The brides of Satan


It’s been much too quiet on this blog the last few months, so methinks I’ll stir the pot somewhat and give a little taste of some of the new stuff I’ve been mulling over.

Here is a comparison between heavenly Father’s plan and the one espoused by Lucifer:

Under God’s plan:

Most souls would be saved, some would be lost.

Under Lucifer’s plan:

All souls would be saved.

Under God’s plan:

Moral agency (freedom to choose good and evil) would be retained.

Under Lucifer’s plan:

Moral agency would be removed.

Under God’s plan:

Salvation would be guaranteed on conditions of faith in Jesus Christ and repentance.  (Faith and repentance would be required.)

Under Lucifer’s plan:

Salvation would be guaranteed without conditions.  (Faith and repentance would not be required.)

Under God’s plan:

Mankind would sin and fall.

Under Lucifer’s plan:

Mankind would not sin and fall.

Under God’s plan:

The Only Begotten (Jesus Christ) would come down to earth and suffer and die to atone for sin, saving only those who exercised faith unto repentance.

Under Lucifer’s plan:

The Only Begotten (Lucifer) would come down to earth and, using his almighty power, take full control, saving all mankind.

Under God’s plan:

The potential inheritance would include 3 kingdoms of glory, 1 kingdom without glory (outer darkness), the opportunity to become either gods, angels or devils, and a hierarchy of men over women (see 1 Cor. 11:3) and husbands over wives (see Eph. 5:23).

Under Lucifer’s plan

The potential inheritance would consist of 2 degrees of glory, the top degree inhabited by Lucifer alone as the one singular god and the bottom degree inhabited by everyone else, with full equality for everyone in the bottom degree (i.e., no differentiation between men and women.)

The two plans had gender appeal

Heavenly Father’s plan appealed to male spirits, His sons.  When presented with two options, it is the nature of men to choose the one that offers the greatest return.  That would be God’s plan, which allowed the potential to become gods just like heavenly Father.  Also, spirits would be required to do something (exercise faith and repentance), giving a sense of accomplishment (however small), which men love to feel.  The plan created a challenge to overcome (sin and death) and men love challenges.  Men also love and thrive in untrammeled freedom and this plan granted moral agency.  Lastly, it created kingdoms, with men ruling as kings.  All of these things appeal specifically and directly to the masculine nature.

Lucifer’s plan appealed to female spirits, heavenly Father’s daughters.  When given two options, it is the nature of women to choose the one that appears less risky.  That would be Lucifer’s plan, which guaranteed salvation to all with absolutely no conditions required.  His plan created a sense of safety and security, which women love to feel.  All would be treated equally, with no one (but Lucifer) ruling over anyone else.  Lucifer’s plan appealed directly and specifically to the feminine nature, for women were his target audience.

Which one was the alpha male (in the eyes of women), Jesus or Lucifer?

Jesus Christ would come down in meekness and humility and would suffer and die, saving most but not all of God’s children.  He is even called the Lamb of God.

In contrast, Lucifer would come down and utilize the almighty powers of God to save every last one of us, becoming the only dominant force in existence, everything else being essentially powerless and submissive to him.  He would be very much like a wolf.

Women are by nature attracted to alpha males

Need I say more?

About that one-third that followed Satan…

The devil’s cunning plan was to get every last female spirit child of heavenly Father pair-bonded to him, giving him more than 50% of the vote, and then he could take control of the kingdom.

To explain, here is what we know: one-third of the hosts of heaven followed Lucifer and rebelled against heavenly Father, getting kicked out of heaven with him.  These spirits essentially committed spiritual suicide, suffering a spiritual death, giving all their agency to Lucifer, that he might succeed in his plan.

Now, we do not know how many of these lost (spiritually dead) spirits that went with him (the one-third) were males and how many were females, but we know that there are five possibilities:

The 1/3 were all male.

The 1/3 were all female.

The 1/3 were mixed, a majority being male and a minority being female.

The 1/3 were mixed, a majority being female and a minority being male.

The 1/3 were mixed, exactly half being male and half being female.

Given the fact that Lucifer’s plan appealed specifically and directly to female spirits and their natures and did not appeal at all to male spirits and their natures, it is logical to assume that the 1/3 were all female.

1/3 is also 2/6

Going on that assumption, some interesting things start to show up, when viewing the gospel with this in mind.  First of all, 1/3 of the host of heaven can also be expressed as the fraction 2/6.  As it is more convenient to use 2/6 to show these interesting things, this is what I’ll use from now on.

The heavenly hosts are represented by the fraction 6/6.  Everyone assumes that exactly half of heavenly Father’s children were male and half were female, and it is a good and logical assumption, so let’s go with that.  So, 3/6 were male and 3/6 were female.

Lucifer took with him 2/6 of the hosts, leaving 4/6 behind.  If those 2/6 were all female spirits, that left only 1/6 of the heavenly hosts behind that were female, along with 3/6 of the hosts that were male.  Thus, for every 1 female left behind, there were 3 males also left behind.

Again, Lucifer took 1/3 of the entire host, but 2/3 of the female host—the female host comprised 3/6 of the total and he took 2/6, or two-thirds of that portion—leaving only 1/3 of the female host behind.  This may help to explain why there is a doctrine of polyandry in the D&C 132 text.

Pair-bonding saved the rest

Lucifer, the alpha male, with the alpha male plan, went around recruiting among the female heavenly hosts.  And those who joined with him, joined with him.  In other words, these female spirits pair-bonded to him.  As more females pair-bonded to him, accepting his plan as their own plan, he would become even more attractive to the rest of the un-pair-bonded females, for alpha males always end up having the most females, and Lucifer had more than anyone else.

At some point Lucifer had acquired fully 2/6 of the heavenly hosts, which were 2/3 of the female hosts.  Why couldn’t he get the last 1/6 hosts that were female?  It may have been that while he was preaching his plan and pair-bonding with all the females listening to him, increasing his harem of wives, other females were also pair-bonding with other male spirit children of heavenly Father.  Once pair-bonded to a male spirit, a female spirit didn’t budge.  Where her male went, she went.  As these other males were for Christ, Lucifer could acquire no more female spirits, for there were no more un-bonded females.  2/6 were pair-bonded to him alone, and the other 1/6 were pair-bonded to males who followed Christ.  Thus, Lucifer was frustrated in his plan.

Now, as I stated above, had Lucifer gotten all the females, he would have been able to overpower God and wrest the kingdom away from him.  That is because 50% (all the female spirits) + 1 (Lucifer) is the tipping point.  Once he had all this agency given to him, he could overpower the rest.

Evidence that this may be correct

The endowment shows that the devil tempted Adam first and failed, but had full confidence that Eve would fall.  He then tempted Eve and succeeded.   He then got her to tempt Adam and succeeded in getting him to fall, by tempting him through his pair-bonded partner.  The devil is highly skilled at tempting and using women when they are apart from men, but he fails when they are pair-bonded and cleaving to them (for Adam and Eve clave to each other after the fall and the devil could do nothing against them.)  This shows that Satan has a very deep understanding of women and is more skilled at tempting them than at tempting men.

Another evidence is that the kingdom of the devil, called Babylon, and also the church of the devil, also called Babylon, is always spoken of in female terms.  She is the whore of all the earth, the mother of harlots, committing fornication with the nations.  It may be that this is not just symbolism, but a direct reflection of the fact that the angels of the devil, which comprise his kingdom, are all female spirits.

Now, there is more evidence I can present and many more things I can say about this, but I just wanted to give a small taste.  If I have more time I will put all the new stuff online and tie it all together, but this should be sufficient to ponder about, especially as one considers the possible implications.  Lastly, this is all conjecture.  I haven’t received revelation on this, though it does make a certain sense to me.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Advertisements

65 Comments

  1. Oh boy. You are certainly stirring the pot on this one, my friend. Batten down the hatches. Things are gonna get real nasty real quick.

  2. I stopped reading about 1/2 way because both plans actually sound cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Guess that’s it. Not much of a believer anymore.

  3. I believe the wording is “a third part”, not “one third”. The difference could be quite significant. I could be wrong.
    Those gender desires/tendencies are very common throughout the entire animal kingdom among the two genders. They might have something to do with the physical body and not necessarily the spiritual body.
    I’ve always enjoyed your writings on this blog, especially because of how you reference scripture, but I’ll be honest, there is so much assumption in this post that I might be dumber for having read it. I’d like to ponder it but don’t think I’d have any idea how to – the whole foundation of the discussion seems to assume too much. But I’ll keep coming back. I really enjoy contemplating most the ideas you express.

  4. This is pretty far out there and I don’t think there is much of a groundwork available to support your conclusions.
    I believe we all are immortal, spirit entities who have always had agency and autonomy even though our power to exercise it was limited. God gave us the opportunity to be more and to be more like him and we agreed to participate in his plan due to His advanced state when compared to our own. And when we agreed to that we became His spirit children by some process. What that change might have entailed I have no idea but I believe we each chose it because we saw it would benefit us to do so.
    As such I don’t think our spirits were originally male or female, as sex is a characteristic which has to do with having a physical body for the purpose of procreation.
    Why would an immortal, bodiless spirit have a sex in the first place? For what purpose? I think being male or female, or whatever a person thinks they are, is purely a function of this mortal probation and will not continue after this life is over.
    A God who controls all matter doesn’t need a female God to help him make a baby.

  5. I found it all interesting — but it hinges on the truth of: (a) Satan being a primo/quintessential “alpha male” and (b) all females “by nature” being attracted to alpha males.

    I find stockonder’s question about gender more engaging — because I think LDS immortalize gender and give it a key role in the gospel, but at the same time it’s obviously seems more complex than the simple binary model we thought it was back in the 19th century. So it’s something I still think about …

  6. The only problem with this theory is that is consistently men who form and seek out secret combinations, with few exceptions almost all “secret societies” that are fronts for idol worship and human sacrifice are filled with men, not women. Also, lamech’s wifes refused to have anything to do with his pact with the devil, and the scriptures imply it was kept secret from women from that time forward. If women were more disposed to follow men why do so few of them support build up and join these secret combinations?

  7. Stockoneder: why does god have a wife then, if not to raise up seed? Isn’t this the purpose in pairing with someone of the opposite sex? Heavenly mother is very much your mother and father planted a seed in her that you grew into.

  8. This post didn’t resonate with me at all.

    I am inclined to move toward what Stockonder was saying. I have been pondering a lot over the last year or so as to what “gender is eternal” means. What makes you a certain gender? Genitals? People are born with both sets at times. Chromosomes? We see a third one get in from time to time making you neither male or female. Hormones? Bodies misproduce hormones all the time. Also, we can alter levels by taking additional hormones. Characteristics? I have certainly met people who are males but act feminine and females who act masculine.

    I am starting to see ourselves as a blended eternal being who manifests itself differently at different times throughout it’s etarnal journey. I have given up the belief that women will be getting celestialy pregnant and birthing spirit children to populate the planets we will create.

    So if we don’t need to have sex in the sense that we view it now, then why is enforcing an eternal gender paradigm so important.

    To me it seems that it is the last “doctrine” we can hold on to to justify our current stance on homosexuality.

  9. Where does it say in the scriptures God has a wife? Don’t believe there is a heavenly mother at all.
    Lectures on Faith teach that God created everything in the Universe which was created and there is no mention of a heavenly mother being necessary or a part of that process. I think that idea is false
    doctrine created by the polygamists to humanize God and justify their sin and abominable belief in eternal polygamy which is also false doctrine.
    If God is all powerful then why would he need help to have children? Why couldn’t he just create them by organizing matter and element? Why would He be dependent on somebody else to make His plan possible?
    He didn’t create our spirits as they are eternal and thus uncreated.
    I think we became his children not by some birthing process in the heavenly womb of a mother goddess, but by a process similar to adoption. We agreed to participate in His plan because we saw it would benefit us and we would become more by doing so. Don’t really know what the process of going from eternal spirit to spirit children was and it appears nobody else does either. Maybe it wasn’t a physical change at all but merely an adoption.
    So I think being male and female is just an earthly condition necessary to make the process of procreation possible.

  10. Please tell me this is satire and not what you really think.

  11. Umm… this confuses me:

    Women are by nature attracted to alpha males

    Need I say more?

    First off, what is an “alpha male”?

    Most of what I can find on it suggests that it is a man who is dominate and aggressive. And it looks as if that is how thou has characterized Satan.

    Secondly, what in women’s nature attracts them to these men?

    I don’t know about other women, but I find it exhausting to be around men like that. I feel like I have to constantly keep my guard up and can’t relax. Like I need to constantly be on the watch for an attack. And I also don’t like it when it feels like there is a power imbalance, even with friends. With a power imbalance there is no give and take, which is what I have seen modeled in healthy marriages.

    The things I am looking for in a man are 1) low probability of ADHD, 2) self confidence, and 3) the ability to keep up with my talkativeness. And in general I am not fond of those who are easily swayed after making an informed decision (but that might also go along with self-confidence).

    And thirdly, how has thou come to this thought? What is it about the women around thee, scientific research, or the Gospel that has lead thee to think this?

    We need a little more understanding of thy view on this to better understand what is being implied about/with Satan. Some scientific research backup would be nice, but gospel backup would be better.

  12. […] past week, I actually saw a post in my RSS feed titled “The brides of Satan.” i am not paraphrasing. I am not making this up. I actually saw a blog post where the […]

  13. magpiesprings wrote:

    I believe the wording is “a third part”, not “one third”. The difference could be quite significant. I could be wrong.

    Check the biblegateway.org site for other English translations of the Bible. Look up Revelations 12:4, I believe, and you’ll see in other translations that it says, “a third of the stars of heaven.” Now, a third = one third = 1/3.

  14. Justin wrote:

    I found it all interesting — but it hinges on the truth of: (a) Satan being a primo/quintessential “alpha male” and (b) all females “by nature” being attracted to alpha males.

    and pinkrose89 wrote:

    Umm… this confuses me:

    Women are by nature attracted to alpha males

    Need I say more?

    First off, what is an “alpha male”?

    and also:

    Secondly, what in women’s nature attracts them to these men?

    pinkrose89, since you looked on the Internet for info on alpha males, I decided to follow your example and see what I came up with. After performing an Ixquick search for “what is an alpha male,” the very first entry was the following from wisegeek.org, which I will quote in its entirety and then comment on it afterward:

    What is an Alpha Male?

    An alpha male is the dominant male in a community or group. Zoologists and related scientists typically use the term to describe top-ranking male animals, but people also apply it to human beings, typically referring to adult men rather than boys. In either case, an animal or person with this label usually is an excellent leader who is well-respected or feared, and who receives social privileges, such as better access to food or more attention from potential mates.

    Main Characteristics

    In general, an alpha male is physically strong or well built, and he has some traits that others — especially females — find beautiful or attractive. He is not mean, per se, but he is willing to fight aggressively, physically if need be, for what he has and wants, and to maintain his status. Most of the time, he is confident and is very capable of protecting the others in the group.

    Some additional characteristics apply for people. Many individuals associate being the dominant male with money, because a solid financial status usually lets a person engage in more activities, meet more people or acquire things others want and admire. Potential partners also usually like to see that a man is in a good financial position before they commit to a relationship with him. Men with this title typically are very well groomed, like being the center of attention, act both suave and cocky, excel at sports and are able to get along with many different types of people. Traditionally, others might usually describe him as a “lady’s man” or a “man’s man,” indicating how most women are attracted to him, and how most men want to be like him and look to him for behavioral cues.

    Rise to Status

    Much of the time, alpha males achieve their status as a result of using their physical strength to overpower weaker competitors. They also sometimes use superior intelligence to outwit others, which is very common with men due to the fact that many cultures do not promote open violence — sometimes this manifests as verbal threats or psychological manipulation. A male may also fall into a position of leadership and authority by default, such as if the other males in the group die.

    Challenges

    In many species, becoming a leading male does not guarantee that an animal can keep that position. Young, strong or ambitious challengers often try to take over the role, usually by physically fighting for it. These confrontations can take an enormous toll on the alpha, who must constantly be on the defense, and in nature, injuries gained can be fatal. Death usually doesn’t occur with men, but it can if a fight severely escalates, and many individuals simply are not willing to take on the risks and stress associated with the role, despite the benefits that are possible.

    Stepping Down

    When one of these males gets older, he might willingly step down as the official leader of the group. A good example is an aging businessman who resigns so that his top executive or main apprentice can take over, but this behavior happens in the wild, as well. It usually occurs because, on some level, he knows that someone else can do a better job or because he no longer wants the responsibility of leadership due to health or personal reasons.

    Sexual Behavior

    Sexual behavior for a dominant male depends to a great extent on the social behavior of the exact species to which he belongs. Some animals, such as wolves and gibbons, form pair relationships that can be lifelong, and those in a pair generally do not mate with anyone else. Other animals, such as bonobo monkeys and elephant seals, are known for their promiscuity. Many other species fall somewhere in the middle, with an animal having more than one partner but choosing one that he prefers over the others.

    With great physical stature, attractiveness and leadership abilities, these males are in a perfect position to take their pick of the available partners, who tend to be more willing to mate with them than with other members in the group. They also usually are able to control the ability of other males to mate, which makes a larger number of potential partners available, and which makes it easier for them to form several sexual relationships at a time.

    Some zoologists see the genetically-influenced desire to mate as a major reason why males in a group exhibit alpha characteristics, and it is certainly true that being able to be selective about or have multiple partners directly affects the number of offspring and the genetic traits that get passed on. Even so, this concept gets a little muddy with people, because the reasons why being the “top dog” makes someone happy are often psychologically and culturally complex. Men often have other reasons for trying to be dominant, such as wanting to impress others or climb the corporate ladder.

    In many societies, it is not acceptable to have more than one sexual partner at a time, usually for moral, religious or economic reasons. Additionally, many women prefer sensitive partners who are willing to discuss their feelings, traits not usually associated with dominance. As a result, alpha men who “sleep around” aren’t always free from criticism. Experts have questioned whether these individuals can retain mates because of the way their natural drive conflicts with other social constructs.

    Beta Males

    The majority of species feature beta males, who essentially are second in command. They help the dominant male do whatever it is he wants or needs to do, and in some species, the beta takes over if the leader dies or can no longer fulfill his duties. In this sense, they can be considered “in training,” but there is no guarantee that they will become the new alpha.

    The term “beta” does not have quite the same connotation for men as it does for other animals. People often use it to describe someone who is the exact opposite of an alpha — that is, a man who is whiny, gives up easily, is emotionally very sensitive and who lacks physical attractiveness or strength. It is sometimes used as a euphemism for the stereotypical “nerd,” who generally is socially inept and who is overpowered easily.

    Female Counterpart

    Dominant females in a group are alpha females. They often pair and mate with the dominant males, usually leading alongside them. Sometimes, however, they assume complete leadership for the group, depending on the species and whether there are any males available who could assert a degree of authority. Although they can rise to this position through physical, emotional or verbal force, they sometimes do so simply because an alpha male has selected them as a mate, developing leadership by association. A powerful man, for example, might have a “trophy wife,” whom others respect and follow just because she is married to the alpha.

    Although the Gentiles may debate whether there is any such thing as a human “alpha male,” in LDS theology, and according to LDS doctrine (meaning the scriptures), among the spirit children of heavenly Father, there are only two alpha males. The first and true alpha male, is Jesus Christ, the Firstborn and Only Begotten Son of God:

    i am alpha and omega
    christ the lord
    yea
    even i am he
    the beginning and the end
    the redeemer of the world (D&C 19:1)

    Alpha (Jesus) was chosen by God from the beginning to be the alpha male, but when God asked, “Whom shall I send (to be the Only Begotten),” both Jesus and Lucifer responded. Alpha (Jesus) was chosen to be the alpha male, which pissed Lucifer off. He then rebelled, becoming a second alpha.

    Now, in any community or group, there can only be one alpha male who dominates, and that was/is Alpha (Jesus), but Lucifer established in the pre-mortal existence a pack of wolves among the fold of Alpha’s sheep, making two folds with two shepherds (two alpha males). Notice Alma’s teachings concerning wolves, sheep, folds and shepherds:

    for what shepherd is there among you
    having many sheep
    doth not watch over them
    that the wolves enter not and devour his flock

    and behold
    if a wolf enter his flock
    doth he not drive him out
    yea
    and at the last
    if he can
    he will destroy him
    and now i say unto you
    that the good shepherd doth call after you
    and if you will hearken unto his voice
    he will bring you into his fold
    and ye are his sheep
    and he commandeth you
    that ye suffer no ravenous wolf to enter among you
    that ye may not be destroyed (Alma 5:59-60)

    And this is exactly what happened to Lucifer and his newly established pack of wolves, for he and his angels were driven out from heaven and cast down to earth, for a time. Eventually, though, again according to Alma’s words, the devil will be destroyed and he and his angels burned:

    i
    having accomplished and finished the will of him whose i am
    even the father
    concerning me
    having done this
    that i might subdue all things unto myself
    retaining all power
    even to the destroying of satan and his works at the end of the world (D&C 19:2-3)

    So, the wolf and his pack will eventually be destroyed, so that once again there is only one alpha male and only one fold of sheep. But in the meantime, from the day of Lucifer’s rebellion to now, there are two folds and two shepherds (two alpha males). Again, quoting Alma:

    and now
    if ye are not the sheep of the good shepherd
    of what fold are ye

    behold
    i say unto you
    that the devil is your shepherd
    and ye are of his fold

    and now
    who can deny this

    behold
    i say unto you
    whosoever denieth this
    is a liar and a child of the devil (Alma 5:39)

    Now, according to the article above, an alpha male

    “is the dominant male in a community or group”—That fits both Jesus and Lucifer, for their respective folds.

    “is an excellent leader who is well-respected or feared”—That fits both Jesus and Lucifer, for their respective folds.

    “receives social privileges”—That fits both Jesus and Lucifer. John the Baptist said that Jesus was “preferred” before him, and that equally applies to us all, for Jesus is “preferred” before us all. Lucifer, on the other hand, is the only one in his fold that has social privileges.

    has “more attention from potential mates”—That fits both Jesus and Lucifer, which I will explain later.

    “is confident and is very capable”—That fits both Jesus and Lucifer.

    “likes being the center of attention”—That fits both Jesus and Lucifer.

    “most women are attracted to him, and…most men want to be like him and look to him for behavioral cues”—That fits both Jesus and Lucifer, for their respective folds.

    has “strength to overpower weaker competitors”—That fits both Jesus and Lucifer.

    has “superior intelligence to outwit others”—That fits both Jesus and Lucifer.

    sometimes uses “verbal threats or psychological manipulation”—That fits both Jesus and Lucifer.

    Lucifer was a challenger to Alpha’s status. This, again, accords to the article on alpha males. Although he lost the challenge, he ended up taking over the role anyway, for his own fold of evil sheep.

    The article then talks about the sexual practices of alphas, and yet again, we see a perfect match both with Jesus and with Lucifer.

    With great physical stature, attractiveness and leadership abilities, these males are in a perfect position to take their pick of the available partners, who tend to be more willing to mate with them than with other members in the group. They also usually are able to control the ability of other males to mate, which makes a larger number of potential partners available, and which makes it easier for them to form several sexual relationships at a time.

    In the case of Alpha, He gets to mate with all the females who become exalted. All such females will become brides of Christ. This is according to the law of sacrifice, the principle of charity and also according to the husband/wife relationship that Christ has with His church as found in Ephesians 5 and other scriptures. And this is as it should be, according to the hypergamic nature of women. (Now, I don’t want to take the time to expound this stuff, so this is all I will say about it. Maybe someone else who also understands it can expound on it. Unfortunately, these days my time is awfully limited.)

    In the case of Lucifer, he is god of his fold, and over his angels. Although they are devils, just like him, and although they are like unto him in misery and wickedness, yet they serve him as his angels and he rules over them as their god and thus he decides everything. This means he gets the pick of the available women, or, in other words, because of his selfish nature, all available females in his pack are his mates, and mates of no one else. There is no sharing done in his fold, and this according to his principles of wickedness.

    Now, we know that the one-third were not all males, for there must have been at least one female spirit among them, so we can cross off the first listed option (the 1/3 were all males). How do we know this? Because the devil is the father of lies and the father of the sons of perdition. He is called Perdition, and his sons bear his name (Perdition). But there never was a father without a mother, therefore, there must, of necessity, be a mother to these sons of perdition. The question, then, is not if there were any females in his pack, but how many (or what percentage).

    The only wicked mother mentioned by God’s prophets is the mother of abominations, the mother of harlots, the whore, who is called Babylon. Yet Babylon is spoken of in both singular terms, as a singular mother, and also in plural terms, as the tares:

    the mother of abominations…is the tares of the earth (D&C 88:94)

    Satan sows the tares, and it is the tares (Babylon) that commit fornication with the nations. Now, the angels of the devil are a plurality, and the tares are a plurality, so they may be one and the same. Yet they are called a singular mother. This may be the devilish equivalency of the oneness of the Godhead, for the kingdom of the devil is not divided.

    Anyway, if the above brides of Satan model is correct, then Lucifer, as the alpha male of his fold, mates with the entire 1/3, the entire fold of females. But even if there are some males in his fold, he still will mate with however many females are in the fold and the other males would be excluded, according to the selfishness of Satan. Any way you look at it, the alpha male model holds up when looking at Lucifer (and also Jesus).

    Some zoologists see the genetically-influenced desire to mate as a major reason why males in a group exhibit alpha characteristics, and it is certainly true that being able to be selective about or have multiple partners directly affects the number of offspring and the genetic traits that get passed on.

    This may be the very reason for Lucifer’s challenge of Jesus and his subsequent rebellion. He wanted his genetic code and traits to be the one passed on, and not that of Jesus and heavenly Father. He thought of himself, how he was, to be the superior makeup. If so, then taking female spirits as his fold makes more sense than taking male spirits. Yet another thought to consider…

  15. This may be the devilish equivalency of the oneness of the Godhead, for the kingdom of the devil is not divided.

    The Godhead consists of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (a female Personage). It is interesting, if the brides of Satan model is correct, that Satan’s evil godhead ends up being, father (of lies, even the devil), sons (of perdition), and evil spirits (the female angels to the devil). It is a counterfeit model that approximates, but does not exactly match the original Godhead pattern.

  16. pinkrose89 asked,

    And thirdly, how has thou come to this thought? What is it about the women around thee, scientific research, or the Gospel that has lead thee to think this?

    This thought is the back end of that research I mentioned in some comments earlier, that I wrote 50+ pages on, which I have privately taught, but not yet published on this blog. I think I’m at about 70 pages now, but still unable to make it into a single post without repeating thoughts, since the thoughts over-lapped as I researched more, and I don’t like putting up stuff that repeats or regurgitates what I’ve previously written. So I am trying to streamline it, so that it is a cohesive whole and not a string of related principles. In other words, I want the information to flow from a foundation to the finer points, but my notes tended to put down everything, as I saw the connections, regardless whether it was a foundational concept or a more advanced one. To me the notes make perfect sense, but to someone else, they would be entirely lost, so I’ve got to re-write the whole thing, somehow, so that someone other than me can learn it from the first to the last principle. Now, I can teach it in person, and have done so, using the spoken word, and can jump around as is necessary to show all the various connections to all the other principles, just as my notes are written, and it works using the spoken word, but with the written word, its too repetitive. I may just end up scrapping the whole thing and not put it up on the blog, after all. I haven’t decided, yet. But anyway, the brides of Satan information is, like I said, just a side note, or last note, after having researched all the other stuff. It is conjecture, as I stated in the OP, that the one-third are all females, but that conjecture is based upon my other understandings, including the new understandings I’ve gained in the newest, unpublished research, and as a result, this is what my mind points to as a conclusion.

    The only reason I published this small tidbit of information was because it was a new thought, for I had never heard of anyone even claim such a thing, nor even mention it as a possibility, in the church. The only thing I’ve ever heard said is that the one-third is likely composed of all male spirits, because females are so much more spiritual beings than males are. Because of that, that it has never been mentioned before, and thus was new, and also because I like to have fun with people who are stuck in one way of thinking, for everywhere is preached how much more noble is a woman than a man, and thus releasing this information might shake people out of their stupor, and also because the info actually makes logical sense to me, based on my current understandings, which nobody knows except those to whom I have shared some of the new info with, and finally, because this info about the 1/3 does not divulge the new research, for I do not wish to speak of the new research until I can adequately address it as a detailed and lengthy post. For these reasons I decided to release this brides of Satan model. Finally, I released it now because this blog has been dead for some time, and I felt it needed an injection of life in it.

    Now, like everything else I’ve written, I suppose that no one will believe it, or even understand it, unless I fully expound it, (and even then they still won’t believe it), but to do that I need to get into the other stuff, which I’m not ready to do. But I just wanted to give a taste of something, for I was tired of the same old same old among Mormon blogs, everyone rehashing the same nonsense, with no one coming up with a single new thought. (At least from my perspective.) So, I decided to give a new thought, which I knew wouldn’t go down very well. Still, compared to the other, unpublished research, this brides of Satan model is fairly easy to swallow.

    Therefore, in conclusion, I am sorry that I can’t, at present, directly answer your question about the other research, or at least I won’t do so until I have a document written that fully explains it, which at present I do not have.

    P.S. I got a question for you, though. Why do you use “thee, thy, and thou” in your comments? I’m curious.

  17. It is a place for me to practice using second person singular pronouns. When I started looking into the difference between thou and thee and ye and you, I realized that I would have to practice using them to better understand how they are used when being read. Now, given that most people are confused by them, especially if I screw them up in real-time conversation, the written word is one of the few places to practice. Plus, I can think a word string using ‘you’ and then go over it again and put the thous, thees, & thys in the right places depending upon the subject, object, and possessiveness. Many times if I am unsure of which is subject and which is object or if thy or thine should be used, I will substitute in first person singular pronouns to figure out what sounds right. It is also a part of my overall efforts to better understand grammar and the use of the written word.

  18. stockoneder wrote:

    As such I don’t think our spirits were originally male or female, as sex is a characteristic which has to do with having a physical body for the purpose of procreation.

    Why would an immortal, bodiless spirit have a sex in the first place? For what purpose? I think being male or female, or whatever a person thinks they are, is purely a function of this mortal probation and will not continue after this life is over.

    A God who controls all matter doesn’t need a female God to help him make a baby.

    and Justin wrote:

    I find stockonder’s question about gender more engaging — because I think LDS immortalize gender and give it a key role in the gospel, but at the same time it’s obviously seems more complex than the simple binary model we thought it was back in the 19th century. So it’s something I still think about …

    Before anyone can answer these questions, should it not first be established whether the spirit children of heavenly Father had a sex in the pre-mortal existence and whether they will have a sex in post-mortal life?

    stockoneder, you obviously do not believe so, but what does the word of God (the scriptures) say about this? Are the scriptures unclear on this issue?
    Justin, what do you think? Do you believe the scriptures paint us having a sex in pre- and post-mortal life, or is the issue too cloudy?

    I don’t think it useful to speculate on the purpose of a pre- and post-mortal sex if there isn’t even a sufficiency in the word of God to indicate that this is the reality. If, however, the word of God indicates a pre- and post-mortal sex, then I don’t think it is useful and wise to disbelieve in such just because one cannot understand the purposes of God in such creations.

    After all, we must apply the principle across the board, that “a God who controls all matter doesn’t need [anything at all] to help Him [do anything at all].” So, since He needs nothing at all to do all things, this is not any reason for why He shouldn’t use [this] for [that purpose.] He can do whatever He wants, according to His purposes and will and pleasure, right? So, first ascertain what is, then ascertain why it is, in other words, His eternal purposes in why it is the way it is.

  19. Anonymous wrote:

    The only problem with this theory is that is consistently men who form and seek out secret combinations, with few exceptions almost all “secret societies” that are fronts for idol worship and human sacrifice are filled with men, not women. Also, lamech’s wifes refused to have anything to do with his pact with the devil, and the scriptures imply it was kept secret from women from that time forward. If women were more disposed to follow men why do so few of them support build up and join these secret combinations?

    In the pre-mortal life there were no secret combinations. Everything was out in the open and no one could deceive or blind anyone else’s mind. We walked by sight, not by faith. God Himself, who knows all things, was in plain sight of all things, so there could be no secret combinations. In mortality these things could exist, for God, who is currently hidden from us, allows such to exist for a time, but they could not exist in the open heavens.

    Still, it is quite an inventive thought, that secret combinations could exist in the heavens where God dwelt.

  20. Bren wrote:

    So if we don’t need to have sex in the sense that we view it now, then why is enforcing an eternal gender paradigm so important.

    To me it seems that it is the last “doctrine” we can hold on to to justify our current stance on homosexuality.

    It is doctrinal if the word of God (the scriptures) indicates that there is an eternal gender paradigm. If the scriptures do, in fact, make such an indication, then it is doctrinal, or part of our doctrine. (In other words, then it is the truth.) And if it is doctrinal, and thus the truth, would it not be important for the latter-day saints to enforce it, meaning to proclaim it as what it is, a doctrine of God? If it is a doctrine of God, then there is a purpose to is, for He gives purpose to all things that He ordains. So, if we dropped the ball and said that this particular important point is not important (or serves no purpose), would this not be going against the purposes of God? Are not all His purposes important?

    But these questions presuppose that there is an eternal gender paradigm. The first question that must be answered is, does the word of God (the scriptures) establish this fact? If not, then you are free to disbelieve it or believe other theories. If so, than disbelieving it shows that you care nothing of the truth.

    I don’t have an agenda, therefore, I just want the truth. I think it was brother Boyd (K. Packer) who once said that not all truths are useful. When you have an agenda, and you come across a truth that contradicts or fights against your agenda, those who have an agenda find it convenient to merely disbelieve the truth or otherwise hide it and cast it aside, that others do not believe the truth. Those who just want the truth, will conform to it.

    A man with an agenda, who cares nothing about the truth, who only wants to have the truth conform to his agenda, otherwise it is not useful to him, choosing instead to believe lies that promote his agenda, recently said, “I don’t feel a reason to justify that God felt [a particular] way, and then to justify why God felt [a particular] way. Because instead, my feeling is that if God exists, he either doesn’t feel [a particular] way or he is not worth my time.” Now, this man is an unbeliever, and only wants a god that is made in his own image, who conforms or does the things that he thinks a god should do. But this is not the way to approach truth. If something is the truth, conform to it. If not, do not conform. God is a God of truth, therefore, we are to learn about Him and conform to Him, not Him to us. The devil, on the other hand, is a god of lies, therefore, those who worship or subject themselves to the devil get the devil to conform to them, just as Cain did:

    And Satan sware unto Cain that he would do according to his commands. (Moses 5:30)

    So, these are opposite principles.

  21. JT wrote,

    Please tell me this is satire and not what you really think.

    This is not satire.

  22. Justin, what do you think? Do you believe the scriptures paint us having a sex in pre- and post-mortal life, or is the issue too cloudy?

    LDS theology certainly describes a gendered existence before we came to earth — and a world where our pre-mortal gender then goes on to inform our mortal and post-mortal paths. But the scriptures speak very little with regard to the pre-mortal life in general, and especially in regards to gender identity specifically.

  23. LDSA,

    I think your comment certainly addressed my point (a) — so let’s say it’s given that Satan can be considered an archetypal “alpha male”.

    But I think that point (b) still remains to be shown. Certainly you could admit that males are just as likely to follow a strong alpha male leader as women are [keeping the same 1:1 gender ratio]? I’ve never believed in the “no women followed Satan in the pre-mortal life” pseudo-doctrine, but I don’t think that demonstrating that Satan counts as an “alpha male” counts as demonstrating that the entire one-third from the Pre-mortal Council were all women.

  24. It makes absolutely no sense that an eternal, autonomous, spirit entity would have ever have had a sex.
    For what purpose?
    Sex is a function of procreation, which is only a function of existing on this earth in mortal form.
    Spirit isn’t a product of sex. Neither is element.
    All spirits have always existed and thus were never birthed in any way.
    So if one is supposedly going to be procreating for eternity what will one be giving birth to?
    JS said spirits are eternal and weren’t created at all, nor can they be.
    So the real question is how did we as spirits, become the spirit children of God? What does that mean?
    What did it entail? As a spirit, becoming a spirit child doesn’t necessarily require undergoing any physical change for that to happen.
    It could have been just as simple as an adoption.
    And as an autonomous spirit that adoption would have then been a chosen one, right? We always had agency.
    Agency is a function of intelligence, sentience and autonomy.
    I find it silly to think that we were birthed into becoming spirit children in the heavenly womb of a goddess.
    Why would that have been necessary? How many spirits could that heavenly womb hold at a time and how long
    would that gestation period have needed to last? So how long would it take to birth billions(trillions) of spirit children? Where is the scripture that supports this idea?
    But more importantly, God controls the elements and He could make any necessary physical change Himself required for our spirits to go from a spirit to a spirit child. He’s God. Why couldn’t He? So why would he have to submit to the will of another(goddess or goddesses) for His will to be done? Then He wouldn’t be all-powerful or all-knowing. He would be dependent on a female to LET Him implement His plan. No scripture supports that doctrine and all refute it.
    I think the key to His plan for us is this scripture:
    Doctrine and Covenants 93:33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

    Look at the words “inseparably connected”.
    What does that mean to you?
    To me it means once we are resurrected and have an immortal body, made up of eternal elements inseparably fused to our eternal
    spirits, we will not be anything like we are now, as humans.
    We won’t have blood or fluids, or breathe and we won’t eat or drink. Thus we will have no eliminations of any kind as that would mean
    our elements and spirit are NOT inseparably connected and God doesn’t lie. Moses 4:30 For as I, the Lord God, liveth, even so my words cannot return void, for as they go forth out of my mouth they must be fulfilled.

    That also means we will probably not have sex, or at least not any sex like the kind of sex we have on earth, as sex involves fluid(elements) leaving our bodies and among other things also requires blood in order to be possible .
    This effectively destroys any argument promoting and especially requiring plural marriage and eternal child bearing in the next life. Releasing sperm and eggs from our resurrected bodies would Not be possible if elements and spirit are inseparable connected. So why would we even have them? Having a baby would also be impossible to reconcile with verse 33.
    And following that line of reasoning we most likely would be neither male or female, since that is a function of being able to procreate.

  25. […] past week, I saw a post in my RSS feed that was actually titled “The brides of Satan.” I am not paraphrasing. I am not making this up. This is an actual, real life blog post […]

  26. Justin,

    But I think that point (b) still remains to be shown.

    Then that is what I will address next, I guess. Here is point (b) again:

    (b) all females “by nature” being attracted to alpha males

    Now, here is the next question you posed:

    Certainly you could admit that males are just as likely to follow a strong alpha male leader as women are [keeping the same 1:1 gender ratio]?

    The question is not whether males are more or less apt to follow an alpha male–for males want to be like, and females want to be with, the alpha male–the question is this, “Given the choice of choosing Alpha (Jesus) or Lucifer as the alpha male, which one appealed to the male spirits and which one appealed to the female spirits?” The plans each presented were different and so were the promised rewards. Satan’s plan rewarded no males anything. The best they could get, in other words, the only thing they could get, was to become an angel to him. They could not become a god to angels, like him. On the other hand, Alpha offered those male spirits who followed Him the possibility of becoming just like He is, even a god ruling over angels. Males had incentive to choose Alpha as their alpha male, because Alpha had a doctrine of sharing the power. Lucifer had no such doctrine. All would be angels to him, and that was it. There would be no celestial, terrestrial or telestial worlds, only one world consisting of two degrees of glory: one of god (Lucifer) and one of his angels.

    The male spirits already had access to the angelic glory (which I will explain one of these days.) Mortality was for becoming like God, even a god. Therefore, Lucifer’s plan had no appeal, whatsoever to male spirits. However, it did appeal to female spirits, for it put forth a doctrine of equality (for the angels). It also presented absolutely no risk. It also presented the alpha only in terms of dominance, for their would be no humiliation of the Only Begotten (if Lucifer got the position). All these things are greatly appealing, from the female perspective.

    All other things being equal, females would rather be with a rich man than a poor one, with a strong man than a weak one, with a smart man than a dumb one, with handsome man than an ugly one, with safe man than a risky one, with a man that promoted egalitarianism than one that advocated hierarchy. From a certain perspective, Lucifer, if chosen, was stronger than Alpha, because he would use the power of God only in terms of strength, suffering no pain or humiliation, etc. From that same perspective, Lucifer was safer than Alpha, because none would be lost. And Lucifer promoted egalitarianism, whereas Alpha promoted hierarchies. Although Alpha was richer and smarter than Lucifer, once chosen as the alpha male, Lucifer would have the power of God, and thus could compensate so that he became the richest and smartest of all.

    So, from a certain perspective, Lucifer appeared more alpha than Alpha did. But the alpha-ness of Lucifer had no appeal to male spirits, because of his unwillingness to allow male spirits to become like God, because he would use the power of God to dominate all males, because he would not share any of the females, etc. All these parts of his plan could only turn off male spirits to him.

    Again, all things being equal, males would rather follow a man that intended to make them equal to him, and not one that intended to keep them forever groveling at his feet, males would rather follow a man that granted them freedom than one that took away all choice, males would rather follow a man that presented challenges which gave them a sense of accomplishment than one that treated them like a mother, protecting them from everything, and so on and so forth.

    Alpha had total male appeal and the appeal of women who could recognize his true greatness and purposes, whereas Lucifer had female appeal but no male appeal. Lucifer was attractive to the female nature, but unattractive to the male nature, whereas Alpha was attractive to the male nature and to those females who understood His purposes. Regardless of who a female picked, Alpha or Lucifer, she did so because she was attracted to that particular alpha. In the case with Lucifer, the females would have only him. In the case of Alpha, the females would also end up with Him, but also with other sons of God. But it was the alpha male that was the goal, either Lucifer or Alpha.

    Now, Alpha was a true alpha male, for Alpha means “first” and Christ was the Firstborn spirit child of God. But Lucifer desired to be the alpha male, and, it turns out, that he got his wish. Nevertheless, Lucifer was not the Firstborn spirit child of God, so how is it that he became the “first” or an alpha male? It is because he became the firstdead spirit child of God. Jesus was the Firstborn and Lucifer was the firstdead. Those who followed him became dead spirits also (spiritually dead wives), and when you take a dead spirit husband and pair him with dead spirit wives, they produce after their kind, dead spirit children (the sons of Perdition). But Lucifer was the first to be still born, or born dead, so he gets the “honor” of being an alpha male, according to his wickedness.

    Anyway, to get back on topic, it is not so much that women follow alpha males and thus they followed Satan, for their were two alpha males in contention. But one alpha appealed directly to women’s nature while not appealing at all to men’s nature, while the other appealed directly to men’s nature while appealing to part of women’s nature. In other words, it is the “not appealing at all to men’s nature” part that makes it very unlikely that any male spirits went with Lucifer, which means that it is likely that only female spirits went with him, which actually ends up making a bit of sense when looking at the scriptures in this light.

    Again, this discussion is not so much a question as to which alpha male women are likely to choose, but a discussion as to which alpha male women and men are likely to choose. When looking at women alone, there are points in favor of Alpha and also in favor of Lucifer, that females would find attractive. But when looking at males, there are only points in favor of Alpha, and no points in favor of Lucifer, that males find attractive. Therefore, both male and female spirits might find Alpha an attractive alpha male to follow and emulate, but only female spirits might find Lucifer an attractive alpha male.

    As I stated above somewhere, concerning secret combinations not existing in the heavens, because secret combinations must operate in the dark, and there is no darkness in heaven, thus neither male nor female spirits could be deceived, at all, by Lucifer. Thus, each plan must have appealed to the very natures of men and women. The fact, if indeed it was a fact, that only females went with Lucifer, does not speak negatively about females here on earth, as all born here (both males and females) chose Alpha as their alpha male.

    I’ve never believed in the “no women followed Satan in the pre-mortal life” pseudo-doctrine, but I don’t think that demonstrating that Satan counts as an “alpha male” counts as demonstrating that the entire one-third from the Pre-mortal Council were all women.

    What it demonstrates is that there was a choice, for it is the nature of both men and women to follow an alpha male. If Satan was not an alpha, no one, male or female, would have followed him. So, once it is established that Lucifer was (and still is) an alpha, we can understand why spirits followed him then, and also why mortal men and women still follow him now. He is still an alpha, and mankind only follow alpha males. This is why the scriptures speak in either or terms, either you follow Christ, or you follow the devil. There is no middle ground, for it is human nature to follow alpha males.

    The only thing, then, that must be ascertained, is whether Satan’s plan was more or less appealing to men, to women, or to both, than was Alpha’s plan. So, in my mind, or according to my understanding, it comes down to whether this part of the post is correct:

    Under God’s plan:

    The potential inheritance would include 3 kingdoms of glory, 1 kingdom without glory (outer darkness), the opportunity to become either gods, angels or devils, and a hierarchy of men over women (see 1 Cor. 11:3) and husbands over wives (see Eph. 5:23).

    Under Lucifer’s plan

    The potential inheritance would consist of 2 degrees of glory, the top degree inhabited by Lucifer alone as the one singular god and the bottom degree inhabited by everyone else, with full equality for everyone in the bottom degree (i.e., no differentiation between men and women.)

    If correct, then it is likely that the 1/3 were all women. If incorrect, then we are still at a loss at determining what percentage of gender went with Satan, and anyone’s guess is as good as any other.

  27. stockoneder,

    I just wanted to say that your comment brought a smile to my face. That you considered all these things in developing your theology is impressive.

  28. Justin,

    LDS theology certainly describes a gendered existence before we came to earth — and a world where our pre-mortal gender then goes on to inform our mortal and post-mortal paths. But the scriptures speak very little with regard to the pre-mortal life in general, and especially in regards to gender identity specifically.

    By “LDS theology,” do you mean “that which is generally taught by latter-day saints, but which may not be scriptural?” Or do you mean that the actual LDS scriptures describe a gendered pre-mortal/post-mortal existence?

  29. When I said “LDS theology” I meant that which is generally taught by latter-day saints but which may not be scriptural.

    I think there are things LDS teach [in an “official” capacity] as being “essential” parts of our religion’s doctrine — but which are not contained in the scriptures.

  30. LDSA,
    With all of your if statements I am confused. Are you saying the scriptures definitavely teach of eneternal gender or not? I will admit that I am far from a scriptorian and therefore could have missed the clear teaching.

    Also, I am confused by talking about agendas. I, like most people, care about truth. If that is the adgenda you were referring to, then yes I have an agenda.

    The scriptures are very weak on pre and post mortal life. We really have no idea how our spirits were made. In fact we have two very different teachings. JS taught that God did not create our spirits. I am lead to believe that he taught that God kinda adopted us as his children since he saw he could provide a way for us to become like him. Then we have BY teaching that you needed a lot of spouses to bith all your spirit children to populate your planets. If I remeber correctly you even had Orson Pratt calculating how long celestial pregnancies would have to be and how long it would take to get all your spirits birthed to populate your first planet.

    We seem to have taken a liking for BY’s teachings since most of the current membership believes something to that degree. But again, we have no scriptual indication of what happens in exaltation. All is speculation.

    We often here members say that women are more righteous than men and that is why polygamy is needed in the Celestial Kingdom. So how can women be so righteous on one hand, but on the other be tricked by Satan so easily? Also, how do we know that Satan had full confidence that he could get Eve to partake?

    I’ll be honest, this is probably my least favorite post I have ever read here. I generally enjoy this blog and the boundries it pushes. But this post really agitates my spirit, as in not in a good way. I could barely get through it once. You come across as someone who has very little respect for women. I’m sure that is not the case, but I’m sure you can see where people will be very offended my this material.

  31. @Bren

    I suppose it depends on what kind of women LDSA is talking about, and by that I mean what attitudes those women have adopted in the core of their character. Any mention of Alpha Males activates my Men’s Rights radar, so I wouldn’t be surprised if LDSA has been dabbling in that community trying to understand it (this is purely my own conjecture).

    In talking about women in this Alpha Male setting, LDSA is more commenting on a common trend among some/many women, with very strong historical precedent dating back centuries, even millennia. This involves several factors, including: treating males as utilities (providers) rather than human beings, hypergamy (searching for the best utility/provider possible), and male disposability (that males, as utilities, are expendable). There has been a very strong backlash to modern feminism, which very much preaches these “doctrines,” especially in countries like Japan and Canada, and this backlash has manifested in surprising ways (at least surprising to me). I can also extrapolate from personal experience. I’ve met some pretty awful women, whom I have absolutely no respect for, and whom I desire to never interact with again during my life. It was this category of women I thought of when reading this post, and I could see some feasibility from that angle.

    I cannot say the thesis of this post is something I would have arrived at. I am far more interested in the process that brought LDSA here, what the mental steps were that informed his opinions that led to him even entertaining a theory like this. If it was the 1970s I could safely assume he was flying high on LSD. Unfortunately, I didn’t hear any Jim Morrison in the background when reading this post, so I can’t jump to that conclusion readily. Still considering it, though!

  32. Thank you all, very though provoking. some of it’s pretty far out. but there are worse things to be guilty of than speculation of one’s beginnings.

    something to consider. male to female birth ratio’s have been proven to stay fairly consistent, 102-106/100 male/female. Although some factors greatly influence male/female ratio’s at different age demographics, it seems pretty close to a 50/50 split male/female. At least here at ‘home’. noting there are worlds without end and people to inhabit them. obviously that may skew the ‘data’ we can look at. but then again, god would provide it if it were important to salvation.

    also, heaven isn’t a democracy, I doubt a ‘majority’ of rebels, even 100% is enough to ‘take’ over. principle is, right is right and wrong is wrong. Satan’s plan is wrong, therefore, wouldn’t matter if ALL of our brothers/sisters were backing him. Also to be said, the ‘alpha male’ scenario is dead on with Satan, but is crude and somewhat irreverent to bring God and Jesus into. In fact, ‘alpha male’ type scenario’s are very much natural man, which god is very NOT in that category. Understandably, us natural men apply the same logic to understand god, but then again, we shouldn’t. I say that in reverence first, but logically, it’s flawed to gain context of pre mortal existence based on primal animal based law Mosiah 3:19. I guess it denies our volumes of given scripture on how God and Christ are definately NOT in any way associated to the concept of a natural man type law.

    Next, premise, I think Satan’s plan is pretty sly and simple. no forcing anyone or anything, other than re-writing the rules. If the law doesn’t exist, ya cant break it. If its not ‘wrong’ then it cant be a ‘sin’ if there’s no sin, there’s no probs. Satan is still hard at work trying to mess with morals, specifically law. For instance, GLBT marriage, if its not against the law then it’s not ‘wrong’. This is a very simple principle and probably predates any mortal existence.

    ok, moving on, here are my big question(s). Premortal factors have ALWAYS been interesting to me.

    ok, i’m going somewhere with this.

    Satan took a good chunk of kids and they’ve all been tossed out. 1/3

    What I cant come to terms with is the continued war. Satan is actively raging still. Selfish, yes, but I don’t think its just to grab as many souls as possible before the g&d day’o’burning. From anything I’ve read, from any account in the scripture and then from watching his efforts in my family, neighborhood and world, Satan still thinks he’s got a fighting chance at whatever plan he put out there or some last ditch effort to save himself from pending consequence.

    in the scriptures, it is a ‘battle’ to be won. not a given. Satan is many things but an outright fool isn’t one of them. Satan’s actions and God’s words leave volume of unsaid information from this issue. Understandably so, god wants our focus on our individual salvation and successfully achieving the needed progression while here… BUT… there is the pesky matter of this pre-mortal war which will rage for a continued period of time.

    also in my mind is the fact Satan was running an interference when meddling with Adam. That there seems to be another more established progression through the ‘fall’.

    With all that junk said, my big question is,

    Why all the trouble Satan? your dead meat? is this relentless effort just trying to kill as many of us as you can? or is there more to this fight?

    IF Satan is just selfish and a dolt, then I can honestly say that the look i give my kids when they ask ‘can i go to a friends house to do homework’ is a trait I’ve had from my pre-mortal existence. But, i digress, that would explain why i have a body and have thus been numbered in the more fortunate 2/3’s.

    Is it just raging selfishness of a condemned spirit, finally insisting on justice dealt to us sinners? or does a true battle that will need to be won looming? might we loose more than 1/3? may we win back others of the 1/3?

    Thoughts?

    Thanks.

  33. If by conjecture you mean fiction, then I agree. I think you confused yourself with fractions… This post indicates you are pair bonded with Satan and that you totally misunderstand the fall.

  34. Bren wrote,

    With all of your if statements I am confused. Are you saying the scriptures definitavely teach of eneternal gender or not? I will admit that I am far from a scriptorian and therefore could have missed the clear teaching.

    Consider the following scriptures:

    and it came to pass
    that when the brother of jared had said these words
    behold
    the lord stretched forth his hand
    and touched the stones one by one with his finger
    and the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of jared
    and he saw the finger of the lord
    and it was as the finger of a man
    like unto flesh and blood
    and the brother of jared fell down before the lord
    for he was struck with fear
    and the lord saw
    that the brother of jared had fallen to the earth
    and the lord said unto him

    arise
    why hast thou fallen

    and he saith unto the lord

    i saw the finger of the lord
    and i feared
    lest he should smite me
    for i knew not
    that the lord had flesh and blood

    and the lord said unto him

    because of thy faith thou hast seen
    that i shall take upon me flesh and blood
    and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith
    as thou hast
    for were it not so
    ye could not have seen my finger
    sawest thou more than this

    and he answered

    nay
    lord show thyself unto me

    and the lord said unto him

    believest thou the words
    which i shall speak

    and he answered

    yea
    lord i know
    that thou art a god of truth
    and canst not lie

    and when he had said these words
    behold
    the lord showed himself unto him
    and said

    because thou knowest these things
    ye are redeemed from the fall
    therefore
    ye are brought back into my presence
    therefore
    i show myself unto you
    behold
    i am he
    who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people
    behold
    i am jesus christ
    i am the father and the son
    in me shall all mankind have life
    and that eternally
    even they who shall believe on my name
    and they shall become my sons and my daughters
    and never have i showed myself unto man
    whom i have created
    for never has man believed in me as thou hast
    seest thou
    that ye are created after mine own image
    yea
    even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image
    behold
    this body
    which ye now behold
    is the body of my spirit
    and man have i created after the body of my spirit
    and even as i appear into thee to be in the spirit
    will i appear unto my people in the flesh

    and now
    as i moroni said

    i could not make a full account of these things
    which are written

    therefore
    it sufficeth me to say

    that jesus showed himself unto this man in the spirit
    even after the manner and in the likeness of the same body
    even as he showed himself unto the nephites (Ether 3:6-17)

    and i god created man in mine own image
    in the image of mine only begotten created i him
    male and female created i them (Moses 2:27)

    and now
    behold
    i say unto you

    that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth
    when they were created
    in the day that i the lord god made the heaven and the earth
    and every plant of the field before it was in the earth
    and every herb of the field before it grew

    for i the lord god created all things
    of which i have spoken
    spiritually
    before they were naturally upon the face of the earth
    for i the lord god had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth
    and i the lord god had created all the children of men
    and not yet a man to till the ground
    for in heaven created i them
    and there was not yet flesh upon the earth
    neither in the water
    neither in the air
    but i the lord god formed man from the dust of the ground
    and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life
    and man became a living soul
    the first flesh upon the earth
    the first man also
    nevertheless
    all things were before created
    but spiritually were they created
    and made according to my word
    and i the lord god planted a garden eastward in eden
    and there i put the man
    whom i had formed
    and out of the ground made i the lord god to grow every tree
    naturally
    that is pleasant to the sight of man
    and man could behold it
    and it became also a living soul
    for it was spiritual
    in the day that i created it
    for it remaineth in the sphere
    in which i god created it
    yea
    even all things
    which i prepared for the use of man (Moses 3:4-9)

    Also,

    in the day that god created man
    in the likeness of god made he him
    in the image of his own body
    male and female created he them
    and blessed them
    and called their name adam
    in the day when they were created
    and became living souls in the land upon the footstool of god

    and adam lived one hundred and thirty years
    and begat a son in his own likeness
    after his own image
    and called his name seth (Moses 6:8-10)

    from adam to seth
    who was ordained by adam at the age of sixty-nine years
    and was blessed by him three years previous to his (adam’s) death
    and received the promise of god by his father
    that his posterity should be the chosen of the lord
    and that they should be preserved unto the end of the earth
    because he (seth) was a perfect man
    and his likeness was the express likeness of his father
    insomuch that he seemed to be like unto his father in all things
    and could be distinguished from him only by his age (D&C 107:42-43)

    Are not these scriptures sufficient to establish the following facts?

    1) The spirit body, earthly physical body, and resurrected physical body of Jesus Christ have the same image and likeness, even that of a mortal man of flesh and blood, in other words: hands, fingers, feet, toes, arms, legs, torso, neck, face, eyes, ears, mouth, hair, beard, back, butt and male genitalia.

    2) The spirit bodies of all men were created with the same image and likeness as the spirit body of Jesus Christ. Thus these male spirit bodies all have male genitalia, along with everything else.

    3) The physical bodies of all men are created in the beginning with the same image as the physical body of God the Father and the spirit and physical bodies of Jesus Christ.

    4) The physical body of the God the Father is the same image as both the spirit body, earthly physical body and resurrected physical body of the Son of God.

    In other words, these scriptures indicate that

    the Father’s physical body,
    the Son’s spirit body,
    the Son’s earthly physical body,
    the Son’s resurrected physical body,
    all the spirit bodies of men,
    and all the physical bodies of men

    have the same image and likeness.

    Thus, we can conclude that God the Father, and God the Son, and all male spirit children of heavenly Father, all look like mortal men do, meaning they have the same image and likeness, and thus all have—in addition to the standard eyes, ears, etc., that both sexes have—male genitalia, for the text only indicates that men bear this image in both the spirit and the flesh.

    And thus, men were created (both spiritually and naturally) after the image and likeness of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, after the image and likeness of both Their spirit bodies and Their physical bodies.

    Is this not a proper conclusion to come to from these scriptures? Is this not the plain meaning? Or is there a plainer interpretation that arrives at a different conclusion?

    Now, in regard to females, is it not appropriate to apply the same principle and pattern that is applied to men, and also to all life in general, that the spirit bodies of females must correspond to the physical bodies of females, so that the images are the same? Thus, as females have female genitalia in the flesh, they must also have female genitalia in the body of their spirit, just as men have male genitalia in both of their bodies and just as the two male members of the Godhead have male genitalia in both Their bodies.

    And also in regard to females, is it not appropriate, then, to apply the same principle that is applied to men, namely that as the image of men comes from the male members of the Godhead, which is God and Jesus, therefore, the image of women must come from the female member of the Godhead, which is the Holy Ghost? Therefore, the Holy Ghost must have female genitalia in Her spirit body, following the same pattern. (In this way, the following scriptures makes sense:

    by these things we know
    that there is a god in heaven
    who is infinite and eternal
    from everlasting to everlasting
    the same unchangeable god
    the framer of heaven and earth
    and all things
    which are in them
    and that he created man
    male and female
    after his own image
    and in his own likeness created he them

    which father son and holy ghost are one god
    infinite and eternal
    without end
    amen (D&C 20:17-18,28)

    As the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God, both male and female images correspond to His image, for there are both male and female Personages in the Godhead. But as long as one believes that the Holy Ghost is a male Personage, I suppose that the above scripture will remain a great mystery.)

    Now, is this not a proper and logical way to reason? Or am I wresting these scriptures?

    Finally, if I have arrived at the proper conclusion and the above interpretation does not twist the scriptures, does not the doctrine of the resurrection then project the same spirit and physical body images forward, locking them in place forever? In other words, isn’t it that the resurrected body we receive will have the same male or female genitalia, or in other words, the same image, that our spirit bodies have, and also which our mortal bodies have, save that whatever defects the mortal body may have had will be perfected, so that everything is in its proper frame, as it is in, and according to, our spirit body?

    they
    who are of a celestial spirit
    shall receive the same body
    which was a natural body
    even ye shall receive your bodies
    and your glory shall be that glory
    by which your bodies are quickened (D&C 88:28)

    Amulek taught:

    the spirit and the body shall be reunited again it its perfect form
    both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame
    even as we now are at this time
    and we shall be brought to stand before god
    knowing even as we know now
    and have a bright recollection of all our guilt

    now
    this restoration shall come to all
    both old and young
    both bond and free
    both male and female
    both the wicked and the righteous
    and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost
    but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame
    as it is now
    or in the body
    and shall be brought
    and be arraigned before the bar of christ the son
    and god the father
    and the holy spirit
    which is one eternal god
    to be judged according to their works
    whether they be good or whether they be evil

    now
    behold
    i have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body
    and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body

    i say unto you

    that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body
    that is from death
    even from the first death unto life
    that they can die no more
    their spirits uniting with their bodies
    never to be divided
    thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal
    that they can no more see corruption (Alma 11:43-45)

    and Alma taught:

    the dead shall come forth
    and be reunited
    both soul and body
    and be brought to stand before god
    and be judged according to their works
    yea
    this bringeth about the restoration of those things
    of which has been spoken by the mouths of the prophets

    the soul shall be restored to the body
    and the body to the soul

    yea
    and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body
    yea
    even a hair of the head shall not be lost
    but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame (Alma 40:21-23)

    and now my son
    i have somewhat to say concerning the restoration
    of which has been spoken
    for behold
    some have wrested the scriptures
    and have gone far astray because of this thing
    and i perceive
    that thy mind has been worried also concerning this thing
    but behold
    i will explain it unto thee
    i say unto thee my son

    that the plan of restoration is requisite with the justice of god

    for it is requisite
    that all things should be restored to their proper order
    behold
    it is requisite and just
    according to the power and resurrection of christ
    that the soul of man should be restored to its body
    and that every part of the body should be restored to itself

    therefore
    all things shall be restored to their proper order
    every thing to its proper frame
    mortality raised to immortality
    corruption raised to incorruption

    and now
    behold
    is the meaning of the word restoration

    to take a thing of a natural state
    and place it in an unnatural state
    or to place it in a state opposite to its nature

    o my son
    this is not the case
    but the meaning of the word restoration is

    to bring back again evil for evil
    or carnal for carnal
    or devilish for devilish
    good for that which is good
    righteous for that which is righteous
    just for that which is just
    merciful for that which is merciful (Alma 41:1-2,4,12-13)

    Might not one also add to that list: male for that which is male, and female for that which is female? (Now, there is a lot more I could say on these topics, but hopefully this will suffice.)

    Bren also wrote,

    Also, I am confused by talking about agendas. I, like most people, care about truth. If that is the adgenda you were referring to, then yes I have an agenda.

    I was not referring specifically to you. I was referring to someone having an agenda that contradicted the truth. Such people, for whom their agenda is the priority, will either discard the truth or seek to hide it, finding it of no use, or even as an obstacle, to their agenda. For me, truth is the important thing, even if it uncomfortable, and certainly this bride of Satan post, if there is any truth to it, would be an uncomfortable topic for many people.

    We really have no idea how our spirits were made. In fact we have two very different teachings. JS taught that God did not create our spirits. I am lead to believe that he taught that God kinda adopted us as his children since he saw he could provide a way for us to become like him. Then we have BY teaching that you needed a lot of spouses to bith all your spirit children to populate your planets. If I remeber correctly you even had Orson Pratt calculating how long celestial pregnancies would have to be and how long it would take to get all your spirits birthed to populate your first planet.

    I have tried to stick to the doctrine of the scriptural canon for the conclusions found in the post and my follow-up comments. The uncanonized teachings of JS or Brigham or Orson were not used as my sources. It is sufficient for the premise of the post to say that our spirits were either male or female (with male or female genitalia), and that our resurrected bodies will have the same. That has scriptural support. Beyond that, this post doesn’t go into the origin of the spirits, because it is not necessary to the topic at hand.

    We often here members say that women are more righteous than men and that is why polygamy is needed in the Celestial Kingdom. So how can women be so righteous on one hand, but on the other be tricked by Satan so easily? Also, how do we know that Satan had full confidence that he could get Eve to partake?

    We know that Satan had full confidence from the temple endowment, which is where I took that from.

    No one was tricked by Lucifer in the heavens, for he had no power to deceive anyone at that time. The choice to follow him was done with full knowledge and was merely based on the nature of those who followed him.

    The nature of women is not any more or less righteous than the nature of men is. All such ideas to the contrary are false. Nevertheless, men and women do have different natures, by God’s design, and Lucifer simply exploited the nature of the females as a design flaw, by tailoring his plan specifically to cater to their nature and against the nature of male spirits. It was not a design flaw, but was merely exploited as such by the adversary.

    To give an example, in many fictional stories, the enemy will exploit the hero’s compassion towards others by putting others in danger, in order to bend the hero to the villain’s will. The hero’s compassion is not a flaw of his nature, but is merely exploited by the villain as such, since the villain has no such compassion and thus views it as a weakness. In the same way, Lucifer exploited the nature of female spirits as a weakness, in order to gain ground against his adversary, who was Alpha (Jesus).

    So, the post is not saying that females are morally bankrupt by their very nature, or inherently sinful, or more wicked than males, etc. Neither I nor what I wrote in the post is saying that “all females are evil.” Nevertheless, misunderstandings have already occurred (as with many of my other posts) and I am already being called a mysogynist, etc. Se la vie.

    I’ll be honest, this is probably my least favorite post I have ever read here. I generally enjoy this blog and the boundries it pushes. But this post really agitates my spirit, as in not in a good way. I could barely get through it once. You come across as someone who has very little respect for women. I’m sure that is not the case, but I’m sure you can see where people will be very offended my this material.

    LOL. If the principles in this post are correct, and I have reason to believe that they are, I wonder, “How does one put forth the brides of Satan model without being labelled a myogynist, temporarily insane, pair-bonded to Satan (LMAO on that one), or being accused of doing LSD?” I am not sure that it is even possible, but even if it is not, I ain’t gonna let that stop me. The information will go forth anyway.

    It is interesting that you say that the post agitates your spirit, because the information in this post actually puts my mind at ease, for it gives a logical reason why anyone at all would follow Lucifer. You see, up until now there has been no reasonable explanation for why the 1/3 went with him. I certainly couldn’t give one. The Follow the leader post was what4anarchy’s idea, which on the surface sounds reasonable, but when one thinks about it deeply, is not. At least, it is not to me. No man would choose to give up the chance to become like God if he was given such an opportunity. To a man, not a single one. Even the future sons of perdition chose Alpha, (which actually is more evidence that this post is correct.) Following Lucifer simply makes no logical sense from my point of view. But then, I am a man and am thinking like a man, right? And yet, the idea in the church was that either only men went with Lucifer (for women were too righteous), or it was pair-bonded men and women (50-50). Still, neither choice made (or currently makes) any sense to me, since no man (pair-bonded or not) would give up that chance.

    That left the issue as a great mystery, which, perhaps, is now cleared up with this post. At least, in my mind, and according to my understanding (which I have not yet given), it is now clear. Nevertheless, I still haven’t received revelatory confirmation on this, therefore, it is still merely the logical conclusion my brain comes to when presented with the scriptural evidence. (Which evidence I had intended to one day put online. But gauging from the critical responses this post has gotten, perhaps I ought to keep the rest to myself…? LOL.)

  35. It is interesting that you point out that those who chose to follow Satan did so because of their natures. I would counter that the drive to seek out a protector and provider is not a uniquely feminine characteristic. One need look no farther than the various state governments that exist to see the broad appeal of the promise of protection and sustenance. And yet the State is inherently violent and destructive, and it’s patterns of behavior, so to speak, are painfully obvious to those willing to see. Despite this, support for the State is widespread and very popular. In that frame of reference it is not hard for me to see why people would willingly choose to follow someone like Satan, who’s mantra is “Come with me and all shall thrive and achieve eternal life.” As wide and far-reaching as the Atonement is, there is still risk that some, albeit few, may not return and be lost. And I suppose that risk made some of our pre-mortal brothers and sisters uncomfortable. Did Satan’s approach exploit the feminine drive to seek protection? Certainly, but i have a hard time believing women have such a monopoly on this predisposition that Satan’s plan had no appeal to male sensibilities.

  36. I would counter that the drive to seek out a protector and provider is not a uniquely feminine characteristic

    This hits on the same point I was making above: “Certainly you could admit that males are just as likely to follow a strong alpha male leader as women are [keeping the same 1:1 gender ratio]? I’ve never believed in the “no women followed Satan in the pre-mortal life” pseudo-doctrine, but I don’t think that demonstrating that Satan counts as an “alpha male” counts as demonstrating that the entire one-third from the Pre-mortal Council were all women.”

    It’s my observation that both men and women are just as likely to cower under an alpha-male, leader-god type character — but the hinge of this post seems to turn on the assumption that women are not only more likely to link themselves to an alpha-male, but that they also would have exclusively done so in the pre-mortal life.

  37. LDSA,

    You seem to be forgetting God the Mother in your desire to declare that female spirits have male genitalia.

    We are made in the image of our godly parents, who are each one half of a kind.

  38. I find it refreshing to hear Justin and the Anarachist discuss something they don’t appear to agree 100% on.

    This seems to happen rarely which is surely a sign that they are enjoying the same conduit of spiritual enlightenment.

    I also find this post very provocative.

    It has compelled me comment despite the fact that I am trying to subdue my blogging addiction with regard to my own blog, let alone making comments on other blogs.

    I find the general premise of the post problematic and disturbing on many levels, which caused me to characterize it as being caused by temporary insanity. ( comment made on another blog )

    Interestingly, your inspiration seems to be going in a different direction than another blogger that claims to have successfully petitioned the Lord to strip men and the whole of the congregation of the honor and responsibility of sustaining their fellow priesthood brethren, and given the sole responsibility to women.

    That responsibility has now become the exclusive domain of any seven women that can agree upon a given man’s worthiness to hold and exercise the priesthood. (If I understand what he is claiming)

    I would be curious to know if you would agree that your conclusions in this post are contradictory and counter-intuitive to the recent announcements of DS or if you see them as being congruent with the new doctrine he is teaching.

    The only point I want to personally make about this blog post, before I again attempt to silence myself is this.

    I find the following assumption unsupported in scripture:

    “Thus, we can conclude that God the Father, and God the Son, and all male spirit children of heavenly Father, all look like mortal men do, meaning they have the same image and likeness, and thus all have—in addition to the standard eyes, ears, etc., that both sexes have—male genitalia, for the text only indicates that men bear this image in both the spirit and the flesh.”

    I am not convinced that the mortal body of fallen man is representative of the image and likeness of God.

    You seem to be implying the “male” men, in their fallen state, having had the female intelligence separated from them, as they were originally created, represent the image and likeness of God, while “female” men, in their fallen and separated out state, are not in the image and likeness of God.

    As a secondary assumption, you are assuming the fallen man and woman had the same genitalia they have now, in their original spiritual creation..

    I would point out that when God first declares that man was created in the image and likeness of God, in the book of Genesis, he is not referring to Adam or any of his mortal sons, during their earthly probation, in their separated and fallen state.

    The declaration that man is in the image of God is expressly referring to the spiritual creation of man, “male and female” when they were first created.

    I realize that you reject my hypothesis that man was a composite being composed of both male and female intelligence when first created,

    ( http://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/celibacy-the-doctrine-of-marriage-the-shaker-connection/ )

    Nevertheless, I think that even if you reject the hypothesis of composite beings, the scriptures still prove that man was only in the image of God in the spiritual creation, before the fall.

    I cannot find scriptural justification to suggest that fallen, mortal man is still in the image and likeness of God, or that God must have genitalia, or the same kind of genitalia that fallen man has.

    The scriptures inform us that after a person is baptised into Christ, they are neither male or female.

    “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”

    This would put into question if the fallen process of procreation via the use of genitalia is requisite in the hereafter.

    Every single reference in the scriptures, to a man being in the image of God, has reference to the original declaration in Genesis referring exclusively to the spiritual creation, not to the fallen state of man.

    Hence, it seems to me, that a major supposition upon which your theory is founded is very questionable and unsupported in scripture.

    Nowhere in the Old and New Testament or other scriptures does it refer to fallen, mortal man as being in the image of God, except in the spiritual creation.

    We are not told if man, when spiritually created, even had or needed genitals in his godly spiritual creation.

    JST 1:29 And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them.
    2:5 For I, the Lord God, created all things of which I have spoken spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth; for I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth.
    2:6 And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men, and not yet a man to till the ground, for in heaven created I them, and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;
    2:7 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

  39. Watcher, Adam and eve were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth, and maybe they didn’t need genitals to do it? Nowhere do we read anything even close to that other than that gving birth will be more painful. Sex is holy, and god loves sex and desires all to receive it, in the proper form and time.

     15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

     16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

    if what you’re saying about us no longer looking like god is true, then why would Jesus appear as something completely different? Wouldn’t that be written in the bible if he had no genitals and looked different than all other men?

  40. Dallonj

    I think the passage you quoted supports the fact that it was when man was created, in the spiritual creation, that he was made in the image and likeness of God.

    “..all men were created in the beginning after mine own image ”

    We have know idea what was being shown to and comprehended by the Brother of Jared in the passage you quoted beyond the reiteration that it was in the beginning men were created in the image of God.

    Furthermore, I would suggest that image and likeness transcends physical, outward looks. Likeness means to be like God in other ways as well.

    Here are a few characterizations given to mortal man in the scriptures.

    “And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.”

    “O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth”

    ” Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state.
    11 And now remember, my son, if it were not for the plan of redemption, (laying it aside) as soon as they were dead their souls were miserable, being cut off from the presence of the Lord.”

    “The natural man is an enemy to god”

    There are countless more passages that depict the mortal, natural, man as a fallen creature that needs to be redeemed.

    How can we arrogantly claim that we, in our present state, are “like” God, or even in his exact image in our fallen state?

    If mortal man is an enemy to God, then it is plain that he is not still in the likeness and image of God.

    Isn’t that what “likeness” means?

    I think the scriptures make it quite clear that we have fallen from the image and likeness of God that we were patterned after in the spiritual creation and the goal of this probation is to repent and come whole once again so that in the resurrection we will once again find ourselves in the image and likeness of God. This is why scripture informs us that we must once again “become” the sons of God

    It would appear from the words of Paul that becoming whole has to do with the literal fulfillment of the commandment to become one flesh with the opposite sex.

    “Never is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord”

    Regard your following declaration:

    “Sex is holy, and god loves sex and desires all to receive it, in the proper form and time”

    Who told you that sex is holy?

    Dallonj I agree that sex is necessary and it is commanded. I am not aware of any scriptures that state that it is “holy ” or even eternal in nature. Quite the opposite. Do a key word on “carnal”.

    The scriptures refer to the sex act as a “carnal” act, even when done as commanded within the marriage covenant.

    The old Mormon folklore about having lots of wives with lots of sex in the eternities is completely without any scriptural support.

    The procreation that takes place in the eternities is quite different from what we are experiencing in this carnal existence.

    Please show scripturally that carnal sex is an eternal condition by which intelligences are organized and also explain the passage that says there are no more male and female entities who have been baptized into Christ.

  41. I mean to say “neither”, is man without the woman”, not “never”

  42. OWIW wrote,

    The old Mormon folklore about having lots of wives with lots of sex in the eternities is completely without any scriptural support.

    The procreation that takes place in the eternities is quite different from what we are experiencing in this carnal existence.

    Please show scripturally that carnal sex is an eternal condition by which intelligences are organized

    I’ll bite. How about?:

    And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy. (D&C 130:2)

    From the 1828 dictionary:

    SOCIAL’ITY, n. Socialness; the quality of being social.

    SOCIALNESS, n. The quality of being social.

    SO’CIAL, a. [L. socialis, from socius, companion.]

    1. Pertaining to society; relating to men living in society. or to the publice as an aggregate body; as social interests or concerns; social pleasures; social benefits; social happiness; social duties. True self-love and social are the same.

    2. Ready or disposed to mix in friendly converse; companionable. Withers, adieu? yet not with thee remove thy martial spirit or thy social love.

    3. Consisting in union or mutual converse.

    4. Disposed to unite in society. Man is a social being.

    There ain’t nothing more social than sex.

    The word carnal simply means flesh. Resurrected bodies are bodies of flesh and bone, and thus are carnal. However, they will also be spiritual bodies. No one can prove from the scriptures that sex will not exist in the eternities, just as no one can prove from the scriptures that sex will exist in the eternities. It is just as much your speculation that there will be no carnal sex in the afterlife as it is another’s speculation that there will be. However, given the gospel patterns, the evidence tips waaaay in favor of the assumption of afterlife sex, for God does not take away, but adds to the faithful and there is no indication that sex and seed ends at death, but that it continues for the faithful. Now, if you could show that sex is sinful, then you’d have a case, for God will eliminate sin, but God has approved of and also commanded sexual relations between man and wife, therefore, that makes it a holy act, for all the commandments of God are holy commandments.

    Romans 7:12

    12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

    JST, Romans 7:12

    12 Nevertheless, I found the law to be holy, and the commandment to be holy, and just, and good.

    Doctrine and Covenants 49:13

    13 Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, according to the holy commandment, for the remission of sins;

    Abraham 1:5

    5 My fathers, having turned from their righteousness, and from the holy commandments which the Lord their God had given unto them, unto the worshiping of the gods of the heathen, utterly refused to hearken to my voice;

    2 Peter 2:21

    21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

    Doctrine and Covenants 124:50

    50 And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.

    Oh yeah, and then there is this:

    Doctrine and Covenants 84:27

    27 Which gospel is the gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the remission of sins, and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John, whom God raised up, being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb.

    There’s that word “carnal” again. Those carnal commandments that God gave were holy, see? Lol.

  43. Derek wrote,

    You seem to be forgetting God the Mother in your desire to declare that female spirits have male genitalia.

    I don’t recall ever saying that female spirits have male genitalia. I stated they we were all created in the image of God, which is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Father and Son are male Personages, bearing the image that men have, and the Holy Ghost is a female Personage, bearing the image that women have. This is the image of God, and includes the corresponding genitalia.

  44. The vast majority of time that the word carnal is used in scripture it means something besides simply fleshly. It has specific reference to the fallen nature of man.

    “Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state.”

    For that reason alone, one should question the eternal nature of carnal sex performed after the manner of fallen man.

    the carnal commandments were given as a cursing when the fulness of the gospel was rejected.. need I say more?

    Section 130, in my opinion, contradicts myriad of scriptures that indicated that saved beings worship God before the throne eternally and do not socialize on the carnal level that fallen man does.

    Passages added by BY forty years later, claiming that JS said something worthy of canonization need to be weighed in the balance against the foundational scriptures of Christianity and the restoration.

    It doesn’t make a lot of sense that Joseph said something worthy of canonization but the Lord neglected to have him canonize it. Was BY more inspired than JS? One would need to accept BY as a prophet in order to put any serious validity into the passages he added into the D&C , in the event that they are not congruent with the Holy Scriptures. He himself admitted that he was not a prophet. I do not believe God commanded Brigham to tamper with the D&C

    That teaching took place during the dark days of Nauvoo when abominations were being committed and Joseph was outwardly teaching against polygamy but privately living it. That is when much of “BY fundamentalist Mormonism” the contradicts Biblical Christianity, emerged.

    When the Lord commanded Nephi to lop off Labans head, that was a holy commandment by virtual of the fact that it was commanded by the Holy Lord.. does that mean that the act of murdering someone is a holy act?

  45. Justin wrote,

    I don’t think that demonstrating that Satan counts as an “alpha male” counts as demonstrating that the entire one-third from the Pre-mortal Council were all women.”

    It’s my observation that both men and women are just as likely to cower under an alpha-male, leader-god type character — but the hinge of this post seems to turn on the assumption that women are not only more likely to link themselves to an alpha-male, but that they also would have exclusively done so in the pre-mortal life.

    I feel like I am repeating myself at this point, since you appear to have misunderstood my meaning, but I will attempt again to explain myself. Demonstrating that Lucifer counts as an alpha male does not demonstrate that the one-third were all female, it only demonstrates the reason why anyone went with him to begin with. It is the nature of all female spirits to want to unite with the alpha male and it is the nature of all male spirits to want to be like the alpha male. No one, male or female, could go with Lucifer unless he was an alpha male. Establishing that he was, in fact, an alpha male, allows us to then examine what was it about him that attracted the one-third to him. In other words, had he not been an alpha, there could have been no choice, for it is in our natures to follow the alpha, whoever that may be. We were presented with two alphas, thus allowing us to make a choice between the two.

    The type of alpha that Lucifer was, was different than the type of alpha that Jesus was, therefore their plans and modus operandi were the deciding factor, not whether they were or were not alphas. The 2/3 that went with Jesus chose Him as their alpha, just as the 1/3 chose Lucifer as their alpha. Because the plans were so different, and so biased in gender appeal (or at least, Lucifer’s plan was), no male could follow Lucifer, for they could not fulfill their nature. Remember, all men want to become like the alpha male, but under Lucifer’s plan, no male spirit could become like him, for only he would rule and everyone else would be his angel. Thus, no male could become like his type of alpha. Under Jesus’ plan, all could become like Christ, thus fulfilling their desires and appealing to their nature to want to become like the Alpha. Thus, God’s plan had total male appeal, whereas Lucifer’s plan had no male appeal.

    Now, the sons of perdition “prove” this to be true, for the sons of perdition, or sons of the devil, (for the devil was called Perdition), did not follow Lucifer as the one-third did. Why not? Because they were male spirits, and as much as they wanted to be like Lucifer, ruling over the one-third like him, under his plan they could not do this. It was better, strategically, for them to follow Alpha and obtain a body of flesh because then they could rule over Lucifer and not serve under him like his angels.

    So, the post is not saying at all that women are more likely to link themselves to an alpha male. Both men and women are equally attracted to alphas. And both men and women linked themselves to the alpha they chose exclusively. You have misunderstood the premise, or reasons for the conclusions of the post. It comes down to the plans having gender appeal, and also the differences between Lucifer’s alpha model and Jesus’ alpha model, for they were not identical. I could unfold this fully, but to do so I would have to get into the other stuff, which I still am not ready to do at present. But suffice it to say (and I already know that it will not suffice, but what the heck, I’ll say it anyway) that there was no appeal to the male spirits and much appeal to the female spirits, and given that as a truth, then it can be understood why 2/3 (most) of the females went with Lucifer and 1/3 (a minority) went with Jesus.

  46. Of all the comments so far, it appears clear that only dallonj has understood (at the very least some of) what I’ve written. He wrote:

    if what you’re saying about us no longer looking like god is true, then why would Jesus appear as something completely different? Wouldn’t that be written in the bible if he had no genitals and looked different than all other men?

    This is the exact point I was trying to make by citing all those eternal gender scriptures, namely, that everything is tied to the body of flesh and blood that Jesus had during the 33 years He spent on earth. That image is the image after which man was created. Jesus looked just as any man looked. There was nothing different about His body. He was, for all appearances, just like any other man. If He didn’t have male genitalia, that would have been noted in the accounts, for He was stripped naked, so that people could see Him as He was, and He looked just as a normal man looked.

    That body, then, is the standard, for the scriptures I quoted tie everything to it. That body had the same image as the body of His spirit, as the body of God the Father, as the spirit bodies of all men, and as the pre-Fall body of Adam. Now, also in the scriptures, we have a comparison between the pre-Fall body of Adam and the post-Fall body of Seth, which were identical, so there is no justification for saying that pre-Fall bodies look any different than fallen, mortal bodies. The scriptural evidence is that they all have the same image.

    Genitalia must be assumed to be in the image, just as legs and arms and everything else must be assumed to be in the image. The image and likeness of man is the whole package, not only those parts we deem appropriate to include. So, we have no justification to say that we had no genitalia in our spirits, or that we will have no genitalia in the resurrection. The scriptures all paint that the image of man remains the same, which is the image that Jesus had in His body of flesh and blood.

  47. OWIW wrote,

    The scriptures inform us that after a person is baptised into Christ, they are neither male or female.

    “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”

    That scripture deals with the doctrine of oneness or unity. It was never meant to imply that we lose our genitalia or gender identity or national identity after we are baptized. If such were the case, Paul could never appeal to Roman law, saying he was a Roman citizen, for how could he be, if after he is baptized he lost such distinctions?

  48. OWIW, you wrote,

    Interestingly, your inspiration seems to be going in a different direction than another blogger that claims to have successfully petitioned the Lord to strip men and the whole of the congregation of the honor and responsibility of sustaining their fellow priesthood brethren, and given the sole responsibility to women.

    That responsibility has now become the exclusive domain of any seven women that can agree upon a given man’s worthiness to hold and exercise the priesthood. (If I understand what he is claiming)

    I would be curious to know if you would agree that your conclusions in this post are contradictory and counter-intuitive to the recent announcements of DS or if you see them as being congruent with the new doctrine he is teaching.

    I’m not sure that anything in this post speaks to what brother Denver is or is not doing. (Per the The doctrine against dissent post, brother Denver is technically still a member of the LDS church, he not having been properly excommunicated, therefore, it’s still appropriate to call him a brother of the church.) However, per the Let them grow together post, if he is suggesting that saints should no longer gather together with the body, then he is preaching something contrary to the parable of the wheat and the tares.

    As far as seven women sustaining one man, that appears to be patterned after Isaiah 4:1. It may be that he has bought into the false idea that women are more spiritual than men and/or that the priesthood has been corrupted/compromised and can no longer be trusted to vote down ecclesiastical abusers, and therefore, women must carry that torch.

    Nevertheless, I have neither heard his speeches nor read the transcripts, but am just commenting on the speech notes that I heard about.

  49. OWIW, you wrote,

    The vast majority of time that the word carnal is used in scripture it means something besides simply fleshly. It has specific reference to the fallen nature of man.

    “Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state.”

    For that reason alone, one should question the eternal nature of carnal sex performed after the manner of fallen man.

    Now, last week I wrote an answer to this comment, but before I could hit the Reply button, my fingers struck some unknown keys and the entire window tab closed, so that I lost everything. In frustration, I just walked away, not wanting to attempt a re-write from memory. However, today, I will attempt it, though it probably won’t be as good as what I wrote before…

    Because all things which are “carnal,” according to our current existence, die, the word “carnal” has come to be associated with mortality, or the mortal existence. Thus, fleshy things, which are called carnal things, are things that are certain to die, according to the mortality in the flesh. Thus carnal = flesh = mortality, to the prophetic mind. Spiritual, then, to the prophetic mind, is the adjective to use on a thing that is certain not to die. Our resurrected, flesh (carnal) and bone bodies, then, are not carnal (certain to die), although they are carnal (composed of flesh). It would really confuse the hell out of the average person if a prophet went forth saying, “Our carnal body will be raised a carnal body, that it no longer be carnal, while at the same time being carnal.” So, a distinction is made, using the word spiritual, so people know what the heck the prophet is talking about. Capeesh?

    the carnal commandments were given as a cursing when the fulness of the gospel was rejected.. need I say more?

    Okay, here I must correct you. The carnal commandments were never given as a curse. The Israelites were given the carnal commandments as a blessing, to keep them alive and continually pointed to Christ. Had that not been given, they would have been immediately cut off from the Lord, which would have been certain death. The Lord does things to save, not to destroy. Even when He is destroying, He is saving. The Lord looks at the entire tree and makes a decision based on the whole thing, therefore, if a branch is perishing and cannot be saved, and if that branch is not lopped off (cut off), but is allowed to remain attached to the tree, and the Lord sees that the rotten branch will cause the eventual destruction of the tree, He lops off the branch. The physical destruction of any branch is always done to save the entire tree. He never destroys simply to destroy, but only to save, and He only destroys physically what has already perished spiritually.

    now this moses plainly taught to the children of israel in the wilderness
    and sought diligently to sanctify his people
    that they might behold the face of god
    but they hardened their hearts
    and could not endure his presence
    therefore
    the lord
    in his wrath
    for his anger was kindled against them
    swore
    that they should not enter into his rest
    while in the wilderness
    which rest is the fulness of his glory
    therefore
    he took moses out of their midst
    and the holy priesthood also
    and the lesser priesthood continued
    which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels
    and the preparatory gospel
    which gospel is the gospel of repentance
    and of baptism
    and the remission of sins
    and the law of carnal commandments
    which the lord
    in his wrath
    caused to continue with the house of aaron among the children of israel until john
    whom god raised up
    being filled with the holy ghost from his mother’s womb (D&C 84:23-27)

    Therefore, the carnal commandments given to the house of Aaron were not a curse, but a blessing, for they could have these commandments and still remain alive, but if the Lord had allowed Moses and the holy priesthood to remain in that congregation of hard-hearted people, they would have perished, for they could not endure the presence of the Lord in their spiritual state. But they also would have perished without any law, just as the Gentile nations around them were spiritually dead. So, He left the lesser priesthood with them, along with the gospel and carnal commandments, until these commandments were fulfilled by Christ.

    So, now, we Gentiles get the lesser priesthood, which was given to the house of Aaron, and also everything it came with, except for the part about carnal commandments, which is why the angel doesn’t mention them:

    upon you
    my fellow servants
    in the name of messiah
    i confer the priesthood of aaron
    which holds the keys of the ministering of angels
    and of the gospel of repentance
    and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins
    and this shall never be taken again from the earth
    until the sons of levi do offer again an offering unto the lord in righteousness (D&C 13:1)

    But, again, these commandments were called carnal commandments, but they weren’t carnal commandments. They were carnal, but not carnal, see?:

    behold
    i gave unto him
    that he should be an agent unto himself
    and i gave unto him commandment
    but no temporal commandment gave i unto him
    for my commandments are spiritual
    they are not natural
    nor temporal
    neither carnal
    nor sensual (D&C 29:35)

    So, they were carnal (fleshy), but not carnal (causing death). Need I say more?

    Section 130, in my opinion, contradicts myriad of scriptures that indicated that saved beings worship God before the throne eternally and do not socialize on the carnal level that fallen man does.

    Passages added by BY forty years later, claiming that JS said something worthy of canonization need to be weighed in the balance against the foundational scriptures of Christianity and the restoration.

    It doesn’t make a lot of sense that Joseph said something worthy of canonization but the Lord neglected to have him canonize it. Was BY more inspired than JS? One would need to accept BY as a prophet in order to put any serious validity into the passages he added into the D&C , in the event that they are not congruent with the Holy Scriptures. He himself admitted that he was not a prophet. I do not believe God commanded Brigham to tamper with the D&C

    That teaching took place during the dark days of Nauvoo when abominations were being committed and Joseph was outwardly teaching against polygamy but privately living it. That is when much of “BY fundamentalist Mormonism” the contradicts Biblical Christianity, emerged.

    This reminds me of each time a Christian has asked me to show him or her where in the scripture it says so and so (that I was teaching), and then I pull out a Book of Mormon scripture and they reply, “You can’t use that! You can only use the Bible!” It is kind of hard to come to an agreement if the parties do not agree as to what is or is not scripture.

    When the Lord commanded Nephi to lop off Labans head, that was a holy commandment by virtual of the fact that it was commanded by the Holy Lord.. does that mean that the act of murdering someone is a holy act?

    If the Lord kills, it is a holy act, for the killing is to save the tree. If the Lord commands someone else to kill, the killing is a holy act, for again, it is to save the tree. All that the Lord does, Himself, or through authorized agents, is holy.

    what i the lord have spoken
    i have spoken
    and i excuse not myself
    and though the heavens and the earth pass away
    my word shall not pass away
    but shall all be fulfilled
    whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants
    it is the same (D&C 1:38)

    Same principle applies to actions.

  50. Another possible evidence for the post premise

    Babylon and Zion are both spoken of in the feminine gender. These cannot be pure symbols, (for nothing is a pure symbol,) therefore there must be a concrete thing behind the symbol, and that thing must be a female entity. If we look at Zion, we see that the pure in heart, who are called Zion, only get that way through the action of the Holy Ghost, which dwells in their hearts. Zion wheat, then, pertains to the Holy Ghost, and it just so happens that the Holy Ghost in the Hebrew is referred to in feminine terms, as a female Entity.

    Taking the same as a pattern, when we look at Babylon tares, they must pertain to unholy ghosts, meaning evil spirits, which, if the pattern holds true, must be feminine in gender, hence the scriptures describing Babylon in feminine terms such as calling her the mother of abominations and a whore that commits fornication with the nations.

    This pattern, then, actually reinforces the conclusions of the post, as yet another (possible) evidence that this model may be true.

  51. ” The carnal commandments were never given as a curse.”

    “He showed that the power of the Melchisek P’d was to have the power of an “endless lives.” he showed that the everlasting covenants could not be broken, and by the sacrifice requeired of Abraham the fact that when God offers a blessing or knowledge to a man and he refuses to receive it he will be damned.–mentioning the case of the Israelites praying that God would speak to Moses & not to Them– in consequense of which he cursed them with a carnal law.”
    Joseph Smith
    Sermon delivered at Nauvoo temple grounds on Sunday August 27, 1843
    http://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1843/27Aug43.html

    “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree”
    Paul
    Gal 3:13

    23 I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries;
    24 Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols.
    25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;
    26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.
    Ezek 20:23-26

    :

  52. Watcher, I want to apologize for not responding in a timely fashion. Even now I cannot respond, but must leave off, but when I get a moment to return, I will comment on what you’ve written above. (I’m writing this now so that you don’t think that I’ve just been ignoring you. I haven’t. I’ve just been very occupied of late again. Besides, perhaps it is a blessing, and not a curse, hehe, that I do not respond right away, since you wanted to take a blogging break anyway, right?)

  53. I wrote in the OP:

    Everyone assumes that exactly half of heavenly Father’s children were male and half were female, and it is a good and logical assumption, so let’s go with that.

    I am no longer sure that the above is a good and logical assumption.

    When I consider the information in this post, methinks that there were many more female children than male children, if these things all follow the same pattern. If I remember to, I will fully explain this point when I release the new studies I’ve made.

    Btw, it is the 7th anniversary of the LDS Anarchy blog. Happy Birthday! Hip, hip, hooray! Hip, hip, hooray!! Hip, hip, hooray!!!

  54. Someone has been watching too much Supernatural. As a woman myself, I am going to call your assumptions pure crap. But at least you dont claim this is revelation or anything.

  55. I’ve never watched that show. This post is based upon other research that I have yet to put up online.

  56. Okay, so I wrote,

    The carnal commandments were never given as a curse.

    And the Watcher responded,

    “He showed that the power of the Melchisek P’d was to have the power of an “endless lives.” he showed that the everlasting covenants could not be broken, and by the sacrifice requeired of Abraham the fact that when God offers a blessing or knowledge to a man and he refuses to receive it he will be damned.–mentioning the case of the Israelites praying that God would speak to Moses & not to Them– in consequense of which he cursed them with a carnal law.”
    Joseph Smith
    Sermon delivered at Nauvoo temple grounds on Sunday August 27, 1843
    http://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1843/27Aug43.html

    “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree”
    Paul
    Gal 3:13

    23 I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries;
    24 Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols.
    25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;
    26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.
    Ezek 20:23-26

    So, I will now attempt to explain this mystery, having some time on my hands.

    Behold, my son, this thing ought not to be; for repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law. (Moroni 8:24)

    The law of carnal commandments was only a curse when it was broken. This curse of a broken law that was spoken of by Mormon is that its condemnatory power is alive and active. Now, look at Nephi’s words:

    And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.

    For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.

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

    Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away.

    And now behold, my people, ye are a stiffnecked people; wherefore, I have spoken plainly unto you, that ye cannot misunderstand. And the words which I have spoken shall stand as a testimony against you; for they are sufficient to teach any man the right way; for the right way is to believe in Christ and deny him not; for by denying him ye also deny the prophets and the law. (2 Nephi 25:24-28)

    For this end was the law given: to be fulfilled by Christ. In other words, the law of carnal commandments pointed the mind of man to Christ. That was its intention, that all might know that it would be fulfilled only by Him. Anyone who denied Christ, also denied the law of carnal commandments. There was no way, therefore, to keep the law unbroken except unless one had faith in Christ.

    Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

    Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

    Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (Romans 3:27-28,31)

    With faith in Christ, the law is established. This is why the Nephites kept the law, or had power to keep the law, by their faith. The law of carnal commandments was not a curse to them, but a blessing, pointing their minds to Christ. Those who exercised no faith, kept not the law, and thus broke it, and were cursed, or brought under condemnation. Jacob wrote of the ancients:

    Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son. (Jacob 4:5)

    And Amulek taught:

    Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.

    And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal. (Alma 34:13-14)

    Thus, the curse of the law, which activated and came alive by it being broken, was dead to the Nephites. Now, the curse itself, or the condemnatory power of the law when it was broken, had power to destroy or kill or cut off souls. Thus, the law’s very power was, in fact, death. The law itself, then, was both dead and death, or it dealt with death. Nevertheless, it was not given alone or in a vacuum, but was intended to be used in conjunction with the atonement of Christ, and when used in conjunction with Christ, or with faith in Christ, the law was kept, and instead of dealing death, it dealt sanctification. And this is why the law of carnal commandments was sanctified to the Nephites, but not to the wicked Jews. Here’s some more scriptures:

    Yet the Lord God saw that his people were a stiffnecked people, and he appointed unto them a law, even the law of Moses.

    And many signs, and wonders, and types, and shadows showed he unto them, concerning his coming; and also holy prophets spake unto them concerning his coming; and yet they hardened their hearts, and understood not that the law of Moses availeth nothing except it were through the atonement of his blood. Mosiah 3:14-15)

    And again, verily I say unto you, that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same. (D&C 88:34)

    Some of these things I’ve quoted gets into the new stuff which I want to eventually put up, so I won’t at present unfold this whole thing, as yet. Here are a couple of more scriptures:

    And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.

    Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.

    Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered. (2 Nephi 2:5-7)

    And now I say unto you that it was expedient that there should be a law given to the children of Israel, yea, even a very strict law; for they were a stiffnecked people, quick to do iniquity, and slow to remember the Lord their God;

    Therefore there was a law given them, yea, a law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him.

    But behold, I say unto you, that all these things were types of things to come.

    And now, did they understand the law? I say unto you, Nay, they did not all understand the law; and this because of the hardness of their hearts; for they understood not that there could not any man be saved except it were through the redemption of God. (Mosiah 13:29-32)

    So, the Jews were cursed by the law of carnal commandments because of the hardness of their hearts, because of their unbelief, because they refused to understand that the law pointed to Christ, or refused to look to Him. The law, then, had no sanctifying power, because they broke it by not looking to Christ, and only its condemning power was active in them, and thus they were cursed by the law. Nevertheless, the law was given to them as a blessing, and not as a curse.

  57. If I could add one more thing to this:

    So, the Jews were cursed by the law of carnal commandments because of the hardness of their hearts, because of their unbelief, because they refused to understand that the law pointed to Christ, or refused to look to Him. The law, then, had no sanctifying power, because they broke it by not looking to Christ, and only its condemning power was active in them, and thus they were cursed by the law. Nevertheless, the law was given to them as a blessing, and not as a curse.

    This principle does not only apply to the law of carnal commandments, but also to the law of Christ. Anyone who tries to live the law of Christ without full attention on Christ won’t be getting the prize of sanctification, either.

  58. LDSA, you said “…1 kingdom without glory (outer darkness)…”

    Looking up “outer darkness” especially in Alma 40, seems like it is a temporary residence of souls until their ressurection and not Satan’s kingdom. Do you agree with that? Are you simply using the term loosely?

  59. jackdale76,

    My understanding of “outer darkness” in Alma 40 is that Alma was referring to hell, which yes, is a temporary abode. Nevertheless, in referential position or location, this darkness or dark area is, in fact, located in the outer part, or shell, of the Earth, so it is correctly termed an outer darkness.

    When I used “outer darkness” in the post, I was referring to the endless realm of darkness which resides outside of the Universal sphere of light, from whence we all came.

  60. This seems the place to put this link.

    A Widespread Misunderstanding About Satan’s War on Agency

    Basically, Connor thinks Lucifer’s plan did away with the consequences of our actions here in mortality. This could be opened up a whole lot more, I suppose, but I have no time to do it.

  61. I’ve always thought something similar. I’ve never liked the whole “Lucifer was going to force us all to do good so we’d all return to heaven.” That doesn’t sound like his M.O. to me [wanting people to do good].

    I always took the “removal of agency” to mean he was going to remove accountability from the equation — meaning people could be as wicked as they wanted while in mortality and all would return to heaven regardless.

    I don’t know if that’s what the link describes or not — but that’s what I’ve always thought.

  62. Accountability is also removed when someone is acting under duress. Remember, there is no sin if God does it. So, if Lucifer were God, then he gets to decide what is or is not sin. There are many points to consider, but I ain’t gonna get into it, (at least not until I release the “new” stuff-from last year! Lol.) It is apparent to me, though, that there is more to be said about agency than what I’ve already said on this blog.

  63. Justin,

    I always took the “removal of agency” to mean he was going to remove accountability from the equation — meaning people could be as wicked as they wanted while in mortality and all would return to heaven regardless.

    In my blog posts which speak of agency, I have defined agency in this way:

    Agency is the ability to act for oneself, and not to be acted upon.

    If that definition is correct, would not merely removing accountability from the equation actually increase one’s agency?

  64. “…–leaving only 1/3(typographic oversight) of the female host behind. This may help to explain why there is a doctrine of polyandry in the D&C 132 text.”

  65. No typo. To wit:

    “…–leaving only 1/3 of the female host behind. This may help to explain why there is a doctrine of polyandry in the D&C 132 text.”

    2/6 of total population (consisting of 3/6 females and 3/6 males), therefore, 2/6 is 2/3 of the 3/6 female population, leaving 1/3 of the female population behind.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s