto God. No matter who practiced it even Joseph Smith, Abraham, and Jacob, King David and Solomon. JS was warned against following his “own will and carnal desires or he would fall” which he did. Although he did partially repent until BY and Emma enticed him back to be murdered through BY and his cousin Willard Richards. Hosea Stout took out Samuel Smith a month later, so you are correct about the inside job assassination.
    However, I’m aghast at your wrong conclusions for polygamy and polyandry. Your justification for unification is fornification.without question. Were is the relationship, friendship and unification in one night stands? Jesus Christ taught the sanctity of a marriage between one man and one woman. That’s it! That is the order of Heaven and there is also only ONE GOD! That’s it!
    Horrible thinking without logic. Satan has led you astray in this venue whereas, much of the other writings were inspired whereas this one reeks with insipid aspiritual dire lies! .

  10. In order that you have truthsrestored you need to have truth in the first place. There is not one precept you mention concerning the practice of polygamy that has any support from the scriptures, historical records, the Spirit of God or even scientific research. It is clear that your accusation are being made from things occurring in your own heart and not in the real world.
    I have to say you summed up your comment very well. Horrible thinking without logic.

  11. Satan has led you astray in this venue whereas, much of the other writings were inspired whereas this one reeks with insipid aspiritual dire lies! .

    Even though I think the latter portion of your comment there was meant to compliment — I can’t say that it’s true, if you really believe the former portion to be the case.

    Doesn’t the scripture say:

    for behold
    a bitter fountain
    cannot bring forth good water
    neither can a good fountain
    bring forth bitter water
    a person serving the devil
    cannot follow christ
    and if they follow christ
    they cannot be a servant of the devil


    So if the spirit of Satan is leading the authors of posts in favor of men and women loving more than one spouse at the same time to write such things — how then can the spirit of prophecy and revelation be leading the same authors to write the word of God?

    If the former spirit is leading — then the latter has no portion in us. Correct?

    truthsrestored — there’s a section in the Multihusband-multiwife chapter of the GEMTAM book that specifically expounds on Jacob and polygamy. Have you read it?

    Were is the relationship, friendship and unification in one night stands?

    Where indeed !! You won’t find a contributor here who advocates sexual-swinging. I’m for marriage-unions, all day — every day. We need more relationships, more friendships, more unification, more connections, and more intimacy. That’s for sure !

    Jesus Christ taught the sanctity of a marriage between one man and one woman. That’s it! That is the order of Heaven and there is also only ONE GOD! That’s it!

    There are sections in the GEMTAM chapter linked to above that expound on the subject of marriage in heaven.

    I can tell you [from my personal life] that I have polygynous and polyandrous ancestors — because it is our sealing policy, that once deceased, all men are to be sealed to every wife they had while living — and all women are to be sealed to every husband they had while living.

    So, unless you say we must nullify the proxy-sealings my wife and I have done for our ancestors who practiced serial-monogamy — there are definitely polygamous marriage families in heaven.

    But — there’s more detail on that subject in the GEMTAM chapter I linked to.

  12. The Mormons have used “Eternal Families” to entice insecure individuals who are ignorant of Heaven like yourself. You are not “God in embryo” as there is only One God and humans are made in the image of God only from Intelligences who earned the right as “spirit children”.
    . The truth is that there is not marriage in Heaven as Jesus Christ clearly taught:
    Mark 12:23
    A woman married each of the brother’s of her husband after they each in turn died leaving her a widow seven times. Jesus was asked the question: “In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? For the seven had her to wife”. Jesus chastised his inquisitors, saying in verse 25 that those who die would “neither marry nor are given in marriage.”
    Mark 12: 18-27 (Matthew 22:23-33; Luke 20:27-38),
    When Christ was asked about marriage in the afterlife, Jesus told them that they erred “because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God.” Jesus repeated his condemnation of their ignorance of Heaven and God in verse 27.
    When you throw out some of the lies of the LDS, you need to completely clean the slate of abominable polygamy/polyandry, etc.

  13. Yes — the GEMTAM book chapter expounds a bit on that scripture as well. Methinks you didn’t look at it yet.

    Let me paste the pertinent part below:

    When Jesus says that:

    for in the resurrection
    they neither marry
    nor are given in marriage

    He is indicating that our current model of assigning men and women to relationships of ownership and exclusivity will have an end with this world.

    In the celestial state, all things are held in common and all of the Gods are equal in the bonds of all things, which include the bonds of matrimony. If our Father kept His wives locked away in some celestial harem, then He would be exercising unrighteous dominion — restricting the agency of both His wives and His other children from expressing their love one for another.

    We can continue as we have been, using religion to judge others and reject our God-given sexuality — creating discord, misery, and shame where none should be. Or we could reject the laws of God and throw ourselves into sexual abandon, in temporary sexual connections (swinging/swapping/etc.), which just creates a different kind of discord and misery.

    We, the authors of this work, suggest a third option: using the tribal model to harmonize the two sets of laws by basing tribes on multihusband-multiwife marriages. A tribe should place its marriage practices in harmony with the natural
    sexual order of humans as well as with the word of God, including Joseph Smith’s D&C 132 revelation — rather than pitting one against the other.

    I’ve also read other expositions of those verses, which discuss Jesus’ remarks in context of the audience to whom he was speaking [the scripture takes the time to point out that he was speaking to Sadducees, who believed not in a resurrection at all anyway] — pointing out that this wouldn’t have been the time-and-place to unfold the doctrine eternal marriages, to those who didn’t believe in eternal life in the first place.

    I’ve also heard that his answer relates to our doctrine of vicarious ordinances for the dead on earth: meaning, just like there aren’t baptisms or people being baptized in heaven — but there are baptized people there. So to, there are neither marriages going on or people being given in marriage in heaven — but there are married people there.

    But that’s just to point out the different views people have for interpreting those verses — and that your own conclusion isn’t a cut-and-dry, explicit, or obvious one drawn whole-cloth from the text. I stick by the interpretation to what he said that’s quoted from the GEMTAM [probably because that’s the one that I wrote].

  14. The political false “revelation” addition of D&C 132 to justify polygamy was never sanctioned by Joseph Smith.and is in violation of God’s teaching about marriage. You have not given up all traditions to learn God’s truths. Pouring wine in old bottles does not work. Wipe the slate clean and then let God teach you.

    Your version of a communal love orgy is not of God because you are ignorant of how it really is in heaven. A 3-day profound NDE provided the knowledge which you lack.

    We really will be as children in Heaven with an amazing perspective unlike anything here on this earth. We have also all lived past lives which makes the false concept of “eternal families” a mess, but an attractant to entice the insecure who think they will need someone.

    By the way, there is only ONE God exactly as the Torah, Bible, and original Book of Mormon teaches (Alma 11:23-40, Mosiah 15:1-5, Ether 3:14.) Maybe you need to learn who God Is? And that you are not a “god in embryo”. That is yet another lie based on the ego of men… Good luck!

    I’m writing my book, “The Great and Most Abominable: The Prophetic Cleansing of the Mormon Church” so be willing to be taught by my short time here or stay in the muddy waters.
    Thanks. I really liked one part of your site ~ most impressed until I read this nonsense/ignorance. Way off the path for a Truth Seeker of God!.

  15. The political false “revelation” addition of D&C 132 to justify polygamy was never sanctioned by Joseph Smith.and is in violation of God’s teaching about marriage. You have not given up all traditions to learn God’s truths.

    I was not born a polygamist. I did not grow up as an LDS, nor as a Mormon Fundamentalist. So the doctrine of plural marriage contained in D&C 132 cannot be a “tradition” of mine that I’ve failed to “give up”.

    Quite the opposite. I began my journey with the tradition that God only sanctioned monogamous, heterosexual marriage unions. I started there — and because of the revelations of the Holy Ghost to me, I joined the LDS church and changed my views on what “marriage” *is* [both its purpose for human beings presently on earth — and as it will continue after the resurrection from the dead].

    It seems [in fact] that it’s you who’ve accepted the tradition that D&C 132 has “political false additions” — and you will not consider or accept any other view of D&C 132.

    Pouring wine in old bottles does not work. Wipe the slate clean and then let God teach you.

    It’s you who carry with you a visceral, knee-jerk, out-right rejection of a man or woman loving more than one spouse at a time.

    It’s you who’ve begun your approach here with the “toss out the baby and the bathwater“-like assumption that God would never and could never sanction plural marriages.

    My slate on marriage was perfectly clean when I read LDSA’s posts [How Many Wives? How Many Husbands] and [Establishing the Tribes of Israel: The Real Reason For Plural Marriage]. I was not searching for a justification to have “communal love orgies” when I read “Sex at Dawn“.

    I have never believed in swinging or open relationships. I have always believed in permanent unions between a man and a woman [that is to say, “marriage”]. I used to think that only meant a monogamous nuclear family [one mother, one father, and children] because that was the only model of marriage that I’d ever been shown. That was my “tradition” that I didn’t want to let go of or have changed — but no longer.

    I now believe in the tribe — meaning a group of adults, bound by marriage covenants to each other, and the children that result from those unions.

    I have no interest in whether I’m a “god in embryo” or not — I have no interest in trying to get God on my side so I can have communal orgies. I’m not even interested in practicing polygamy just for the sake of having plural marriages. I don’t even think that monogamous marriages between two people is sinful — or that God commands all people to have plural spouses [as a matter of doctrine or “requirement”].

    I care about community, connectivity, connections, intimacy, and charity. I’m more interested in building tribes than in being polygamous. Polygamy alone [for its own sake], without the tribal aspect carries no interest for me.

  16. You have no spiritual concept of Heaven, but of Hell. I know much through spiritual events (some witnessed by others) and my husband’s profound 3 day NDE preceded by his mother’s three prophetic dreams. God does not compromise and what Christ stated while God was here on this earth as a man (Mosiah 15:1-5) His Spirit remained in Heaven as God the Eternal Father!

    That is why Christ became so frustrated with Philip when Philip asked to see the Father and Christ replied; (possibly not verbatim) “How long have you been with me and yet you ask to see the Father??? Know ye not that when ye have seen me ye have SEEN the Father?”

    There is only ONE God and He (while on this earth) said quite clearly there is no marriage in Heaven. Intelligences who earned to right to be created in the image of God (as spirit children and then incarnated to this earth to learn about free agency with consequences to succeed or to fail) will be lucky to move on in their progression to be adopted as children of God. They have a long way to go while God keeps progressing based on His standards without deviation. Most will regress due to their lack of humility, willing to be taught truth in favor of their own ideas, concepts, and agendas.

    Tribal sex rendezvous without knowledge of the father due to multiple hit and runs is not the order of Heaven!

    Getting to know who God is, would be your best bet for better answers to those you are trying to influence down the wrong path:

    There is sin and there are consequences.since this world is based on Free Agency. Do what you want and believe what you want to believe but you are dead wrong.

  17. I wrote about John 14:4-9 in the post, The Doctrine of Identity:

    Jesus could not show Philip the Father because to point with the finger and say, “See Him, over there, that’s the Father,” is using the left-brain to look.

    Jesus is saying that to look upon Him is to see the Father because Jesus had been doing the miraculous works of the Father. He had been doing the same dance – He had been being the Supreme Being.

    How do we go where Jesus is going? What’s the way? Jesus is the way. If we go about doing the works which He did, having the same mind in us which was in Christ Jesus — not trying to look at God as though He is something to be grasped at, etc. – then we know the Father, have seen the Father, and will be with the Father.

    and in that day ye shall ask me nothing
    verily verily
    I say unto you
    whatsoever ye shall ask the father
    in my name
    he will give it you
    hitherto have ye asked nothing
    in my name
    and ye shall receive
    that your joy may be full

    This doesn’t mean that we may continue to operate in our left-brain – praying “out-there” to God for the things we desire or think we can get, thanking Him for the things we are thankful for, confessing His hand in the things we’ve noticed it in, etc. – and then tag on “the name of Jesus Christ, Amen” – and receive accordingly.

    To pray “in His name” is to stop praying in your left-brain [as your Self] — and start praying as Jesus. To say the words of Christ, to say what He would say.

    It involves identifying ourselves with [or as] Christ in mind and in heart. And that can only come once we’ve denied [or disowned] our Self, taken up our cross, and started doing the same works as Jesus.

    Needless to say — it doesn’t have to do with absolute, ontological mono-theism.

  18. Everything has to do with God. Unless you want to be your own God and do your own thing and discount God’s teachings. Insanity is believing you are a God and that there are many Gods…and that it does not matter.I take it you have not read the scriptures from the Torah, the Bible and the original Book of Mormon which state there is only ONE God and He has taught no marriage in Heaven.

    You don’t know about Heaven spiritually and I do based on spiritual events and a profound 3 day NDE… with pure knowledge backed by God’s teachings.

  19. Well, there you go then…

    I think my previous 4 comments here [which begin with this one, BTW] deal with your objections reasonably well enough.

    So unless you have a specific point from something I’ve asserted in those comments that you’d like to explicitly refute — I suppose you and I will continue to hold to our own line, and readers can come and partake of the marketplace of ideas that is this comment thread.

    As I said previously:

    I have no interest in whether I’m a “god in embryo” or not. I have no interest in trying to get “God on my side” so I can have communal orgies.

    I’m not interested in practicing polygamy just for the sake of having plural marriages. I don’t even think that monogamous marriages between only-two people is sinful — or that God commands all people to have plural spouses [as a matter of doctrine or “requirement”].

    So there’s plenty of room in my heaven for you — but it doesn’t seem like yours would make such a generous allowance for me, LOL.

  20. I think it’s safe to say, in answer to the question, “Who Loves Ya Baby?”
    “Probably not ‘truthseeker'”:D
    But that’s okay, we’re not told to love our neighbor only if they love us right? And I do love you truthseeker, even though you would cast me to hell.

    Apparently NDE’s are the new way of calling prophets? Of course it was her husband who experienced it. So she is a prophetess by association maybe? Unfortunately for her, most of us on this site have cast off the tradition of “trusting in the arm of flesh” So I don’t think any of us would necessarily accept the invitation to

    “be willing to be taught by my short time here”

    Justin I have always admired your ability to be kind and you never seem to take offense. I appreciated it more when I was posting in opposition to your beliefs. But right now I’m thinking you’re being too nice-Lol. This lady is basically saying you’re all a bunch of devilish pigs and unless you learn from her you will “stay in the muddy waters.” Compulsion anyone?

    I guess I’m shocked at the anti-Christ behavior of some folks. Anti-Christ meaning anti-love. I guess I’ll have to publish my own post on “love” I’m thinking of calling it, “Gimme some of that Mormon-hippie love. With a side of anarchy.”

  21. Justin I have always admired your ability to be kind and you never seem to take offense. I appreciated it more when I was posting in opposition to your beliefs. But right now I’m thinking you’re being too nice-Lol.

    I’ve noticed that quite often. Both online and in “real” life, one group can say I’m close-minded, disrespectful, and argumentative — while another group can say I’m open-minded [if not too open-minded], respectful of differing opinions [if not too willing to listen to any other opinion], and genuinely inquisitive towards the views of others.

    I’ve talked with people who think my views on the LDS church are too “apostate” and “critical” for me to be considered mainstream, active LDS — while, when I express those same views to another person, I’ve been told, “I don’t know how you can remain in the corrupt LDS church,” “You’re far too forgiving/lenient with the church“, etc.

    I can recognize different worldviews/perspectives in others as being completely valid — without needing theirs [or mine] to be the “right” one. It’s not that binary to me. Meaning — I don’t think that just because something is “right” and “works” in one context, that it means it needs to be scalable to everyone, in all contexts.

    I’m more concerned with people being free to live lives of integrity, meaning their beliefs express internal consistency. I don’t try to find a One-True answer for how all people ought to live — and I think the search for such an All-True, Correlatable, Scalable, and Marketable is fruitless and leads away from getting towards an answer worth having.

    Any belief-set is potentially a “correct” one from my perspective — even if it opposes my own. When I question/challenge a person on their views, I’m not interested in “proving them wrong” — that’s just me feeling for inconsistencies, providing alternately and equally-valid interpretations of the same data, etc.

    So truthsrestored can say I’m a “devilish pig” and that polygamists have no concept of “real” heaven. That’s an internally consistent claim that’s in-line with her worldview. As soon I realized those were her set-in-stone boundaries of belief — I consented that we had responded to each other well-enough, that all that could be done more was to leave the information here, and let people read and make-up their own minds.

    It’s not personal. I don’t need others to agree with me. Their disagreement with me isn’t a challenge to my belief system. We all have to be free to pattern our own lives according to the experiences and information we’ve received. If you haven’t had my vision, then I can’t expect you to agree with everything I’ve ever said — and vice-versa for you and your beliefs.

    I guess I’ll have to publish my own post on “love” I’m thinking of calling it, “Gimme some of that Mormon-hippie love. With a side of anarchy.”

    I love the title !

  22. Okay truthrestored I have some questions. When I use the word “must” in this series of posits and questions I am saying if one sticks to logic and rational thought then it must follow that….
    I start by placing as a truth that you believe in the Bible. You said you did.
    Then you must believe that God created man and woman in His likeness and image?
    And you must believe that God did in fact command Adam and Eve to engage in sexual intercourse. Or was there some other nonsexual way for them to bring forth offspring?
    Do you believe that humans have strong desires to engage in sexual intercourse. If so what do you believe is the source of these desires. Is the source in our creation and therefore of God or some event after the creation, say the fall and therefore it is of…I don’t know,… well all evil comes from Satan right? Do you think it is evil to have such desires? In other words do you believe enjoying sexual intimacy is an evil thing to do? If so and since evil comes into this world by the devil where or how did the devil manufacture sexual intimacy?
    Do you believe that Jesus experienced life as do the rest of us humans, that he had the same desires to be sexually intimate with women? And if he was tempted in all points as we are and yet remained without sin does that mean He was celibate? And do you believe being celibate is a more holy way of living?
    Do you believe God has a physical body? And since it is obvious that Jesus plainly told and showed the 11 apostles that he had a physical body of flesh and bones a week after He resurrected the question then is where did He drop it off and why?
    The Bible says point blank that Adam was the son of God. So did Adam become a different being and lose that sonship in the fall when maybe he adopted that evil practice of bringing forth children through sexual intercourse?
    So if I am misinterpreting what you believe and you do not believe sexual intimacy is evil then at what point do those who go to heaven cast off from their lives something which was commanded of God and is not evil? And why do they do it?
    But no I think you must believe that there is no sexual relations in heaven because you have plainly said there is no marriage there. And I think that was your euphemism for no sex there.
    So I will sum up my feelings and beliefs in this statement. If God gave humans the desire for sexual intimacy and yet it is a sin then He is the creator of a vast amount of evil. In terms of sheer numbers of events and people effected the devil will never be able to catch up with such a God in producing evil events in this world. And if heaven is a place where there will be no sexual relations forever then I want no part of it.
    But on the contrary it is Hell that has no sexual relations and no marriage of any form because there is no love there.
    I will go to my heaven and you can go to your heaven.

  23. “Notice that self love is prerequisite for any and all of this. Self love is the seed and we never love anyone else without loving ourselves first in that same way.” – That is 100% truth. I felt the fire.
    Whoever posted that, thank you, I may be late to the party in commenting, but thank you.

    I have been reading your blog for a little over two years, and I KNOW that you have the Spirit of God with you. That is without question.

    However, something that may be true for me, may not be true for you. And vice versa. I opened my heart to any and all possibilities of marriage, whether it be tribal, polygamous, polyandrous, monogamous, or any and all other forms, including none.

    God told me that the tribal system of marriage, polygamous, polyandrous… I will not be living. I will be married to my one spouse for eternity. How that accords with the tunes of eternity, I know not. God telling me that statement does not mean it applies to any other person. It only applies to me.

    There is an abundance of truth on this website, there also is on onewhoiswatching, and other blogs… it is up to each of us to find the truth that pertains to us.

    I don’t know much about the next life, nor will I pretend to.

    Marriage in the next life/world/apartment is not what it is here. Marriage in the next world/life/apartment does NOT revolve around sex or gender. It revolves around love.

    That is all I know, I know not how it applies, what it implies.

    And Justin, your last comment here pretty much is in line with truth being personal, not general. I think you actually had an article about that if I remember right.

    And this arguing that is so common, just about everywhere… (mentioning the arguing going on in this particular discussion of the article).

    I feel that we all need to strive to understand one another, that is where I feel most arguments stem from. When we have a conversation with someone how often do we actually listen to them?

    You don’t try to come up with an answer, or response, but you strive to see their point of view. See the world as it makes sense to them. Asking questions and rephrasing what they say to confirm that you understand the meaning they are trying to convey.

    And Justin, I think you do that more often than you think you do, especially when somebody comments with a differing view.

    I have one more thing to comment on. Earlier in the discussion on this article, you stated that you cannot have the spirit of satan and spirit of god at the same time.

    Something that is untrue isn’t necessarily brought by Satan. More often than not, it comes a lack of full comprehension and understanding. So, it would come from man.

    I can say, right now, that eating six ounces of yogurt will not give one a stomachache. Is that true? Not necessarily. Is that false? Not necessarily. A lot of things are in that gray area, it ends up being a personal thing.

    I could also say that those who are in the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms of heaven will not have genitalia. Lets pretend I have no knowledge to back that statement up, I just thought of it so put it out there for people to think about.

    I am most likely not articulating my thoughts as well as I would like to, but I have been sick and have been suffering from a temporary insomnia, probably due to major stress. But I felt prompted to comment on this article, for a reason I know not.

    My comments probably aren’t for you Justin, but maybe they are. I don’t know who might or might not benefit from this. I’d like to think you would, but you do know much more than me (comparing myself to you, which I probably shouldn’t; but in this sense this comparison is giving me a goal of where I would like to be, so I think it is okay).

    Thanks to everybody who posts articles and comments on this website. I’ll try to see if somebody responds to this comment if I can.

  24. Prompted,

    When I said:

    So if the spirit of Satan is leading the authors of posts in favor of men and women loving more than one spouse at the same time to write such things — how then can the spirit of prophecy and revelation be leading the same authors to write the word of God?

    If the former spirit is leading — then the latter has no portion in us. Correct?

    I was speaking directly to something truthsrestored had said about authors on this blog being inspired by the Holy Spirit in some posts, but being led by the devil in other posts. I agree with you that the situation isn’t so binary — there are works inspired by the Spirit of God, the spirit of the devil, and the teachings/understanding of men.

    It’s interesting that you should post your comment now since an anonymous commenter recently got me thinking about the simultaneity of two opposite truths or two opposite conditions existing.

    I would just clarify one thing:

    And Justin, your last comment here pretty much is in line with truth being personal, not general. I think you actually had an article about that if I remember right.

    I would phrase that as “truth is contextual, not general”. Because I think “truth” is definitely objective — it’s just that I think that what’s objectively “true” under one set of conditions is not necessarily “true” under a different set of conditions. In other words, if you have a given set of conditions and you have a given goal/desired-outcome — then (even scientifically) there are indisputably “good” and “bad” ways of achieving your desired outcome within that given context. Saying that truth is “personal” is more along the lines of moral relativism, where I cannot ever say with certainty that something is true/false or good/bad to anyone else. I think it’s true that certain things can be declared good/bad or true/false with certainty, it’s just that what works in one context will not necessarily apply to a different set of circumstances — and God is all about expediency and doing what works (not about Set-in-Stone Rules for everyone).

    Also, I think the post you’re talking about is A person being evil cannot do that which is good — under the subheading, There’s nothing wrong with subjective ethics. I think that …and I’m a Mormon applies to this subject too because there I talked about:

    So, within Mormonism, there is a wide range of possibility for diversity in belief and practice that can be characterized by having different people fill in the following blanks:

    * A Mormon is known for at least always ___________.
    * A Mormon is known for at least never ____________.

    We should not be ashamed to display a bit of a bell-curve variability with respect to what a Mormon looks like, especially considering the subjective morality and the generally ambiguous nature of the standard works [see, Methods of Scriptural Interpretation].

    But institutions patterned after the doctrines and commandments of men [such as corporations] generally dislike such variation — seeking instead to streamline and control naturally variable situations. So, in Mormonism we see things like correlation, the CHI, etc.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s