Homosexuality, Sodomy, Rape, Rape Culture & Pedophilia

The recent church policy change and its aftermath among the membership have caused me to think that it is high time I got into this topic, to finally expound it according to my understanding.  As is my way, I will unfold this thing explicitly, in perfect clarity, or as clearly as I can make it, so that no one has any reason to misunderstand.  To the young, or to those whose sensibilities are easily offended, please go somewhere else.  You are not going to want to read this.  To all the rest, “enjoy” the read.  😉

I will use the Topical Guide entry on Homosexual Behavior and its list of scriptures as my text and go from there.

Topical Guide: Homosexual Behavior

bring them out unto us, that we may know them: Gen. 19:5 .
Thou shalt not lie with mankind … it is abomination: Lev. 18:22 . ( Lev. 20:13 . )
There shall be no … sodomite of the sons of Israel: Deut. 23:17 .
declare their sin as Sodom: Isa. 3:9 . ( 2 Ne. 13:9 . )

men … burned in their lust one toward another: Rom. 1:27 .
nor abusers of themselves with mankind: 1 Cor. 6:9 .
them that defile themselves with mankind: 1 Tim. 1:10 .
as Sodom and Gomorrha … going after strange flesh: Jude 1:7 .

See also Gen. 13:13 ; Gen. 18:20 ; Ezek. 16:50 ; 2 Tim. 3:3 ; 2 Pet. 2:10 ; 2 Ne. 9:40

The men of Sodom were extremely wicked

And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt.  Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east; and they separated themselves the one from the other.  Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom.  But the men of Sodom becoming sinners, and exceedingly wicked before the Lord, the Lord was angry with them.  ( JST Gen. 13:8-11)

But what were their sins?

Sodom and Gomorrah to be destroyed

And the Lord appeared unto Abraham in the plains of Mamre. And he sat in his tent door in the heat of the day; and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and lo, three men stood by him; and when he saw, he ran to meet them from his tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, and said;

My brethren, if now I have found favor in your sight, pass not away I pray you from thy servant.  Let a little water I pray you be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, and I will fetch a morsel of bread, and ^acomfort ye your hearts; after that you shall pass on; for therefore are ye come to your servant.

[a OR sustain … ]

And they said,

So do, as thou hast said.

And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said,

Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead, and make cakes upon the hearth.

And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetched a calf, tender and good, and gave it unto a young man, and he hasted to dress it.  And he took butter and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set them before them, and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.  (JST Gen. 18:1-7)

…

¶ And the angels rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom; and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way.  And the angel of the Lord, said,

Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which the Lord will do for him; seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?  For I know him, that he will command his children, and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he has spoken of him.

And the angel of the Lord said unto Abraham,

The Lord said unto us,

Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will destroy them.  And I will send you, and ye shall go down now, and see that their iniquities are rewarded unto them.  And ye shall have all things done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me.  And if ye do it not, it shall be upon your heads; for I will destroy them, and you shall know that I will do it, for it shall be before your eyes.

And the angels which were holy men, and were sent forth after the order of God, turned their faces from thence and went toward Sodom.  But Abraham stood yet before the Lord, remembering the things which had been told him.  (JST Gen. 18:16-24)

Notice that these angels were specifically ordered by the Lord to first make an assessment of the sins of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and then to destroy them according to their sins.  Also, they were warned that “if [they] do it not, it shall be upon [their] heads.”  These angels were likely translated men, and were every bit as holy as Abraham and Lot were, therefore the disposition to save, as opposed to destroy, was in them, as the text will reveal was in Abraham and Lot.  So, they were put under strict command that if they did not fulfill God’s command to destroy, Sodom and Gomorrah’s sins would be upon their own heads.  This certainly would make sure that they did not spare the city, if it warranted destruction, but the charge only applied to them, not to Abraham and Lot, who were free to continue to try to save the people.

¶ And Abraham drew near to Sodom, and said unto the Lord, calling upon his name, saying,

Wilt thou destroy the righteous with the wicked? Wilt thou not spare them?  Peradventure there may be fifty righteous within the city, wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that may be therein?  O may that be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked; and that the righteous should be as the wicked.  O God, may that be far from thee, for shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

And the Lord said unto Abraham,

If thou findest in Sodom, fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

And Abraham answered and said,

Behold, now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which is able to destroy the city, and lay all the people in dust and ashes; will the Lord spare them peradventure there lack five of the fifty righteous; wilt thou destroy all the city for their wickedness, if I find there forty and five righteous?

And he said,

I will not destroy, but spare them.

And he spake unto him again, and said,

Peradventure there should be forty found there?

And he said,

I will not destroy it for forty’s sake.

And he said again unto the Lord,

O, let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak:

Peradventure there shall thirty be found there?

And he said,

I will not destroy them if thou shalt find thirty there.

And he said,

Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord; wilt thou destroy them if peradventure there shall twenty be found there?

And he said,

I will not destroy them for twenty’s sake.

And Abraham said unto the Lord,

O, let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once, peradventure ten shall be found there?

And the Lord said,

I will not destroy them for ten’s sake.

And the Lord ceased speaking with Abraham.  And as soon as he had left communing with the Lord, Abraham went his way.  And it came to pass that Abraham returned unto his tent.  (JST Gen. 18:25-42)

Not even ten righteous souls

Despite all of Abraham’s attempts to get the Lord to spare these cities, he thinking that surely there must be ten righteous souls in them, the ploy didn’t work.  As we shall see later on, there turned out to be only one righteous soul in Sodom (and no righteous souls, at all, apparently, in Gomorrah,) and that one solitary soul was righteous Lot.

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ^aensample unto those that after should live ungodly; and delivered just Lot, ^bvexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked; (for that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, ^cvexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished; but chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise ^dgovernment.

[a GR token, example.]

[b GR oppressed by the outrageous behavior of the lawless.]

[c GR oppressed, afflicted.]

[d GR constituted authority.]

Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.  (JST 2 Pet. 2:4-10)

The fact that Lot was righteous must be kept in mind in order to understand what comes next.

Righteous Lot does the same thing that righteous Abraham does

And it came to pass, that there came three ^aangels to Sodom in the evening; and Lot sat in the door of his house, in the city of Sodom.

[a HEB messengers.]

And Lot, seeing the angels, rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; and he said,

Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways.

And they said,

Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.

And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.  (JST Gen. 19:1-5)

Just as Abraham recognized the three men as angels, so did Lot.  Just as Abraham invited them in and prepared a feast for them, to give them rest and relaxation and so forth, so Lot does the same.  This tendency towards hospitality is a trademark of the house of Israel.

Why did the angels want to abide in the street all night?

The angels were instructed to go down and observe the iniquities and sins of the people, and then to reward them according to what they observed.  Staying in the street all night, then, was their way of accomplishing the first part of this task.  Lot, though, tried to circumvent this process by inviting them into his house.  As long as they are inside his house, then they can’t make an assessment of the wickedness of the people, and thus perhaps they won’t have cause to destroy the city.  This is why he invited them in.  He wasn’t trying to protect the angels from wicked Sodom, for the angels needed no such protection.  They could protect themselves just fine.  No, Lot was trying to spare Sodom, just as Abraham was trying to spare it through his pleadings with the Lord.  Both men, being righteous, were attempting to avoid the impending catastrophe.

¶ But before they lay down to rest, the men of the city of Sodom compassed the house round, even men which were both old and young, even the people from every quarter; and they called unto Lot, and said unto him,

Where are the men which came in unto thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may ^aknow them.  (JST Gen. 19:6-7)

[a “Know” is used in both Hebrew and English in this kind of context as a euphemism in place of a sexual word.]

Okay, so here is where we get our first glimpse as to what kind of sins these men of Sodom were guilty of.  In essence, they had said to Lot, “Bring the men which came in unto thee this night out unto us, that we may have sex with them.”  These old and young men, then, were practicing homosexuals.

The angels were likely young, or at least young-looking

The angels were not just newcomers in town, but they were very likely young-looking newcomers.  Homosexual behavior is obsessed with youth culture.  In other words, they like to look, dress and act young (who doesn’t, right?) and they like to be with the young sexually, in man-boy pairings (here is where they deviate from society), the older man teaching the younger boy, training him in all the ways of homosexual deviancy.  When the boy eventually becomes a man himself, he will in turn seek out boys to turn into homosexuals, thus perpetuating the perversion.  These man-boy (pederast-catamite) pairings continue until the man is finally dead, after having corrupted hundreds, if not thousands of innocent boys.  This is what Oscar Wilde called “the love that dare not speak its name.”

Charles Gill (prosecuting): What is “the love that dare not speak its name”?

Wilde: “The love that dare not speak its name” in this century is such a great affection of an elder for a younger man as there was between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy, and such as you find in the sonnets of Michelangelo and Shakespeare. It is that deep spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect. It dictates and pervades great works of art, like those of Shakespeare and Michelangelo, and those two letters of mine, such as they are. It is in this century misunderstood, so much misunderstood that it may be described as “the love that dare not speak its name,” and on that account of it I am placed where I am now. It is beautiful, it is fine, it is the noblest form of affection. There is nothing unnatural about it. It is intellectual, and it repeatedly exists between an older and a younger man, when the older man has intellect, and the younger man has all the joy, hope and glamour of life before him. That it should be so, the world does not understand. The world mocks at it, and sometimes puts one in the pillory for it.  (Wikipedia entry on Oscar Wilde)

Okay, so I will come back to this man-boy pairing thing later on in the post, but just understand that they likely wanted the angels because they looked very young and handsome.  In fact, so apparently handsome and young were the angels, that all the men from every quarter of Sodom flocked around Lot’s house and wanted to pair-up with them.  So, the angels made quite a stir and impact on these men.  They became, essentially, the prize or trophy boys, in the eyes of the men of Sodom.

Lot was old

Later on in the chapter, we read that Lot’s eldest daughter says, “Our father has become old.”  Lot, then, was an old, undesirable man to the men of Sodom.  They didn’t want to be with him sexually.  They only craved young, beautiful flesh, according to the man-boy pairings, which is part and parcel to the devil-inspired doctrine of homosexual deviancy.  Thus, they didn’t try anything sexual on righteous Lot.

Lot again attempts to stop the angels’ assessment

And Lot went out of the door, unto them, and shut the door after him  (JST Gen. 19:8)

Lot had a real problem on his hands.  Here he was trying to save the lives of these wicked men, for he knew that the men in his house were angels, and he either knew or suspected that they were there to destroy the city, (i.e., that they were destroying angels,) and so his plan of hiding them away in his house so that they could not make their assessment of the people’s wickedness was going up in smoke, because now all these wicked fools were coming to him!  Okay, so quick-thinking Lot tried to continue to keep the angels separated from these men and he went outside, making sure that the house door was closed.  If the angels go outside now that the whole freaking city(!) has surrounded his house they will surely see their abominations.  So the front door had to remain closed while he spoke to them, to keep the angels from assessing the wickedness of the people.  Perhaps he could get these morally bankrupt men to go away without a scene, and thus save their lives.  These, possibly, were righteous Lot’s thoughts.  But as valiant as his actions were, they would prove fruitless, for the men of Sodom were hell bent on being destroyed, apparently.

Judge not, that ye be not judged

And Lot went out of the door, unto them, and shut the door after him, and said,

I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.  (JST Gen. 19:8)

Now that wasn’t very tolerant of Lot to call homosexual behavior wickedness, was it?  Didn’t the Savior say to the Jews in Jerusalem during His ministry to: “Judge not, that ye be not judged?”  And didn’t He give this very same, word-for-word instruction to the Nephites?  Yes, of course He did.  And so doesn’t that mean that no one is supposed to judge what is or is not sin, and certainly not ever to tell someone that they are engaging in sin, or going to be sinning if they do something?  Um, no.  That is not what these sayings mean.  Unfortunately, there are a great many people who read the Bible and/or the Book of Mormon and come to the conclusion that it is intolerant and wrong to call sinful behavior a sin, or a person engaging in sinful behavior a sinner.  So, I suppose here is as good a place, and now is as good a time, as any other, to unfold this saying.

Judge not, that ye be not judged.  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.  (Matt. 7:1-2)

Now these are the words which Jesus taught his disciples that they should say unto the people.

Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment.  For with what judgment ye shall judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.  (JST Matt. 7:1–2)

And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words he turned again to the multitude, and did open his mouth unto them again, saying:

Verily, verily, I say unto you,

Judge not, that ye be not judged.  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.  (3 Ne. 14:1-2)

Therefore, my son, see that you are merciful unto your brethren; deal justly, judge righteously, and do good continually; and if ye do all these things then shall ye receive your reward; yea, ye shall have mercy restored unto you again; ye shall have justice restored unto you again; ye shall have a righteous judgment restored unto you again; and ye shall have good rewarded unto you again.  For that which ye do send out shall return unto you again, and be restored; therefore, the word restoration more fully condemneth the sinner, and justifieth him not at all.  (Alma 41:14-15)

And now, verily, verily, I say unto thee, put your trust in that Spirit which leadeth to do good—yea, to do justly, to walk humbly, to judge righteously; and this is my Spirit.  (D&C 11:12)

Wherefore, I would speak unto you that are of the church, that are the peaceable followers of Christ, and that have obtained a sufficient hope by which ye can enter into the rest of the Lord, from this time henceforth until ye shall rest with him in heaven.

And now my brethren, I judge these things of you because of your peaceable walk with the children of men.

…

Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.  For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.  For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.  (Moro. 7:3-4,14-16)

Anyway, I am not going to list all the scriptures explaining this principle.  Suffice it to say that “judge not, that ye be not judged” is merely an opening statement giving the general principle of the law of reciprocity and restoration, while “for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again” is the specific principle of the same law.  Thus, the general principle and statement was never given by the Savior with the intention that it be taken at face value, as an instruction that we are not ever to judge anything or anyone.

Nevertheless, there is an application for even the general principle, summed up by Moroni:

And he that saith:

Show unto me, or ye shall be smitten

—let him beware lest he commandeth that which is forbidden of the Lord.  For behold, the same that judgeth rashly shall be judged rashly again; for according to his works shall his wages be; therefore, he that smiteth shall be smitten again, of the Lord.  Behold what the scripture says—

man shall not smite, neither shall he judge; for judgment is mine,

saith the Lord,

and vengeance is mine also, and I will repay.  (Morm. 8:16-20)

Final judgment, then, is in the hands of the Lord.  In a former post I said that I have been able to discern (or judge) one’s spirit sufficiently to tell which kingdom of glory it would inherit should he or she die that instant, but that doesn’t mean that the very next instant the person isn’t going to repent, or sin, etc.  Final judgment is generally withheld from us, but even here, sometimes the Lord will so fully empower the gift of the discerning of spirits, that even final judgment is revealed to man, so that he can make a righteous judgment call:

And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma:

How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.

But Alma said unto him:

The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.  (Alma 14:10-11)

For the most part, then, for those who possess the gift of the discerning of spirits, the most we can do, as far as final judgments go, is suppose:

And now my sons, behold I have somewhat more to desire of you, which desire is, that ye may not do these things that ye may boast, but that ye may do these things to lay up for yourselves a treasure in heaven, yea, which is eternal, and which fadeth not away; yea, that ye may have that precious gift of eternal life, which we have reason to suppose hath been given to our fathers.  (Hel. 5:8)

But I have digressed enough. Back to Lot, a saintly man who, like all saints, could not shut his mouth at wickedness.  (And he was also a courageous man, like Lachoneus, and thus was not frightened by this city-wide mob wicked men, even though they had him and his house entirely surrounded!)

Now behold, this Lachoneus, the governor, was a just man, and could not be frightened by the demands and the threatenings of a robber…  (3 Ne. 3:12)

Lot made a righteous judgment call, calling the intended actions of the men of Sodom wickedness.  (After all, the only real way to avoid the destruction of Sodom was to get the men of the city to stop sinning, and that can’t happen unless they are first called out on their sins—for no one can repent if they do not recognize that they are sinning, and no one who does not recognize they are sinning can repent unless they are first told that what they are doing is sin.)  As one might expect, this made them livid.  Especially as homosexual sex was the norm in Sodom.  There was no law against it.  It was perfectly legal and respectable.  How dare he judge their customs, right?

Retaliation simply for calling a spade a spade

And they said unto him,

Stand back.

And they were angry with him.  And they said among themselves,

This one man came in to sojourn among us, and he will needs now make himself to be a judge; now we will deal worse with him than with them.

Wherefore they said unto the man,

We will have the men, and thy daughters also; and we will do with them as seemeth us good.

Now this was after the wickedness of Sodom.  (JST Gen. 19:9-12)

There is not even a pretense of consensual sex going on in this text.  They aimed to rape both the men, and now also Lot’s two virginal daughters.  Just because he dared to say that what they were doing was a sin.  Btw, as I’ve now mentioned rape, let’s have a song to commemorate the topic, interpreted by that famous homosexual actor-turned-singer, Peter Wyngarde, shall we?

I’ll come back to the specific topic of rape in a moment.

The JST states that the things that these men were doing was wickedness.  That means that regardless of what our official KJV Bible says, Joseph Smith, Jun., our founding seer, believed that all of this stuff found in this JST chapter was wickedness.  And there were a lot of things potentially going on: adult male homosexual sex and rape (consensual & non-consensual), man-to-boy (for the angels likely looked young) homosexual sex and rape, male homosexual group sex and rape, the raping and deflowering of virginal girls, both by individuals and by the group, as well as the sodomizing of the girls.  And this wasn’t just a few men seeking to get in on this group action, this was the entire freaking city gathered.  They were aiming at sexually destroying these five people for their pleasure.

Ritual sex had nothing to do with it

(Heterosexual) whoredoms are often associated with idolatry in the scriptures, as in the fertility rites (with shrine prostitutes.)  But the homosexuality practiced by the men of Sodom was not of a ritual nature.  In other words, it wasn’t bad because they were performing some kind of ritual to some idols.  No, these guys just liked to have a lot of unclean sex.  They got off on the feeling of power it gave them, for even consensual anal sex feels like you are raping the person sodomized.  This is because of the nature of the beast, even the anatomy of our bodies, which I will expound upon below.  So, homosexual sex is evil intrinsically, whether it is done as a ritual to an idol or not.

An assessment is made

And Lot said,

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do unto them as seemeth good in your eyes; for God will not justify his servant in this thing; wherefore, let me plead with my brethren, this once only, that unto these men ye do nothing, that they may have peace in my house; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

And they were angry with Lot and came near to break the door, but the angels of God, which were holy men, put forth their hand and pulled Lot into the house unto them, and shut the door.  And they smote the men with blindness, both small and great, that they could not come at the door.  And they were angry, so that they wearied themselves to find the door, and could not find it.  (JST Gen. 13-17)

This shows that these angels could easily protect themselves.  It also shows that they had completed their assessment and had already begun to reward the men of Sodom according to their sins.  Blindness didn’t just make it impossible to find Lot’s door, it also made it impossible to escape the bounds of Sodom.  These tares had been officially bound up.  The very next day they would be burned.

Down to four righteous souls

¶ And these holy men said unto Lot,

Hast thou any here besides thy sons-in-law, and thy son’s sons and thy daughters?

And they commanded Lot, saying,

Whatsoever thou hast in the city, thou shalt bring out of this place, for we will destroy this place; because the cry of them is waxen great, and their abominations have come up before the face of the Lord; and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it.

And Lot went out and spake unto his sons-in-law, which married his daughters, and said,

Up, get ye out of this place, for the Lord will destroy this city.

But he seemed as one that mocked, unto his sons-in-law.  (JST Gen. 18-22)

So Lot’s married daughters, their husbands, and the grandsons were all toast, leaving only Lot, his wife and his two remaining, unmarried, virginal daughters.  Four souls total.

Lot at least gets Zoar spared

¶ And when the morning came, the angels hastened Lot, saying,

Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters which are here, lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

And while he lingered the angels laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the Lord being merciful unto them; and they brought them forth, and set them down without the city.

¶ And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad that they said unto them,

Escape for your lives; look not behind you, neither stay you in all the plain; escape to the mountain lest you be consumed.

And Lot said unto one of them,

Oh, not so my Lord! behold now, thy servant has found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy which thou hast showed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil overtake me, and I die.  Behold now, here is another city, and this is near to flee unto and it is a little one; oh, let me escape thither, and may the Lord not destroy it, and my soul shall live.

And the angel said unto him,

See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken; haste thee, escape thither, for I cannot do anything until thou be come thither.

And the name of the city was called ^aZoar.

[a IE Little (thing).]

Therefore the sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.  (JST Gen. 23-29)

This shows that Abraham and also Lot were entirely concerned with saving souls, with giving them every opportunity to repent of their sins, for, like the sons of Mosiah, they could not bear the thought that any soul should perish.

Now they were desirous that salvation should be declared to every creature, for they could not bear that any human soul should perish; yea, even the very thoughts that any soul should endure endless torment did cause them to quake and tremble.  (Mosiah 28:3)

Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed

¶ And the Lord did not destroy Sodom until Lot had entered into Zoar.  And then, when Lot had entered into Zoar, the Lord rained upon Sodom, and upon Gomorrah; for the angels called upon the name of the Lord for ^abrimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.  And thus they overthrew those cities and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.  (JST Gen. 19:30-32)

[a HEB combustible materials (especially sulphur and pitch).]

I suppose the fire of this destruction was caused by interplanetary thunderbolts in fiery glow mode (enormous plasma discharges.)  Note that both Sodom and Gomorrah, their wickedness and abominations, the angels being sent to pluck out the righteous, the escape of the righteous, and the way these cities were instantly turned into ashes, is the pattern for the destruction of the wicked at the end of the world.

¶ And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them, and said,

The kingdom of God cometh not with observation; neither shall they say,

Lo, here!

or,

Lo, there!

For, behold, the kingdom of God has already come unto you.

And he said unto his disciples,

The days will come, when they will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and they shall not see it.  And if they shall say to you,

See here!

or,

See there!

Go not after them, nor follow them.  For as the light of the morning, that shineth out of the one part under heaven, and lighteneth to the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of Man be in his day.  But first he must suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.  And as it was in the days of Noe; so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man.  They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.  Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.  Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.  In that day, the disciple who shall be on the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away; and he who is in the field, let him likewise not return back.  Remember Lot’s wife.  (JST Luke 17:20-32)

Down to three righteous souls

¶ But it came to pass, when Lot fled, his wife looked back from behind him, and became a pillar of salt.  (JST Gen. 19:33)

There is a lesson to be learned here, but I won’t teach it, ’cause all the ladies will get on my case.  Besides, what Jesus said above is sufficient.

Only one righteous soul: Lot

¶ And Abraham got up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord; and he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and behold, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.

¶ And it came to pass, when God had destroyed the cities of the plain, that God spake unto Abraham, saying,

I have remembered Lot, and sent him out of the midst of the overthrow, that thy brother might not be destroyed, when I overthrew the city in the which thy brother Lot dwelt.

And Abraham was comforted.

¶ And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar. And he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.  And the firstborn dealt wickedly, and said unto the younger,

Our father has become old, and we have not a man on the earth to come in unto us, to live with us after the manner of all that live on the earth; therefore come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

And they did wickedly, and made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.  And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger,

Behold, I lay yesternight with my father; let us make him drink wine this night also, and go thou in and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

And they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him, and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.  Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.  And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab; the father of the Moabites, the same which are unto this day.  And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; the father of the children which are Ammonites; the same which are unto this day.  (JST Gen. 19:34-44)

Apparently merely taking the people out of the slums (Sodom) doesn’t take the slums (Sodom) out of the people.  Lot moved his family into Sodom, and they all grew up there.  Living in Sodom obviously had an adverse effect upon the entire family, all except for righteous Lot, who remained unaffected by the environment.  The family members who decided to stay in the doomed city weren’t the only ones that were grasped by its hellish grip.  The fleeing mother and daughters also couldn’t resist its pull, even after it was destroyed, the mother looking back to those sinful ways, and the daughters later raping their grieving father—for he surely grieved for the loss of his wife, his married daughters, his sons-in-law, his grandson, and the people of Sodom—by first getting him drunk with wine, which was surely under the pretense of “easing his grief,” and when their father was fully asleep, they sodomized him with oral sex in order to get him hard—he likely dreaming in his sleep that he was merely having a wet dream of conjugal relations with his dead wife—and then they each raped him on consecutive nights, committing incestuous whoredom with him. And oh, yes, sodomy is what these girls performed:

sodomy : anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also :  copulation with an animal

So the practices of Sodom were perpetuated, even immediately after its destruction, down to this very day.  It is ironic that righteous Lot did all he could to keep the wicked men of Sodom from sodomizing and deflowering and raping his precious and lovely daughters, and then these same girls ended up sodomizing and raping him, and deflowering themselves upon him, stealing his seed from him.  Aren’t the practices of Sodom lovely?

The Leviticus scriptures

And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God; I am the Lord.  ^aThou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.

[a OR With the male you shall not lie as one lies with the woman.]

Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto; it is confusion.  Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things; for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you; and the land is defiled; therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.  (JST Lev. 18:21-25)

If a man ^aalso lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

[a HEB lies with a male.]

And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is ^awickedness; they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

[a OR lewdness or an evil device.]

And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death; and ye shall slay the beast.  And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman and the beast; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.  (JST Lev. 20:13-16)

In this post I am giving the ancient practice of homosexuality, which was a free-for-all sexual feast, of both men, women, children and animals—and which, according the doctrine of the restoration of all things, must come back in full force; for all things, both good and evil, must and will be restored, that the abomination prophecies be fulfilled, both those which speak of there being all manner of abominations in the last days, and also those that speak of these same abominations being completely and finally destroyed.

Now, all of this sexual behavior—except for penile-vaginal sexual relations—constitutes sodomy, according to the dictionary definition above, which is what the men of Sodom practiced.  Homosexuality, and also bestiality, are condemned in these scriptures, and homosexual behavior is itself categorized as abomination.

Those who seek to downplay the sinfulness of homosexuality will usually point out that these Leviticus scriptures are part of the law of Moses, and thus not part of the law of the gospel of Christ.  In other words, that under the law of Moses it was considered abomination, but under the law of the gospel it was not, and is not, considered such.  But this is not correct, as I will show.

Sin, wickedness, iniquities and abomination

And thine elder sister is Samaria, she and her daughters that dwell at thy left hand; and thy younger sister, that dwelleth at thy right hand, is Sodom and her daughters.  Yet hast thou not walked after their ways, nor done after their abominations; but, as if that were a very little thing, thou wast corrupted more than they in all thy ways.  As I live,

saith the Lord God,

Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.  Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.  And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me; therefore I took them away, ^aas I saw good.  (JST Ezekiel 16:46-50)

[a HEB when I saw it.]

Everyone seeking to defend homosexual practices cites this scripture, conveniently leaving out the part about abominations, choosing to say that Sodom was destroyed because of their pride, idleness and their treatment of the poor.  But that was only half of the equation, and that only regarded their iniquities.  Sodom also committed abomination, which consisted of all the sexual practices of sodomy.  You see, there is sin, there is wickedness, there is iniquity, and then there is abomination.  What is the difference, you say?

Sin is anything unrighteous, which is done, but which should not be done; or anything righteous, which should be done, but which is not done.  Thus, sin falls into two categories: sins of commission and sins of omission.  Sin deals, then, mainly with acts.

Wickedness, on the other hand, covers both acts, thoughts, feelings, desires, and intentions.  Thus, committing adultery in the heart is not technically a sin, for you haven’t actually committed it, yet, but it does constitute wickedness, the heart itself being wicked.  We will be judged at the last day by our actions—what we do (commissions) and don’t do (omissions)—but also by our thoughts, words, feelings, desires and intentions.

Iniquities are inequities, or unequal treatment.  When Ezekiel in chapter 18 and 33 of his prophecy speaks of the ways of the people not being equal, he is talking of iniquities:

¶ Yet ye say,

The way of the Lord is not ^aequal.

[a HEB right or just.]

Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?  When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.  Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.  Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.  Yet saith the house of Israel,

The way of the Lord is not ^aequal.

[a HEB right or just.]

O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?  Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, everyone according to his ways,

saith the Lord God.

Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.  (JST Ezekiel 18:25-30)

Yet the children of thy people say,

The way of the Lord is not ^aequal;

but as for them, their way is not equal.

[a HEB right or just.]

When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.  But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.  Yet ye say,

The way of the Lord is not equal.

O ye house of Israel, I will judge you everyone after his ways.  (JST Ezekiel 33:17-20)

Grinding upon the faces of the poor, treating them as dross, simply because they are poor, is iniquity.  The people of Sodom practiced such iniquities.  But they also did one worse and went into abomination territory, committing “a grosser crime” (Jacob 2:22.)

Here is the definition of abomination:

ABOMINA’TION, n.

1. Extreme hatred; detestation.

2. The object of detestation, a common signification in scripture.

The way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord. Prov. xv.

3. Hence, defilement, pollution, in a physical sense, or evil doctrines and practices, which are moral defilements, idols and idolatry, are called abominations. The Jews were an abomination to the Egyptians; and the sacred animals of the Egyptians were an abomination to the Jews. The Roman army is called the abomination of desolation. Mat. 24:13. In short, whatever is an object of extreme hatred, is called an abomination.

Abomination is anything that the Lord really hates.  Now, the Lord hates all sin, for all sin leads to death.  But some sins are so very bad, because of the corruption they cause both to the person committing them, and to the victim, that they must be classified as abominations.

Sin causes the death of the spirit

To give a proper understanding as to the badness of abominations, it must be understood that our spirit bodies are made up of individual bits of spirit, like deformable bubbles that shine, and these bubbles of spirit encompass the non-deformable hard balls of stuff that is elemental matter, which is by nature black in color.  Nevertheless, because the spirit bubbles shine or glow with light, the spirit body appears white.  Depending upon the brightness of the glow, it might shine a little, a lot, or a whole lot.

When we came out of the Nothing, we were bathed in that lake of fire and brimstone that is found at the perimeter of this Universe.  That fire caused our spirits to ignite, so that our spirits began to shine.  When we were put together, or organized, as a spirit body, each individual bit of spirit matter, each individual bubble, shined individually, creating an aggregate glow or shine for the entire body.

When we come down to earth, we receive physical bodies and, at some point, are capable of sinning.  The instantaneous result of sin is that it causes a death in our spirit, meaning that some portion of the individual spirit bit bubbles that make up our spirit bodies goes dark.  Forever.  These bubbles cease to shine and glow.  They die.  This allows the blackness of the elemental bit of matter within to be seen, so that now our garments (spirit bodies) become unclean, filthy, even “spotted with [or by] the flesh [elemental matter].”

And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.  (Jude 1:23)

Crying repentance, saying:

Save yourselves from this untoward generation, and come forth out of the fire, hating even the garments spotted with the flesh.  (D&C 36:6)

Now, even if one bubble goes dark, this effects the surrounding bubbles, causing them to get dimmer, or mourn, for the loss of the brother spirit.  This mourning continues until they get dimmer yet again.  And so on continues the mourning, until the surrounding bubbles finally cease shining altogether, and thus they die themselves.  Now there are more bubbles that are dead, not just one, and these other dead bubbles now start to infect the bubbles that surround them, causing these others to mourn and grow dimmer.

This is why all sin leads to the eventual death of the entire spirit body.  Even one single, solitary death of a spirit bit will eventually cause the death of the entire organism, and there is no way to stop it.  Hope has been lost, light has gone dark, and all that is left to do is mourn.

Think of it like having a hand that has gotten gangrene and the flesh has died (necrosis.)  The doctor must cut the thing off.  You can’t leave the dead, rotten flesh attached to the living flesh, otherwise you will end up with the entire organism dying.  Well, a spirit body that has any part of it dead, through the commission of sin, cannot eject the dead spirit matter.  It is stuck there and it will eventually cause everything else to die, also.

The remedy, of course, is the atonement, faith, and the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, which baptism of fire re-ignites, through faith, the dead spirit bits, restoring the spirit body to completeness again.

Now, some sins cause the death of a small portion of the spirit body, while other sins cause the death of a large number of spirit bubbles.  These latter sins are so corruptive and deadly to the organism that they must be called, and are classified as, abominations.

Homosexual behavior is so corrupting, so perverse, and so desensitizing, that just doing it once is often enough to destroy, spiritually, the individual.  When a large portion of your spirit goes dead, you lose spiritual sensation.  There are two remedies: you can repent and get that baptism of fire, to re-ignite the spirit, or you can do the same sin again, or an even worse sin, so as to feel something, at least physically.  This latter practice is the lime in the coconut principle:

This is why sin is so addictive.  But each time you do the sin, you destroy more spirit bubbles, causing your spirit to become even more desensitized, hastening your eventual spiritual death.  So you must up the ante and perform increasingly more wicked practices, in order to feeling something, anything, to replace the growing empty feeling you now have inside of you, which is your spirit dying.

Homosexual practices are entirely corrupting

A man that engages in homosexual behavior not only destroys his own spirit, but also the spirit of the person with whom he does the act.  It is entirely corrupting for both, because the act goes against the divine design function of the body.  (In other words, it is fully perverse, meaning totally opposite to the laws of God.)  This is why it is called “the sin against nature.”  In fact, if you look up sodomy in the 1828 dictionary, it gives a definition of “a crime against nature.”

A whoredom, although an abomination, does not go against the design function of the body.  A penis is designed to go into a vagina, not a mouth nor the anal cavity.  The cavity of the vagina is specifically designed to properly admit a penis.  It has the right chemistry, pH balance, grip and so forth.  It is a perfect fit without any danger to the woman or the man during lovemaking.  The action of penile-vaginal penetration, assuming that the man and woman are both intact and fully functional, create the ideal environment for both maximum pleasure and mutual orgasm.  This creates the “one flesh” harmonic between the two spirits, uniting them in spiritual love.  In other words, their spirits vibrate together, through mutual orgasm, and can achieve mutual resonance.  The ejaculation of semen into the vaginal cavity is useful to the woman, even if it does not create life.  Those fluids are absorbed there and used by her body.  The area, also, is relatively clean, the vaginal fluids typically not being odorous, etc.  It can be accomplished without preparation and so on.  Thus, penile-vaginal penetration is what the scriptures call ‘the natural use of the woman.”

A mouth, on the other hand, although it can receive a penis, is not designed to do so.  There are things in the mouth that can injure a penis, such as teeth.  There is also not enough room to take in the entire organ, but if forced in (deep throated) the penis’ size and girth can cause injury to the throat of the one receiving it.  Although one can put it there, no one can argue that a mouth is designed for a penis.  Nevertheless, there are some health benefits associated with swallowing semen (from a healthy man) by women, because of the regulatory nature of sperm on the female.  But if either the woman or the man is unhealthy, the transmission of disease can go from penis to mouth, or from mouth to penis, and even brushing or flossing one’s teeth before oral sex (creating micro-abrasions or cuts in the mouth and gums) can prove disastrous to the man’s health.  Pleasure and orgasm can only be received by the inserted penis, with no corresponding pleasure and orgasm had by the one providing the mouth.  Thus, mutual pleasure and orgasm is impossible with oral sex.  This makes it impossible to receive the “one flesh” harmonic of penile-vaginal sex.

The anal cavity is also not designed for a penis.  Let’s call the anus and rectum exactly what it is, shall we?  The anal cavity is a bag to hold poop: a veritable poop-bag.  Even emptied and cleaned as much as possible, fecal residues still might remain.  Insertion of a penis into the anus, then, is insertion into a poop-bag, which may or may not be partly filled.  This makes all anal sex (ritually and literally) unclean.  Also anal sex might cause great damage to the receiver, rupturing the anal cavity, etc.  It can correctly be called “unsafe sex.”  The action of anal sex is likewise off, both for giver and receiver.  The vagina hugs the penis, in just the right spots, allowing the sensitive foreskin to pull back and forth correctly, according to its function.  Anal sex, though, only has the sphincter muscle grasping the penis at its base, which is not a sensitive area.  In other words, there is often not enough “gripping” in this bag of poop to create proper sensations of pleasure for the giver, so the receiver must often position himself in a manner that creates such tension, causing him potential discomfort or worse.

No orgasm for the anal sex receiver

Additionally, it is impossible for the one receiving the anal sex to achieve orgasm.  There is a pleasure center associated with anal sex, but there also may be a good deal of discomfort (and perhaps also pain.)  This pleasure has no release, or orgasm.   This is why those who engage in anal sex, both men and women, on the receiving end, almost always end up masturbating while engaged in it, in order to achieve an orgasm.  Thus, the abomination of homosexual relations is almost always accompanied by the unholy practice of masturbation.  You get two sins for the price of one.

Thus, the “one flesh” harmonic cannot be achieved through anal sex, either.  Two male homosexuals, then, must “do each other” in turns.  “First I get my orgasm through anal sex, then you get yours.”  In other words, it is entirely self-centered.  The one uses and abuses the other to “get off,” and then they change positions, so that the first gets used and abused for the pleasure of the other.  In the case of man-boy pairings, though, this change in positions does not always occur.  Instead, you just get the man using and abusing the boy, and the boy just has to take it.  He never gets the privilege of dishing it out.

Unsafe sex

Additionally, homosexual sex adds other things, such as various instruments and toys, which only increase the danger to one or both men.  They do these things in order to feel something—anything, at all.  In other words, these men become so desperate to fill up the growing void inside them, that they eventually resort to extreme sensory experiences. These practices taken together make homosexual sex typically very unsafe.

Total disrespect to God

The seed of man is the life-giving fluid of humanity, the testicles producing the stuff, and the penis being the instrument of delivery.  This phallus, then, can be considered a divine instrument, for all life proceeds from God.  In other words, the human penis, is, in very real sense, a sacred object.  We don’t worship it, yet it is the divine instrument that God uses to further His purposes.

When you take that sacred object and stick it into a bag of poop, what kind of message are you sending to God?  It is defilement, desecration, polluting of the divine, like polluting God’s holy temple.  It is an act of utmost disrespect.  Like putting up your middle finger towards God.

Sodomy for men and women prohibited

God provides regulations for the penis precisely because it is a divine and sacred instrument, something that He uses to create life.  His directives are that it be used sexually only with a woman, and only in cleanness (i.e, in the vagina.)  This fulfills His divine purposes, while keeping the purification aspects (cleanness) of the ordinance intact.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men; who love not the truth, but remain in unrighteousness, after that which may be known of God is manifest to them.  For God hath revealed unto them the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, which are clearly seen; things which are not seen being understood by the things that are made, through his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse; because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were they thankful, but became ^avain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

[a GR corrupt in their reasonings, deliberations.]

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.  And changed the glory of the ^auncorruptible God into an image made like to ^bcorruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

[a GR incorruptible, immortal.]

[b GR (also) perishable.]

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts; to dishonor their own bodies between themselves; who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God ^agave them up unto ^bvile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

[a GR abandoned, delivered.]

[b GR sufferings, passions of dishonor.]

And even as they did not like to ^aretain God according to some knowledge, God gave them over to a ^breprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, ^cdebate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, ^dbackbiters, haters of God, ^edespiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful; and some who, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, are inexcusable, not only do the same, but ^fhave pleasure in them that do them.  (JST Rom. 1:18-32)

[a GR discern, choose.]

[b GR worthless, unable to stand test.]

[c GR strife, discord.]

[d GR Slanderers.]

[e GR violent, overbearing.]

[f GR approve of them, sympathize with them.]

The “women changing the natural use into that which is against nature” does not refer to lesbianism, but to women having non-penile-vaginal sex.  From the Righteous Warriors website:

Historical Interpretation of Romans 1:26

The mistaken view that Romans 1:26 refers to female-female sexual relations remains widespread, but it is an interpretation that runs counter to the understanding of the early church leaders of the first four centuries. They understood Romans 1:26 to refer to non-procreative, male-female sexual acts.

Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.) interpreted Romans 1:26 to refer to common heterosexual practices, especially anal intercourse. After quoting Romans 1:26-27, Clement comments: “Yet nature has not caused even the most lewd beasts to have intercourse [mount] in the excrement passageway” and then goes on to condemn “male penetration, barren seed-sowing, anal intercourse [literally “rear bedding”] and unsuitable androgynous coming together” (Paed 2.10.86-87, translated by Miller 1997b; cf. Brooten 320-338).

Anastasios, another early Christian writer, cited in a marginal note to Clement, agrees with Clement that Romans 1:26 does not speak of female-female relations: “Clearly they [the females of Romans 1:26] do not go into one another [fem.] but rather offer themselves to men” (Brooten 1996:337-38; Miller 1997b). Even Augustine (354-430 A.D.) understood Romans 1:26 to refer to certain male-female practices (probably anal intercourse to prevent conception) as “unnatural” (Brooten 353; Miller 1995; 1997ab).

The cases of Clement and Augustine are especially remarkable, since both are clearly on record as opposing female-female eroticism. Yet they did not allow their conviction to distort their interpretation of Romans 1:26, as commonly happens with modern interpreters. The important point to make here is that both early believers and informed modern scholars interpret Romans 1:26 as referring to unnatural male-female practices. Given the complete Scriptural silence on female-female relations throughout Israel’s entire history (not a word in the Torah’s 613 commands against them), an unprecedented and unique condemnation of all female-female relations cannot be elicited from Paul’s sermon illustration.

Oral sex falls under sodomy

Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.  (Prov. 30:20)

Oral sex between two men, or between a man and a woman, whether the man and woman are married to each other or not, is still part of the definition of sodomy.  To read more about what the scriptures say about oral sex, and what they don’t say about it, read this page from the Righteous Warriors website.

There is to be no male sodomite in Israel

There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a ^asodomite of the sons of Israel.   Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow; for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.  (JST Deut. 23:17-18)

[a HEB a professional male or female prostitute or cultist.]

But what’s a sodomite?  Although it is tempting to take the alternate translation from the HEBREW and just say it is a professional male or female prostitute, or a professional male or female cultist, (in other words, a shrine prostitute,) it must be noted that the JST doesn’t make any alteration, keeping “sodomite.”  From the 1826 dictionary, here is the definition of “sodomite”:

SOD’OMITE, n.

1. An inhabitant of Sodom.

2. One guilty of sodomy.

So, this scripture prohibits males who are guilty of sodomy, which, according to the same dictionary, are crimes against nature.  That prohibits homosexual behavior, but this is, of course, from the law of Moses.  However, there are scriptures found in the New Testament which condemn homosexual behavior, such as the Romans scripture I cited above.  The others are:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither ^afornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor ^beffeminate, nor ^cabusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.  (1 Cor. 9-10)

[a GR sexually immoral persons, male prostitutes.]

[b GR catamites.]

[c GR male homosexuals.]

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.  (1 Tim. 1:8-11)

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.  Likewise also these ^afilthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.  (Jude 1:7-8)

[a The Greek text omits “filthy.”]

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. (2 Tim. 3:1-5)

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; and delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked; (for that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished; but chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.  (JST 2 Pet. 2:4-10)

These scriptures are part of the law of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and cannot be readily dismissed.

On to the topic of rape

Now that I’ve gone through most of the scriptures found in the Topical Guide entry for Homosexual Behavior, let’s talk about rape.

Un-rape-able

The perineal muscles of the female, the ones that allow a female to close her vagina—and don’t ask me, because I don’t know what the name or names of these specific muscles are—are strong enough to prohibit the erect and hardened penis from entering.  This means that if a female is conscious and in control of these muscles, and they are working properly, and she doesn’t want you to penetrate her, you ain’t gettin’ in.  This makes the female of the species, essentially, un-rape-able.

Now all rapists know this, which is why they either knock the female out and rape her while she is unconscious, through violence or by drugging her, so that the muscles are relaxed; or they get her drunk or otherwise drugged, so that she has lost control of these muscles; or they use violence or the threat of violence, harm or death, to her or to someone or something she loves, in order to get her to voluntarily “let the rapist in.”

The vagina can, of course, be forcefully penetrated by a hard object, harder than an erect penis, such as a wooden stick or metal shaft, etc., but this would physically harm the female’s vagina and create quite a bloody mess, which is possibly not something the average rapist would find appealing.

To all the married men who doubt the strength of the female vaginal “door” muscles, perform this experiment with your wives.  Ask them to “close up the shop” and then try to get in with your erect penis.  You will see that it is very much impossible.

Rape-able

The back door and its muscles, which are the external and internal anal sphincters, are very much rape-able.  These muscles are not strong enough to stop forcible entry by an erect penis.  Friction, of course, can put a stop to entry, but if a penis is lubricated sufficiently, it will slide right in, despite all attempts to squeeze the external anal sphincter closed.  Thus, no one needs to drug, threaten with violence or death, or knock a person unconscious in order to anally rape them.  You just need to be lubricated and stronger than the other person, so that you can overpower them.

Rape culture

The rape-able-ness of anal sex creates an ideal environment for rape culture.  To see a real rape culture in action, we need to just visit a local prison.  The men of a prison may not start out homosexual, but when the urge to have sex hits them, and they get no release, using and abusing a man who is less stronger than you are starts to look appealing.  You end up with men who become the raping “man” and men who become their raped “bitches.”  There is not much that can be done about the situation.  If a guy is stronger than you, there is no way to stop him from entering in through the back door.  The sphincter muscles are much too weak.

Another place to look at rape culture is among the militaries of the world, where raping is used as a form of psychological warfare, and also as a form of sexual release.  Bestiality also has existed among the military.  (In fact, as of January 1, 2012, both sodomy and bestiality are now legal in the U.S. military.)

The Taliban is also a culture of rape.  In this case, it is boys that are frequently used as sex slaves.  Why?  Well they are weaker than the men who abuse them, and they are easily raped.  This is not considered as a “homosexual” practice, just as a historic one that lots of men participate in.  (There are many articles that speak of this, but I’ll point the reader to one: Boys of the Taliban.)

Although the feminists have co-opted the term “rape culture” and sought to apply it to Western heterosexual society, anyone who has looked at the actual numbers knows that this is at best a distortion and at worst an outright lie, and that among heterosexuals there is no culture of rape.  Heterosexual societal norms are that rape is morally wrong and evil.  Also, there are enforced laws against it.  To find, then, the root of rape culture, one must look to homosexual behavior, not heterosexual society.

Anal sex, male sex with boys, homosexuality, bestiality, rape and rape culture: all these things are linked together, or have ties to each other, like branches of the same doctrine.  And what is that doctrine, or where did it originate?  In Sodom.

No strings attached

God commands men to be only with women, in penile-vaginal sexual relationships, in the bonds of holy matrimony, and to love their wives with all their hearts.  All this stuff goes totally contrary to the doctrine of Sodom.  The men of Sodom participated in a sexual free-for-all, consisting of every conceivable type of sexual relation, (and so they weren’t against having sex with women: consider Lot’s daughters that they wanted to use.)  But women often come with baggage, as in emotional baggage, and with strings attached, and they also play games (the BS women do.)

Women want to feel loved and bonded.  The men of Sodom just wanted to have sex, without having to have an emotional conection with the person being used or abused.  If there was an emotional connection, it wasn’t a bond, meaning that they were free to have as many emotional connections, with as many people as they wanted, or with animals or whatever.  The ancient doctrine, then, was anything goes but what God commands.

Women also want fidelity.  That, dear reader, is a big no-no in homosexual culture.  It is okay to have a “partner” with whom you live and appear to the masses as a “married couple,” all normalized and “legitimate” and proper, but every night, or whenever you want, each partner can go out seeking sexual adventures with anyone or anything they want.  There are to be no strings attached to the homosexual lifestyle.

Women play games.  Heterosexual men have to deal with female BS all of the time.  The homosexual man, though, would rather pass on such games.  It is simply a lot easier and less stressful to deal with other men, who do not play such BS games.

Women like to put constraints and restrictions on relationships they have with a man.  This flies completely in the face of the doctrine of Sodom, which is all about no constraints and no restrictions, whatsoever.  For these reasons, homosexuals pass on women, not because they don’t like having sex with them, but because it compromises their principles.

The manliest of men

The heterosexual looks upon the homosexual lifestyle and thinks, “That’s not manly.”  But to a homosexual, they don’t see themselves as unmanly, but as the manliest of men, because they are literally taking charge of their entire life and dictating all the terms, including the sexual terms.  The heterosexual man typically gets dictated to, by women, his sexual terms.  Not the homosexual.  These men are supermen when it comes to their sexual appetite and adventures.  The most promiscuous of heterosexual males pales into insignificance when compared to the most promiscuous of homosexual men.  And all of them are ultra-promiscuous, for this is the doctrine they subscribe to, to sexually feast on everything around them, whereas only some heterosexual males are very promiscuous.  In case you still don’t get my drift, the ultra-promiscuous heterosexual male will have hundreds of conquests, whereas the ultra-promiscuous homosexual male will have thousands.  They are literally sexual, predatory animals, and when they go out to get laid, they get laid.  Each and every time.

This is because the homosexual doesn’t have to deal with female BS.  With a female, you’ve got to finesse her first.  But the homosexual man just needs to see another homosexual male, and give the “signal,” which means, “Let’s have sex.”  And off they go to have sex.  They can be complete strangers.  It doesn’t matter.  And afterward, if they still have the energy that night, they do it again and again and again, with other complete strangers.  It is literally a sexual feast and the focus is on the sex, not on any relationship or emotional connection.

Not having an emotional connection with anyone, or having an “emotional” connection without strings (i.e., just an infatuation) creates an emptiness in these men.  This emptiness needs to be filled, which they attempt through sex.  Thus, the homosexual man has a sexual appetite that is orders of magnitude greater than the heterosexual man, who, if he finds himself in a relationship with a woman, may feel a true connection to her, and thus feel satisfied.  But the homosexual is never satisfied, and thus remains forever on the prowl for more sexual adventures, in his insatiable state.

No conquests, only adventures

Because homosexual men don’t have sex with women, they don’t get to experience one of the satisfying pleasures of heterosexuality: the conquest or seduction of women.  Women are, by nature, resistant, and this makes for the need to seduce her before bedding her.  A bedded woman, then, is a conquered and sexually submissive woman.  The man wins the prize and feels more manly for the accomplishment.  This conquest gives, in and of itself, a feeling of satisfaction to a man.  Thus a heterosexual man is satiable and doesn’t have or feel a need to bed every woman he sees.

The homosexual man, though, never gets to feel this conquest or seduction feeling, because, dealing with only men, there is only sex involved.  Homosexual men do not seduce each other.  They skip that part and only use each other.  The missing feeling of conquest, then, must be filled in some other way.  That’s where the catamites come in.  It is through the domination, use and abuse of catamites by the pederast that the homosexual man gets to experience some sort of feeling of sexual conquest.  Perverse, isn’t it?

Lust not love

The word of God gets it right, as usual, calling what homosexual men feel, lust and not love.  The homosexuals, of course, paint it as love.  But just as you can’t put lipstick on a pig and have it look any better, and just as you can’t polish a turd, so you can’t take the burning lust that homosexuals feel for each other and call it love.  Oscar Wilde was simply wrong.

Patterned after Satan

Satan is the model of masculinity after which homosexuality is patterned, whereas Christ is the masculine pattern for heterosexuality.  God says, “Don’t touch those things and don’t eat that.”  So what is Satan’s response?  “I’ll touch that when I want, as many times as I want, for as long as I want.  In fact, I’m going to touch that, and only that.  And I’m going to eat that, and only that, as many times as I want or even continuously, as I damn well please!  ‘Cause I’m in charge here, not you!”  Homosexuality is, then, a state of utter rebellion, a totally opposite state to that ordered by God.

Heterosexuality, on the other hand, follows God’s prescribed orders and pattern, just as Christ submitted to the Father, though heterosexuals still often violate the precise commands from time to time.  Nevertheless, it is not a total violation, as homosexuality is.

Gay pride and its parades

The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.  (Isa. 3:9)

The show of their countenance doth witness against them, and doth declare their sin to be even as Sodom, and they cannot hide it. Wo unto their souls, for they have rewarded evil unto themselves!  (2 Ne. 13:9)

A parade is “a pompous show :  exhibition.”  It used to be that homosexual behavior was performed in dark alleys and other secret, obscure places, or in the seedy parts of the neighborhood.  This was when homosexuality was considered both illegal and against societal norms, (in other words, as both deviant and criminal behavior.)  But now it has been, essentially, legalized, and its perversion and deviancy normalized and legitimatized.  It is now declared openly.  In fact, so openly, that it is annually paraded in front of the heterosexual population in various places across this nation.  There is no longer any need or desire to hide it, except for those still living under some kind of stigma, such as a religious or family disapproval.  Surely, this scripture of Isaiah is being fulfilled before our very eyes.

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.  And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me; therefore I took them away, as I saw good.  (JST Ezekiel 16:49-50)

The men of Sodom were prideful, but they were also haughty.  What is the difference?  It is my understanding that the first description, of pride, is referring to the sin of pride, which was part of their iniquity.  But the second description, of haughtiness, refers to how they presented their abomination (homosexuality.)  In other words, they took pride in their homosexuality.  They practiced it openly, not in secret or ashamedly.  They declared it, just as Isaiah prophesied, as a badge of honor, just as the homosexuals of today do.

Also, the men of Sodom “not only [did] the same [abominations], but [had] pleasure in them that do them” (Rom. 1:32), just as the homosexuals of today do.  This is because the homosexual way is considered a sexual celebration, a grand party in which all feast at the same table of sex, and everyone is invited to partake of these forbidden pleasures.  Everyone can lift up their heads in wickedness, for God does not exist, and even if He does exist, it will still be well with them, or so they tell themselves.

And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.  (Alma 30:18)

Yea, and there shall be many which shall say:

Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.

And there shall also be many which shall say:

Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.  (2 Ne. 28:7-8)

Imitating the doctrine of Sodom among heterosexuals

Henry Makow has written about how Hugh Heffner’s magazine, Playboy, took the homosexual practice of endless promiscuity and no family responsibilities (singleness) and applied it to heterosexuality.  He was correct.  The heterosexual “playboy” is merely a heterosexual man acting like a homosexual man, except towards women and not men.

Another imitation of the homosexual practices is pornography.  All pornographic performers disassociate themselves emotionally from the sexual acts they perform in front of the camera.  In other words, they feel no emotional connection or bond between any of the various performers involved.  One guy described his experience as a performer as, “merely masturbating in her [vagina].’  Masturbation is a solitary act, showing that although he performed with people, it was as if he was completely alone.  The performances, then, are just stripped down to sex, nothing but sex, without emotion, without feeling, without connection, without bond, without love.  Just sex.  But not even sex with someone else.   Masturbatory sex.  This is an imitation of the homosexual practices, which likewise strip everything down to sex and the use of others as sex objects, in order to get off.

The lesbian death bed

In this post I am focusing almost entirely on the homosexual man because the homosexual woman is not really homosexual.  She is, essentially, bisexual with a preference for women.  Homosexual men do not seek out women (because they don’t want to deal with female BS), so homosexual men can be considered truly homosexual.  But not so among lesbians.  When two lesbians come together, being women, they are by nature passive.  The want to be loved, whereas a man wants to love.  One is active (the male) and the other is passive (the female.)  Even though all homosexual couples take on gender roles—the man role being filled by “manly” men and butch dikes, and the woman role being filled by flaming homosexuals and feminine lesbians—they can’t get by their masculine and feminine natures.  So, even the butch dikes do not take an active role in sexual relations, desiring for their female partners to initiate.  In other words, both lesbians in a couple want to be loved, thus no one ends up doing the loving.  So, nothing sexual ends up happening.  This is why they call it the “lesbian death bed.”

Two lesbians will live together, argue together, complain to each other, and generally be miserable together as their female hormones make them offended at every word.  They will put up a loving demeanor in public (and sometimes they won’t even do that) in order to present the façade of a happy relationship, but in private they can’t stand the fact that they ain’t gettin’ any.  Eventually, all lesbians seek out a male, to be bedded by them, and they will do this from time to time, whenever the lack of sex becomes unbearable.  This is a known fact.

So, the lesbian has little to no sex.  Even if she goes out seeking another female lover, and ends up getting some loving, it only will be at the start of the relationship, because of its newness, and then it dwindles down to nothing.  Also, because lesbians are every bit as female as heterosexual women, they desire relationships and connection, which is what they end up having, just without any sex.  Their heterosexual counterparts get connection with a man plus sex, becoming more fulfilled.  Lesbians, then, are miserable creatures.  That is not to say that homosexual men are any happier, for although they get lots of sex, they don’t get any lasting connections, only fleeting ones, and their “relationships” are of “partners” (lifetime roommates.)  So they are almost as equally unfilled and miserable as the lesbians. Nevertheless, all these people put up the façade of living the “gay” (happy) life.  Their celebration, though, is a big fat lie.  (The heterosexuals also are miserable, but that’s a topic for another post.)

The lesbian, then, is hardly worth a mention, therefore I will continue my focus on the homosexual man.

2 percent of the population

Homosexuals currently make up about 2 percent of the population, but this is because of legal and societal constraints, and also the commandments of God.  Take away these constraints—and that is exactly the homosexual agenda: to remove all restraints to the doctrine of Sodom—and you end up with what was seen in ancient Sodom: the whole city homo-sexualized!  In other words, homosexuality is a contagion, like all sin.  Homosexuals are not born, they are made through recruitment and confusion and deceit and lies and experimentation with the sin, all of which creates an addiction that possibly can last a lifetime.  The ancients never thought of homosexuality as a “born” kind of thing.  The idea of being born a homosexual, genetically, or epi-gentically, is a modern construct, invented to give legitimacy to the perversion.  There is, of course, no such genetic or epi-genetic links.  Those in the know understand that homosexuals must be recruited from the youth population, hence the push for schools to incorporate homosexual lifestyles into their sex education classes.

Legal constraints are already being eroded and altogether removed.  Societal opinion is also shifting in favor of legitimizing the homosexual, deviant lifestyle.  So these latter restraints are also being eliminated, even among church people.  There is only one thing that still says, “No,” to homosexuality: the commandments of God.  When there are no more legal and societal restraints, and there are only saints who obey the commandments of God and who, like Lot, say to the homosexuals, “Do not do so wickedly,”  you are going to see the saints die at the hands of these men, for they will not have their lifestyles condemned and judged, nor curtailed in any way.  This will fulfill the scriptures concerning the great and abominable church fighting against Zion in the last days, for they will seek to kill all the saints.

The population would not die out if everyone were a homosexual

Here is what would happen—and what perhaps happened in Sodom—as the homosexual population begins to explode: women would be used as breeders; the female children would continue to be used as breeders, servants and slaves, while the male children would become catamites, to be trained and raised as the next generation of homosexuals.  Animal husbandry would take on a new purpose, too, as animals would be raised so that men could have sex with them.  (It is already happening, for example, with animal brothels in Germany.)

Breeding women may sound far-fetched to some, but Nazi Germany already did such deeds.  Although we say that that was merely a Nazi program, it was possibly just a Sodom program, re-revealed by the evil spirit, for the doctrine of Sodom was not a man-made philosophy, but a bona-fide doctrine of the devil.  Its sole intention is to break the Lord’s law of chastity, even to do everything sexual, except comply with the requirements God has laid down.

Inevitably, it is the children that become the target

Homosexual recruitment occurs among the young, for Satan always targets these pure souls.  They are alive in Christ, after all, therefore they are types of Christ.  So, they are to be corrupted and abused and used to further his purposes.  This means that pedophilia must become both legalized and acceptable socially, in order for the man-boy (pederast-catamite) pairings to go forth, so that Sodom can be rebuilt and reborn as the New Sodom.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are, in point of fact, linked

Don’t believe me?  Read the following articles:

Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse

Child Molestation & the Homosexual Movement

Report: Pedophilia more common among ‘gays’

Good luck to anyone that tries to refute them…

Pedophilia is the new civil rights battle

It is the logical next step in the agenda.  There are lots of articles and videos documenting this new civil rights area.  Do a search and read or watch a couple.

The great and abominable church

This future church, (for there are people who believe that it already exists, but it doesn’t), will be called the mother of harlots, the mother of abominations, the whore of all the earth, and the great and abominable church.  To it will all abominable practices be gathered, under one roof, so-to-speak.  Sure, there will be whoredoms, for those are abominations, too.  And there will be child sacrifices to dumb idols and the passing of children into the fires of Molech, etc.  All these things are abominations, so they will be there, too.  And every other iniquitous and sinful and wicked thing that ever existed from the days of Adam, as well as new horrors invented for our day.  But there will also be the modern men of New Sodom, for the revived Sodom and its practices will have safe haven in this church.  All this so that God may finally stamp out these abominations once and for all.

This church will be burned

We know this, according to the prophecies, so there is going to be a repeat scenario, as the New Sodom and its men get destroyed by God.  Therefore, there is only one message we saints should be giving to the homosexuals: repent before it is too late for you.

Latter-day saints, and everyone else who believes in the word of God, need to wake up to the deceptions being put out about homosexuality, sodomy, rape, rape culture and pedophilia.  These are clear and present dangers to the kingdom of God, which kingdom has been given to the saints.  All these sins actively fight against the commandments of God.  Later, the men who commit these abominations will actively fight and seek to kill all those who keep the commandments of God.  And lastly, these same men, if they do not repent in time, will themselves be killed and lose their souls.  So, let’s not be so tolerant of their behavior that we shut our mouths and just watch them die at the Lord’s appearance.  Instead, let’s be like righteous Lot and Abraham, and do all in our power to stop the flood of evil practices from continuing to go forth, and let’s be willing to call a spade a spade, even when surrounded by an entire city of wicked men—(truly Lot had a BIG SET, if you know what I mean)—and let’s try to save their souls while there is still time, okay?

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Unlicensed marriages and what the Brethren can do about them

First Presidency letter

On October 18^th, Zo-ma-rah blogged about a First Presidency letter that was read in his sacrament meeting. He wrote:

This Sunday was interesting. After opening the meeting we were greeted with a nice letter from the Brethren™. The letter instructed us to not participate in self help groups. Specifically they instructed [us] to avoid groups that:

1. Challenge Church™ teachings.

2. Advocate confrontation with spouse as a means for self improvement.

3. Imitate the sacred rites and rituals of the Church™.

4. Involve physical contact with others.

5. Meet late in the evening or early in the morning.

6. Involve confession.

7. Involve pairing of spouses with others.

These points might be a bit generalized, but I was taking notes [as] fast as my little hands could write, and that’s the gist of what was said.

To this I responded:

Some of the points on that list may be pointing to some of the stuff I’ve written (#’s 1, 3, and 7.) I wonder if my blog is under church surveillance (along with certain other bloggers)?

Later, a second person told me that this same First Presidency letter was read in their sacrament meeting and as they listened, all they could think about was that this letter was talking about me and the LDS Anarchy blog.

The lone wolf

A friend of mine, who believes in “the powers that be” (TPTB), once told me that what TPTB most fear is a lone wolf, someone who operates outside of the normal channels, who doesn’t give a damn what people think of him and so is not overly concerned of the consequences of his words and actions. Such a man, this lone wolf, is not restrained by normal customs and protocols, but can operate independently from institutional controls, inflicting great harm on existing systems. As he has no ties to organizations that can constrain his actions or influence his behavior, he is unpredictable. Predictability is extremely important to control methods.

Now, I’m not saying that I’m a lone wolf, but the Lone Wolf and Cub movies are some of my all-time favorite flicks. 😉

Anyway, if this blog has been assigned lone wolf status and the Brethren are taking measures to steer the membership away from the principles set forth here, I thought it would be beneficial to explain exactly what the Brethren can do to people who implement some of these ideas. Specifically, I wish to address point #7, “the pairing of spouses with others.”

Serious consequences

There are serious consequences to consider before attempting to establish a tribe using the multihusband-multiwife marriage system. If it is learned that you are even planning such an activity, you will be disciplined. The two ways of discipline in our religious institution are disfellowship and excommunication, however, because entire Mormon families are typically plugged into Mormonism, there will be further repercussions from one’s family and perhaps even friends as they spurn and/or pity you when they learn of your “apostacy.”

All of this must be weighed in the balance when considering exiting out of the confines of monogamy. There is also the law of man to consider, which does not allow polygamy. This means that to obey the laws of the state, one must practice polygamy without a state marriage license. If you attempt to marry more than one spouse using a marriage license for each one, that puts you under the jurisdiction of the bigamy laws.

Marriage without a state license is approved of God, so the state’s jurisdiction can be entirely by-passed, but the church still poses a problem if they find out what you are doing. The question then is whether the church can be kept out of one’s tribal business. To that end, I thought it would be beneficial to review some marriage scenarios to determine how easy or difficult it would be to practice the multiple spouse marriage system without the church finding out.

Marriage scenario #1: Two single people

First, let’s talk about a single man and a single woman who desire to marry. If they marry without a marriage license, by covenant between themselves only, and start living together, chances are that word is going to get out one way or another that two “unmarried” people in the church are living together (living in sin). Now, living together does not equate to having sex, but we all know how people think.

If the couple attends church and continues to partake of the sacrament, while living together, chances are that they will be asked to come in to the bishop’s office for a chat. The bishop will surely inquire about the circumstances of this highly irregular event.

Probably the first thing he will ask is if this couple is married. It is a possibility that the couple has gotten married in secret, in a civil ceremony. Perhaps they eloped to Las Vegas or something.

There are two ways that the couple can respond to questions about their marriage. They can say that they are married, which would be the truth as they entered into a covenant of marriage with each other, or they can say that they aren’t married, which would be the truth as they aren’t married in the eyes of the state because they never got a marriage license.

If they say that they aren’t married, there will be inquiries about whether they are still living the law of chastity, about the living arrangements they have made, with pressure to separate, repent, etc.

If they say that they are married, there will be inquiries about the details of their marriage. When and where they got married, wedding pics, the bridal dress, etc. If the couple divulges the details of the marriage, that it was by personal covenant-only, the bishop, the members, their family and also many other people will not consider it a bona fide marriage and the church will consider them living in sin and take action accordingly. If, however, the couple plans to keep the details secret and arranges circumstances so that it appears that they “left town,” eloped and returned married, the membership and leadership will more readily accept that, (though they will be chided for not getting a temple marriage.)

For example, a man and a woman can arrange their affairs so that they are both free on a certain date. They can leave their homes early and go off to some faraway place where others they know would not look for them and then they can enter into their marriage covenant. They can stay away for a sufficiently long time to allow for an apparent elopement to Vegas and back. When they return, the man and the woman can sport wedding rings, move in together and live their lives from that moment on as husband and wife.

When asked about their wedding, they can say they eloped. When asked when they were married, they can say the date that they entered into their marriage covenant. When asked where they were married or if they can show pictures or, for the really nosy ones, a marriage certificate, they can say, “We wish to keep the details of our elopement private, which is why we eloped in the first place.” For proof of their marriage, they can show their wedding rings. As long as they project to the public that they are married, the public will consider them married, including all church officers.

The drawback to this will be a denial of a temple wedding sealing. The Brethren will not allow them to be sealed without a valid state marriage license or certificate, so they will have to wait until the work for the dead is done for them for their time marriage to be turned into an eternity marriage.

Marriage scenario #2: A married couple and a single individual

In the case of a married couple that wishes to add another spouse to its marriage arrangement, by covenant-only without a state marriage license, which is the only non-illegal way it can be done anyway, the man or woman who is to be married to the second spouse, with permission of the first spouse, can have a private meeting with the second spouse, in which they enter into a marriage covenant. Living arrangements can either remain as is, with the new spouse living alone in their own dwelling, or the family can be combined under one roof.

If the two husbands or two wives have separate dwellings, nothing out of the ordinary would be noticed. If the two husbands or two wives live under the same roof, church members may notice and begin inquiring or report what they see to their bishop, who may end up calling these three members into his office.

During a bishop’s inquiry, a couple may simply say that they, the couple, invited so-and-so to come live with them. This would be the truth. If asked why the invitation, they could say, for a stay-at-home second wife, “So-and-so is helping around the house.” For a working second husband, “So-and-so is helping us out financially.” All of this would be the truth.

If there are suspicions that more than that is going on and that there is an affair happening, any one of them can instruct the bishop to ask them the temple question. The temple question concerning relationships is, “Are you living the law of chastity?” To which can be answered, yes. As long as the question remains on the law of chastity, and whether any of them is living it, answer the question honestly with yes. If the bishop tries to slip a, “Are you having sex with this man/woman?” answer, “I am not breaking the law of chastity.” Bring everything back to the law of chastity.

Without witnesses of wrongdoing, a bishop cannot pursue the matter further. As long as neither one of the three married individuals divulges information about the non-licensed marriage, the bishop cannot build a case against them. He either needs witnesses or a confession to act.

Like the situation with the two single individuals, the only penalty the Brethren can use towards these people is to stop them from getting the marriage sealed in the temple. They will have to wait until the work for the dead is done for them to be sealed eternally.

Marriage scenario #3: Two married couples

If two married couples wish to marry each other, making an interconnected marriage arrangement with two wives and two husbands, by covenant-only without a marriage license, this can be easily done by private meeting among all involved, whereby they covenant with each other to be married. They can then live their lives in their separate dwellings, but visit each other as they please as husbands and wives. In this case, it is doubtful that church members would notice what is going on unless they are around one of the newly married men and his new wife and saw them carrying on romantically. Were that to happen, word would surely get to the bishop, who would call the suspects into his office.

Again, the way to handle this would be to answer all questions in terms of breaking the law of chastity, and that’s it. Is the law of chastity being broken? Nope. That’s all the bishop needs to know.

As with the other scenarios, only the temple marriage sealing can be denied to the newly weds, that is until the work for the dead is done for them.

Children

The children of one or more of the spouses can cause trouble for the non-licensed married couple if the adults are presenting to the world that they are not married (using the state’s definition). For couples that do tell people they are married, such as two single individuals coming together, children pose no problem. But for marriages involving three or more people, in which no one but the spouses themselves know they are married, children might need to be kept in the dark, at least initially, so that they don’t go blabbing to church members or officials about the non-church sanctioned marriage.

Conclusion as to what the Brethren can do

If those entering marriage in this manner plan it right and understand how they are going to present it, or not present it, to the public, the church and their children, the Brethren can’t do a damn thing about it. They can’t stop the marriage from happening, they can’t discipline the newlyweds without evidence, witnesses and/or confessions, and they can’t keep the parties unsealed (because eventually all these marriages will be temple sealed.)

The Lord has, essentially, opened the way for any of His sons and daughters to establish themselves tribally, without repercussions from the state or from the church. The only ones who have power to stop it from happening are the wives.

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

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

As part of an article that I have been preparing on the law of chastity, I thought it would be good to first define it.  However, as I began writing that portion of the article (the definition of the law of chastity), the article became quite long and I realized that this was a topic sufficient for its own post.  So, I am splitting the article into two, this being the first part.

There have been two definitions given of the law of chastity in the temple of God.

The temple definition of the law of chastity—prior to April, 1990

“The law of chastity…is that the daughters of Eve and the sons of Adam shall have no sexual intercourse except with their husbands or wives to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded.”  (Source: The Telestial World.)

and

“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 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.”  (Source: The Terrestrial World.)

The temple definition of the law of chastity—April, 1990 Revision

The 1990 revision speaks of sexual “relations” rather than sexual “intercourse.”

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.  (Source: The Terrestrial World, Notes 1 and 2.)

Paraphrased law of chastity with pre- and post-April, 1990 revision comparisons

I will paraphrase the definition given previous to April, 1990, and state it as follows:

The law of chastity is that no woman will have sexual intercourse except with her husband to whom she is legally and lawfully wedded and that no man will have sexual intercourse except with his wife to whom he is legally and lawfully wedded.

And here is a paraphrase of the definition given in the April, 1990 revision:

The law of chastity is that no woman will have sexual relations except with her husband to whom she is legally and lawfully wedded and that no man will have sexual relations except with his wife to whom he is legally and lawfully wedded.

Would the real law of chastity please stand up?

According to the Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, the term sexual intercourse has two shades of meaning:

1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS

2 : intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis

(Definition taken from this page.)

According to the same dictionary, the term sexual relations has the following, singular definition:

: SEXUAL INTERCOURSE

(Definition taken from this page.)

We see from these definitions that the terms sexual intercourse and sexual relations are synonymous.

More on the second shade of meaning

As stated above, the term sexual intercourse has two shades of meaning.

So that there is no misunderstanding over the second shade of meaning, which is defined as intercourse, here is the definition of the word intercourse:

3 : physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person <anal intercouse> <oral intercourse>; especially : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE 1 <heterosexual intercourse>

(Definition taken from this page.)

And for those who aren’t sure just what is considered human genitalia,

“The Latin term genitalia, sometimes anglicized as genitals and genital area, is used to describe the externally visible sex organs, known as primary genitalia or external genitalia: in males the penis, in females the clitoris and vulva.”

(Taken from the Sex organ entry of Wikipedia.)

Church manuals give the same definition as the temple definition

For example, in the book Gospel Principles, in chapter 39, entitled, The Law of Chastity, under the section called What Is the Law of Chastity?, chastity is stated this way:

“We are to have sexual relations only with our spouse to whom we are legally married. No one, male or female, is to have sexual relations before marriage. After marriage, sexual relations are permitted only with our spouse.”

The Gospel Topics Gospel Library found on lds.org, an official web site of the Church, under the entry Chastity, states the following:

“Chastity means not having any sexual relations before marriage. It also means complete fidelity to husband or wife during marriage.”

Church manuals and leader’s teachings often go beyond the temple definition

To give an example, I refer back to the Gospel Principles book, same chapter, same section, and directly under the definition quoted above.  Two paragraphs follow which state:

We have been taught that the law of chastity encompasses more than sexual intercourse. Elder Spencer W. Kimball warned young people of other sexual sins:

“Among the most common sexual sins our young people commit are necking and petting. Not only do these improper relations often lead to fornication, [unwed] pregnancy, and abortions—all ugly sins—but in and of themselves they are pernicious evils, and it is often difficult for youth to distinguish where one ends and another begins. They awaken lust and stir evil thoughts and sex desires. They are but parts of the whole family of related sins and indiscretions” (The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 65).

This tendency to go beyond the temple definition and lump together anything and everything that can lead to breaking the law of chastity is fairly common in the church.  These “related sins and indiscretions” are often categorically labeled immorality.

The sexual laws of the Bible

What the Bible says about proper sexual activity is not quite the same as the temple definition of the law of chastity.  It is not my intention to address the biblical sexuality laws here.  It would take too much time and require more than one post.  Others, however, have addressed these issues, so I will refer the reader to one of them, the Controversial Truths section of the Righteous Warriors website, in which can be found biblical sexuality articles.

For the purposes of this post, I will be sticking to the temple definition of the law of chastity and to nothing else.

Where fornication and adultery fit in the law of chastity

For the sins of fornication and adultery, only the first definition of sexual intercourse applies.  In other words, if a married woman has oral sex with some guy she’s not married to, she is breaking the law of chastity, but she isn’t committing the sin of adultery.  If she has a lesbian affair, she is breaking the law of chastity, but she isn’t committing adultery.  The sins of fornication and adultery require vaginal penetration by the penis.  But, don’t take my word on this. Go ask your bishop to see the church handbook for yourself.

Now that we know what the law of chastity is, let’s talk about what it isn’t.

Masturbation does not break the law of chastity

To break the law of chastity, at least two people are required.  Therefore, masturbation, which is sexual self-stimulation, does not break the law of chastity.

Kissing does not break the law of chastity

Kissing, even passionate kissing, as long as the genitalia are not involved, does not break the law of chastity.

Petting does not break the law of chastity

Petting and even heavy petting, like kissing, does not break the law of chastity, as long as the genitalia are not involved.  Also, keep in mind that the breasts are not considered genitalia.

Viewing pornography does not break the law of chastity

For the reasons stated above, looking at pornography does not break the law of chastity.  It is impossible to physically have sexual intercourse with just the eyes.

Committing adultery in one’s heart does not break the law of chastity

Jesus said “that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”  (See Matthew 5: 28.)  The Lord also said, “He that looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath denied the faith, and shall not have the Spirit, and if he repents not he shall be cast out.”  (See D&C 42: 23.)

“Looking on a woman to lust after her” means that a man consciously wishes that he could cheat on his wife (if he is already married) and have sexual intercourse (1st shade of meaning of that term, which covers the sin of adultery) with another man’s wife.

Obviously, this is a sin that can rapidly lead to breaking the law of chastity, but in and of itself, this sin does not break the law of chastity.

Immodesty does not break the law of chastity

How you dress can affect how you feel about yourself and how others treat you, but it is outside of the jurisdiction of the law of chastity, therefore, dressing immodestly does not break the law of chastity.

(For a fuller treatment of modesty, see its Wikipedia entry.  For a brief review of modern LDS modesty standards, see the blog post, A Style of Our Own.)

Why knowing the definition of chastity is helpful

People often beat themselves up unnecessarily.  A person is, of course, free to add as many personal rules as they want to the laws of the gospel, including the law of chastity, as did the Pharisees, but when it comes right down to it, chastity is what the Lord, in His holy temple, has defined it as being.  Nothing more, nothing less.

So, the next time you are sitting in a temple recommend interview with your bishop or stake president, and you are asked if you live the law of chastity, you may want to keep these things in mind.  Having the temple definition in your head may make answering the question a whole lot easier.

Next Chastity article: “David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me”

Previous Chastity article: Does legalized, same-sex “marriage” break the law of chastity?

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

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

Why the long process?

I know a couple of ladies in the church—one married, one divorced—who have gone to their bishops to confess to breaking the law of chastity and both were told to stop partaking of the sacrament, the other also being forced to surrender her temple recommend. Now, it has been well over two years for both women and neither one has received permission to partake of the sacrament. In these two years, both women have confided in me that they were repentant and felt that God had forgiven them, but that because they still couldn’t partake of the sacrament, their desire to participate in and continue going to church has been waning.

One of these ladies even told me that her bishop had explained to her that she was only required to confess to the bishop and to God, that she need not confess to her husband nor divulge the name of the man with whom she was unfaithful. She disobeyed his counsel and confessed everything to her husband and they are now reconciled, but she still can’t partake of the sacrament, despite her repentance.

Two plus years seems like an awful long time to keep a repentant person who has confessed her sin to God and priest—and in the case of the married woman, confessed to the husband and received forgiveness from him—from partaking of the sacrament. I wonder how prevalent this practice is. I wonder if church discipline is being used as a means to punish, instead of as a means to bring the unrepentant to godly sorrow and repentance (confession).

I am reminded of Nephi, who, after his brothers had attempted to murder him, they came to their senses and asked his forgiveness and, said he, “I did frankly forgive them.” (See 1 Nephi 7: 21.) He didn’t require them to go through a waiting period, etc. They felt sorry, they confessed, he forgave. Simple as that. So, what’s up will all the waiting times?

Next Chastity article: The many definitions of adultery

Previous Chastity article: The Return of Polygamy

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

Biblical Anarchism

Allow me to introduce myself. I am LDS Anarchist. As the name states, I am a Latter-day Saint, that is, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, known to others as the Mormon church.

I am active in my religion, attending church each Sunday, attending priesthood meetings, paying tithing, obeying the word of wisdom, law of chastity, etc., having received my endowments in the temple, having gone a mission, having been married in the temple for time and all eternity, having my kids sealed to me, possessing both Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods and holding the office of elder in the latter priesthood.

I am also an anarchist.

Welcome to my LDS Anarchy blog.

I’ll open the blog with Biblical Anarchism. Biblical Anarchism was an article written by Stephen W. Carson and published on June 7, 2001 at LewRockwell.com. A fairly good summary of the article was given by P. Andrew Sandlin the very next day in his article entitled Anarchy and Community:

Stephen W. Carson’s cogent essay on Lew Rockwell.com (“Biblical Anarchism”) defined anarchy as absence of rulers. He shows that the Biblical notion of civil law virtually excludes what we today know as the state. In the Bible, most civil disputes are settled privately, with local judges and an appellate system, and a system of restitution for aggrieved parties. Carson is entirely correct to note that there is simply no room for the state in such an arrangement. The law itself becomes the “political ruler,” and there is no need for “politicians.”

Carson’s opening paragraph asks:

How can someone who holds the Bible to be true and sacred be an anarchist? What about the respect for authority and the emphasis on obedience throughout the scriptures, (both the Tanakh, the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as the B’rit Hadashah, the Greek or “Christian” scriptures)? Doesn’t G-d ordain our government leaders? Didn’t G-d directly select the first two kings of Israel, Saul and David? Doesn’t the sinfulness of man require a government to restrain our evil? And, for followers of Y’shua (Jesus), what about the words of Paul commanding obedience to secular rulers?

He then goes on to answer these questions in his article.

Now, I am one who holds the Bible to be true and sacred and am also an anarchist.

So, am I a living contradiction or is Carson right?

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: Book of Mormon Anarchy

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: Anarchism

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist