The U.S. Constitution (USC) Sucks, The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) is Better: Part 4 of an Open Debate—The NAC’s Marriage Sections

The Right to Travel

Before I get into the marriage sections, I want to address Section 3 of Article II, which says, in part:

…the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and to and from other countries, by any mode of conveyance whatsoever in which they desire to exercise their right to travel, without abridgment, regulation, restriction or license…

The right of travel is nearly non-existent in this country under the USC, though I happen to know a guy who has continually won in the courts each time the cops pull him over and find that he doesn’t have a license, but is merely traveling, and the cops now, when they pull him over, recognize him and just tell him to keep on traveling.  But that is in my area.  In your area, they may be quite adamant that there is not, nor ever was, any right to travel, but under the original Articles of Confederation, it was written right into it, though not as expressly as the NAC has it.  Therefore, the NAC is orders of magnitude better than the original Articles. Under the NAC, people are going to finally know what real freedom feels like…

NAC Article III. Section 1.

Neither the united States in Congress assembled, nor any State of this Confederacy, shall have power to abridge, regulate, or license, a man’s right to take a wife, for men shall always be free to marry wives, without restriction and without permission from ecclesiastical or secular authorities, but, for the resulting marriage, whether confarreatio, or coemptio in manum, or usus, or any other form, with or without manus, and with or without a vow, every State shall issue certificates upon presentment of statements or affidavits by the man and his wife, which shall certify the marriage and its form, and such certificates, if available, shall be used in all marriage controversies at law, which controversies shall be judged according to the marriage form and the covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations or expectations that were made and entered into by the persons involved.

This section ought to be considered a restoration, for in the beginning marriage was ordained unto man (and not unto woman) by God:

and again

verily I say unto you

that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God

for marriage is ordained of God unto man [not woman]

wherefore

it is lawful that he [man] should have one wife

and they twain shall be one flesh

and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation

and that it might be filled with the measure of man

according to his creation before the world was made

(D&C 49:15-17)

So, at the beginning of time, God gave to man a right to take a wife.  He (man) could do it under his own power and authority.  He didn’t need God’s permission, nor permission from other men, or from governments or anything.  This authority and right to take a wife was in him alone.

(Now, I will not explain in this post exactly what marriage is, and although I have written on this blog much about marriage, I have yet to tell what it is, and for those of you who have read my previous writings, don’t think you know what I teach from my previous writings, because these teachings are not there, but are yet to be published…)

Anyway, Section 1 restores this right and power and authority, which was had from the very beginning.  Another thing it restores is the power of manus.  Manus existed from the beginning and was the only form of marriage practiced by man from the start.  Manus was the form given to men by God.  Later on, a new form, developed by man, came forth, which was marriage without manus.  As man had a right to marriage, he also had a right to the form of marriage he chose, therefore with or without manus were equally valid forms of marriage.  Up until quite recently, almost all marriage was assumed to be with manus, but there has been a radical shift in the laws and in the interpretations of the judges, and now all marriage is assumed to be without manus.  The LDS temple ceremony, however, is manus marriage, keeping the ancient form.  Thus, there is a huge contradiction, because the temple sealing is with manus but the civil portion of the ceremony is considered to be without manus.

Also anciently, all marriage was without a vow*, and all marriage was considered to be without a vow.  Taking a wife without a vow was the form of marriage God gave to man at the beginning, but, as man had a right, he later added a form of marriage with a vow.  When a man takes a wife with a vow, he vows to [fill in the blank].  When a man takes a wife without a vow, he doesn’t promise a thing.  At some point in history, marriage with vows became the norm and every marriage was considered, and still is, to be entered into with a vow (by the man).  Again, the LDS temple ceremony keeps the ancient form of marriage, and thus all temple marriage sealings are entered into by the man without a vow, yet the civil law considers that marriage as made with a vow (of monogamy, specifically) anyway.

The disharmony between the LDS temple ceremony and the civil law comes because the LDS Church requires a marriage license from the State before they will marry or seal people in the temple.  The marriage license is marriage by privilege, without manus and with an (assumed and unstated) vow (of monogamy).

The NAC, then, restores the right to marry, as well as the ancient forms of with manus and without a vow, but also keeps the more recent forms of without manus and with a vow.  In other words, men are given their full rights in marriage, and can decide what is best for them, or which form of marriage is best for them to enter into.  Currently, men do not have such a choice, but must choose only one form: without manus and with a vow.

(* The Nephites, although commanded by God not to take more than one wife, did not marry with a vow.  Those Nephites who engaged in polygamy broke God’s commandment, but did not commit adultery.)

No marriage license

The NAC forbids marriage licenses for marriage by right.  Notice that I wrote “marriage by right.”  The NAC does not prohibit “marriage by privilege.”  A marriage license is a marriage privilege, granted by the State.  It gives one permission to do something that otherwise would be illegal to do.  It can be granted and it can be revoked.  If a man wants to marry by privilege, he may still do so under the NAC, by paying the State some money and getting a marriage license.  But if he wants to marry by right, he needs no permission or license from any entity.  Perhaps you might wonder, “Why in the world would a man choose to marry by privilege if he can marry by right?”  Well, if the woman he wants to marry refuses to marry him unless he gets a marriage license (marriage by privilege) and he really wants this woman, he might do that.  Marriage by privilege, of course, means that you marry without manus and with a vow, and also that the State is the arbitrator in the case of divorce, etc.  So, the NAC will still allow marriage licenses.

The State certifies

Another restoration from the very beginning is the role of the State as certifying agent.  That’s right, in the very beginning, according to my understanding, the man entered into a marriage with manus and without a vow and whatever government he was under acknowledged his marriage as validly performed under his own authority.  The governments of the world, in the ancient world, were servants of the men in this regard.  They recognized that all men had power and authority in and of themselves from the very beginning to marry wives and recognized all such marriages as marriages.  They never did as States do today and refused to recognize this or that marriage because there was no marriage license.  Such nonsense, committed by the governments of today, is a usurpation of masculine authority, which has occurred over time until the States of today now totally control marriage and man has no more power or authority over it.

The NAC, then, restores these ancient orders by taking the usurped masculine powers from the State and giving it back to men.  The effect of this can only be that marriage will increase among men again, for many men are avoiding marriage because it is no longer beneficial to them.  It has become a raw deal, one in which the risks out way the benefits.  Once the NAC is installed, marriage will be a benefit and blessing to men again, and they will begin to marry again in droves, choosing whichever form they deem best for them.

Same-sex marriage (SSM)

What of same-sex marriage?  Well, the NAC doesn’t address same-sex marriage, except for this part:

Article X. Section 5.

As the decisions of the supreme court of the former national government were made according to that law which was the United States Constitution and its treaties, which law is no longer binding upon the States, nor upon the people thereof, neither shall such decisions be binding upon any of the States, nor upon their people.

Now, under the USC, which doesn’t mention marriage, at all, the Supreme Court was able to determine that the U.S. Constitution did not allow plural marriages.  Under the USC, which doesn’t mention marriage, at all, the Supreme Court was able to determine that the U.S. Constitution allows a man and another man, or a woman and another woman, to be married.  The U.S. Constitution, which doesn’t mention marriage, at all, apparently still has much to say about which forms of marriage it permits, and which it doesn’t, without ever using the words “marry” or “marriage.”  The USC, then, is a magical document with magical powers beyond my comprehension.  But thank goodness the Supreme Court can comprehend such magical things!  Perhaps it is because they themselves are wizards performing some sort of magic?

The NAC, on the other hand, is not magical.  It takes a simplified approach.  It encodes heterosexual marriage as a right of man and does not seek to restrict that right in any way.  It also does not mention anything other than marriage by right.  Therefore, under the NAC, States are still free to permit SSM (by issuing a marriage license), or ban it altogether (by refusing to issue a marriage license); free to permit polygamy (by issuing a marriage license) or ban it (by refusing to issue a marriage license).  But they are not free to restrict in any way man’s right to heterosexual marriage and are required to recognize such marriages, as governments did anciently.

So, the recent decision of the Supreme Court on SSM is null and void under the NAC, meaning that SSM will become a State’s matter, each State deciding whether they will permit (license) SSM or not.

Divorce under the NAC

The NAC changes the game for divorce, too, at least for manus marriages:

Article III. Section 3.

No State shall have power to divorce men who exercise their right to marry wives with manus, from their wives, nor shall the right and power of such men to issue a writ of divorcement, on their own authority, be abridged or regulated in any way, and such writs shall be binding and valid and final and unalterable decrees in the eyes of the law, so that the law shall view a wife so divorced as loosed from the law of her husband.

This is yet another restoration, for anciently there was no power (outside of the man himself) to divorce a man who married with manus, from his wife.  Only he (the man) had power to divorce, using the same power he used to marry: his own.  Thus, the power to divorce wives was always in men from the beginning.  When Moses allowed men to issue bills of divorcement, he did not confer any more authority than men already had.  He just gave them divine permission to use their rights, power and authority in this way.

Now, under the USC, there is an unfavorable environment for men to marry.  Why?  Because if they marry by privilege with a marriage license, without manus and with a vow, and the marriage goes south, they can lose their house, their money, their kids and even their liberty (jail time).  The risks far out way the benefits of current marriage practices under the USC and many men are walking away.  The NAC, though, creates a favorable environment for men to marry, because they not only get to set all the terms of the marriage from the get-go, as men did anciently, but also all the terms of the divorce, even controlling whether a divorce can happen or not.  This minimizes, or altogether eliminates, risk and gives men who marry by right (with manus) only benefits.  Men will not walk away from such marriage, but will rush into it, reversing all current marriage and divorce trends.  New marriage statistics will shoot sky-high and divorce statistics will become nearly non-existent, under the NAC.

State divorces still can happen

The NAC doesn’t speak on other forms of divorce.  A man is still free to marry by privilege and go through the courts for a divorce and lose everything.  The NAC doesn’t say you can’t sell yourself to the State and then get dragged through the mud by a wife wanting a divorce.  Some men are masochists by nature, so the NAC leaves intact all these other forms and merely gives men more choices, while still allowing the masochists their fun.

Conferral of citizenship by manus

Article XII. Section 2.

Men who are natural-born citizens of any State, that marry wives by right, with manus, shall have power to confer naturalized citizenship upon their wives, provided a wife first passes an English proficiency test and enters into a covenant to obey, honor and sustain the laws of the State of which her husband is a resident, both of which shall be administered by the State of which her husband is a resident; and such men shall naturalize their wives by issuing a writ of citizenship, which writ shall be certified by the State of which her husband is a resident, which certified writ shall be binding and valid in the eyes of the law.

This also is a restoration, for this power existed in olden days and in ancient times.  Thus the NAC returns these stolen powers and rights back to the men and codifies them.  All of these things, taken together, rearrange the centers of power found in the national and State governments, creating a new center of power and jurisdiction, held by men, which really isn’t a new jurisdiction, but an old jurisdiction, for men always held these rights and powers and jurisdictions, in ancient times and from the beginning.

This stuff is in the NAC because I wrote it with a view of the restoration of all things.  It may not seem readily apparent just how important these things are, but their effect will be huge in both shackling the State, re-empowering the people and in furthering the restoration of all things.

Conclusion

The marriage sections of the NAC, I suppose, will be controversial, but they need not be, for they do not force change in current practices, merely adding ancient practices to the modern ones, giving people many more options.  Feel free to disagree on any point mentioned in this post.  Bring your strongest reasons against the NAC and let’s have an open debate.  And for those who like the NAC and want to install it as the Supreme Law of the land, here is my advice and prediction (and also see this comment, and this comment and this comment) :

A continual strategy of debate will install the NAC in this country and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I say that Americans will jump at the chance to debate the NAC and to show that the Constitution is better, but, according to the rules of the debate, they will have to read the NAC first, and once read, they will be hard pressed to defend the Constitution. Thus, everyone who hears, or watches, or reads, or participates in, a NAC debate, will become convinced that the NAC is what this country needs.

To read the other parts of this series, click any of these links:

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,

Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10,

Part 11, Part 12, Part 13.

Also see: The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) and The Right to Abolish, Revert and Replace Amendment.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

A commandment to practice polygamy found in the New Testament

The following has been lifted from this page and was not written by me.  I thought it was interesting enough to put on this blog and allow people to comment on it.  I will insert the scriptures in block quotes for easy reading.

————————————–

 Polygamy Commanded of God in NT?

There absolutely is an example in the Bible, where God actually does command a situation of polygamy —in the New Testament, even.

1_Corinthians 7:10-11 & 27-28.

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

—–

27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul differentiates when he is making his own “recommendation” (in verses 6, 12, and 25)

6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

—–

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

—–

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

and when he is expressing the “commandment of the Lord” (verses 10-11).

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Indeed, in verses 10-11, Paul clarifies that the instruction in those two verses is the “commandment of the Lord”. (It should therefore also be noted that the other areas in which he clarifies as being only his “recommendation” can NOT be used to otherwise and incorrectly assert that God Himself is creating some sin or doctrine. After all, Paul’s ultimate “recommendation” therein is celibacy!)

With that realized, it is clear for readers of the Bible that Paul makes it emphatically clear that verses 10-11 are different. Namely, verses 10-11, in the exact way in which they are actually written, are the “commandment of God”.

“And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.”  1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

Paul further specifies that that above “commandment of the Lord” was only addressed to believers-married-to-believers. In the next verses (i.e, 12-16), he clarifies that he is subsequently addressing believers-married-to-unbelievers, and that that subsequent instruction is not the Lord’s words, but his own again.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

Verses 10-11 show that, if a believer WIFE leaves her believer HUSBAND, the

• believer WIFE is commanded of God to either:

remain unmarried, or
be reconciled back to her husband

• believer HUSBAND is commanded of God to:

not put away any wife, and to
let any departed wife return back to him

The key point is that the HUSBAND is NOT given the same commandments of instruction. Only the WIFE is commanded to remain unmarried, but the HUSBAND is not given that commandment. He is commanded of God to let her be married to him, either way!

Accordingly, the HUSBAND is of course, still free to marry another wife. That fact is further proved by the later verses of 27-28.

“Art thou bound unto a wife?
seek not to be loosed.
Art thou loosed from a wife?
seek not a wife.
But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned;
and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.”
1 Corinthians 7:27-28.

The Greek text of verse 27 is clearly only addressing married men –whether or not the wife has departed.

As such, the married man whose wife is still with him does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another’s wife). And likewise, the married man, whose wife has departed from him, he also does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another’s wife).

And herein comes the “commandment of the Lord”, of polygamy, as in the following situation.

A believer WIFE departs from her believer HUSBAND. She is commanded of God to remain unmarried, per verses 10-11. Her HUSBAND, however, then subsequently marries another wife (who is not another man’s wife). The HUSBAND and the new wife have not sinned, per verses 27-28. The departed WIFE then seeks to be reconciled back to her HUSBAND.

In that situation, verses 10-11 show the following instruction as the “commandment of the Lord”. The HUSBAND is commanded of God to let the departed wife be reconciled back to him. AND…. he is commanded of God to not put away a wife, including the new wife.

As such, verses 10-11 show that it is an outright “commandment of the Lord” of polygamy for the family in that situation.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is indeed a Commandment of God — in the New Testament — that, when a previously-departed believer wife returns, her believer husband and his new (believer) wife (from verse 27-28) MUST let the previous wife be reconciled to her husband.

There truly IS a “commandment of the Lord” for a situation of polygamy to be found in the Bible —and it’s in the New Testament Scriptures, as well!

————————-

Here are the same verses as found in the Joseph Smith Translation, in case anyone wants to do a comparison:

Joseph Smith Translation

—–

6 And now what I speak is by permission, and not by commandment.

—–

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband;

11 But if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband; but let not the husband put away his wife.

—–

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord; If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases; but God hath called us to peace.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

—–

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

—–

27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

28 But if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless, such shall have trouble in the flesh. For I spare you not.

Okay, now for my own comments.  It seems to me that the crux of this argument lies in this statement of his:

The Greek text of verse 27 is clearly only addressing married men –whether or not the wife has departed.

I cannot speak about the Greek text (since I do not know Greek), but it seems to me that the context of the chapter, as translated into English, supports this view.  Namely, that the words “bondage,” “bound,”  and “loosed” do not refer to marriage and divorcement, but to marital togetherness and marital separation.  For example, (and I will use the JST for these scriptures), verse 5 says,

5 Depart ye not one from the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

This “departure” is not referring to marital divorce, but marital separation.  It cannot refer to divorce because two divorced people “coming together again” without getting married would be considered a sin, and Paul would never recommend that people engage in sin.

Next we get verses 10 and 11:

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband;

11 But if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband; but let not the husband put away his wife.

Again, “depart” must mean marital separation, not marital divorce.  Also, “put away” only means marital separation, not marital divorce, for I happen to have done an in-depth study on this very expression years ago, and discovered this very thing.  For example, Moses commanded that after a wife was put away by her husband (which is marital separation) that he give her a writ of divorcement (which is the marital divorce.)

To continue, verses 12-13 state:

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord; If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

These verses can only be speaking of marital separation or marital union, in which the two are together.  They do not speak of divorce.

Next, there’s verse 15:

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases; but God hath called us to peace.

“Departure” is used in this chapter to indicate marital separation, not marital divorce, and this verses equates “departure” with “not being under bondage,” or in other words, with being “loosed.”  Thus, departure=separation=loosed and reconciliation=togetherness=bound.  The chapter is consistent in its contextual meanings of these terms, so far.

Finally, verses 27 and 28 state:

27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

28 But if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless, such shall have trouble in the flesh. For I spare you not.

Since the context of the chapter reveals that bound means together and loosed means separated (not divorced), we could write verse 27 like this:

27 Art thou together with a wife? seek not to be separated. Art thou separated from a wife? seek not a wife.

With this meaning in mind, then verse 28 does, in fact, allow a man whose wife has separated from him to marry another woman without sinning.  Also, it allows a woman to marry an already married man whose first wife has separated from him, without committing sin.  And, per verses 10-11, if the first wife return to him in reconciliation, the man is commanded to receive her and not put her away.  Or, in other words, this does indeed make a New Testament commandment of the Lord to engage in polygamy.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Tribal Relationships

This post is a combination of having read this and this post as well as this book:

Our Current Model:
It is often assumed that monogamy comes naturally to us.  Mainstream science – as well as religious and cultural institutions – have maintained that men and women evolved in family-units in which a man’s possessions and protection were exchanged for a woman’s fertility and fidelity.

Marriage between man and woman is essential to [God’s] eternal plan.  Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. … By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families…and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.  Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.

We are taught that the ideal for human relationships is that you will have relations with only one person and he or she will only have relations with you — total chastity of men and women before marriage and total fidelity in marriage.  Thus, promiscuity and its associated temptations are of the devil – and one, true monogamous love is ordained of God.  However, it doesn’t take a genius to see that humans have had a historically tough time fitting this mold — which in turn, in the minds of Creedal Christians, only strengths the claim that God ordained it that way – the natural man being an enemy to God, etc.

The basic narrative for the history of ancient humans is that women sought a stable man to stick around to help raise the kids and bring home food – yet wanted to sleep with the sexy rebel because of his genes.  While men sought to impregnate as many women as possible while keeping their women monogamous so they wouldn’t have to spend resources to raise someone else’s kids.  And thus, we are taught that we are the products of these horribly conflicted ancestors.  However, this narrative presupposes that every ancient culture centered around assigning men and women to each other thru marriage, granting exclusive rights of property to individuals, associating sex with paternity, and men providing only for their offspring.  However, when hunter/gatherer communities are studied, it is found that they share all duties communally, as a tribe/family.  Ideas of, “I’m not raising that other man’s kid,” developed later as a function of the agrarian concept of converting labor into personal property.  Marriage may have existed as a social arrangement among many hunter/gatherer communities, but it was one in which sexuality was less well-defined.

Our Tribal Past:
Human society developed in egalitarian tribes that shared food, childcare, and often – sexual partners.  In these small, intimate family groups, the most mature individuals would have had several ongoing sexual relationships at any given time.  Here the extended family, which was often the entire community, is where children were raised.  We are the descendants of these multimale-multifemale tribal groups and, even though we’ve constructed a radically different society from our hunter/gatherer ancestors, the behavioral and psychological traits from the past still manifest themselves today.  This is why we see:

• Sexual passion that tends to fade even as love deepens
• Many middle-aged men risking everything for transient affairs with younger women
• Homosexuality persisting in the face of standard evolutionary logic and scriptural condemnation

Monogamous animals, by definition, don’t have to compete for reproduction and, as a result, are characterized by a low-level of sexual activity.  However, humans sit atop a very short list of animals that engage in sex for pleasure.  No animal spends more of its allotted time on Earth focused on sexual matters than we do.  In fact, the animal world is filled with species that confine their sexual behavior to just a few periods of the year, only during times when conception is highly probable.  Also considering that males have a very large genitalia to body size ratio and that females can experience multiple orgasms indicate that we are designed to engage in concurrent sexual relationshps within a group/tribal setting.

If, as the current narrative says, men are inclined to be promiscuous and women are not, then our behavior should match that of gorillas – which fight over the exclusive rights to have sex with all the women in the group.  However, biologically, it seems that humans are designed to use a woman’s body as the battleground.  In other words, unlike gorillas, who have developed to physically compete for mates, human sperm is made to race against sperm from other men — and the human vagina is the formidable racetrack able to sort out the hardiest genes.

Monogamy’s Results:
The leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints used to recognize the dangers that a monogamous, family-unit system represents:

Monogamy…is no part of the economy of heaven among men.  Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire. … Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged.  Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers. … Why do we believe in and practice polygamy?  Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord’s servants have always practised it.  ‘And is that religion popular in heaven?’  It is the only popular religion there…

Monogamy has been used as a means of controlling women in societies since the dawn of agriculture 10,000 years ago and sedentary societies have greatly influenced the structure of human mating.  Sadly, one of the legacies of agriculture and industrialization has been STDs, lower testosterone and sperm counts, and sexual repression.  In fact, it was the high-grain, vegetarian diet pushers like Kellogg and Graham – whose diet-plan itself lowers libido – who were also advocates for strict sexual repression and genital mutilation.

The paradox of monogamous marriage is that we do enjoy intense pair-bondings with other people – bonds that intensify with time.  But, at the same time, spark of new relationships is deeply satisfying as well, and new partners has been the tried and true method to boost lowering testosterone levels in middle-aged men for thousands of years.

They Will Have All Things in Common:
The difficult fact to face is we have hunter/gatherer sexual desires in a world where children are not raised in a tribe, where sexually-expressive women are looked down upon, STDs are a real risk, and monogamy is considered culturally and spiritually superior.  Our current model is bad.  We cannot continue on with:  A man eating food laced with chemicals and hormones, taking medicines that lower testosterone and deform sperm while being hooked to watching internet porn and professional sports all day, and a woman with a frustratingly repressed libido struggling to juggle a career and children – trying to form an isolated family-unit.  It has driven our society to a point where more than half of all marriages end in divorce.  When Jesus says that:

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,

He is indicating that our current model of assigning men and women to relationships of ownership and exclusivity will have an end with this world.  In the celestial state, all things are held in common and all of the Gods are unified.  If Father kept His wives locked away in a harem, then He would be exercising unrighteous dominion – restricting both His wives and His other children from demonstrating their love one for another.

Next article by Justin:  Connecting with Pixels

See also:  Marriage without a marriage license is ordained of God

Does legalized, same-sex “marriage” break the law of chastity?

As I was doing research tonight for an article on the law of chastity, I came across something interesting that has to do with same-sex “marriage.”  Having been through the temple, I knew that the law of chastity is defined for us there, so I went to ldsendowment.org to get the exact text of the definition of the law of chastity.  It was then that I noticed the following:

Pre-1990 definition of the law of chastity

We are instructed to give unto you the law of chastity. This I will explain. To the sisters, it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse (1) except with your husband to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded. To the brethren it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded. (2) [Taken from this page.]

[Footnotes: (1) 1. The 1990 revision speaks of sexual “relations” rather than sexual “intercourse.” (2) 2. The 1990 revision does not have women and men covenant separately to keep the law of chastity. Instead, women and men simultaneously covenant to have no sexual relations except with their “husband or wife” to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded. This revision was no doubt made to streamline the ceremony. However, the new wording has the presumably unintended consequence of bringing same-sex marriages–if legalized–within the pale of the law of chastity.]

1990 definition of the law of chastity

We are instructed to give unto you the law of chastity, which is that each of you shall have no sexual relations except with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.  [Taken from this page.]

Now, I have always assumed that the 1990 definition had a way out of permitting same-sex “marriage” in its use of the words “legally and lawfully.”  Essentially, I figured that “legally” meant it was permitted by the State and that “lawfully” meant it was according to the laws of God.  In other words, that a matrimony could not break the law of chastity with one another as long as their marriage was right with the State and also right with God.

However, I am no lawyer.    And I wonder if I am wrong in my assessment of the meaning of “legally” and “lawfully.”  I wonder if the temple definition could be used against the Church by church members, who, given the current marriage situation in certain States of the Union, decide to “marry” another church member of the same sex, legally (and lawfully?)  If the Church tries to take action against these members, saying that they are openly fornicating (breaking the law of chastity), and attempting to get them disfellowshipped or excommunicated, what would happen if these same members brought up the current temple definition of the law of chastity in their defense, stating that as they are married, they are complying with the law of God?  And if the Church disregarded such a defense, could these members take this to the law of the land (the State) and say, “Look at the definition of the law of chastity which we received in the temple and see that we have fully complied with that definition, thus, the Church is in error, not us?”

There is no doubt that the pre-1990 definition excludes same-sex “marriage.”  But does the 1990 definition do the same?  If it doesn’t, meaning, if the wording is not sufficient to exclude it, and if the temple definition can be used as a defense in a lawsuit, the Church may be in for some legal trouble should any members decide to engage in legalized, same-sex “marriage” or, perhaps, if any non-member, same-sex “matrimony” decides to investigate the Church and desires baptism without first divorcing.

Next Chastity article: The Law of Chastity: What It Is and What It Isn’t

Previous Chastity article: The many definitions of adultery

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

To LDS women: beware of kissing

“A man loses his sense of direction after four drinks; a woman loses hers after four kisses.”–Henry Louis Mencken

Apparently there is now scientific research that indicates that when a woman engages in kissing with a man, the hormone oxytocin is released in her body. Oxytocin is known as the “love drug” and causes a woman to bond with the man with whom she is kissing. It clouds her rational thought processes and affects her on an emotional level. Oxytocin bonding is very dangerous because regardless of the character of the man she is kissing, once the bonding takes place, she will be emotionally attached. She may find out later he has vices, is violent, is dishonest, is of another religion, or is incompatible in a multitude of ways with the standards she has set for the kind of man she wants, but due to oxytocin bonding, she may find it exceedingly difficult to break the relationship. After this chemical process occurs, and bonding is initiated, friends who see that the man is not right for her may tell her directly and point out the cons of the guy, but she will make excuses because “when I kiss him he makes me feel (fill in the blank).”

Ladies, the only way to keep your head straight so that you think rationally and choose the best man for you is to keep to a “no kissing plan.” Absolutely never kiss a man or boy before you have decided to marry him and are engaged to him. Only after you have made the decision that this is the man for you, should you kiss him, allowing oxytocin bonding to occur.

Just think of how much misery and heartache could be spared by just informing our daughters about the physiological response of their bodies when they kiss a boy, and counseling them to avoid it at all cost, until they are engaged. Virtually every relationship disaster, every immorality tragedy and every relationship disease can be avoided by this simple plan.

All men know the effect kissing has on women, but only until recently have scientists shown the link between kissing and the female hormone oxytocin. So, men, no, it isn’t your great kissing technique that makes a woman melt. When she decides, desires and initiates kissing with you, that hormone is released in her and she’ll melt, regardless of who you are, what you look like or how good or bad you are. Once she has experienced oxytocin bonding with you, she is yours.

This information should scare the daylights out of single and divorced women and parents of girls. Having boyfriends, meaning friends who are boys that you kiss, is dangerous ground to tread. If you don’t want to end up with someone who makes you miserable, but to whom you are oxytocin bonded, don’t ever kiss a man who isn’t your fiance or husband. Period.

For further information, click on the following link:

www.nokissing.com

Next Relationships article: Slim pickings is not the problem with the single adult program: FAT women are

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Scriptural Discussion #3: Sexual Sin—Among Members/Among Investigators

SEXUAL SIN—AMONG MEMBERS

The Lord said, “Behold, verily I say unto you, that whatever persons among you, having put away their companions for the cause of fornication, or in other words, if they shall testify before you in all lowliness of heart that this is the case, ye shall not cast them out from among you; but if ye shall find that any persons have left their companions for the sake of adultery, and they themselves are the offenders, and their companions are living, they shall be cast out from among you.” (D&C 42: 74-75)

SEXUAL SIN—AMONG INVESTIGATORS

The Lord said, “And again, I say unto you, that ye shall be watchful and careful, with all inquiry, that ye receive none such among you if they are married; and if they are not married, they shall repent of all their sins or ye shall not receive them.” (D&C 42: 76-77)

Discuss.

Next Scriptural Discussion: #4 SICK—FAITHLESS MEMBERS/FAITHFUL SAINTS

Previous Scriptural Discussion: #2 SCRIPTURES—MEN TO BE JUDGED BY

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist