A commandment to practice polygamy found in the New Testament

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

————————————–

 Polygamy Commanded of God in NT?

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

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

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

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

—–

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

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

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

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

—–

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

—–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• believer WIFE is commanded of God to either:

remain unmarried, or
be reconciled back to her husband

• believer HUSBAND is commanded of God to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

————————-

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

Joseph Smith Translation

—–

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

—–

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

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

—–

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

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

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

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

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

—–

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

—–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next we get verses 10 and 11:

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

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

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

To continue, verses 12-13 state:

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

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

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

Next, there’s verse 15:

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

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

Finally, verses 27 and 28 state:

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

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

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

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

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

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Marriage Equality

This post is published at Wheat & Tares — but I wanted to post it here for my own records.  So — if you want to comment on it, please do so over there.

Interviewer: But did [Oscar] Wilde identify himself as gay?

Stephen Fry: No, I don’t think he did. He talked about his nature — he was aware of what people’s natures were, to have sex with their own kind. He wasn’t an idiot — he was fully aware there was such a sexual orientation, but the noun “homosexual” did not yet exist in the English language.

I think Wilde had that advantage that he lived in a time when people were not nouns. You didn’t ascribe labels to them. While he was aware of his nature and never apologized for it, he didn’t shout it from the rooftops in the manner of a modern actor with a Larry Kramer sort of gay sensibility.

And I think those who try to read that into Oscar won’t find it there. You might as well wonder why Oscar didn’t have a Web site. He was more mature than our age is. I mean, he had very little interest in sins of the flesh, or he realized that it isn’t very important whether you call them sins of the flesh or not. The only things that matter are sins of the spirit. In that sense Oscar was quite religious.

That’s what so ironic — the religious complain about sins of the flesh, but sins of the flesh are not the kind of thing that Christ would object to. What you do with your penis or your bottom or anything else is so supremely irrelevant in a moral sense. It’s what we do with our personalities and other people that matters.

I still haven’t heard a convincing argument on how allowing gay marriage would affect my marriage in a negative manner.  It bothers me that we’re so focused on the hot button issue of “gay marriage” that the real issues affecting marriage [like spousal abuse, poverty, emotional fulfillment, etc.] end-up being ignored.

I think [despite what evangelical Americans will suggest] that the scriptures are largely silent on the issue homosexual relationships.  The scriptures that do condemn “men lying with men as with a woman”, etc. refer more to the practice of either:

• sex-rituals [as in, not among married couples]
• using anal sex to show “domination” or “subjugation” over a conquered group
• the physical lust for the pleasure of the sex-act

So it’s possible that those scriptures are condemning those behaviors — not “homosexuality” as such.  As Stephen Fry is explaining in the quote above, homosexuality as a sexual orientation and same-gender relationships based on marriage covenants of fidelity between same-gender couples simply did not exist until relatively recently.

Marriage is not about religion because atheists marry.  Marriage is not about procreation because the infertile marry.  I’d like to say that marriage is just about “love” between two people who desire to get married – however, the problem is we have allowed the State to license marriage and ascribe civil benefits to obtaining that license.  Cohabitation, shared beliefs, procreation, love, etc. – do not require legal permission from the government.  Civil rights and IRS benefits, however, do.

Marriage is basically the formation of a “corporation” between individuals.  This “corporation” gets legal benefits from the State [like any other corporation].  I don’t get upset every time a business incorporates — so why should I get upset when people want to incorporate a relationship?  The prohibition against same-gender marriage isn’t an issue because they’re not allowed to live together and love each other.  It’s an issue because the government’s involvement in marriage means that same-gender couples are not allowed to enjoy civil privileges:  receiving insurance through the spouse’s coverage, visitation rights in a hospital, adopting a child, filing jointly for income tax, taking family leave when the spouse is sick, making arrangements after death, etc. because their status is not legally recognized by a State-issue license.

Obviously, the solution to many of these problems is ejecting the State out of our home, family, romantic, and sex lives.  We have such a problem because with the power of civil benefits, the State is seen as legitimizing what relationships matter and which ones don’t.  The church should be at the forefront of getting the State and Marriage divorced because we [with all other Abrahamic religions] believe that humans were gathered into families prior to the establishment of civil governments.  Whether a couple is considered married “in the eyes of God” or not can have nothing to do with a State-issued license.  Thus, a good first step in this direction would be to no longer require a marriage license to perform religious services like for-time marriages and eternal family sealings.

But even if we want to be secular about it – the historical basis of the “family” was multihusband-multiwife tribes that shared food, labor, childcare, and sexual partners — not our present narrative of the two-parent nuclear family with a college-educated urban employment and a suburban house, with the 3 or 4 kids and a dog.  The church adopted itself into that institution [which is politically-termed “Pro-Family”], and re-framed our “Eternal Families” narrative to garner wider recruitment in the wake of the 1890 Manifesto and renunciation of polygyny.

The church, as presently organized, is a gerontocracy — so leadership today represents a 1950′s era American-style Mormonism from a Utah-centric, cis-, hetero-, anglo-, middle-class privileged lifestyle point-of-view.  And so, with the power concentrated in the hands of these few, we get a gospel presented in those terms only — with nothing for people whose narratives differ either slightly or greatly from that.  I think that with legalized gay marriage in the US being standing a good chance in the near future, the church could be at the forefront of presenting a family doctrine of fidelitous sexual ethics for both straight and gay members.

However, doing so would necessitate a re-evaluation of the stated positions on:

• what the fundamental purpose of marriage covenants really is
• what God’s design for getting adults together into families is really all about
• and what is He wanting us to do/foster in human society by organizing ourselves this way

Because presently the regurgitated, stock-responses are not internally-consistent with themselves:

• We parrot traditional American Christianity by saying that marriage is about One-man-and-One-woman, but we’ll all allow marriages after a spouse’s death and after a divorce [which would be serial monogamy — not a true mono-].
• Then, as LDS, we take it further by sealing polygynous and polyandrous eternal families through our policy of sealing any deceased person to all spouses they had while living [which is, again, not one man and one woman].
• And we’ll also use the natural law argument along with the other Christians to attempt to tie the purpose of marriage families together with reproduction — when many couples are infertile, or marry after reproductive age, and many couples are not economically-sound enough to provide for the maintenance of large families [especially when we keep them separate with sanctions against plural husbands and wives], and there are plenty of already-born children who aren’t cared for well-enough and could be adopted instead.

I think LDS are unique in the position of being able to associate marriage covenants with fidelity, cooperation, commitment, service, intimacy, fellowship, emotional fulfillment, and companionship — without needing them to be hetero- and monogamous.  And I think we can associate “the family” with greater purposes than reproducing children to fill-up the earth.  And while I think that marriage has a God-given “purpose” — I think it needs to be better associated with people having happy, loving, consensual, and faithful cooperative-unions.  If anything’s an “abomination”, it’s not homosexuality — it’s unions where people are taken advantage of, abused, lied to, cheated on, etc.  That should be illegal.  That should be a sin.

The problem is we get more interested in the outwardly-observable behaviors of the flesh — when the only things that really matter are state of the spirit or the heart.  The religious complain about sins of the flesh, but sins of the flesh are not the kind of thing that Christ would object to.  What you do with your penis or your orifices or anything else is absolutely irrelevant in a moral sense — especially when compared to our personalities and how we relate to and treat other people.

Next Article by Justin:  What, on Earth, are you Doing, for Heaven’s sake?

Previous Article by Justin: Using the Word of God as your Tribal Law

FASC-SIN-AIDING FEMENAZIS AND FUN-DUMB-MENTALISTS

There’s a certain type of woman. Really, she’s a kind of woman. She is kind of a woman meaning she is not completely a ‘woman’ nor is she truly ‘kind’. I am speaking of the so-called women like Sheri L. Dew et al. Far less of a woman than Mother Theresa or even Salma Hayek et al., women who are incomplete are not women at all. And all women, yes, ALL women, are endowed with biological plus spirilogical genes from an earthly set of parents as well as a Heavenly Mother AND Father. To be a woman in all ways, entails and incorporates divine masculine qualities that no one can deny or mess with, without suffering dire consequences leading to spiritual and then physical death. That’s exactly what happened to our first parent(s) who ceased to be one and sinned against Father in the Garden of Eden. I say that they are NOT women, who deny the Eternal Father through refusing to properly exercise their Internal Father – those who would feign helplessness for the purposes of depending upon the arm of flesh and “inducing labor” on the part of men for funding the vanities of Babylon that Great Whore. So while there is a “kinda woman” who promotes worldly fashion for fascists, a mockery of Mother Eve, the Eva Braun type who provides the real brawn for evil, and although this class of prophet preventing jezabel is found to be increasingly common in latter-day gentile marriages – it is not this wicked and wimpy woman who interests me. To be a whole woman, is to be a holy woman, and it is this beautiful jewel of a woman, fertile and versatile, blessed among all women, who, in the immortal words of Billy Joel, is – “Always a Woman to Me.”

What is the role of real women in this world which is passing away, and in the bringing forth of Zion out of the Earth which doth travail like a woman in labor? The real role of women can not be ascertained except by the Holy Spirit. One thing is for sure, the role assigned to the woman by the Creator is nothing like the traditions of the various nations and cultures who have interpreted the gospel over the last few thousand years. If it were, Zion would have long ago been delivered upon the face of the Earth. This coy creature is not a creation of God but of man, who, in cooperation with the devil, has passive-aggressively developed a genetically modified gender that is reluctant to take a stand or speak out against corruption, especially when doing so would cause inconveniences for the manic man who presides over the whole operation.

Micah 4:13
Arise, and thresh, Rise up and crush the nations, O daughter of Zion, for I will give you horns of iron; I will give you hoofs of bronze and you will break to pieces many nations. You will devote their ill-gotten gains to the LORD, their wealth to the Lord of all the earth.

I’m sure you’ve heard of Iron Man. When we think of iron we think of strength and we may be accustomed to directing any thoughts of strength in action to the male. But iron is, in fact, a chemical element designated by the symbol ( Fe ) and wise men/women know that the Fe-male is actually stronger in that she has a naturally higher threshold for pain. Adam can certainly be praised for his carefulness but Eve is the brave one. Wisdom itself is personified as female. The divine wisdom, known to Sophists, Sufis and all truly Spiritually Sophisticated souls as Sophia, represents the Heavenly Mother who contributes half of our spiritual genes. The mere man will always be impressed when he beholds the strength of the womb-man, leading him to proclaim “Whoah man!” If the secret of advanced power to effect change on the physical plane is in the combination of Fe and Male transforming ‘man’ into Ironman (a superhero deriving powers from and literally propelled by his heart) then it may be worthwhile to examine the element of iron more closely.

Iron is the most common element (by mass) forming the planet Earth as a whole, forming much of Earth’s out-her and in-her core, so it is heavily associated with our Mother Earth. Iron oxidizes in normal air to give hydrated iron oxides, commonly known as rust. Unlike many other metals which form passivating oxide layers, iron oxides occupy more volume than the iron metal itself, and thus iron oxides flake off and expose fresh surfaces for corrosion. This process is closely mirrored within the Fe-male’s body where iron forms complexes with molecular oxygen in hemoglobin and myoglobin; these two compounds are common oxygen transport proteins which accumulate and are shed in monthly cycles.

Now the scripture says horns of iron. Why? Fresh iron surfaces appear lustrous silvery-gray. Lustrous silvery-gray horns sound like a crescent moon to me. The moon’s phases and the crescent moon specifically has been a symbolic representation of Fe-males and the powers of the Yonic Priesthood since before time began to be recorded. You may think of it as a purely pagan symbol, but in virtually every catholic depiction of the Holy Mother you will see a crescent moon. The temple tradition of Sunstones survives today’s ruined religious landscape in the form of a journal showcasing modern Mormonism or at least left-brained thought as to what it should/could be. But we must not forget the silently stoic Moonstones. Is the feminine face of the majestically veiled mystery of Mormon cosmology to be buried in cosmetics of a man-made synthetic stratum? If the Lord gives you horns of iron what will you do with them? He has not given them to women as a hair accessory. Horns are used to impale to gore. They are indeed a glorious adornment but only upon the head of a woman who will defend her children unto death. Why then do so many sell their children into slavery and inherit upon them a contract with death and hell?

Are we waiting for this, the eternal word of God, to be fulfilled? God’s word IS eternal and eternal things never begin any more than they end. We are living in a temporal nightmare. In the dark night of the new moon we offer up prayers and fasts before the God of Israel; waiting for a sliver of silver to appear in the black sky. When it at last does smile upon us we fail to recognize it as the sign of fulfillment of prophesy and only go on waiting and watching. Telling ourselves we are in need of more light to guide us on the path, when we should have filled our personal lamps with oil and gone out to meet the bridegroom when the call went out at the darkest hour. Even for us foolish virgins who miss the sign of the iron horns overhead, Mother’s patience waxes full and bright, yet we sleep and slumber all. Our beloved wives consider it their curse and begin to file those God-granted horns back to a waning crescent. This course indeed becomes a curse allowing the vicious cycle of blood shed to continue. Men-strew-all-blood upon the earth, fighting wicked wars as women remain silent, or worse, encourage their sons to enlist as soldiers (sold-yours) in the Babylonian guard, by praising their twisted human sacrifice. Boys, born to be free men, end up in-morgue when damned cells dress in distress and require slaves to fight for their slave-masters in a false reality like Morgan Freeman. What a misguided and gory perversion of glory!

Bronze was used more widely before iron. It is an alloy consisting primarily of copper, usually with tin as the main additive. So we have, alchemically speaking, Venus – The Divine Mother mixed with a touch of Jupiter – The Great Father. If the secret to supernatural strength for men is to learn from and exercise the divine qualities which they have inherited from their Heavenly Mother, then it would stand to reason that women must develop the spiritual genes from their paternal side in order to restore balance. Unlike steel, bronze struck against a hard surface will not generate sparks, so it is used to make hammers, and mallets. Perhaps this is why the Lord wants to bless his daughters with “hoofs of bronze” to stomp out the corrupt nations of the earth without the destructive inflammation of the tyrant’s iron fist. Conducive to electrical current but resilient against seawater corrosion, bronze is also commonly used in musical instruments especially bells. If freedom is to be carried from continent to continent and truly ring from coast to coast, women will need to refine the lower aspects of their natures to embody the qualities of bronze.

I pray for the day that this scripture is fulfilled and the ill-gotten gains of corrupt Kings and Queens are given over to the Lord of all the earth, to the Lord of All – The Earth. Men were made to serve women and women made to serve men – Not as slaves but by showing each other our divine potential to rise as Kings and Queens each and every one.

There is a certain ilk of man who is uncertain in his mission and indeed insecure in his manhood. Such a man seeks insecure women to surround himself with so as not to threaten his left-brained certainty, which is in reality uncertainty. The fundamentalist (fun dumb mentalist) amuses himself with intellectual imaginings. His engagement with the heart is a lengthy engagement which is sadly never consummate. His harem of yes-women are little more than Stepford Wives. Attracted by impressionable girls, distracted by immaturity, he possesses not the patience to obtain the sweetest fruit. Ironically, his utilitarian view blinds the fun-dumb-mentalist from learning how to get the most out of his priestess oracle. Like a young and inexperienced lover, he does not realize that to interpret is to interrupt. So, the secrets remain closed to him.

For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction

I am not just speaking to the Warren Jeff types, nor am I targeting those LDS opportunist men who fantasize about that day when, compelled by calamity, there will be 7 women to one man, begging him to marry. I’m not singling out any one group. Every man and woman is capable of falling into the pitfalls of fundamentalism. What I say to one, I say to all, and I will include myself so as to be perfectly clear. In temple ritual I am instructed to consider myself as if I were Adam. In LDSA’s latest post he stated that Adam, “was like unto the left-brain-mind of man and Eve was like unto the right-brain-heart of man….They were the personification of our two brain hemispheres.” So as I sit in an LDS Endowment ceremony, I am to consider myself a personification of the left brain hemisphere. Confused patrons may point to the fact that the men are seated on the right side and not the left, during the Endowment ceremony. But they forget that the Celestial glory is not someplace ahead of us on our journey so much as something Jesus says we are to bring out from inside us. Locating my true self in the place of the officiator at the altar will mentally make sense of things. From this proper perspective, I can clearly see the brothers on my left and the sisters to my right with the witness couple joining hands in the middle at the pineal pillow upon which Jacob rested his head when he saw God and lived. Seeing things any other way is death.

Double-mindedness is Devil-mindedness. On the one hand it would seem that Adam knew what he was doing when he said “I see that this must be,” but he sees only that which is directly in front of his eyes at any given moment. He appears to be the epitome of obedience when he declares his intentions to keep all the commandments of the Father. So, if he is such a damn obedient adam why didn’t he wait till the gods returned with further instructions? I used to think that Adam was being placed as a law giver to his wife. But the left brain functions are limited to outward projection. A man can speak words, but if those words are not of God, the heart knows it and she will not back the man’s words with the power necessary for them to be of any type of real, let alone everlasting effect out there. In this lone and dreary man’s world, things are not what they seem. Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling after. So it is actually Adam who is being placed in check. Notice Eve can be trusted to intuit whether Adam is acting on the Holy Spirit or not, and she is under no obligation to submit to him if he is wrong. And boy, let me tell you, he is very wrong in his thinking that Eve is under some kind of punishment or even probation for being the first to partake. How can there be probation for the right brain which operates in timelessness?

In The Root and Divine Pattern of the Damsel in Distress, LDSA describes Adam and Eve respectively and thusly: “The one is firm, fixed and adamant (unyielding), the other vacillating.” He then immediately draws parallels between our first parents and the two vital hemispheres of our brain. Here he references his earlier work, which I have promoted before and which I can not recommend highly enough to others who are seeking wisdom. In what was for me a paradigm shifting post – The Split Brain Model of the Gospel – LDSA lists some contrasting characteristics of the Left and Right brain hemispheres.

The left-brain is successive.
The right-brain is simultaneous.
The left-brain is sequential.
The right-brain is multiple.
The left-brain is analytic.
The right-brain is holistic.

How is something which perceives the multiple layers in the truth of all things, something which simultaneously, believes all things and keeps the commandments in a natural and holistic way; how is such a marvelous center of consciousness as the heart which God has placed in each of his children likened unto a vacillating woman? Isn’t the only vacillating going on here a result of our divided and fallen houses (brains)? That a woman may vacillate, and to a frustrating degree is true, however, this is not a condition that is peculiar to womanhood. The 1963 book, Fascinating Womanhood, could be alternatively and aptly titled Vacillating Womanhood. Anyone who promotes those philosophies of men, mingled with the teachings of Christ, while purporting to have an interest in the true Zion of God on Earth, has a very split brain indeed.

It reminds me of a dream I had. I was visiting southern California to see my friend, Brian. When I found Brian he was all suited up as a Roman gladiator and ready to enter the Coliseum. I watched as he fought bravely, but to my horror, saw his towering goliath of an opponent sever his body clean in half! There were pompous men in robes cheering from the stands. I felt paralyzed, stunned from the sight I had just beheld, but somehow I managed to rush out into the arena and pull all I could find (the top half) of my friend that remained. I didn’t know what to do. Brian was dying and his case seemed hopeless, but I felt led to strap upper half of my friend to my back. I hopped on one of those low-rider bicycles like the Chicanos are famous for, and proceeded to bring him across a bridge and up a hill to a home where he could hopefully recover somehow. I heard barely a sound from him the whole way as I crossed the bridge and made my way uphill with tremendous effort on that low-rider bike in the intense So-Cal sunshine. Upon finally reaching the safe-house, I removed Brian’s limp upper-body from my back. As I tried to prop him up as best as I could, I heard him wheeze. I didn’t know if that was a good sign as he still appeared to be in such dire and hopeless condition. I told him that my mind was not inspired with any further action that I might take to help him. To my surprise he said “That’s alright. I should be okay.” He thanked me for the rescue. I turned to leave the scene and woke up.

I remember that dream vividly as it was a shocking vision. But until now I had not considered some of the deeper symbolism in the details. The dream, of course consisted of impactful imagery accompanied by clear audio. But as I write the contents out, I become aware of the linguistic clues to meaning. After having that dream I considered the significance of the lost lower half as symbolic of principles of action on the part of my friend (no pun intended). But now I discover additional layers of meaning.

The not so holy Roman setting was definitely pre Catholic Empire days but the men in robes nonetheless call the Church to my mind. They were shouting fiendishly as I ran out to recover my brother’s body from the Coliseum center. They were of course shouting in Latin and in Latin the words for ‘body’ (Corpus) and the Coliseum are an obvious reference to the corpus callosum (Latin: tough body) , also known as the colossal commissure (huge meeting place) is a big bundle of neural fibers that connects the left and right cerebral hemispheres and facilitates interhemispheric communication. My buddy’s body, opponent and the

Coliseum – Great and Spacious Building

setting for his gruesome struggle all have reference to this anatomical structure as does the bridge we would later cross. The neurological nature of the symbols reminds me of the infamous emperor Nero, whos larger-than-life likeness stood alongside the Coliseum. I now know a broader meaning behind the bloody halving of my friend that occurred in the dream. Without divulging too much personal information I can share this, and hope that it will serve us, the severed individuals reading and writing, contributing and commenting on this blog, to re-member (put the members back together) our divine purpose. We have all been subject to the effects of the Fall of Man and must reassemble our fragmented psyches. The bloody image of a split Brian in my dream signifies the devastating results of a split-brain.

“If ye are not one ye are not mine.”
– Jesus Christ (D&C 38:27)

When I said earlier that it is actually Adam who is being placed in check, I did not mean to infer that males are any more or less under condemnation in this fallen state than females of the human species. I meant that there is something much bigger and simultaneously much more personal going on here during our sojourn on Earth. In general and introspective terms, all of God’s sons and daughters are here to test out those salvific traits that we have inherited specifically from/through the Divine Masculine part of ourselves. It is a coming of age thing that starts with but transcends tribe. By no means limited to physical manhood, this life is a personal quest to develop the perfect potential of that which is bestowed via the celestial patriarchal line. For more information on how this faith quest of our mortal existence focuses primarily on our relationship to the Father, I would suggest you read Justin’s well written post, Masculinity Femininity and Gender, from which I will quote only a few choice lines (with small annotations added by myself) to, hopefully, further illustrate some of the concepts we are talking about here.

Outer darkness is, in every facet, the right-brain-heart of God – it is the Mother or Goddess – the waning or sleep state.
[Alpha State Brainwaves]

The created universe is, in every facet, the left-brain-mind of God – it is the Father or God – the waxing or active state.”
[Beta State Brainwaves]

I can see how one might take my words as favoring the female and putting man and woman on unequal levels, but that is the pitfall of believing in only the literal level of the Adam and Eve story. All sorts of contradictions and limitations arise from a strictly literal reading. If someone subjects themselves to that type of bondage, they deny themselves the vista which does not dispose of the literal but goes further to unfold a fractal and eternal landscape of truth. One of those limiting contradictions that readers of this blog may find themselves faced with by clinging to the most literal interpretations of this story as it has come to us through tradition, would be that; if the Bible story refers only to two individuals named Adam and Eve, and not to two groups of humans (as the original Hebrew indicates), then Elohim must not be a proponent of polygny or polyandry. And any type of multiple marriages model as a divine principle must be supposed to be incorrect.

There is another stumbling block one may encounter when lingering at the literal level and refusing to focus on the more complete version where each and every aspect of the story, without exception, must be equally applied to the reader his or her self, since both male and female are created in the image of and by the power of the Heavenly Mother and Father. The conundrum of the damsel in distress can be horribly misinterpreted through misogynistic tenets embedded deeply in our subconscious by this point in mankind’s apostasy from The Way of Truth. If we are to understand that it is somehow a part of a woman’s divine nature to be totally and desperately reliant on a husband for salvation, and if we do not recognize the same to be true for men in relation to their wives, then not only must we admit that Eve’s appeals to Adam were divinely appointed and not beguiling or Satan-inspired in the slightest, but we also must admit to constructing false hierarchies that do not exist in eternal realms of reality. Since the Divine Order of the Universe and Multiverse is anarchical, then any leaning to our own misunderstanding will have an eventual end and it may very well come so abruptly as to cause us to feel as if the carpet had been yanked out from underneath our feet.

To avoid these pitfalls is simple. Simply don’t dig a pit and you won’t fall. To dig a pit for anyone, male or female, religious or non religious, others or yourself means to imagine that something one does or does not do places one person on higher ground than another. Such pride is folly. Perhaps pride is the reason why Adam in particular is being tested in this life. Maybe that’s why Jack fell and Jill followed. Could that be why Mother Earth’s calling and election are already made sure and man’s collective fate is yet to be decided? Does this have anything to do with God the Father’s Strange Work, His Strange Act and strange reasoning, whereby He makes the first last, and the last first? Then again, maybe it is just a part of the vast conspiracy to awaken women to their free will, that scientists would refer to waking state with (B)eta and sleep state as (A)lpha.

Alpha-males are opening a can of soul-killing hallucinations when they insist on a self important/ self righteous role that fails to grasp true oneness with their feminine counterpart. I would be more concerned with the conspiracy to emasculate the Lion of Judah and declaw H.I.M. (His Imperial Majesty) postponing his righteous reign in Heaven and on Earth. As reggae artist Vaughn Benjamin sings so solemnly and somberly:

“Who frightened off the lion, holding up the lamb that was slain as a permanent? What is their mission? Who frightened off the lion holding up the lamb that was slain? Return it as a given when conquering and to conquer is a time now relevant.”                                                                                                        – 3 Stupendous Vanities

It is these mad scientists and wicked shepherds of Israel, who the Lord addresses threateningly in Ezekiel 34, who are the real problem. Their own fear of nothingness will drive them mad when, while projecting a stalwart self image, boldly rejecting the very appearance of evil, they are confronted with the fact that the forbidden fruit is a fore-bitten fruit. When Adam (spirit) finally awakes and arises he will recall that it was himself (flesh) who took that first bite. And as the Chinese proverb states:

“When sleeping women wake, mountains will move.”

Moving mountains is an act of purest faith and it is speculated that these type of demonstrations of faith will play a big role in the literal establishment of Zion which can only come after the spiritual establishment in our hearts. This is ecofeminism. It isn’t contrary to the work of the Lord in these latter-days. Ecofeminists are not Feminazis, they don’t even wear pants to church. They wear beautiful saris in South East Asia and go topless in the rainforests of our planet. They dress in traditional Native American garb and teach the stripling warriors of the future through oral tradition. They sometimes don ski masks and fight alongside the spirit of Zapata and Moroni – true freedom fighter spirits who are not satisfied with false freedom and who don’t stop fighting till all are made free through the blood of the lamb. They are Lioness-like women who say “I am woman, hear me roar!” There is no need to be scared of the ecofeminists, unless you are fighting against God, and just don’t know it yet, like it warns of most Male-chizedek priesthood holders in D&C 121:38. Waking women are the critical mass needed to bring forth Zion. May we encourage our wives, daughters, mothers, grandmothers and ourselves to cultivate divine feminine skills and powers. May the captive daughter of Zion loose herself from the bands of her neck – in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen!

My letter to Prolife Christians about the HHS Mandate

Dear Pro-life Christians Against the HHS Mandate,

The Supreme Court has already decided that there cannot be a religious exception to a law that applies to all persons equally. They’ve already decided that while the Congress can’t legislate that you agree with abortion in your mind — they certainly have the power to legislate that you agree with abortion with your actions.

You might not remember it — but it was back in the 19th century when the LDS were deprived of their 1st Amendment right to freely practice their religion by the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act.  You probably don’t recall because you were too busy celebrating with the rest of the country that those pagan, polygamous Mormons “got theirs” for daring to insist that God wanted them to love more than one spouse at a time.

The church of jesus christ of latter day saints challenged it on the grounds that passing an anti-polygamy law is unconstitutional because consenting adults entering plural marriages was a matter of the religious practice and duty of a Mormon’s faith.

While the Supreme Court said it recognized that under the 1st Amendment, Congress could not pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion — it argued that a law prohibiting polygamy doesn’t fall under that prohibition.  And they said that although the constitution didn’t expressly define “religion”, they quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in support of drawing a hard distinction between religion as a matter of belief/the mind and one’s actions that might flow from religious belief.

It was their opinion that while a matter of belief lies solely between a man and his God — the legislative powers of the state can reach actions [just not opinions] — despite the fact that beliefs inform action, and all action is predicated upon a corresponding belief.

The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion [plural marriages vs. murder — talk about “apples to apples”]:

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed.  Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.  Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

A criminal intent is generally an element of crime, but every man is presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate consequences of what he knowingly does.  Here, the accused knew he had been once married, and that his first wife was living.  He also knew that his second marriage was forbidden by law.  When, therefore, he married the second time, he is presumed to have intended to break the law.  And the breaking of the law is the crime.  Every act necessary to constitute the crime was knowingly done, and the crime was therefore knowingly committed.  Ignorance of a fact may sometimes be taken as evidence of a want of criminal intent, but not ignorance of the law.  The only defense of the accused in this case is his belief that the law ought not to have been enacted.  It matters not that his belief was a part of his professed religion; it was still belief, and belief only.

[Reynolds v. United States]:

What all this means is — that as soon as the Supreme Court decided that those who believe in practicing polygamy could no more be exempt from an anti-polygamy law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief would be bound by laws against murder:

• religion as a matter of belief and religion as a matter of practice was legally dichotomized
• the state was given jurisdiction over your religion as a matter of action
• you lost your case against a mandate that employers provide contraceptive and abortive birth control as a part of the Affordable Health Care Act.

I’m sorry — but I hear the world’s tiniest violin playing, “My heart bleeds for you” whenever I hear Pro-life Christians complaining about how a healthcare mandate for employers to cover contraception and abortive procedures:  “trashes their freedom of religious expression.”You’ve allowed the State already to declare its power to demarcate religion into the realm of “belief” and the “mind” [rather than a function of “practice” and of the “physical”] way back in the 1890’s.   Sorry — but this is a battle you’ve already lost when the Supreme Court upheld the right of the State to imprison LDS church leaders, confiscate their property, and terminate the church’s corporate charter — all because of the Mormon’s freely exercising their religion.

When all the other Christians sat back and applauded as the State passed laws prohibiting the free exercise of the Mormon religion — simply because of their hatred of men and women having plural spouses — the fate over this comparatively light matter of employers covering birth control in their health care plans was settled.

Sincerely,
A Mormon tired of hearing your whining

Next Article by Justin:  Lukewarm = Good for nothing

Previous Article by Justin:  The Unity of God

Community, Intimacy, and Connection

The Mormon Archetype of Zion:

And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.

The ever-present archetype in Mormon culture of the “City of Enoch” – of that first city of Zion that was taken up into heaven:

Zion, in process of time, was taken up into heaven.

and that is promised to return at a point when there is another city of Zion on the earth to meet them:

And the Lord said unto Enoch: As I live, even so will I come in the last days, in the days of wickedness and vengeance, to fulfil the oath which I have made unto you concerning the children of Noah; And the day shall come that the earth shall rest, but before that day the heavens shall be darkened, and a veil of darkness shall cover the earth; and the heavens shall shake, and also the earth; and great tribulations shall be among the children of men, but my people will I preserve;

And righteousness will I send down out of heaven; and truth will I send forth out of the earth, to bear testimony of mine Only Begotten; […] and righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, an Holy City, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming; for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem.

And the Lord said unto Enoch: Then shalt thou and all thy city meet them there, and we will receive them into our bosom, and they shall see us; and we will fall upon their necks, and they shall fall upon our necks, and we will kiss each other; And there shall be mine abode, and it shall be Zion, which shall come forth out of all the creations which I have made; and for the space of a thousand years the earth shall rest.

This romantic archetype is played out in various historical instances throughout the scriptural record.

After Alma fled into the wilderness, the community of believers that joined with him:

were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward. And it came to pass that whosoever was baptized by the power and authority of God was added to his church.

And it came to pass that Alma, having authority from God, ordained priests; even one priest to every fifty of their number did he ordain to preach unto them, and to teach them concerning the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.  And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he had taught, and which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets.  Yea, even he commanded them that they should preach nothing save it were repentance and faith on the Lord, who had redeemed his people.

And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another.

And thus he commanded them to preach. And thus they became the children of God.

[…]

And the priests were not to depend upon the people for their support; but for their labor they were to receive the grace of God, that they might wax strong in the Spirit, having the knowledge of God, that they might teach with power and authority from God.

And again Alma commanded that the people of the church should impart of their substance, every one according to that which he had; if he have more abundantly he should impart more abundantly; and of him that had but little, but little should be required; and to him that had not should be given.  And thus they should impart of their substance of their own free will and good desires towards God, and to those priests that stood in need, yea, and to every needy, naked soul.

And this he said unto them, having been commanded of God; and they did walk uprightly before God, imparting to one another both temporally and spiritually according to their needs and their wants.

After the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the community of believers in Judea:

continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.  And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.

And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.  And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

After Jesus’ visitation with Lehi’s descendents in the Americas, the disciples of Jesus there:

had formed a church of Christ in all the lands round about. And as many as did come unto them, and did truly repent of their sins, were baptized in the name of Jesus; and they did also receive the Holy Ghost.

And it came to pass […] the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.  And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.

Joseph Smith’s Desire for Zion:

These “Zions” where there are no rich and no poor, where all impart of their substance freely with one another, having no contentions, and having all things common [not “in common”, I think there’s a difference] have been a big part of Mormon history and collective culture.

The passion for that kind of community is behind a lot of what Joseph Smith was doing while he was alive – trying to get a united order of unrelated believers in Christ bound together by covenant into a whole new people-group.  A tribal community bound by covenant, in an effort to get away from the traditional order of a “church” of unrelated believers in this-or-that set of creeds.

For verily I say unto you, the time has come, and is now at hand; and behold, and lo, it must needs be that there be an organization of my people, in regulating and establishing the affairs of the storehouse for the poor of my people, both in this place and in the land of Zion — For a permanent and everlasting establishment and order unto my church, to advance the cause, which ye have espoused, to the salvation of man, and to the glory of your Father who is in heaven;

That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things.  For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;

For if you will that I give unto you a place in the celestial world, you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you.  And now, verily thus saith the Lord, it is expedient that all things be done unto my glory, by you who are joined together in this order;

[…]

Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, to prepare and organize yourselves by a bond or everlasting covenant that cannot be broken.  And he who breaketh it shall lose his office and standing in the church, and shall be delivered over to the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption.

But history has shown the Gentile church of God to be a hard-hearted and faithless bunch.  They are content with having one man sit atop the power-pyramid and habitually obey what he says – they receive equal “experience quotient” from images and representations compared to what’s being imaged and represented.

They rejected this consecration and never really got around to plural marriage as a genuine priesthood order of joining groups of like-minded strangers into bona-fide tribes of Israel – but rather kept it only as a social convention.

Polygamy became required for polygamy’s sake alone.  Polyandry was also out-right rejected, without which polygamy does not build joint-stewardships – just enlarges any one man’s single stewardship.  And so:

behold, they have not learned to be obedient to the things which I required at their hands, but are full of all manner of evil, and do not impart of their substance, as becometh saints, to the poor and afflicted among them; And are not united according to the union required by the law of the celestial kingdom; And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself.

Failed Attempts to Recapture Zion:

Mormon history is full of examples of believers going off to form “United Orders” – communal groups where they attempt to live the “higher law” of consecration, meaning to share all that they have with everyone else in the community.  These endeavors have always met failure, and it’s because of one common feature that connects them all – they have always attempted to do so while keeping many small, separate families.

If they are monogamous LDS, then they’ll keep many small, separate monogamous families – and if Mormon fundamentalists, then it’ll be many, small separate polygynous ones.  But the separate-family feature is always the same.

However, without a covenant-based structure in which I may bind myself as a joint-steward with another to share our all commonly with each other according to the principle of charity – such a celestial, “Zion” community will never happen.  It’ll all go well so long as the circumstances go well, but by-and-by the end cometh.

For less-radical LDS, a common goal is to stay where they are and try to get their local ward to be the vehicle that produces a celestial community, or Zion.  One may see sacrament meeting talks and lessons on using fast offerings to “impart of our surplus”, on reminding us that there is no prohibition from leadership against using Welfare Services to live the “higher law” of consecration at a time when we’re only required to live the “lesser law” of tithing, and on trying to come up with way to make our church experience a more open place and have more of a “Zion-like” atmosphere.

Zion requires great intimacy and connection among the members.  The church lacks this intimacy and connection because we are all still strangers.  The only way to achieve Zion, or even a Zion-like atmosphere at church, is for members to all be connected to each other through covenants.  As it stands, the church only connects us to Christ through covenants, but not to each other.  As long as we remain unfettered by covenant relationships with each other, we will never achieve Zion and our words and deeds at church will never approach the level of intimacy and sharing required of that ideal.

So we may arrive at the point where we are no longer:

strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

People desire this sense of community, connection, and intimacy – yet we are all still strangers.  I received this as a revelation last week, and I’m willing to state it here as a prophecy – and it’s that:

nothing we are currently doing with church will ever produce the kind of Zion-like community we read about in the scriptures.

The gathered body of believers is supposed to be the result of these feelings of community – it can never be the means we use to achieve it.

Why does he always end-up talking about polygamy?

The level of intimacy and connection required to have the kind of community where what’s mine is yours [and yours, mine], where we all deal with each other based on the principle of charity, having no contention, imparting of our substance freely one with another, etc. – is something only arising out of kinship [or family-bonds].

For example, my entire paycheck goes into one bank account that my wife is free to spend on whatever she feels will satisfy her needs and the needs of our children.  Her and I already share all things common, I impart of my substance [and my time, my attention, my affection, etc.] freely with her and our children, etc.  In other words,

The family is the basic unit of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the most important social unit in time and eternity…

meaning, living in such a Zion-like community starts the moment a man marries a woman.  The two are gathered in Christ’s name, there He will be in the midst of them [Matthew 18:20] – and the twain shall be one flesh [D&C 49:16].

This connectivity is the key.  However, if such a community starts with the basic-unit of a man marrying a woman – then how can we expect to grow the community on any different sets of principles [other than men and women marrying]?

So that– if I had two wives, then the second wife would receive just as free of access to my time, talents, resources, and love as my current wife does.  If my wife receives a second husband, then I expect his entire paycheck to go into that same account – and for him to devote that same level of intimacy to my wife and her children, as I do.  Because this is the covenant-obligation we place ourselves under in marriage.

While I don’t think plural marriages need to be a “hill-to-die-on” for this whole idea [I’m all for anarchy, local solutions to local problems, letting people tailor their situation to particular circumstances, etc.] – I can state declaratively that any group that would out-right and from the get-go forbid plural marriages will always be limited — will always approach but never arrive.

Admittedly, one does not just generate a new spouse out of thin-air.  So I can agree that it’s good to start [perhaps] with a focus on getting people getting unplugged from wires and satellites, on getting outside more, on getting together with real human-beings more, etc.  That’s approaching a real kind of community with people in a positive way – people, who can then come to know each other well enough to begin to desire courting and joining together as plural spouses.

If the church actually wanted Zion, then I think most would be surprised over the number of both LDS and non-LDS who would be ready to sign on for it — if it meant living for a higher purpose.  But they don’t.  Marching orders are to get as much education as you can, so you can make as much income as you can, so you can pay more in tithes and offerings.  It’s to just stay where you are and live out as normal of a life as you can — but with just a bit of Mormon flare to it [e.g., serve a two-year mission, civilly marry in a temple, pay 10% of your paycheck to the church, do your home and visiting teaching, keep a current temple recommend, etc.]

Eternity is NOW, and we can make a heaven of it or we can make a hell of it:

The “idea of Zion” [just wanting to talk about Zion] is keeping us separate.  We see a paradisaical, Zion community as this pie-in-the-sky utopia that we can just sit around, occupy our time, and wait for Jesus to return and have it all fall in our laps.  We think our separateness is just fine to settle for here-and-now because one day we will have Zion in which to be together.  Just having the “idea” of it all is what’s keeping us apart and wasting all the life that we could be living, right now.

When I think Jesus has been the one just waiting –waiting on us to get a culture of heaven established here on earth – to have things “on earth” as they are “in heaven” – so He doesn’t end-up killing us with such a culture shock.  One should learn to swim before being plopped out in the ocean.  It would be best to know how to drive before getting behind the wheel of a car.

Instead of thinking, “Oh, we’ll just get it all figured out after we die [or after Jesus returns, etc.]” – we’re supposed to be doing it all here, all now – otherwise we’ll drown when we’re immersed in Zion in the future.

Next Article by Justin: The Adultery of Mary

Previous Article by Justin:  Making an Image out of God

Abrahamic Concubinage as an Inter-Tribal Function

Note: This is a GEMTAM chapter modified for publication on the LDS Anarchy blog. It contains more information than what is found in that chapter.

The Encyclopædia Brittannica, Eleventh Edition, says the following in its entry on concubinage:

CONCUBINAGE (Lat. concubina, a concubine; from con-, with, and cubare, to lie), the state of a man and woman cohabiting as married persons without the full sanctions of legal marriage. In early historical times, when marriage laws had scarcely advanced beyond the purely customary stage, the concubine was definitely recognized as a sort of inferior wife, differing from those of the first rank mainly by the absence of permanent guarantees. The history of Abraham’s family shows us clearly that the concubine might be dismissed at any time, and her children were liable to be cast off equally summarily with gifts, in order to leave the inheritance free for the wife’s sons (Genesis xxi 9 ff., xxv. 5 ff.).

The Roman law recognized two classes of legal marriage: (1) with the definite public ceremonies of confarreatio or coemptio, and (2) without any public form whatever and resting merely on the affectio maritalis, i.e. the fixed intention of taking a particular woman as a permanent spouse.¹ Next to these strictly lawful marriages came concubinage as a recognized legal status, so long as the two parties were not married and had no other concubines. It differed from the formless marriage in the absence (1) of affectio maritalis, and therefore (2) of full conjugal rights. For instance, the concubine was not raised, like the wife, to her husband’s rank, nor were her children legitimate, though they enjoyed legal rights forbidden to mere bastards, e.g. the father was bound to maintain them and to leave them (in the absence of legitimate children) one-sixth of his property; moreover, they might be fully legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents.

In the East, the emperor Leo the Philosopher (d. 911) insisted on formal marriage as the only legal status; but in the Western Empire concubinage was still recognized even by the Christian emperors. The early Christians had naturally preferred the formless marriage of the Roman law as being free from all taint of pagan idolatry; and the ecclesiastical authorities recognized concubinage also. The first council of Toledo (398) bids the faithful restrict himself “to a single wife or concubine, as it shall please him”;² and there is a similar canon of the Roman synod held by Pope Eugenius II. in 826. Even as late as the Roman councils of 1052 and 1063, the suspension from communion of laymen who had a wife and a concubine at the same time implies that mere concubinage was tolerated. It was also recognized by many early civil codes. In Germany “left-handed” or “morganatic” marriages were allowed by the Salic law between nobles and women of lower rank. In different states of Spain the laws of the later middle ages recognized concubinage under the name of barragania, the contract being lifelong, the woman obtaining by it a right to maintenance during life, and sometimes also to part of the succession, and the sons ranking as nobles if their father was a noble. In Iceland, the concubine was recognized in addition to the lawful wife, though it was forbidden that they should dwell in the same house. The Norwegian law of the later middle ages provided definitely that in default of legitimate sons, the kingdom should descend to illegitimates. In the Danish code of Valdemar II., which was in force from 1280 to 1683, it was provided that a concubine kept openly for three years shall thereby become a legal wife; this was the custom of hand vesten, the “handfasting” of the English and Scottish borders, which appears in Scott’s Monastery. In Scotland, the laws of William the Lion (d. 1214) speak of concubinage as a recognized institution; and, in the same century, the great Enlish legist Bracton treats the “concubina legitima” as entitled to certain rights.³ There seems to have been at times a pardonable confusion between some quasi-legitimate unions and those marriages by mere word of mouth, without ecclesiastical or other ceremonies, which the church, after some natural hesitation, pronounced to be valid.⁴ Another and more serious confusion between concubinage and marriage was caused by the gradual enforcement of clerical celibacy (see CELIBACY). During the bitter conflict between laws which forbade sacerdotal marriages and long custom which had permitted them, it was natural that the legislators and the ascetic party generally should studiously speak of the priests’ wives as concubines, and do all in their power to reduce them to this position. This very naturally resulted in a too frequent substitution of clerical concubinage for marriage; and the resultant evils form one of the commonest themes of complaint in church councils of the later middle ages.⁵ Concubinage in general was struck at by the concordat between the Pope Leo X. and Francis I. of France in 1516; and the council of Trent, while insisting on far more stringent conditions for lawful marriage than those which had prevailed in the middle ages, imposed at last heavy ecclesiastical penalties on concubinage and appealed to the secular arm for help against contumacious offenders (Sessio xxiv. Cap. 8).

AUTHORITES.–Besides those quoted in the notes, the reader may consult with advantage Du Cange’s Glossarium, s.v. Concubina, the article “Concubinat” in Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchenlexikon (2nd ed., Freiburg i/B., 1884), and Dr H. C. Lea’s History of Sacerdotal Celibacy (3rd ed., London, 1907).

(G. G. Co.)

¹ The difference between English and Scottish law, which once made “Gretna Green marriages” so frequent, is due to the fact that Scotland adopted the Roman law (which on this particular point was followed by the whole medieval church).

² Gratian, in the 12th century, tried to explain this away by assuming that concubinage here referred to meant a formless marriage; but in 398 a church council can scarcely so have misused the technical terms of the then current civil law (Gratian, Decretum, pars i. dist. xxiv. c. 4).

³ Bracton, De Legibus, lib. iii. tract. ii. c. 28, § 1, and lib. iv. tract. vi. c. 8, § 4.

⁴ F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, Hist. of English Law, 2nd ed. vol. ii. p. 370. In the case of Richard de Anesty, decided by papal rescript in 1143, “a marriage solemnly celebrated in church, a marriage of which a child had been born, was set aside as null in favour of an earlier marriage constituted by a mere exchange of consenting words” (ibid. p. 367; cf. the similar decretal of Alexander III. on p. 371). The great medieval canon lawyer Lyndwood illustrates the difficulty of distinguishing, even as late as the middle of the 15th century, between concubinage and a clandestine, though legal, marriage. He falls back on the definition of an earlier canonist that if the woman eats out of the same dish with the man, and if he takes her to church, she may be presumed to be his wife; if, however, he sends her to draw water and dresses her in vile clothing, she is probably a concubine (Provinciale, ed. Oxon. 1679, p. 10, s.v. concubinarios).

⁵ It may be gathered from the Dominican C. L. Richard’s Analysis Conciliorum (vol. ii., 1778) that there were more than 110 such complaints in councils and synods between the years 1009 and 1528. Dr Rashdall (Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, vol. ii. p. 691, note) points out that a master of the university of Prague, in 1499, complained openly to the authorities against a bachelor for assaulting his concubine.

The above write-up adequately shows the differences between a wife and a concubine.  On the one hand there was the wife, who had permanent guarantees.  The marriage contract or covenant she entered into bound her exclusively and permanently to her husband, the only way out being through death or divorce.  The wife received an inheritance and held rights to the husband’s rank or titles, as did the children she bore him.  So, for example, if he was a king,  she became a queen and the children she bore him became princes and princesses who also held rights to an inheritance.

On the other hand, the concubine’s marriage covenant had no permanent guarantees.  She was bound to her husband exclusively and temporarily and held no rights to an inheritance nor to any of his titles, nor did any the children she bore him.  Her marriage contract, being of a temporary nature, could have a stipulated duration of time after which it would end or a stipulated manner by which it could end, such as at the discretion of her husband or herself, and when it ended she was sent away with her children.

The husband leaves his tribe

It is impossible to comprehend Abrahamic concubinage without an understanding of the context of the ancient world, which was tribalism, meaning that the ancients lived in tribes.  Moses wrote:

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

If there was a man who lived in one tribe and a woman who lived in a different one and the man desired to marry her, he was, per this standard, to leave his tribe and take up residence in his wife’s.  The woman was always to stay with her tribe, under the protection of her tribesmen, her father and her brothers when marrying a man from a different tribe.

No interfaith marriages

Husbands and wives were also to be of the same religious background.  Paul wrote, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 6:14.)  Interfaith marriages, then, were prohibited by the Lord because such permanent unions would tend to turn the believing spouse’s heart away from Him.  This was especially detrimental in the case of a believing husband and a non-believing wife, for the husband would leave his believing tribe and would be immersed in the unbelieving tribe of his wife.  The marrying of believing husbands to only believing wives would make gospel tribes somewhat insular, or set apart, from the tribes of the world, for they would end up taking wives and husbands only from other gospel tribes.

Concubines did things in reverse

Concubinage worked differently than normal, permanent marriage unions.  A concubine did not remain with her tribe, but left it to live with the tribe of her husband.  After her concubinage contract had ended, she was to leave her husband’s tribe with her children and return to her own.  Also, a concubine could be an unbeliever from one of the tribes of the earth, meaning one of the non-gospel Gentile tribes in the surrounding area.  Because her union was only temporary and she came to live among the believer’s tribe, it was less likely that she would have influence enough over the husband to turn his heart from the Lord.

The union of Abraham and Hagar is the prime example of this.  Hagar was an Egyptian slave possibly acquired as Pharaoh’s gift to Sarah when Abraham and Sarah were sojourning in Egypt.  She was not, therefore, of their religion and tribe.  So Abraham took Hagar to wife as his concubine, not as his wife.  Some time after she had given birth to a male child (Ishmael), her concubinage contract was ended and she was sent away with her son.  Ishmael eventually ended up marrying an Egyptian woman.

Benefits of concubinage

A concubine would bring many benefits to the tribe of her husband.  Being from a different tribe, she would bring with her different customs and ways of doing things, which would enrich his tribe and give them knowledge concerning her own.  She also would learn the customs of her husband’s tribe.  Specifically, she would learn their language, their arts and academics, their tribal organization and politics, their talents and industry, their religion and all their other customs.  And she would be totally immersed in a gospel culture, dwelling among a gospel tribe, so it would be more likely that she would convert to their religion, than that she would convert them to her religion.  If she or any of her children did end up converting to the Lord while residing within the gospel tribe, after her contract ended she would be sent back to her tribe as the perfect tribal missionary, as one who was already fully aware of all the ways of her non-gospel tribe, having grown up in it.

Concubines would also bring great benefits to their original tribes.  Upon her return, a concubine could teach her people all of what she learned while living among her husband’s tribe, including the language and religion of her husband.  In this way, she becomes an ambassador of peace between the two tribes, having lived in both for an extended period and knowing the customs and ways and languages of both.  This would do much for inter-tribal relations, allowing two foreign tribes to more easily interact with each other without any misunderstandings.  What is true for her would also be true for her children, who were raised in their father’s tribe and would now be living in their mother’s.  Each would be immensely benefited by the experience and become natural tribal ambassadors, having allegiances in both tribes.

Concubines could marry afterward

After returning to her tribe, a concubine would be free to contract marriage as a wife to a fellow tribesman or to someone of another people, while remaining among her own kind.  As a tribeswoman by birth, she would be entitled to an inheritance in her tribe.  If she was sent away with gifts from her husband, these would also benefit her people.

Genetic diversity and tribal missionary work

Another benefit, and a main one at that, would be the introduction of genetic diversity among the various tribes practicing concubinage.  A woman from a foreign tribe that became a concubine in a gospel tribe, would end up mixing her tribe’s genetic code (though her) with the genetic code of her husband’s tribe.  If she became a concubine of more than one husband of the new tribe, she would introduce even more genetic diversity into her children.  Then, when the concubinage contract(s) ended, she would take her children, the product of her and the new tribe, back to her old tribe, where these children could then pass on this genetic diversity through marriage into their mother’s tribe.

Without concubinage, gospel tribes become too insular, marrying only among themselves and not generating much genetic diversity.  Also, tribal missionary work becomes more difficult, for it is much easier to send tribal missionaries to a foreign tribe that has had concubines who have already lived in the missionaries’ tribe, who can put in a good word for the missionaries and open other doors, allowing the gospel to go forth unimpeded.

Tribal missionaries that spent much time in foreign tribes, preaching the gospel, could enter into concubinage contracts with women of that tribe for the duration that the missionaries were there.  This would allow the missionaries to marry non-believers without the danger of being unequally yoked in a permanent union.  If the concubine ended up converting to the Lord, the missionary could end the concubinage contract and either leave her there as a new ambassador of the gospel or arrange to bring her to his own tribe as a permanent wife. Whatever they decided to do, the children that came from these unions would create greater genetic diversity for whichever tribe they ended up in.

Concubines must go back

A concubine whose marriage contract does not end and who is not sent back to her father’s tribe defeats the whole purpose of concubinage.  The benefits that come from concubinage—benefits for both her, her children, her husband’s tribe and her father’s tribe—come only when the concubine and her children return to live with the tribe she originated from.  Not receiving an inheritance in her husband’s tribe is necessary, in order that she return from whence she comes.  Otherwise, concubinage is merely a method for the exploitation of women—having the benefits of a wife, without any associated responsibilities.

Abrahamic concubinage as revealed to Joseph Smith

A concubine is a noble, honorable calling and title, that accomplishes a great deal of good for two whole tribes.  Only when viewed in this manner, under tribal filters, does concubinage make any sense.

When Joseph Smith inquired of the Lord concerning how it was that the ancients were justified in having many wives and concubines, he was given the revelation found in D&C 132.  This revelation, for the most part, only speaks of wives.  The reason is because it was the purpose of the Lord that Joseph and the saints establish themselves into two bona-fide, fully functioning tribes of Israel using the principle of plural marriage.  The revelation ends with an enigmatic carrot on a stick:

And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. (D&C 132:66)

The only thing that the Lord says about concubines in this revelation is that the ancients were justified in receiving them and that it was accounted to them as righteousness and not sin.  But there is no indication that Joseph was supposed to start contracting concubines, only that more would be revealed later.

Tribal formation first, concubinage second

It makes sense that the Lord wouldn’t get into all the details of the doctrine and practice of concubines at this point because concubinage serves an inter-tribal function and the saints had not, yet, even formed themselves into one gospel tribe.  The intention of the Lord was to have the saints form themselves first into two gospel tribes, a tribe of Ephraim and a tribe of Manasseh and then, and only then, were they to start entering into concubine arrangements with the tribes of the earth.  This would serve to counteract the insular nature of the two gospel tribes, who would marry among themselves, in believer-only marriages.

A commandment to practice concubinage

Although the Lord did not go into detail concerning concubines, there is enough in the revelation and in the Bible for modern, gospel-based tribes organized according to the Gospel-based, Multihusband-Multiwife, Tribal Anarchy Model to enter into concubinage contracts if they see fit.  In fact, the Lord gives a commandment that these things be done in the revelation itself:

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand whereby I, the Lord, justified my servants…as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter [of having many wives and concubines]. Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law [concerning having many wives and concubines] revealed unto them must obey the same. (D&C 132:1-3)

So, once a gospel tribe is established using plural marriage, the Lord expects it to begin entering into concubinage contracts with the tribes of the earth, in order that the purposes, promises and prophecies of the Lord may be fulfilled about the people of the Lord becoming the salt and leaven of the earth.  The Savior said:

The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. (Matthew 13:33)

Through converted concubines, returned back from whence they come, entire tribes will be converted.  Concubinage, then, is a true principle of the gospel and one which any gospel-based tribe may justifiably embrace.

Concubinage and wife contracts are equally impermanent

All covenants, contracts…that are not…sealed…as well for time and for all eternity…are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead. (D&C 132:7)

This scripture shows that a marriage contract between a husband and a wife and a marriage contract between a husband and a concubine are similarly temporary.  The only difference is that one is intended to last a little bit longer than the other.  The wife’s contract has an end at death, while the concubine’s contract has an end sometime during mortality, but neither in reality are permanent contracts.

It is the sealing power that will vicariously seal all such impermanent marriage contracts, including concubinage contracts, making them all permanent unions in the afterlife.  Because of this, it is not correct to speak of a concubine as “a sort of inferior wife.”  She is every bit as much a wife as any other and will be sealed to her husband permanently after her death just as every other wife will be, and she will inherit the same reward as a wife will in the eternities.

Concubinage has a heavenly origin

Lastly, concubinage appears to be patterned after a heavenly object (a comet, a planetoid, a planet or a brown dwarf) that enters an insular solar system for a time, causing new planetary birth (the electrical expulsion model of planetary birth) and then after passing through leaves the solar system with an entourage of captured, newly birthed, planetary objects.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The conditions of this law

Clint, in a comment on the Marriage without a marriage license is ordained of God post, quoted D&C 132: 7 and raised the issue that, among other things:

So the problem to me is that we have a doctrine that is very clear in stating that in order to get to God we MUST do certain things, and then makes it almost impossible after the growth of the church for them to be done in a literal way and even at its doctrinal inception as far as I know this principle was not followed.

I attempted to write an exposition on that verse and the issues Clint raised in a comment.  However, it grew to be too long for just a comment and so I have decided to publish my response as a post.  This way, Clint’s comments can be read by a broader audience than those who follow the comments regularly — and also others can weigh in on the subject.

D&C 132:7

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

The conditions of this law:

All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations […] are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

The default state of all things is to have an end when humans die.  All binding arrangements [including even expectations] are assumed to be in a state where they will come to an end upon mortal death.

To tie this back to LDSA’s original post, he wrote:

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

Because God does not want all things to end when humans die, it is possible that the above-delineated binding arrangements may be:

[…] made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power […]

So, to avoid the default state of a binding arrangement ending upon mortal death, it must meet certain conditions:

• Made by the Holy Spirit of promise
• Entered into by the Holy Spirit of promise
• Sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise
• By one who is anointed
• For the stated duration of both time and all eternity
• In a most holy manner — by revelation and commandment through the medium of the one who is anointed [for this anointed one holds the keys to this power].

In addition to those six conditions, there is the paraenthetical phrase,

(and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred)

which adds a seventh condition:

• Joseph Smith was the “one who is anointed” mentioned above at the time the revelation was given.  Further, only one person on the earth at a time will act in this position of the “one who is anointed“.

Parenthetical Phrases:

Scribal additions often come by way of parenthetical phrases.  These attempt to clarify or expand on what was written in the original text.  Though there is not necessarily anything nefarious about, for example, adding that:

And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day.

to clarify that Ai was still in a state of desolation at the time the scribe was writing that text.

Or in adding:

For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

to explain what, “In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water,” meant to the people there at the time — who would have known what it meant.

However, as I have read all 66 verses D&C 132, that parenthetical phrase strikes me as internally inconsistent with the rest of the section.  For example, the Law of Sarah says:

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

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

In this portion of the revelations that make up section 132, the Lord says that it is the wives who hold the keys of this power — the keys that the parenthetical phrase says that only Joseph held at the time the revelation was given.  However, verse 64-65 tells me that if it was anybody — it was Emma who held them at that time.

Further, because of my understanding that God honors the consent of free-agents and that He would not favor either androcracy or gynocracy over the other — I can say that the law of Sarah is applicable to both men and women.

The revelation was spoken to Joseph in regards to his wife — therefore it is addressed in “she then becomes the transgressor” language.  However, what makes any person a transgressor according to the law of Sarah, is forbidding to administer the keys of the power of consent to a marriage covenant [this is according to D&C 49:15 as well].

Keys of Consent [or Power]:

Just as priesthood keys are given as a test to priesthood holders [in judging how they use them] — so to are church keys [keys of consent] intended to prove all church members. The test demonstrates if the person will consent only to righteousness — while always condemning or voting down wickedness.

In a tribal setting, a woman sins when she do not obey her righteous husband[s], meaning she refuses to submit her consent [power] to him — with “righteous” meaning there is an associated qualifier that her husband[s] do not exercise unrighteous dominion — this is because she is not giving honor where honor is due and is removing power from the priesthood.

A man sins when he does not love his wife[ves], meaning he refuses to be motivated by charity towards her — there is no associated qualifier as was the case with women.

Woman with righteous husband:

A woman is married to a man who does not exercise unrighteous dominion with her. This man, acting out of charity, desires and feels called to bring another wife into the marriage.  The woman has two choices:

• She can grant her consent, making her ordained of God, because her husband is acting righteously and she is not swayed by feelings of inadequacy or jealousy.
• She can withhold her consent, making her not ordained of God, because she is withholding power [for that is what her consent is] for charity to be manifest.

Woman with unrighteous husband:

A woman is married to a man who treats her with force and control and/or refuses to act out of charity towards her.  This man, acting out of a selfish desire, wants to have a new wife at the expense of the first.  The woman has two choices:

• She can grant her consent, in which case she would be ordained of God, because she is not forbidding to marry.  However, no one is under any obligation to submit in iniquity — therefore,
• She can withhold her consent, in which case she would still be ordained of God, because she is using her God-given power of consent [the keys of the church/tribe] to stop unrighteous dominion — she is not consenting to evil.

What the righteous husband can do:

In the first example [with the righteous husband] — if the woman gives her consent, then he is free to take the second wife into their tribe and thus it grows horizontally.  If the woman withholds her consent, then he is ordained of God only in using persuasion, long-suffering, etc. in dealing with the issue.

Should he go out and marry the second wife anyway — then he would not be ordained of God because he is ignoring the keys of consent that God has placed in charge of him. The servants [priesthood holders, husbands] must hearken to the voice of their masters [church members, wives] in all things.

For all we know — the woman may have a reason for why she requires exclusivity [like Starfoxy in comments #24, 30, 42, and 46 found here], and the righteous husband may be moved with compassion for her and instead choose to submit himself to monogamous vows rather than press the issue of polygamy. This is according to his free-will and choice in dealing with his wife.

What the unrighteous husband can do:

If the woman submits her consent to his selfish desire for a new wife, then the unrighteous husband’s true nature will manifest.  His love will not multiply, but will instead transfer from the woman to the new wife — this causes him to break his marriage covenant with her because he vowed to love her without qualifier and makes him not ordained of God.

However, his true nature may manifest in the other direction.  In seeing what his selfish desires for a “new” wife [instead of a second wife] has done to his first love — he may be moved towards repentance and the woman has done him a favor.

Since she was likewise free to withhold consent [given that the husband is acting with unrighteous dominion], the husband’s true nature could again manifest.  Will he respond to her refusal with anger and control — taking a new wife anyway without her say-so?  Or will he reflect inwardly on why she withheld consent, speak with her about it, and repent of his unrighteous behavior — possibly opening up the woman’s heart to another wife?  This will be according to his free-will and choice.

Men and women are judged by the Lord according to how they use their individual sets of keys and how they treat each other:

Is a person seeking after a second spouse because he or she is “tired” of the first spouse — or because he or she desires to take further covenant obligations, express charity, and expand the tribe?

Is a person withholding consent because he or she is uncomfortable with the idea of another spouse, is selfish/stingy, etc. — or is the person withholding consent because unrighteous dominion is being used?

D&C 132:7, 64 — Combined and Clarified:

So, to re-word the original verses with what I expounded on above taken into consideration — it reads:

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these:  All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations,

that are not (1) made and (2) entered into and (3) sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, (4) of him who is anointed [the one holding authorized priesthood keys], (5) both as well for time and for all eternity, and (6) that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power,

(7) (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred),

are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead […]

[…]And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power [which are the keys of consent that authorize the priesthood], and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood [meaning he uses persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, etc.], as pertaining to these things,

then shall she believe and administer unto him [give her consent], or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

So, the conditions of the law are that all binding arrangements must be administered by one who is holding authorized priesthood keys.  And by what power are priesthood keys authorized [rather for the church or the tribe]?  They are authorized by the vote of consent.

Conclusion:

D&C 132 divides Mormons into three groups:

• those that believe all 66 verses are a revelation from God,
• those that believe none of them are a revelation from God — or that all of them are a revelation from the devil,
• those that pick-and-choose to believe only some of them.

By virtue of my own experience and revelations, I operate under the assumption that D&C 132 is true.  It is only once unity over whether the revelation is entirely true, entirely false, or partially true and false [with agreement over what parts are true and what parts are false] — between people can discussions on the section be fruitful.

Only if we approach it as the word of God and desire to discuss what the principles and doctrines proposed therein actually consist of, and would actually look like when implemented in the real world — will discussions have a real benefit.

Most of the issue that was raised against D&C 132 is based on the inclusion of the parenthetical phrase:

(and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred)

I would conclude that if this portion was given at the same time of the revelation and written down by Joseph, it would, first off, not even be in parenthesis — but in addition to that, it would read:

and I have appointed unto you, my servant Joseph, to hold this power […]

much like is written in verse 45:

For I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood […]

Thus, I see that parenthetical phrase as a later addition by the Utah saints in an attempt to put the doctrine of plural marriages under their control [the One True Successors to Joseph].

But besides that, for me — it is the inclusion of polyandry that must be explained away prior to labeling the revelation misogynistic, endorsing only Brigham’s polygyny, etc.

If we are going to discuss things assuming that D&C 132 is a true revelation, then we must read it in light of what we know about God,

[that He does not regard anyone as more or less by virtue of their genitalia, that He honors the agency of His children, that He does not concentrate power in the hands of the few, etc.]

instead of in light of what we know about the Church™ and the way Brigham, et al have interpreted, implemented, or tampered with the revelation.

Only when viewed as a true revelation [all 66 verses], can its spiritual meaning and application be discussed.  If it is the word of God, then there is real benefit assigned to it.

Next Article by Justin: Punishment

Previous Article by Justin:  The Tree of This and That

The Tribal Church

Rebecca [from the-exponent blog] once asked me:

In your ideal world, I’d assume there is no church outside of the family unit.  Is this the primary appeal of anarchy within the LDS context for you?

It is evidence of the “Catholic-ization” of the LDS church that members refer to the leadership in Salt Lake as “the Church” – as opposed to the group of believers that meet together.  Like the Catholics – I often hear LDS refer to “What the Church has said” about such-and-such or what “Our leaders haven’t taken a position” on such-and-such.  LDS will speak of “the Church” as if it is some entity completely removed and separate from the members.  Where was there ever a body without parts?  The church is the people who make it up.

The church is a tribe; your tribe is the church:

As LDSA outlined in the Wives, follow your husbands! – Patriarchy, androcracy and the egalitarian tribe post:

Because of the gospel’s tribal nature, the organization of the priesthood mimics that of the egalitarian tribe.  Bishops, bishoprics, counselors, common judges, higher judges, lower judges, high councils, presidencies, apostles, seventies, quorums, etc., all have their counterpart in egalitarian tribal organization.

The principle described here is entirely correct.  What most LDS understand as the church structure is actually a tribal structure.  Currently, the Gentile Mormon church uses the structure of wards and stakes with presiding bishops and presidents over congregations and quorums – however this is a mere copy [an incomplete/improper copy] of the tribal structure in which the gospel is designed to be lived — a structure of clans and tribes with presiding husbands and tribal elders.

This is seen as LDS refer to their local congregation as the “ward family”, their fellow-members as “brother” and “sister” so-and-so, etc.  This is also why even official Church™ policy is to acknowledge [in word at least – though not in deed], that the family is the central unit in the gospel of Jesus Christ, with the Church being only an appendage.

Therefore, the priesthood holder in the home is the central priesthood leader – and the church priesthood holders are appendage leaders – in other words they are secondary as compared to a woman’s husband.

Much of what is wrong in the LDS church originates with wives not considering their husbands to be their priesthood/church leader – which itself originates with the Church™.

In the eyes of the Church™, the husband is not a priesthood leader with keys – only a quorum member without keys.  Leaders have keys, and members do not.  Because, in the eyes of the Church™, husbands do not have keys – they could not leaders.  Quorum members report directly to quorum leaders, and as a quorum member, the husband is an agent of his quorum president.

This view is then passed on to the wife, so that when a wife thinks of a priesthood leader, she will think of someone who holds keys, such as a bishop or stake president.  Thus, it becomes that in the eyes of a wife, her husband is subordinate to the priesthood leaders found in the Church™.

This is why we find wives by-passing their husbands and going behind his back to a bishop or stake president [see comment #87 and #102 here].  Any LDS wife who does view her husband as her priesthood leader typically does so insofar as the husband is following the direction of the Church™ leaders.  An easy way to discern this is to have the husband do something different than what the church leaders council him to do [like baptize children or administer the sacrament without a bishop’s approval].  Then the wife’s true loyalties will manifest and she will likely side with the Church™ authority.  Only when there is conflict between a Church™ leader with “keys” and a husband without them can it be seen who a wife really believes her church leader to be.

The Church™ is actually a religion:

What most LDS refer to as “the Church” is, therefore, not actually a church at all [it not being bound by covenant bonds between members].  It is a religion.  When seen from the tribal point-of-view [where church = tribe], the church is an entirely new people-group, nation, or tribe separate from any of the nations or tribes of the earth – the church of Jesus Christ being the tribes of Israel.  A tribe is merely a form a human organization that is based on two features:   kinship and shared belief.  Where these two things exist, there exits a tribe.  Where one or both of these things lack, there is no tribe.

Currently, in the LDS church, we have shared beliefs, but not kinship.  We may call others in our “ward family” by the names “brother” or “sister” so-and-so, and we may tend to all be of the same tribe [that of Ephraim] – but most members will view their blood family [kinship] as distinct from other LDS.

The purpose of the restoration of the gospel in the latter-days was to convert a diverse assortment of people [from every nation, tribe, and people-group] into a new kind of people.  The vision is a tribe, united under the bonds of a new and everlasting covenant, and restored to the ancient Hebrew notion of a holy nation/separate people-group.  No matter what the former culture was, any converts are adopted into a new family – formed on the basis tribal covenant bonds and shared beliefs.  Status in this group is not determined be virtue of what you believe or how many people you could tell what to do – but instead by the covenants a person has assumed and how many people you serve.

Without both kinship bonds and shared beliefs, we are not fully organized as the Lord’s tribes of Israel.  Groups that are bound by only shared belief are referred to as “religions”.  When Adam was praying, after having been removed from the Garden of Eden, there entered the god of this world in answer to his prayer:

So, you want religion, do you?

Religion is what Satan has been offering as a substitute for tribal relationships with our Heavenly Parents, Jesus Christ, and our fellowman since the beginning.  It is religion and the associated creeds that have prevented humans from coming to Jesus and the Father individually – instead forcing people to jump thru hoops, observances, rituals, classes, advancements, programs, etc.  Satan will always give a people religion, and it will be largely based in the left-brain-mind, professing God with the mouth [the left-brain-mind words] but having [right-brain-] hearts is far from Him.

A religion is just a branded belief.  Two people can be of different religions – and still be of the same nationality, work for the same companies, belong to the same social groups, etc.  There is nothing really distinct between the two, other than what they are doing for a few hours on Sunday.

The LDS church has taken direct action to remove any of the original elements of being a separate tribe/people-group, which are an impediment to popular acceptance.  Distinctions are minimized to remove any conflict between LDS and the state they reside in.  Any commitment to public relations will cause any movement, idea, or product to become less distinct – to boil down further and further, trying to find a least common-denominator and mass appeal/acceptance.  This is the story of Correlation™ and it has been handled in detail elsewhere.

Joseph Smith said that he:

cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations [religions], because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth.  I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.

Establishing an institution with orthodoxy and checklists – and then requiring uniformity of belief/thought in order to belong to the orthodox religion is the way of the Christians.  They are bound together not by tribal family bonds but instead by their confessions of faith and their creeds.

If we really want to come up “into the presence of God, and learn all things,” then we’d be wise to seek out and avoid the creeds of religions that “set up stakes” and demand that we “come no further.”

Within such an institution, one will find that if he/she:

wants to have the manifestations of the spirit in the place where I go to church, then I had better go to a church where we share all things in common… When you attend a church which spends $3 billion on building a shopping/commercial center right close to the temple and exactly $[zero] on implementing the law of consecration, I would hazard a guess that the odds are pretty close to 3 billion-to-zero that an abundance of the gifts of the spirit are [not] going to [be] in that church.

So now you may say well there isn’t any church or group that lives with all things in common.  How about forming your tribal organization and getting on with living that way?  That is what I am going to do.

I want to live the full gospel of Jesus Christ. I am going to start by having all things in common in my tribe so I can claim the blessings God has offered to those who obey the law given for that blessing.

Truly, one can not do this within the LDS church.  Such blessings are found only in communal worship that adheres to the word of God, the spirit of expediency, and the law of common consent.  Currently, this can only be achieved within tribal organizations.

Two ways to grow your tribe:

The discussion on plural marriage at Wheat and Tares taught me that most LDS will consider any discussion on organizing multihusband-multiwife tribes as “communes for unbridled secret sex at night.”

However, a tribe is merely a form a human organization based on two features:   kinship and shared belief.  This is the earliest form of human community – predating cities, states, churches, and even recorded history.  Tribal affiliations exist naturally among humans – when states don’t exist to break them up.  God does not look upon an individual as an isolated creation, all alone.  He sees people as they are connected to everyone else.  He sees all the tribal bonds and recognizes the tribal affiliations – even if we ourselves are not even aware of them or allow their functions to remain dormant.

God and the gospel are tribal in nature – always working to connect humans together into His tribe [which is composed of the tribes of Israel].  Our lineage is plainly manifest to Him and so when we begin to act tribally, He recognizes the tribal authority because it has been there all along, among the other conventional things we place upon it [e.g. political affiliations culture, religion].  All that is necessary for us to obtain tribal authority is to exercise it.  If we just need to assert it, God will recognize/validate it because it really is there and has been there all along.  We just haven’t been aware of it or acknowledged it.

The steward of a tribe is free to grow/enlarge his tribe or allow it to stay dormant.  While I intertwine multihusband-multiwife marriage systems together with my tribal understanding of the gospel, there are functions of tribalism that can be activated currently with a one-husband:one-wife tribe. Tribal plural marriage is simply the means whereby a tribe grows or is enlarged horizontally.  In like manner, having children is the means whereby a tribe grows or is enlarged vertically.

Growing horizontally:

Tribes are grown horizontally as new adult members are converted and desire to join.  As tribes must be bound by both kinship and shared belief, once conversion to the gospel takes place [shared belief], he/she must then be married into the tribe [kinship] as a part of the other entrance ordinances, e.g. baptism.

Growing horizontally is a function of tribal missionary work.  This has been discussed in the comments of dyc4557’s CHI #5 post.  Currently, LDS missionary work is comprised of sending never married, non-father elders into the mission field – following the pattern of the celibate, Catholic priesthood.  These celibate elders are sent by an “across the board” calling of all 19 year-old young men – instead of having any elder with the desire to travel, and calling of the Spirit to preach the gospel, approach their bishops to obtain license to do so by church vote.

In the comments on that post, LDSA touches on some principles for initiating the preaching of the gospel from a tribal point-of-view.  Briefly, they include:

• A married man with children having an advantage over a never-married, non-father young man with regards to relating to families [husbands, wives, fathers, and mothers].
• Distraction not being an issue when a person goes on a preaching mission only when he has a desire to go and feels called to do so by the Spirit.
• Leaving the length of a traveling mission open, instead of a fixed two-years, so that the Spirit can have flexibility in keeping a man in the mission field for short or long time periods.
• Utilizing all married men within a tribe [the priests, bishops, elders, seventy, apostles, high priests, and patriarchs], who are under the same commandment to travel and preach when their circumstances allow, to open up a larger pool from which to fill a mission field.
• Multihusband-multiwife tribes having less of a burden with traveling missionary work because when husbands leave to preach, wives and children will be taken care of by the tribe or other husbands.
• Not leaving converts [harvest] in the care of others who, hopefully, will take care of them – instead, either sending these people back to the tribe or, after the mission is complete, returning with them to the tribe, so that tribal integration can be complete.
• Marrying converts while still in the mission field so that, while there, a tribal missionary will have new tribal members to support him, giving him food, drink, clothing, shelter, and a family love and environment – fulfilling the commandment to travel with purse or scrip.  Also – retaining and building on the connection that a missionary makes with the converts he or she has taught.

Growing a tribe horizontally is essentially founded on multihusband-multiwife plural marriages.  It is this aspect that would likely make converting non-LDS into a tribe easier than converting LDS.  Many LDS come with cultural indoctrination [as both Americans and Mormons] that state-sanctioned monogamy is superior to any other form of marriage.  Polygyny is either valid insofar as it is state-sanctioned and First Presidency™-approved or was valid in the mid/late 19^th century but is now just a relic of a less-enlightened time gone by.  Polyandry is completely unheard of or considered and makes a mockery of God’s ordered system of paternity [which is why most LDS will always use “polygamy” when they really mean “polygyny” – polyandry not even being a consideration for them].

Monogamy is not sin.  If one spouse [or both] has emotional needs that necessitate him/her requiring a spouse to commit to not loving any other people, then [if the other spouse is willing to submit to that] they may take vows of exclusivity upon themselves. These vows are ordained of God, as long as both persons consent, and are in accordance with the new and everlasting covenant revealed in D&C 132.  As I stated previously, there are functions of tribalism that can be activated currently with a one-husband:one-wife tribe – however such a tribe will be limited horizontally.

Polygyny is not sin given that a woman gives her consent to the husband to take additional wives [releasing him from any vows of exclusivity he may have been under] – he is justified in taking on additional wives, for it is marriage with consent and thus a marriage ordained of God.

Polyandry is not sin.  In the new and everlasting covenant, there are two ways in which a woman get take an additional husband:

• One way is that she is simply sealed to a second [or third, etc.] husband.
• The other is that her husband breaks his marriage vows [commits adultery], whereby she is married to another man.  She remains married to the first husband because there is always the possibility of repentance and reconciliation.

Outside of the new and everlasting covenant, a woman [in the same manner as stated in the polygyny section] may obtain a second marriage thru the consent of her current husband or husbands.  This [like polygyny] is ordained of God insofar as all parties involved give consent.

Not giving consent to marry is the sin. When a man wishes to take an additional wife and his current wife or wives do not give their consent [which are the keys of this power], then they become sinners because they are forbidding him from marrying, making them not ordained of God.  Likewise, were a woman to desire an additional husband and her current husband or husbands do not give consent, then the husbands become sinners by virtue of forbidding her to marry.

This is the law of Sarah [in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage] and it is applicable to both men and women. “Wrongness” consists in forbidding marriage, which makes the person doing the forbidding not ordained of God – whether the forbidder is the state, the Church™, parents, or a spouse.

Growing vertically:

Tribes can also grow vertically.  This is done as married couples come together via sexual intercourse and provide physical life to children.  The two methods [horizontal and vertical] are related.  Just as parents are capable of loving more than one child with all of their heart – spouses are capable of loving more than one spouse with all of their heart.  Just as parents are commanded to have as many children as possible, not forbidding any spirits from entering their family – spouses ought to seek as many additionally spouses as possible, never forbidding one another from loving other people.

The Lord has commanded parents to be fruitful and multiply:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:

The secret combinations of central planners all establish two children per woman as their goal.  They have achieved this goal in the countries referred to as “developed”, and they are approaching success on a global scale.  The reason being that two children [replacement reproduction] breaks the commandment to multiply and “fill” the earth with humans – only replacing the two parents with two children.  The scriptural minimum for the number of children per family would therefore be three, with there being no associated maximum.

They have used various tools to achieve their satanic goal.  One need only search [population control eugenics] in a search engine to find plenty of resources on the subject.  To be brief, they would include:  barrier and hormonal methods of birth control, drugged hospital birthing experiences, circumcision, bottle-feeding, abortion, vasectomies and elective hysterectomies, focusing on “equal” employment for women, reducing sperm counts thru administered chemicals and diet, and sterilants in food/vaccines/water/etc.

A tribe based on the gospel of Jesus Christ will never restrict themselves to a set number of children – utilizing hormonal, barrier, or surgical forms of birth control thereafter.  They will not plan their number of children around their desired lifestyle, but will plan a lifestyle around the number of children they have.  They shall also teach their children to pray, and to walk uprightly before the Lord.  They will teach their children to read and write, having a language which is pure and undefiled.  They will teach their children diligently and freely to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands – before the age of eight [lest the sin be upon their heads and it be the cause of their affliction].  Then shall their children be baptized for the remission of sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.  They will engage in continual tribal rituals to strengthen the common morphic field that exists among disciples of Jesus Christ.

Next Article by Justin: The Will of God and Faith

Previous Article by Justin:  Tribal Rituals

Priesthood Offices in a Tribal Setting

Church ordinations

During the time of Christ, one of the qualifications for priesthood was that men had to be married.  (See 1 Tim. 3: 2, 12 and Titus 1: 6.)  During the time of Joseph Smith, adult men were ordained to both Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods.  Later, during brother Brigham’s time the Aaronic priesthood began to be conferred upon young men.

Currently, in the modern church, if men and boys are worthy and are sustained by the congregation, they are ordained to these offices in the following way: deacons are ordained when 12 years old, teachers when 14, priests when 16 and boys become eligible for the office of an elder when they turn 18 (prospective elders.)  The Aaronic priesthood is now, essentially, a youth program, to prepare boys to receive the Melchizedek priesthood.

Grown men entering the priesthood may be given the office of a priest, becoming a prospective elder and then later ordained an elder, or may merely be ordained an elder from the start.

The following are the duties of an elder, priest, teacher and deacon in the church.  (E=Elder; P=Priest; T=Teacher; and D=Deacon.)

Duties of the Priesthood (for the church)

.P..          Preach
EP..         Baptize
E…          Confirm baptized church members by the laying on of hands
E…          Administer the sacrament
.P..          Administer the sacrament (when no elder is present)
E…          Take the lead in all church meetings
.P..         Take the lead in church meetings (when no elder is present)
..T.         Take the lead in church meetings (in the absence of the elder or priest)
E…          Conduct church meetings as led by the Holy Ghost
.P..          Assist elder (if occasion requires)
E…          Ordain elders
EP..        Ordain priests
EP..        Ordain teachers
EP..        Ordain deacons
EPTD      Teach
EPTD      Expound
EPTD      Exhort
E.TD       Watch over the church
.P..         Visit the house of each church member (exhorting them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties)
..T.         Be with and strengthen church
..T.        See that there is no iniquity in the church
..T.        See that there is no hardness in the church with each other
..T.        See that there is no lying in the church
..T.        See that there is backbiting in the church
..T.        See that there is no evil speaking in the church
..T.        See that all the church members do their duty
..T.        See that the church meet together often
..TD      Warn
..TD      Invite all to come to Christ
..TD      Be a standing minister to the church
…D       Assist teachers in their duties (if occasion requires)

Now let’s look at these same duties and offices of the priesthood in a tribal setting.

Duties of the Priesthood (for the tribe)

.P..          Preach
EP..         Baptize
E…          Confirm baptized tribal members by the laying on of hands
E…          Administer the sacrament
.P..          Administer the sacrament (when no elder is present)
E…          Take the lead in all tribal gatherings
.P..         Take the lead in tribal gatherings (when no elder is present)
..T.         Take the lead in tribal gatherings (in the absence of the elder or priest)
E…          Conduct tribal gatherings as led by the Holy Ghost
.P..          Assist elder (if occasion requires)
E…          Ordain elders
EP..        Ordain priests
EP..        Ordain teachers
EP..        Ordain deacons
EPTD      Teach
EPTD      Expound
EPTD      Exhort
E.TD       Watch over the tribe
.P..         Visit the house of each tribal member (exhorting them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties)
..T.         Be with and strengthen tribe
..T.        See that there is no iniquity in the tribe
..T.        See that there is no hardness in the tribe with each other
..T.        See that there is no lying in the tribe
..T.        See that there is backbiting in the tribe
..T.        See that there is no evil speaking in the tribe
..T.        See that all the tribal members do their duty
..T.        See that the tribe gather together often
..TD      Warn
..TD      Invite all to come to Christ
..TD      Be a standing minister to the tribe
…D       Assist teachers in their duties (if occasion requires)

Tribal ordinations

Obviously, a tribe can do what it wants, meaning it can organize itself using the priesthood however it wants.  So, a tribe can opt to duplicate the modern church model and ordain boys to the Aaronic priesthood.  But it can also follow the New Testament/Early Mormonism models and ordain only married men to either priesthood.

Let me give an example of how a tribe can develop its own “priesthood qualifications” for ordination to its tribal priesthoods.

According to how connected one is to the tribe, by the number of covenants

Ordaining to the offices of the priesthood in a tribal setting can depend upon the man’s connectedness to the tribe.  Connectedness can be determined by the number of wives he has and the combined number of husbands his wives have.  Once the required number of wives/husbands is reached, he can be eligible for ordination if the tribe consents to it.  Here is one way to do it:

• Deacon – Monogamy (1 wife and 1 husband)
• Teacher – Multi-spouse System (husband has 2 wives and his wives have a combined total of 2 distinct husbands)
• Priest – Multi-spouse System (husband has 4 wives and his wives have a combined total of 4 distinct husbands)
• Elder – Multi-spouse System (husband has 8 wives and his wives have a combined total of 8 distinct husbands)

These numbers are, of course, arbitrary.  A tribe can decide how many covenantal connections a man and his wives must have for the man to be ordained to an office of the priesthood.  The principle, though, is that with more connections a man has to the tribe, he has that much more vested interest in it.  Also, as men take on more wives (and their wives covenant with more husbands), they enter into more marriage/family/clan/tribal responsibilities, therefore, their priesthood office should reflect a corresponding increase in duties and responsibility.

Another reason to link the priesthood to marriage is because the Lord has set the husband at the head of the wife, regardless of whether he has the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthoods.  Because of this relationship, priesthood is useful to keep a husband in his proper place, for entrance into the priesthood is designed to be entrance into lifelong service.  All husbands, therefore, should be priesthood servants.

For the other priesthood offices, such as high priest, bishop, seventy, apostle, etc., inter-husband covenants—meaning that two or more husbands enter into a united order for the establishment of Zion by covenanting with each other—can be added as eligibility requirements to the qualifications of an elder.  For the office of high priest, it can follow the scriptural pattern of having it confirmed by the voice of God out of the heavens, etc.

Manner of tribal ordinations

There are three valid methods of priesthood ordination.  The first method comes from the Book of Mormon:

In the name of Jesus Christ I ordain you to be a priest, (or, if he be a teacher) I ordain you to be a teacher, to preach repentance and remission of sins through Jesus Christ, by the endurance of faith on his name to the end. Amen.  (Moroni 3: 3)

The second one is the method used during the time of Joseph Smith:

By authority of the Holy Priesthood and by the laying on of hands, I ordain you an elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and confer upon you all the rights, powers, keys and authority pertaining to this office and calling, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

The final method is that used from 1919 onward, including today:

To perform a priesthood ordination, one or more authorized priesthood holders place their hands lightly on the person’s head. Then the priesthood holder who performs the ordination:

1. Calls the person by his full name.

2. States the authority by which the ordination is performed (Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood).

3. Confers the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood unless it has already been conferred.

4. Ordains the person to an office in the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood and bestows the rights, powers and authority of that office. (Priesthood keys are not bestowed in conferring the priesthood or ordaining to one of these offices.)

5. Gives a priesthood blessing as the Spirit directs.

6. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ.

Of the three methods, I would recommend that a tribe use only the first two because the third method creates the perception that priesthood keys are not passed on, even though they are.  This, of course, is a control mechanism to center power in priesthood “leaders” who “hold keys.”  Also, when using the second method, one would not ordain to an office in the church, but to an office in the tribe.

Priesthood re-ordinations

A man that comes into a tribe who has already been ordained an elder in the church may be ordained to an office of the tribal priesthood according to the tribe’s eligibility requirements.  So, let’s say the man is in a monogamous marriage when he enters the tribe and the tribe allows monogamous men to be only ordained tribal deacons.  In this case, the man would be ordained a tribal deacon, despite being an elder of the church.  The tribe then recognizes his priesthood office as that of a deacon, whereas the church recognizes his priesthood office as that of an elder.  The tribe can continue to utilize and recognize validly ordained church elders until such time when the tribe has ordained tribal elders according to its eligibility requirements.  Then it may use the tribal elders (and priests) exclusively to ordain all other tribal offices.

For example, in cases of taking the lead in tribal gatherings, if there are four men in the tribe who are ordained elders in the church but three are tribal deacons and one is a tribal teacher, the tribal teacher would take the lead in the tribal gatherings, for in a tribal setting, tribal priesthood takes precedence over church priesthood.  Nevertheless, if someone needs to be baptized (requiring the office of a priest or elder), any of these four men could do it using church priesthood authorized by the tribe.  At some point, one of these tribal men will hold the tribal office of elder, at which point church priesthood no longer need be relied upon. 

Tribal records

While a tribe is still in its infancy and consists of but few persons, ordinances can be performed without witnesses or record-keeping.  However, when there is finally a sufficient number of tribal members, the tribe may gather and formally establish itself according to the gospel laws.  The gathered tribe, using its tribal keys and the law of common consent, can then authorize the performing of all the tribal ordinances once more for each of the tribal members, but this time with two or three tribal witnesses (the law of witnesses) and with a tribal recorder appointed among their number to record all the names, dates, ordinances, convenants entered into (including marriage covenants) and ordinations performed, as well as recording the names and certifications of the witnesses, etc., all on a tribal record or book.  Doing this utilizes the priesthood sealing power so that the tribal record becomes “a law on earth and in heaven, [that can] not be annulled”.  This tribal record is all important so that when the time comes for the tribe to be assimilated into the larger tribes of Israel, these tribal ordinances will be accepted as valid and binding both on earth and in heaven.

Working in this way, using the priesthood sealing power to formally establish a tribe, sets the tribe up for permanency both here and in the afterlife.

A mere example

Please don’t take these words as being the only way to organize a tribal priesthood.  I merely write this to get people thinking tribally, to help them conceive of the options available to them and to provide an example of one way to organize a tribal priesthood in righteousness so that Lord will be pleased and pour down His blessings and the tribe’s actions will be justified.  But there are undoubtedly other, valid ways to go about this.

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