The USC Sucks, etcetera: Part 7 of an Open Debate—The NAC’s Article VI & Conspiracies

A change in course

I said in the previous post that in my next installment I would discuss Article V, which covers monetary issues, but I’ve changed my mind.  I will, instead, jump to Article VI.

Full disclosure

The first 7 sections of Article VI give Congress the responsibility to keep accurate records for all its operations and puts forth the principle that “there shall be full disclosure and transparency in all the affairs of the Confederacy” (Section 6.)  So, secrecy is out. Full disclosure also allows the people to exercise their right to nullify the laws that they don’t like by their voice.  These are all the parts of the NAC that deal with this right to nullify:

Article II. Section 2. (24) the right of the people to nullify a law by their voice shall not be abridged;

Article VI. Section 5. Paragraph 2. At the conclusion of each session of Congress, the General Recorder shall publish the full congressional record for that entire session and deliver a copy of it to each member of Congress, and a copy shall also be delivered to each of the State legislatures, and a copy shall also be delivered to each of the main post offices throughout the Confederacy, for free inspection by the general public, that the citizens thereof, should they choose to exercise their right, may nullify by their voice any law they so choose; and all such laws nullified, by the voice of all the citizens of the several States, shall be null and void, and of none effect throughout the land.

Article X. Section 9. All bills passed into law by the voice of Congress and signed into law by the chief judge shall be considered acknowledged by the States and the people thereof; and the States and the people thereof, shall be obliged to abide by them, unless nullified by the citizens by their voice.

There is also Section 8 which is quite specific about the danger of secret combinations and Congress’ duty toward them:

Article VI. Section 8.There shall be no one sworn to secrecy in Congress, nor among any of their Officers, nor in the armed forces, nor in the employ of the Confederacy; and whoso is found combining in secret against Congress, or against the Confederacy, or against any State, or against the American people, or administering or taking secrecy oaths to hide facts from Congress, or to help such as seek power to gain power, or to help to get gain, or to murder, or to rob, or to steal, or to plunder, or to lie, or to commit any manner of crime, contrary to the law, that they might circumvent the law or that they might overthrow the rights and privileges and freedom of these lands, or of other lands and nations and countries, shall be charged and tried for treason; and whatsoever secret society is found to be a secret combination—entering into secret oaths and covenants, that the members of such would protect and preserve one another in whatsoever difficult circumstances they should be placed, that they should not suffer for their crimes, having secret signs and secret words, that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant, that whatsoever crimes his brother should do, he should not be injured by his brother, nor by those who belong to his band, who have taken the same covenant, swearing by their heads that whoso should vary from the assistance which the band desires should lose his head, and whoso should divulge whatsoever thing the band makes known to them, the same should lose his life, trying those who belong to their band, who reveal to the world their secret plans and plots and agreements and crimes, not according to the laws of their country, but according to the laws of their band—shall not be suffered to exist, but the united States in Congress assembled, upon discovery of such secret works and workers of darkness, shall use every means in their power to destroy all such bands from off the face of the earth, and also to bring to justice all those that build up the same; and whoso is found destroying the records of the Confederacy, to hide facts from Congress, shall also be charged and tried, according to the law.

This leads into the topic of dealing with conspiracies.

Mechanisms against conspiring men

Since joining the Mormon church I, like many other Mormons, have learned to take the conspiratorial view of history.  My (very Mormon) understanding is that conspiring men (and women) have put a whole lot of conspiratorial laws on the books, both at the national government and State levels, and even on the local levels.  By conspiratorial laws, I mean those laws that conspiring men (and women) have crafted under some false guise or ruse, but which only seek to undermine American society by emasculating the American men, taking away their rights and privileges, and consolidating their stolen masculine power into the hands of pretty much only the government.

When I wrote the NAC, I had a specific plan in mind, and I followed through in it, but as time went on, I kept getting more thoughts which added significantly to the NAC, making it altogether something different than my original plan.  Of note is that the original plan did not have any mechanisms to deal with conspirators in it.  It was just a Confederacy.  But as I wrote, a certain conspiratorial element began weaving its way into the text, giving mechanisms for dealing with conspiring men and women.  One of those mechanisms is the right of the majority to nullify any law they want by their voice.

A couple of examples of conspiratorial laws

Gun control laws, for example, are an example of conspiratorial laws.  A disarmed people is quite useful if your goal is to conquer that people, so doing away with the right to keep and bear arms under the guise of safety and security is merely a ruse, and is conspiratorial.

Another example is, for example, the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act.)  A man can get his right to keep and bear arms and his right to see his children taken away, not because he did something wrong, but because someone claimed they felt threatened by him.  The un-American notion of “guilty until proven innocent” is being thrust upon society by VAWA and other laws.  Such laws are all conspiratorial.

It’s all about the men

Men are the target of the conspirators, not the women or the children.  The men must be taken out, but they cannot in their empowered state, so they must be emasculated.  Think of the temple ceremony.  Did Satan approach Adam or Eve first?  Who was his primary target?  It was Adam.  Did Adam buckle?  Nope.  Adam was adamant in keeping God’s commandments.  So then Satan approached Eve.  Why?  Was it to destroy Eve?  Nope, it was to destroy Adam.  Adam was still the target.  Eve was weak even in her non-fallen state.  She was an easy kill.  Eve, in her non-fallen state, was tempted and ate of the fruit.  She was weak before the fall, despite being in a translated body, and she remained weak after, in her now mortal body.  Adam was strong before and also after.  Adam fell on purpose, not because he was tempted.

In like manner, all conspirators target the men, for they are guided by Satan, who gives them their plans.  The plan is ever the same, destroy the men (not the women.)  How?  By empowering the women with masculine power.  This will emasculate the men, and then the weakened men can be killed, along with their women.

Manus for protection

God put women under manus for a reason.  Men are powerful.  Even against Satan they are powerful.  Manus is a protection to women and children, not only from other men, but also from Satan.  Manus, then, must be destroyed.  (And manus has, in fact, been destroyed.  But the NAC would restore it.)

The destruction or disMANtling of manus frees women from the protection of men and emasculates the men.  But that is not enough, for even a man free of manus (and thus women and children) is still powerful.  A single man with no one under his manus is still a huge threat, as long as his rights and privileges are intact.  So, the elimination of manus is not the whole goal, but the emergence of a perversion, which I could call womanus.

Womanus for perversion

Womanus is having men and children under the power of a woman, so that she rules over them.  Also, the conspirators seek to put children over the men, again as their rulers.  The conspirators do not mind women and children ruling over the men because they are relatively weak compared to the men.  Therefore, once the men are sufficiently emasculated and the women and children rule over them, both men, women and children can easily be wiped out or enslaved.

Womanus, of course, is a pure fiction.  It does not exist, nor ever can, for women and children are too weak to rule over men unless they are empowered by some external masculine entity, such as the State’s male police force.  Thus evil men are conspiring against all other men under the guise of equality.  The whole thing is a ruse to put evil men in power, ruling over other men (and over everyone else).  To be plainer, this isn’t about the rights or empowerment of women or children, at all, but simply about a few men wanting to be kings over other men.  In other words, these conspiring men want all other men to be put under their manus.

Dealing with conspiratorial laws

There are three branches of power through which all conspiracies function in government.  The first, (and this is not in any particular order,) is through the force of arms, called the police state or even a standing army.  The second is though conspiratorial laws, which are laws that abridge the rights of man and pervert the established orders.  The third is through wicked judges and rulers.

The NAC provides provisions to deal with a standing army (by banning it in times of peace) :

Article II. Section 2. (3) because of the extreme danger posed to liberty, there shall be no standing army in times of peace, and military conscription shall be abolished forever;

and to deal with a police state (by creating a super-armed society) :

Article II. Section 2. (1) as a well-armed populace, skilled in the use of all weapons, is essential for the security of the United States—in order to wage warfare against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that should threaten any of their rights—the right of the people to make, keep, bear and carry all manner of weapons of every kind, openly or concealed, shall not be infringed nor regulated;

Article IX. Section 9. Paragraph 5. When men enlist in the armed forces, they shall have power to bring with them all their weapons of war, if they have them, and to retain and use them during battle, and Congress shall also supply the armed forces with other weapons and ammunition, and with other needed supplies, that the armed forces shall have all it needs, in abundance, to defend the Confederacy lands; and if the supplies of the armed forces are greatly reduced during wartime, each State shall open its militia supplies to the armed forces, by writ of Congress, to defend the land, and after a war is over and peace has been declared by Congress, all weapons and supplies, which are left, shall be returned to the rightful owners.

Article XII. Section 6. Any State that has one or more international points of entry, or an international land or sea border, shall have power to restrict, according to law, imported goods brought through such entry points and borders, by any person, excepting personal weapons.

and also to deal with conspiratorial laws (through the right to nullify by the people’s voice.)  It also provides a mechanism to route out government corruption (through the right of grand juries to file presentments) :

Article II. Section 2. (10) the right of grand juries to file presentments shall not be abridged or regulated;

But it remains silent on wicked judges, providing no mechanisms for that, for that is a State’s issue, and it would trample on the rights of the States if the NAC were to provide those mechanisms.  So, wicked, unjust judges must be dealt with by the people of each State, through mechanisms they, themselves, come up with, or by creating and applying the mechanism given by king Mosiah in Mosiah 29:28-29:

And now if ye have judges, and they do not judge you according to the law which has been given, ye can cause that they may be judged of a higher judge.

If your higher judges do not judge righteous judgments, ye shall cause that a small number of your lower judges should be gathered together, and they shall judge your higher judges, according to the voice of the people.

Although king Mosiah’s mechanism is not in the NAC, the foundation of liberty IS found in the NAC, which is the principle of doing business by the voice of the people, which is the right of the majority to choose their rulers.  (We Americans are said to be ruled by law, and not by men or kings, and as we choose our laws, we thus choose our rulers.)  Therefore, if the people of any State wishes to implement king Mosiah’s mechanism to weed out the wicked judges in their State, the NAC provides a legal precedent for that.

Now, concerning conspiratorial laws, evil king-men have already written many such laws (and more are coming to a State near you.)  And it is very easy to determine which laws are conspiratorial and which are not: everything and anything that emasculates American men, or which removes their rights and privileges, or which empowers women and children with stolen masculine power, is part of the conspiracy.  It is a “confound and confuse, and then conquer” strategy.  All role reversals are conspiratorial.  Example tactics: switch “children of men” to “children of women;” do away with manus and say it’s an “equal partnership,” but treat it literally as womanus.  Put everything in the power of women.  Foster manly qualities in women and womanly qualities in men.  Blur gender as much as possible.  Make all these things laws and enforce them with the police state.  Etc.

The right to nullify must be applied

States have been overrun with conspirators, just like the national government.  After passage of the NAC, grass root organizations need to be established to review the laws of each State, and all laws which subvert the rights and privileges of the people, or which reverse the proper order, need to be nullified.  In other words, the NAC fully cleans house on the Confederacy level but only gives “cleaning supplies” to the people so that they can clean their State and local houses, as well as keep the Confederacy spotless.  Unless the people use these supplies, the State and local governments will remain full of oppressive conspiratorial laws.

For those who aren’t aware of these conspiracies, an example

During my junior year in high school, the nuns asked about our plans for after we graduated. When I said I was going to attend State University, I noticed their disappointment. I asked my favorite nun, “Why?” She answered, “That means you’ll leave four years later a communist and an atheist!”

What a giggle we girls had over that. “How ridiculously unsophisticated these nuns are,” we thought. Then I went to the university and four years later walked out a communist and an atheist, just as my sister Katie had six years before me.  (Taken from Feminism is Communism)

When I was a missionary I began to notice a pattern in the people that I talked to.  Those who went to a four year university were all professed atheists.  So I began, early on, when I saw this pattern, to asked each person who said they were an atheist the following question: “Did you attend a university?”  Inevitably they said, “Yes.”  So, I would then ask them, “Did you have faith in God before you went to the university?”  Inevitably they all said, “Yes, but during school I changed my views.”  Now, that is just anecdotal, but I asked these same questions throughout my mission and not a single person answered me any differently.  For all appearances, the four year universities were churning out atheists of all the believers in God that entered them.

It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.

“To make revolution,” they answered.

“What kind of revolution?” she replied.

“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.

“By destroying the American family!” they answered.

“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.

“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.

“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.

“By taking away his power!”

“How do we do that?”

“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.

“How can we destroy monogamy?”

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women. It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution. Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.  (Taken from Feminism is Communism)

All of the main conspiracies focus their attention mainly on destroying the patriarchy.  Can you guess why?  Remember Satan’s target?  It wasn’t Eve, it was Adam.  Adam was the patriarch in a patriarchal reign.  Now, it needs to be understood that Mormonism IS a patriarchy.  Period.  Patriarchy is not a man-made concept, but is divine.  Our Father is God.  He is our Patriarch.  He is our King.  His Firstborn Son has the right to rule.  His name is Jesus Christ.  This is how patriarchal reigns work, with the father as king and the firstborn son as his heir to the throne.

Lucifer, in the pre-mortal existence, attempted to destroy the Patriarchy that existed there.  He tried to overthrow the Patriarch (God) by becoming himself the heir to the throne, even though he wasn’t the Firstborn Spirit Son.  His coup, though, didn’t work and he was thrown out of heaven and cast down to earth.

Without going into a full exposition of this topic, Satan is doing the very same thing here on earth that he tried to do in the heavens above.  DOWN WITH THE PATRIARCHY! is the rhetoric.  Satan is a rebellious son that opposes all patriarchies, because patriarchies are ordained of God.

“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.

“By taking away his power!”

“Taking away his power” means emasculation.  The NAC, then, is a corrective to this extremely old satanic plan to destroy the world by destroying the power of men.  The NAC corrects the situation by re-empowering the men with stolen masculine power, and by emasculating the women.  Note that this is a reversal of what has been going on, for men have been emasculated and women have been empowered.  The NAC, then, turns things upside down from where they currently are.  In other words, the NAC is a restoration.

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 [this for this and that for that]…  (Alma 41:12-13)

The natural state of men is fully empowered with masculine power, strength, authority and control.  The natural state of women is weakness.  Just as it is wrong or improper to take That Which Acts and That Which Is Acted Upon and switch the roles, so that the element now pushes the spirit around, so it is a perversion to empower women with masculine power and weaken men as if they were women.  The element chose to be pushed around, even to be acted upon.  In like manner, the spirit chose to act and to push the element around.  This is the joy of their creation, to do (or not to do) these things, according to their choice.  If you force the one to do the other’s job, there is no joy, only misery, for they are not fulfilling their creation.

The deception of the devil is to get us to believe what we used to not believe, and to get us to not believe what we used to believe, and to do what we never would have done, and not do what we definitely would have done.  In the heavens every one of us made covenants and rejoiced over Father’s patriarchal reign.  We were all for and loved the Patriarchy and it was us that kicked the devil out for challenging Father’s kingdom.  But here on earth we can be deceived by the devil.

I know a woman who can’t wait until the day of judgment, so that she can “give God a piece of her mind.”  She hates the patriarchal system.  What she doesn’t realize is that these thoughts proceed from Satan, not from her.  She is possessed of his evil spirit and so, like the devil, fights and hates God and His patriarchy.  The devil wants to give God a piece of his mind, doesn’t he?  The devil doesn’t repent and is capable of standing before God and defying Him, but she isn’t the devil.  She is merely acting under a demonic deception.  Upon her death and resurrection she will be brought back into the presence of God and she will remember her pre-mortal covenant that she made, in which she swore allegiance to God’s patriarchy and said she would not fall for the devil’s trickery and deception.  She would not be deceived but would support the kingdom of God no matter what.  Then all her defiance and defiant attitude will vanish away in an instant upon her resurrection (for the devil must retreat) and she will realize that those weren’t her thoughts, but thoughts implanted by the devil.  She loved God and His kingdom, but she will have to put her head down in shame at that day, knowing that she has failed the test.

Propaganda and law

Many of these conspiratorial laws are based upon false propaganda.  In other words, lies.  (And Satan is called the father of lies.)  Now the universities and schools of all grades are used by the conspirators to indoctrinate the masses in false propaganda, so that they accept and believe the false premises of the conspiratorial laws.  The NAC deals with this both directly and indirectly.  Directly, via the right to nullify, and indirectly by putting forth the unrestricted and unregulated right to homeschool.  It may not appear so important a right, but re-empowering parents with the right to teach their own children can create the foundation for the destruction of the entire propaganda mechanism in place among both the public and private school systems and also in the mainstream media.  Simply put, homeschooled kids typically learn how to critically think and detect falsehoods.  Homeschooled kids are less likely, then, to believe the BS in the schools and media, nullifying their effect.  Thus, the homeschooling right can be considered yet another tool to combat these conspiracies.

No jury nullification

In case someone brings this up, the NAC does not provide a jury nullification mechanism because jury nullification violates the rights of the majority, which is the voice of the people.  The voice of the people installed the law.  They alone have the right to alter it or abolish it or nullify it, not a minority on a jury.  So, the NAC gives, instead, the moral and correct right of nullification by voice, which is the foundation of liberty I mentioned above.

Once again, I will not use these NAC posts to fully expound the various principles given in them.  Maybe some other day I will take the time to unfold all this stuff completely.  Now, in my next post I really will (I think) cover the money sections of the NAC. 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

Marriage without a marriage license is ordained of God

My text for this post is the following scripture:

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. (D&C 49: 15.)

Between a man and a woman

To start with, let’s make it clear that the words “marry” and “marriage” in this verse referred only to marriage between a man and a woman. This revelation was given in March/May 1831 and there was no concept of same-sex marriage back then, only marriage between the sexes.

Who forbids to marry?

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. (D&C 49: 15; italics added.)

Parents – Sometimes parents forbid to marry. If a young man or woman is underage, permission from the parents is needed in order for them to marry (with a valid state marriage license). In the high school I attended, there was a very pretty 16 year old girl in one of my classes who was legally married. She received permission from her parents and loved showing people her wedding ring. All the boys in the class (including myself) were kind of bummed that she was now off-limits. It was a strange situation because we all thought that parents normally would not give permission to one so young. She never had a teen pregnancy or anything. She just fell in love and wanted to get married and her folks said, “Okay.” But that doesn’t always happen.

The State – The State is the major perpetrator of forbidding to marry, with all the marriage laws and prohibitions on the books. For example, the State forbids a man from taking a second wife while his first wife is still alive. It also forbids a woman from doing the same thing. It introduces a monetary price on marriage, so that everyone must pay for the permission to get married. It places age restrictions on marriage, as well as health restrictions. Those who don’t meet the qualifications, can’t get married. In other words, they can’t get a marriage license. Additionally, it has cohabitation laws on many of the books so that anyone who tries to marry without a valid state marriage license and then live together can still be prosecuted and thrown into jail, effectively discouraging anyone who wishes to skirt around the State monopoly on marriage authorization.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – The Church is another major perpetrator of forbidding to marry. Although it has no power to stop anyone from getting married, by preaching a valid state marriage license requirement to its congregation, it supports the State’s restrictions and monopoly on marriage. Also, by excommunicating those who marry more than one living spouse (with or without a valid state marriage license, but most often without a license), it sets up its own restrictions with attendant judgments placed upon those who marry.

These three institutions, then, are not ordained of God when they forbid to marry.

But I must add one more:

A spouse – Every man who forbids his wife from marrying another man and every woman who forbids her husband from marrying another woman is also not ordained of God when they do this.

Everything that is in the world is valid in the eyes of God…for a limited time

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

And everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God. (D&C 132: 7, 13.)

What this means is that God recognizes “all covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations” that are made among men “both as well for time and for all eternity,” regardless of who or what entity or entities ordained them, “whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be,” as perfectly valid and binding only until “men are dead,” at which point such “contracts…have an end.” This applies only to contracts, oaths, etc., that are not made by the Lord or by His word.

Marriage is a covenant

Marriage is accompanied by a covenant between a man and a woman (the marriage vows), therefore, it comes under the above conditions of the law of the new and everlasting covenant. There are three types of marriage covenants covered by the conditions of this law.

Marriage covenant #1: “not by me nor by my word,” for time only

Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. (D&C 132: 15.)

Here we have a man and a woman entering a marriage covenant, in which the man covenants to be the woman’s husband and the woman covenants to be the man’s wife. The covenant has a stated duration of “’till death do they part.” The marriage is not performed by the Lord nor by His word, therefore it is valid in the eyes of the Lord only until one of them dies.

Marriage covenant #2: “not by me or by my word,” for time and all eternity

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God. (D&C 132: 18.)

Here we have a man and a woman entering a marriage covenant, in which the man covenants to be the woman’s husband and the woman covenants to be the man’s wife. The covenant has a stated duration of “’for time and all eternity.” The covenant is not performed by the Lord nor by His word, therefore it is valid in the eyes of the Lord only until one of them dies.

Marriage covenant #3: “by my word, which is my law,” “in time, and through all eternity”

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. (D&C 132: 19.)

Finally, we have a man and a woman entering the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, being married by the word of the Lord and having it sealed to them by the Holy Spirit of promise. He covenants to be her husband and she covenants to be his wife, for the duration of time and all eternity. This covenant is valid in the eyes of the Lord for as long as they abide in it.

All three marriage covenants are ordained of 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. (D&C 49: 15; italics added.)

The first two marriage covenant scenarios, which operate under temporal power and authority, are ordained of God until death. The final marriage covenant scenario, which operates under eternal power and authority, is ordained of God through all eternity.

Marriage is ordained of God because it creates permanency

God is all about creating permanency: things that remain.

For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed. (D&C 132: 14.)

The only difference between fornication (unlawful sexual relations) and marriage (lawful sexual relations) is the idea of a permanent union. God wants men and women to come together and have sex (become one flesh), and He wants them to remain together, continuing to have sex. The marriage covenant is a covenant or contract to remain together permanently, as husband and wife, either until death or throughout all eternity. It is the fleeting, temporary nature of fornication that makes it wrong.

When two people come together and make love, the love demonstrated and generated is intended by God to continue on forever. It is supposed to remain. The marriage bonds keep people connected (and gathered) so that they continue to nurture and grow the love generated between them. God is love, so the scriptures say, therefore, He is all-loving and never stops loving. To come together and make love and then leave (separate from one another) is akin to stop loving (stop becoming one). God wants us to continue to manifest our love for one another, through the marital covenants. In this way we learn to become like Him, all-loving and continually loving.

No mention of a State licensing requirement

In the scriptures, there is no mention of the need to have a valid state marriage license. All that is needed for a marriage to occur is that there be a marriage covenant between a man and a woman. That’s it. The marriage covenant can be written or verbal. It doesn’t matter. It can be ordained “by thrones, or principalities, or powers,” in other words, by the State, but it doesn’t have to be. It can simply be “ordained of men,” even the two people entering the covenant (the man and the woman), or even by “things of name, whatsoever they may be.”

This means that two people who enter into a marriage covenant with each other, without a State marriage license, without a religious or civil ceremony, the man agreeing to be the woman’s husband and the woman agreeing to be the man’s wife, who then begin living together and making love, presenting themselves publicly as husband and wife, are not living in sin. They are not fornicating. They have nothing to repent of for they have satisfied the conditions of the law of the new and everlasting covenant. Their marriage is ordained of God.

No mention of a wedding ceremony

The scriptures do not state that a wedding ceremony is necessary for a marriage to be valid. Typically, wedding ceremonies do occur, according to the customs of the culture the two people are from, but they are not necessary for a marriage to be valid in the eyes of God. Only the covenant is the necessary part.

No mention of witnesses

A third person can be present while the two make their marriage vows (the marriage covenant), but that is not required by the law of the new and everlasting covenant. They can enter their covenant in private, just the two of them and it’s still valid in the eyes of God.

Conflict between God and the Church

This brings up a conflict because a married couple that does not get State permission to be married is seen differently by God and the Church. In the eyes of God, they are married. In the eyes of the (modern) Church, they are not. (It was not always so.  There was a time when the Church recognized marriages as valid even without a marriage license.)  As the Church holds the keys of the priesthood, despite a couple being validly married in the eyes of God, they can be prohibited from receiving baptism, confirmation, priesthood and the temple sealing, all required ordinances for their salvation. The modern Church, then, in not recognizing a marriage as valid in the same way God does, becomes a stumbling block to their eternal progression.

Consent in marriage

Both before and after a man and a woman come together in holy matrimony (and since all marriage is ordained of God, including non-temple marriage, all matrimony is holy), the law of common consent applies. So, for example, if the couple enters marriage with vows of fidelity, meaning that they promise to abstain from loving (making love to) other people, they must keep their vows. It is the law of the Lord that all our vows and covenants and oaths be kept, for it is a sin to break a vow. Thus, a man must receive consent from his wife to marry a second wife and a woman must receive consent from her husband to marry another husband.

If they enter the marriage with no vows of abstinence and they decide they want more spouses and they receive consent from their current spouses, they may freely marry without sinning. If, on the other hand, they enter the marriage with vows of abstinence and they decide afterward that they want more spouses in their family, they can, with consent, release one another from their vows of abstinence and then consent to additional spouses. This also is not sin, for vows can be freely made and released, as long as the person to whom the vow was made is doing the releasing.

Sin in marriage

The sin of adultery occurs when a married woman is with a man who is not her spouse. Scripturally, all women who enter marriage apparently do so under a vow of abstinence (fidelity), whether they are married by the word of the Lord or not. Therefore, if she is with another man that is not her spouse, she commits adultery.

On the man’s part, it is only if he has taken a vow of abstinence (fidelity) and is with another woman who is not his wife that he commits adultery. If, on the other hand, he has not taken a vow of fidelity, (in other words, his wife gives him permission to sleep around), and is with an unmarried woman who is not his wife, he has committed the sin of fornication (sexual sin) but not adultery unless the other woman who is not his spouse is married to another man, in which case he has committed adultery (See D&C 132: 41-44 and The many definitions of adultery for more on these laws.)

(The above two paragraphs may seem confusing, but it all boils down to this: if you sleep with someone who is your spouse, there is no sin. On the other hand, if you sleep with someone who is not your spouse, you commit sin. So, to avoid sin, either don’t sleep with a person who is not your spouse or marry him or her before engaging in sexual intercourse.)

If a husband separates from his wife or a wife separates from her husband, so as to purposefully and permanently live apart from one another, this also is sin. There is only one scriptural justification for marital separation and that is if the one being left behind has committed unrepentant fornication (sexual sin). The purpose of the temporary separation is to help the sinner to repent of his or her sin. Once repentance occurs, the couple should come together again and be reconciled, forgiving one another.

Polygyny is not sin

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. (D&C 132: 61-62; italics added.)

If a woman gives consent to her husband to take additional wives, releasing him from any vows of fidelity he may have had, and giving him permission to marry this or that woman, he is justified in taking on the additional wives, for it is marriage with consent and marriage is ordained of God.

When taking on a second wife, the man needs the consent of the first wife. When taking on a third wife, the man needs the consent of the first two wives, and so on and so forth. As long as all give consent, there is no sin.

Polygyny, whether practiced in the new and everlasting covenant (the law of the priesthood), or practiced in a for-time, man-made covenant, is ordained of God as long as consent is given by the wife or wives of the man.

Polyandry is not sin

In the new and everlasting covenant, there are two ways in which a woman get can an additional husband. One way is that she is simply sealed to a second (or third, etc.) husband.

And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed. (D&C 132: 41; italics added.)

The second way is that her husband breaks his marriage vows and commits adultery, whereby she is taken and given (married) to another man. She remains married to the first husband, for the word ‘taken” doesn’t explicitly mean that she has received a divorce.

And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many. (D&C 132: 44; italics added.)

Outside of the new and everlasting covenant, a woman may obtain a second marriage through consent of her current husband or husbands, in the same way as discussed above for polygyny. Like polygyny, polyandry is ordained of God, as long as consent is given by all parties involved.

Objections to polyandry unfounded

LDS men may object to polyandry based upon the following scripture:

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. (D&C 132: 61-62; italics added.)

These verses only state that a man cannot commit adultery with a wife that belongs to him and to no one else. They do not state that a man commits adultery with a wife that belongs to both him and someone else. The gospel is all about joint-ownership, or becoming joint-heirs with Christ of all things that the Father has. There is no gospel law against a wife belonging to two or more husbands, or to a husband belonging to two or more wives. The scriptures do not prohibit such an arrangement. To make this assumption is to wrest them.

Not giving consent to marry is sin

When a man wishes to take an additional wife and his current wife or wives do not give their consent (the keys of this power), they sin because they are forbidding him from marrying, making them not ordained of God. Likewise, when a woman wishes to take an additional husband and her current husband or husbands do not give consent, the husbands become sinners in forbidding her from marrying.

The law of Sarah is applicable to both men and women:

And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife. (D&C 132: 64-65; italics added.)

The transgression consists in forbidding to marry, which makes the person doing the forbidding “not ordained of God.”

A secondary and third transgression

When consent is not given, because marriage is labeled sin, a second transgression occurs: calling that which is holy, or ordained of God, evil. Satan wants no one to be married. He would rather that everyone sleep around without entering into marriage covenants with each other. When monogamy is labeled holy matrimony but polygyny or polyandry is labeled sin, this works into his hands, for then he can tempt mankind to break their marriage vows and commit sin. Giving consent to marry more than one spouse keeps the law of chastity intact, stopping Satan in his tracks.

The third transgression comes from judging others as sinners, who have done no sin. All marriage between a man and woman, whether singly or in multiple spouse form, is ordained of God, but if the multiple spouse form is looked upon as sin, or if a marriage without a marriage license is looked upon as sin, then the people who engage in these righteous practices will be looked upon as sinners.

Plural marriage engenders charity

In particular, modern LDS need to stop painting plural marriage (the multiple-husband multiple-wife marriage system) as undesirable or evil. Under such a system, children have multiple fathers and multiple mothers (though only one biological mother). Any husband will look upon all children born to his wives as his children, regardless of whether they are his biological seed or not. This engenders charity, because all husbands/fathers will care for all the children, not just their own. In other words, all children will become alike to them:

And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation. (Moro. 8: 17.)

Plural marriage retains agency

Agency remains fully intact with plural marriage consent, allowing people to open up their hearts and love those around them in the most intimate manner possible, all the while remaining justified before the Lord. This more fully knits people’s hearts together in unity. Without such consent, love must be limited, even if the desire to love more fully exists, which also limits agency and causes distance between people.

Plural marriage creates Zion

And ye shall hereafter receive church covenants, such as shall be sufficient to establish you, both here and in the New Jerusalem. (D&C 42: 67.)

There are certain covenants given to the Gentile Mormons that are sufficient to establish them in Zion. One is the law of consecration, in which they freely share of their substance. Another is the United Order, in which they bind themselves by covenant to establish Zion. Yet another is the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (plural marriage) in which they freely give of their love and hearts in plural marriages, essentially sharing their spouses with other spouses.

Of the three covenants, though, plural marriage is probably the most powerful, for if one is able to give consent to freely share one’s spouse with other spouses, effectively eliminating all jealousy and envy, sharing everything else would be a snap.

Plural marriage corresponds to nature

As the research revealed in the book Sex at Dawn reveals, by nature mankind’s sexuality is a multiplemale-multiplefemale mating system. God has ordained marriage to exactly correspond to our natural sexual desires and nature, so that we may live out our lives free from guilt and shame, in joy, happiness and pleasure.

Plural marriage causes rapid formation of super-strong tribes

Because marriage bonds go in every direction, everyone becomes related to everyone else, in the most intimate way. The concept of distant relations becomes blurred, as all become intimate members of one’s immediate family through marriage. The group, being linked in this way, becomes and acts as a tribe, but also as an intimate family, everyone seeking the interest of his neighbor, for his neighbor is a close family relation.

Instead of tribes growing slowly as tribal members have children who grow up and marry and have children of themselves, plural marriage has the ability to rapidly infuse a tribe with large groups of people, while retaining the intimate relationship aspects of the immediate family. Child-birth is maximized, so that every woman who wants children can have as many as she desires, thus allowing the tribe to grow as quickly as possible.

Conclusion

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. (D&C 49: 15.)

When taken at face value, the above scripture is plainly shown to be true. Marriage is a divine institution which has been given to us to maximize our happiness here on Earth, in accordance with the principles of nature, and in preparation for glory to be added in heaven. To remain on God’s side on this issue, men, women, parents, churches, the State and spouses need to follow and encourage others to follow this two-step rule:

1) Don’t forbid anyone from marrying (not even your own spouse) and 2) look upon all marriage between a man and a woman as ordained of God.

Inspiration behind this post

I had read the arguments that Christian polygamists make about not needing a valid state marriage license, but had never actually taken the time to do any research and come to any conclusion about it. It was Justin’s Tribal Relationships post that introduced me to the Sex at Dawn research, which, upon reviewing it, got me thinking about what exactly marriage is and what it is all about. This post is a result of my decision to take a look at the scriptures with the Sex at Dawn research in mind. If you still don’t know where I’m coming from, I encourage you to read the following posts, as this article is influenced by, and builds upon, them: Tribal worship services, Establishing the tribes of Israel: the real reason for plural marriage, The tribal nature of the gospel, The Return of Polygamy, The many definitions of adultery, Deep Waters: How many wives? How many husbands?, and An alternate view of the keys.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Body modesty is not a principle of the gospel

This blog is going to have its 3^rd birthday next month, October 7^th, and since its inception one subject that I have intentionally avoided is the topic of body modesty. From what I’ve read on other Mormon blogs, I’ve always come to the conclusion that Mormons are, essentially, prudes. How, then, could I speak of my understanding of body modesty without offending the sensibilities of my audience? Hence the silence.

Recently, though, I was searching for information on the Maitreya and I came across a different Maitreya whose organization was seeking to change the laws of the land to put the sexes on a more equal standing. I found the legal arguments fascinating and began to write a blog post on just that topic alone. But then I stopped again, realizing that I was mentioning body modesty without going into any depth, as I probably should. It would inevitably come up in the comment section, but without a proper treatment in the post.

So, as is usual for me, after giving it sufficient re-consideration, I made a split-second decision and with a verbal, “oh, what the hell,” I’m now diving head first into this topic.

What I teach my children

I knew that eventually, as my children attended church, they would be taught by their Sunday school teachers and advisers that body modesty is a part of the law of chastity, so I have been especially careful that they are instructed on that law so as to be able to discern truth from error. (I have covered the law of chastity previously on this blog, so I won’t go back into that topic, but I’ll just say here and now that it doesn’t mention how one is supposed to dress.) They understand that body modesty is a man-made societal norm that changes over time to suit the conditions among men, their customs, cultures, climate, biases, preconceived notions and so on and so forth. It has no basis in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Wikipedia has an excellent entry on modesty and I don’t want to extensively quote from it, so please click here to read it and learn about how the standards of body modesty have varied and changed over time.

From here on out I will just use the term “modesty” with the understanding that I am referring only to “body modesty,” meaning that modesty which deals with the covering up of the body with clothing. Okay, back to what my kids are taught.

Heavenly Father’s rule of modesty

I teach my children to hold up the pattern of modesty given by their Father in heaven as the ideal standard. Usually, when my kids ask me a question, I’ll answer them with another question and have them figure out the answer themselves. In this case, I’ll do the same to explain the heavenly pattern:

Question: How does heavenly Father clothe us when He sends us here to Earth?

Answer: He sends us here naked, or clothed in flesh.

 

Question: Is any part of our physical bodies clothed or covered when we get here?

Answer: Yes, the male penis is covered by a foreskin and the female clitoris is covered by a hood.

 

Question: As the body matures into adulthood, does anything become covered?

Answer: Yes, the genitals and armpits of both sexes becomes covered in hair. The face of males also becomes covered in hair.

This is the standard of modesty I give my children. As long as you still have your pubic hair and clitoral hood and penile foreskin coverings, there is no need for shame, for you are dressed modestly.

Everything above and beyond that standard is man-made.

Moroni the naked angel

Said Joseph of the angel Moroni:

He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom. (Joseph Smith-History 1: 31)

So, Joseph could see that Moroni was totally naked, except for the open robe he was wearing. Why in the world would God allow Moroni to show Joseph his nakedness? Didn’t he know that robes need to be tied closed, so that no one can see the chest and genital area? Why wasn’t Moroni ashamed to show his nakedness to Joseph?

Isaiah, the naked prophet

In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it; at the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. And the Lord said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia; so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. (Isaiah 20: 1-4)

Shouldn’t Isaiah have felt ashamed to show his nakedness for three straight years?

Our first parents naked

Adam and Even “were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

“And I, the Lord God, said unto Adam: Who told thee thou wast naked?”  (Moses 4: 17)

Let’s answer the question. Who told them that they were naked? Who taught them to be ashamed of their nakedness? Who originated body modesty?

LUCIFER: See–you are naked. Take some fig leaves and make you aprons. Father will see your nakedness. Quick! Hide!  (Source: The Garden.)

Satan did.

Why Satan told our first parents to clothe themselves

I think Bette Davis said it best:

“I often think that a slightly exposed shoulder emerging from a long satin nightgown packed more sex than two naked bodies in bed.”

She is right, of course. And Satan knew this from the beginning. It is his intention to have everyone break the law of chastity. If everyone were naked, the law of chastity would be broken less, not more. He needed to first cover our parents up and create the illusion of shame, so that the enticement of sin could allure people into uncovering “the sinful parts,” followed by the guilt of acting shameful.

Satan works by using secrets. Occult knowledge is secret knowledge. Secret combinations can only work in the dark. Devilish logic follows that genital parts must become “secret parts.” Thus, we have the (apparently) strange command of the devil to our first parents to abide by the principle of modesty!

Notice, though, that now the devil has made even the breast a “secret part.” Adam and Eve originally covered up only their genitals with fig leaves. Now, society will have us believe the exposure of the female (not male) breast is immodest.

The Lord looks upon the heart

But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart. (1 Samuel 16: 7)

Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.  (Hebrews 4: 13)

Such truth, though, is not very useful to the devil. So, clothing is used to entice, to create the illusion of sexiness, to flaunt power and prestige and money, to say I am better than you, more beautiful than you. It is used to create situations of judgment, so that mankind judges each other based upon what they are, or are not, wearing. It is used to despise the poor who cannot afford the better garments, or any garments, at all. Etc.

The Lord, though, uses clothing for other, righteous purposes. Clothing can protect from the elements, hence we find the Lord making coats of skins for Adam and Eve so that when they enter the fallen world they can survive. It can convey spiritual symbolism, hence the priesthood garment. And there are other righteous purposes, as well, that do not necessarily equate to “hiding one’s nakedness”, which was Satan’s deceptive intention for clothing. (Remember, the angel Moroni wore a robe that did not hide his nakedness from Joseph. What, then, was the purpose of the robe?)

Not all Mormons are prudes

For example:

LDS Skinny Dippers Forum

These are LDS who are “interested in chaste, wholesome, recreational nudity.” They have no problem with privately or publicly going completely nude. They are, however, most likely a very small minority.

The rest of the LDS are prudes, pure and simple, who quibble over the length of a sleeve or pant leg or skirt. Who are shocked when there is an exposed shoulder. Who cannot even conceive of a painting of a bare chest, stripling warrior whose nipple hasn’t been airbrushed out.

The audience of all modesty talks

The target of virtually all modesty talks is the female population. She is told how and how not to dress. She is taught this by her mother, by her Sunday school teachers and advisers, and by her priesthood leadership. All of this repression, if ever let out, leads to rampant breaking of the law of chastity (Satan’s plan). And if it isn’t let out, it leads to depression (again, Satan’s plan, the misery of all).

Guys, for the most part, hardly get a mention in modesty talks. I don’t recall ever being told I had to cover up my chest or nipples, or had to wear shorts below a certain length, or keep my shoulders and back covered, etc. Modesty oppression is mainly a girl thing.

Of course, the males get oppressed in other ways, such as the insistence on wearing white shirts, flaxen cords about their necks (ties), being clean-shaven and having short hair.

Legal public nudity is coming soon to a city near you

Now this brings me to that web site I spoke of above, about equalizing the sexes. If you click the below link, be forewarned that you will see pictures of top free men and women.

GoTopless.org

Here are some quotes from the web site:

Welcome to GoTopless.org! – We are a US organization, claiming that women have the same constitutional right to be bare chested in public places as men.

Maitreya, Rael, spiritual leader and founder of GoTopless.org states: “As long as men can be topless, constitutionally women should have the same right, or men should also be forced to wear something hiding their chest.”

Why a National GoTopless Protest day? Gotopless.org claims constitutional equality between men and women on being topless in public. Currently, women who dare to be topless in public in the US are repeatedly being arrested, fined, humiliated, criminalized. On SUNDAY AUGUST 22nd, 2010, topless women will rally in great numbers across the USA to protest this gross inequality in the law and will demand that their fundamental right to be topless be acknowledged where men already enjoy that right according to the 14th amendment of the Constitution (please see our exact legal argument on the right to be topfree for women under “14th amendment” in news section.)

Why in August? On August 26, 1920, following a 72-year struggle, the U.S. Constitution was amended to grant women the right to vote. And in 1970, as an ongoing reminder of women’s equality, Congress declared August 26 “Women’s Equality Day.” But even in the 21st century, women need to stand up and demand that equality in fact – not just in words. Note that in 2010, GoTopless will have a large rally nationwide in honor of the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment and Women’s Equality Day.

Why having GoTopless actions in cities where top-less freedom for women is already legal? Those programmed with puritanical values find it difficult to change. This “mentality hurdle” applies to both women and men.

How are we helping women? GoTopless is committed to helping women perceive their breasts as noble, natural parts of their anatomy (whether they are nursing or not). Breasts shouldn’t have to be “modestly” or shamefully hidden from public view any more than arms, legs or feet.

How are we helping men? GoTopless is also committed to helping men differentiate between nudity and sexuality. If the presence of a topless woman in public triggers a sexual impulse, it can easily be controlled in the same way men control themselves when they see a woman wearing a mini skirt or revealing ample cleavage. Men manage to appreciate these things while still showing respect! Choosing consciousness above hormones leads to a peaceful, respectful society providing additional freedom and beauty.

Why do you talk about femininity rather than feminism? In the past, women often had to act like men when fighting for their rights, so they repressed their femininity. Today, GoTopless women see their femininity as a powerful asset as they struggle for equal rights in a masculine-dominated world.

What happens on National GoTopless day? Across America, topless women and men peacefully rally in the streets, parks, on the beaches of their towns and cities. Topfree performances are given by various artists to honor women’s right to be top free, body painting is be available. Chalk street artists also paint Art works from Old Masters (or new ones) without any nipple censure. The aim is to convey that the sight of a top free women in public is as natural as the sight of top free men. Please write to us if you are an artist (performance or visual) who would like to participate in one of future events.

Participating cities for Go Topless Day 2010 are : Please see our news section to learn the details about the events in each city.

NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK

VENICE BEACH, CALIFORNIA

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA

AUSTIN, TEXAS

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

OAHU, HAWAII

DENVER, COLORADO

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

14^th Amendment to the US Constitution The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under law and properly interpreted it guarantees women the right to be top-free where men are allowed to be topfree. Unfortunately, some jurisdictions do not recognize that right, and there is a less stringent test in the courts (called intermediate scrutiny) for gender based differential treatment than for e.g., racial classifications (which are analyzed under what’s called strict scrutiny).

Our rights under the 14th Amendment guarantee and include the one to be top free where men are allowed to – We seek to see legislation (or court decisions where arrests are made for being top free) in all jurisdictions to make explicit what should already be understood as implicit within the meaning of equal rights.

Please see the above web site for information about the states and cities where being top free (or even totally nude, such as Portland, Oregon) in public is legal.

What will the LDS ever do?

In the changing legal environment, I wonder what the LDS will do if suddenly they find themselves living in a city where anyone can legally walk around stark naked or bare-chested. Our arguments about skirt length seem kind of silly faced with legal public nudity, as in the right to be nude. Will we be champions of people’s rights, or shame them all as sinners?

And what I really wonder is this: if this changing legal environment is setting the stage for the appearance of naked prophets and angels, are we going to be among those who reject them because of their immodest appearance?

Eyelids, necks and feet to the rescue

Don’t like what you see? Don’t like how that person is dressed? Don’t like it that a woman is going around topfree? Don’t like that that man or woman is walking around in the nude? Well, have no fear. God gave us eyelids with which to close our eyes, and necks with which to turn our head, and feet with which to walk away. This is the proper response.

Don’t make laws to force people to conform to your standards. Don’t make laws to remove people’s rights. Don’t do the devil’s work for him.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist