BRIGHAM – THE BUILDER & THE BUTCHER pt.2

THE FUTURE

When Joseph tapped into the Holy Spirit of inspiration to interpret portions of Facsimile No. 2 in the Book of Abraham, he stopped short of explaining the image designated as number 8, saying that it contained writings which should only be had in the Holy Temple of God, which temple you are. Number 9, he said,ought not to be revealed at that time – numbers 10 and 11 also. But here the recorder inserts an interesting thought. He writes: “If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen.” Figures 12-21 were to be “given in the own due time of the Lord.” The facsimile is had and used by members of B’nai-Amen Israel under the name of the Theban Hypocephalus. It is known among them as one of the more complete forms of ancient Egyptian “head warmers”, or resurrection talismans, associated with the Book of Breathings. The two are almost identical but the Theban Hypocephalus comes with a complete translation. Number 17 in that key, gives one of the most beauteous and fullest, yet beautifully concise descriptions of the Plan of Salvation possible in the corrupt language of Englitch.

#17  In The Beginning Emerged A Seed, Firstfruits Of The Perfect; Followed By Hosts Of Others; Some Beloved, Some Rebellious.  The Beloved Creating through The Impotent Children Of Rebellion, A Cup Of Bitterness To Quench The Longings Of Joy Of The Children Of Light.  Becoming Drunk Then Sober; Being Lifted Again To The Place Of Origin, To Become An Origin Unto Themselves. Dwelling In A Perfect Society, Free Of Death And Disease.  The End Of Ends.

In the Journal of Discourses, President Young speaks extensively on the topic of resurrection as an ordinance. On August 24^th 1872, talking about those who have already received resurrected bodies he said:

“They will be ordained, by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth and resurrect the Saints, just as we receive the ordinance of baptism, then the keys of authority to baptize others for the remission of their sins.”

Referring to those who rise up in the morning of the first resurrection he said they would be, “ordained to organize matter,” to which he added:

“How much matter do you suppose there is between here and some of the fixed stars which we can see? Enough to frame many, very many millions of such earths as this, yet it is now so diffused, clear and pure, that we look through it and behold the stars. Yet the matter is there. Can you form any conception of this? Can you form any idea of the minuteness of matter?”

He then proceeds to expound upon the topic of quantum physics in a manner very ahead of his time. As an example he shows how, while the mathematical fractions used to represent the difference in age between two children born precisely one year apart grow smaller and smaller, the elder will always remain a-head of the younger.Using the example of a grain of sand, Young ‘breaks down’ the precept further to show that:

“You cannot divide it so small that it cannot be divided again—it is capable of infinite division. We know nothing about how many times it can be divided, and it is just so with regard to the lives in us, in animals, in vegetation, in shrubbery. They are countless.”

Not surprisingly, he relates the Universal Truth of Fractality to Temple work, which he supposed was reliant upon certain man-made factors such as genealogical records and research and construction of elaborate edifices wherein to perform such spiritual science. But GOD has no need of these things. When we come to walk in His courts and trample His temple, GOD has not required it of us. (Isaiah 1:12).  Paul asks in shock, “What? know ye not that your BODY IS THE TEMPLE of the Holy Ghost which is in you”  Subconsciously, Brigham understood this, everyone does. Reading page 139 of the Journal of Discourses with opened eyes and new ears we can clearly perceive the spirit of truth coming through his words when Brother Brigham declares:

“I am going to stop my talking by saying that, in the millennium, when the kingdom of God is established on the earth in power, glory and perfection, and the reign of wickedness that has so long prevailed is subdued, the Saints of God will have the privilege of building their temples (physical bodies), and of entering into them, becoming, as it were, pillars in the temples of God, and they will officiate for their dead. Then we will see our friends come up, and perhaps some that we have been acquainted with here……And we will have revelations to know our forefathers clear back to Father Adam and Mother Eve, and we will enter into the temples of God and officiate for them.”

If we take into account the fact that, at the time these sayings were uttered, there still was not an operational LDS ™Pull and would not be until 5 years later at the dedication of that stunning structure, shining like a ‘whited sepulcher’ in the desert sun of red St. George; we can see that the eternal sayings of the Lord are not saying the same thing that Brigham was probably thinking at the time.

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites, PHARISITES! For you are like whitewashed tombs–beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people‘s bones and all sorts of impurity.” – Matt. 23:27

 But that was only the Bad Brigham. The butcher is balanced by the builder and vice versa. At least, that’s the idea, the standard we should strive to uphold, the banner we should wave to all the world. In truth, both do good and neither are evil unless they attempt to separate, the one from the other. The apostolic figure of Paul, was known for rambling topically from one theme to the next, like Brigham. But unlike Brigham, Paul also kept rambling on topographically from one land to the next as apostles have been commissioned to do. Brigham, Brigham, Brigham. Tsk, tsk, tsk! Did you feel daunted by your task, task, task? We know you fabricated Section 126 of the D&C. Three short self-congratulatory verses with a section heading reporting them as a revelation received by Joseph but in “the house of Brigham Young” telling you to rest from your labor of love? We ask you sincerely and tenderly, was the ‘House that Brigham Built’ a suitable resting place to your spirit? Are you forever content to haunt the halls of the Lion House or the Beehive House in Salt Lake City? I should imagine that you hold the whole area in contempt as you find it full of traces of your former glory. You can see your life’s work being used to uphold and promote things you were diametrically opposed to during your fleeting fifteen minutes of fame in the flesh.

Ah, the flesh! –That which you enjoyed so thoroughly in certain ways but failed to esteem as one in all its infinite variety. You miss it don’t you – the sex– always for procreation never recreation of course. But ‘wreck creation’ is what the destroyer has done to so much of your greatest work. I am personally well acquainted with one of your direct descendents –Adam Redford Young. His family shares your passion for health and wealth. They have penetrated many secrets of science through righteous diet which have enriched their lives and others and have even saved souls from the clutches of cancer. But they find themselves bound by government regulation on many fronts. And their monogamous life-style has killed something inside them to the point where, my dear friend has found himself unable to get married in his 35 years of physical existence. His parents union was threatened by infidelity and possibly preserved by money and comfort on many levels. I do not deny that there is love, as it is the only thing that keeps this family unit from deteriorating into a complete shamily unit, but there is much confusion on the home-front due to the yarns that you knit. Why did you deny women and black people the same pleasures you prized so highly? Your title has been taken and given to another in this generation. Ask millions world-wide, “Who is the Lion in Zion?” and they will answer unhesitatingly, “Bob,” not Brigham. The Marley family enjoys close-knit ties that keep them all prospering, thriving while striving in a good cause. They “band” and stick together while decrying the secret combinations, relying on family for protection as they preach healthy habbits, self-sufficiency, love and praise of the Most High. You have a professional football player among the fruit of your loins. So does Bob Marley. It is a large portion of the very same spirit that pulsed through your veins which has fueled Bob Marley to foster a large, royal and loyal posterity. A man after your own heart, he adopted many children and begat many more. Every woman who he ever touched was satisfied in body and soul. Your descendants lie scattered, selfishly pursuing their own interests. On the topic of the Order of Enoch, you said “If I had charge of such a society as this to which I refer, I would not allow novel reading” Now you have a best-selling novelist who was born into your bloodline on August 24, 1951, exactly 78 years to the date from when you tried to explain the metaphysics of resurrection to your people and to yourself. Do you begin to see how God plays a Card of justice against bullies in the game of life. Not to mention the Army Brigadier version of yourself who bullied the oppressed other sheep of the Filipino fold of the Good Shepherd before giving up the ghost on what would have been your 118^th birthday. And what of the ‘Young’ man who inheriting the murderous idiosyncrasies which went unchecked in the paranoid regions of your mind, acted out the self-righteous concept of ‘blood atonement’ on a poor daughter of God who, although precious in God’s sight, was viewed by your grandson as a dirty prostitute on the streets of New York City? Feel, feel, FEEL for your FAMILY!

Brigham the Biggot would supposedly follow Joseph to the ends of the earth, but could not abandon his misguided Methodist and Masonic mix of mind control long enough to grasp the vision of unity between the races and sexes that is necessary for the restoration of all things in these latter days. As many European immigrants and American settlers heard the glorious fanfare of the opening of a new and final dispensation, it was decided by their Collective Caucasian Consciousness, that those angelic horns were best enjoyed from a distance –kind of like blues and jazz music. Whereas Joseph welcomed communion between angelic beings and humanity; his overwhelmingly white audience, once excited by the possibilities, soon sided with the Anglos over Angles. Brigham the Bully embodied the thoughts of so many of his time and emerged as the naturally elected spokesman for the vox popular. A hub for the spokes of those wagon wheels which bore a peculiar people who would endure persecution stoically but stubbornly refuse to identify with long persecuted peoples like the Afrikan and Native tribes of this land.  Once, the renegade religion of God’s revolution, they would eventually capitulate pitifully. Larsson became Larson, Jansson became Jenson. Scandinavian became European, European became American. American became White and White came to be thought of as Blank. From pioneers to peons, the blond haired, blue eyed Britts and Swedes underwent the most severe case of cultural Stockholm syndrome ever witnessed. Farrakhan, who’s separatist political leanings do not begin to compare to the frightful foaming of Brigham’s hateful speech, is a prophet called into conception to answer the universe’s call for balance. His use of the term ‘White Devil’ is a very specific course correction in comparison with the wildly general reckless racism spewed by Big Mouth Brigham through such remarks as:

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”

– JoD: vol.10 p. 110 (March 8, 1863)

And…

“The Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.”

– JoD 7:290-291 (October 9, 1859)

Dear Brigham, during your lifetime you expressed two great fears. Your words still echo faintly in the eerily volatile air that whips up amid the cold stone banks, business buildings and malls of downtown Salt Lake.

“The worst fear that I have about this people is that they will get rich in this country, forget God and his people, wax fat, and kick themselves out of the Church and go to hell. This people will stand mobbing, robbing, poverty, and all manner of persecution, and be true. But my greater fear for them is that they cannot stand wealth; and yet they have to be tried with riches, for they will become the richest people on this earth.”

– Brigham Young: The Man and His Work, 4th ed., p.128-129

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful that they settle down in a state of blind self security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purpose of God in their salvation. . . Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

– Journal of Discourses 9:150

At this very moment money is exchanging hands, secret pacts are being made and Mormons are slipping deeper into darkness than ever before. The corporation sole called the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has taken over and the self-identified LDS who believe in upholding and sustaining the laws of the land do not even know that, legally speaking, they are not members of anything; especially not the Lord’s Church. Your worst nightmares are coming true. Are you turning in your grave? Turn, Turn, Turn to GOD and LIVE!

Today, September 2^nd, 2012 marks the 135^th remembrance cycle of the burial of Brigham’s body. The Holy Spirit is one, but the gifts are many. That Holy Spirit which is in all of us moved me to start typing this document only a few days ago on the 29^th of August, the day of Brigham’s death. The Holy Spirit is the Life Force which can be contained and dwell within the True Temples of God, even our Tabernacles of Flesh. Whether the flesh becomes corrupted over time or is suddenly and brutally brought to destruction, at the moment which we call death, the vivacious substance of spirit is released freely into space. It is for this reason that, when you sign a waiver, the language is spookily similar to the words we speak at the veil during temple work.

“utilize my name, voice and likeness in any and all manner and media **throughout the universe in perpetuity.**”

This output happens all the time. It is the nature of these energetic WAVES granted us by God Himself. It needn’t be counted as loss. And neither must it be relinquished and handed over exclusively to any one entity, as corporations seek to trick us into doing with WA-I-VERS. Everyone who has watched T.V. has noticed how the commercials are quite a few decibels louder than the regular programming. If you have been endowed in one of the LDS Temples, you may have been noticed how the usual sleepy sequence of the ceremony is similarly interrupted at one key spot by the slightly louder volume at the mention of the Church’s official moniker. This is a neuro-linguistic branding tactic which makes you, the targets, more likely to live up to an oath to

“consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.”

Given another 50 years or less, I would not be surprised to hear that last stipulation, which states that the Church is supposed to use donations to build Zion (not shopping malls) uttered in the super speedy audio version of fine print addendums which we hear tagged onto the final moments of T.V. and radio advertisements for fast food specials, medications and political campaigns (diet, injections and injunctions).

Monstrous life forms, restrained to lower wavelengths, are bottom feeders who literally subsist off of the energy we give them just as we subsist off of the energy Heaven sends us. The Powers That Be know the Powers That Be-low. The lower-archy of fallen angels who rule Hell with Lucifer form a Quorum of the 70 (72 to be exact) known as Goetia in the occult. They are balanced by 72 Ascended Masters who work for the good of humanity from behind the scenes. Which of these two unseen groups deserves the credit for inspiring Harold B. Lee, Boyd K. Packer and Thomas S. Monson, among others, in a newly formed Church Correlation Committee in the early ‘60s to think they could map out the mind of God with 72 “important ideas” written on index cards and pinned to an office wall? Original Mormon theology shows us that the act of creation and the free giving of free will are one and the same, that man’s intelligence is coeval with God. You will recall that Brigham Young in an aforementioned quote said that the “lives in us, in animals, vegetation, and in shrubbery….are countless and capable of infinite division.” Joseph Smith, to whom Brigham cried out with his dying breaths on his deathbed, stated plainly that:

“There is one principle which is eternal; it is the duty of all men to protect their lives and the lives of the household, whenever necessity requires, and no power has a right to forbid it, should the last extreme arrive.”

– History of the Church 6:605

There is only one sure way of preventing evil forces from usurping and slurping up your Life Force to use for their infernal purposes. That is, by means of your WILL. Not your so-called last will & testament but your Eternal Will and Testimony of Christ. Aligning our will with that of the Father ensures that our life’s work go towards the greater good. But there is always spillage which the Gadianton Robbers will pillage. From the supposed King of Rock –Elvis Presley to The King of Pop –Michael Jackson, and more recently, Diva Whitney Houston, the evil ones have learned to amass capital and cash in on the masses’ channeled celebration of life through tightly controlled celebrities. Even, and especially the King of Kings –Jesus’ passionate performance in that perfectly done death scene in the Never Ending Play was and will forever be, an infinite free for all of kinetic and frenetic energy! In the section of “Spiritual Gift Giving & Receiving” entitled:“Turn Shopping Lists Into Swapping Lists – Sharing With The Stars” and in the warning immediately preceding it, we will find words that may be of much worth to us and our families in seeking to understand this supernatural phenomenon. Upon release, the plosive vibration can be felt as a “plop” a “Pop” or a “POW!” depending on the momentum with which one has invested his talents throughout life. This is why it may seem a little harsh to hear Jesus’ parable condone such severe condemnation of the little man who, after all, was only trying to “play it safe” with that with which he had be entrusted. But with the clear and bright light that is breaking forth upon the minds of men today we can see that the Lord is just. The Lord is just trying to explain to us, the way His justice just is.

Those of us who grew up in the covenant with the peer pressure slogan of “Return With Honor” resounding in our ears, must now allow our children the liberty to rewrite and restore plain and precious truths with a revamped refrain along the lines of “Go Big Before Going Home.” And those of us inducted prior to 1990 must humbly admit that we were born into covenant which was more like a Coven-Ant or ant coven. Observe ants in their colonies and you will see that if one does not follow the rules the others will decapitate their fellow. Were the oaths and penalties associated with the Coven-Ants of the LDS Temp-pulls the strong cords of love which we ought to use to bind our loved ones to us as sealed, Forever-Families? As LDS we have got to shake the beehive mentality of the Insect-In-Us lest we become insensuous –not pertaining to, affecting, or addressing, the senses– in other words insensitive or “past feeling.” Think back to 89 when Boyd K. Packer spoke of the connection between the physical and spiritual senses. Let past feelings be unto you a “psst!” feeling; almost a still small voice from offstage, providing needful reminders and feeding you the right lines at the right time in the very moment when the antagonist would try to confound you. If the LDS do not listen up, if they remain PaST feeling; they should not be surprised when the SPiriT of the Lord is “offended and withdraws” feeling pissed. You “temple workers” should know by now –GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED. Feel and heal or feel his wrath!

“Ye are swift to do iniquity, to perpetuate inequity but slow to remember the Lord your God. Ye have seen an angel, but now ye only will see things from your angle, which is not even your own vantage-point in truth, but is one fed to you by mass media. False traditions handed down to you by liars/lawyers, legislators, reporters/repeaters and wizards which peep with Googley eyes and mutter by way of NSA NaySAyers. Your presidents and duly elected officers are soothsayers and truth forsakers, every one. Forked-tongue fakers have replaced the voice of God within you. He spake unto you; yea, ye have heard his voice from time to time; and he hath spoken unto you in a still small voice, but ye were past feeling, that ye could not feel his words; wherefore, he WILL now speak unto you like unto the voice of thunder, which doth cause the earth to shake as if it were to divide asunder.”

– 1 Nephi 17:45

Admit it….you are evil. For, unless you know of your capacity for wickedness you will remain blind to the evil you participate in every day. Admit it….you are GOOD. For, unless you feel your inner purity you will be unable to rise to the occasion and fight on the side of Christ. Do not suffer these phonies to make you feel like you need to partake of their refreshments, tid-bits of food set out on a small table off to the side of the main speakers as you come to hear their spiel, like one of those meetings we’ve all been invited to, trying to CONvince the attendees to invest in a time-share or multi-level marketing pyramid scheme etc. Do not partake of their cookies and Kool-aid. Their spiel is a spell. When life gives you lemons you can make lemonade and this is spelled with an “a-d-e”. But ‘Kool’ aint ‘Cool’ and their Kill-aid is to aid the enemy in killing your soul. Stop drinking it!

From the Collective Caucasian Consciousness rose the perceived need for the formation of a Church Correlation Committee and from there we have gone to the construction of City Creek Center, a multi-billion dollar shopping mall. Literally, it was Packer and Lee’s “missions” among the Native American peoples that convinced them that such Corral-ation was necessary. Both Ephraimite and Lamanite share in the same sad fate of the Navajo and Hopi people who got sucked into and suckered by those LDS Bishops who acted as if they would or could succor them. Indeed it will require the strength of both Ephraim and Manasseh. But the Navajo who has traded his birthright and accepted a false self-CON-cept of “Nada-Joe” in the BYU Indian Placement Program will have no place in Zion, any more than the Gentile who assumed that the brave sons of Apache and Lakota had to be numbered among the LDS instead of the other way around. We can sit back and watch the curvature of the CCC vortices continue until forming a 666 or we can decide to withdraw our spiritual energy today and let the whirlwind pass over like the destroying angel. We must understand that the separation of wheat from tares does not only take place among individuals. It begins within the individual. When you hear the ominous warning, “Upon MY house shall it begin!,” you should take it PERSONAL. Liken the scriptures unto yourselves. Pay close attention to the parable. The wheat does not remain in the church no matter how dark things get, but is gathered out from her. The tares are those who remain faithful to and active donating their time and talents in the Church to be set ablaze in the last day.

In the virtual world of the internet there is a virtual frenzy of information emerging from the history of the Mormon Church and swirling in the air. The wicked who fight against Zion have seized on the strong spirits of iconic figures like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in order to help themselves to their charisma and charms in preying upon the sheep. The wicked shepherds, as the Lord calls them in Ezekiel 34, are wolves in sheep’s clothing. If we will take the Lord’s warnings seriously we will understand that sheep do not wear clothing and thus the wolves become a symbol for other entities who appear as fellow brothers and sisters, but are anything but members of Christ’s fold of the human family. In the April Sessions of this year’s Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Stains, quotes and references to Spencer W. Kimball shot up to well over double the average as recorded over the last decade. Everywhere throughout Utah a group known as LDS Liberty is plastering the words of Pres. Kimball on billboards designed to call into question the war-like ways of the modern American. But nowhere will you hear “The Brethren” use Kimball’s words to seriously challenge the status-quo. The “Children of This World” have been just as Jesus described them, “wiser, in their generation, than the Children of Light.” But, just as boys eventually catch up to girls of their same age group in terms of mental and physical maturity, we, the Children of Light are NOW coming into our OWN to fight the NWO.

We know that prophets are not infallible and in fact make many mistakes. That is the risk one takes when investing his or her talents in service of the Master. We take a risk whenever we employ our agency. Praise be to Jesus for his Eternal At-One-Ment which rewards our risk by taking our faith and faithfulness in a few things and making us lords over many things. I have said to you, that Good and Evil are the ultimate opposites. Or is it Male and Female, Mother and Father?  Whosoever will not accept The Son, as the union of those extreme opposites is doomed to fall out of balance with the Holy Family. If I bear bold witness to you of the nature of spirit and its holy relationship to the flesh, declaring the repentance and purification of past Presidents of the Church; it is not to convince you of my specialness but of your own. We are all the great and noble ones who Father Abraham beheld in vision. It matters not whether we view ourselves as sinful creatures, worthy of whipping with a few stripes or as superior to our brethren, with that type of thinking we should all go to Hell. Jesus will not engage us in this sick role play of bondage and submission. But the Devil is more than happy to. Stop obsessing over these ringleaders with their CTR (Choose The Right) slogan. Start using your RTC (Right To Choose) or you will never have the guts to tell them to shut their gaping jaws of Hell.

We have got to learn to be prophets and prophetesses ourselves or we will not detect the false zion until it has overtaken us. I know I am not alone in the things I have seen in dreams and visions. Cities with pristine grounds-keeping, after the manner and feel of expensive University Campuses, where the “chosen” dwell, attending Temple and glorying in the things of this world, while on the outskirts, the poor struggle in slums. Troops in the streets, earthquakes, destruction and starvation, innocent children sacrificed, many of us have been shown this vision of the future over the last few years and we know that it is the vision that the secret combinations have devised and set in effect.

“The visions and blessings of old are returning,” as the hymn says. But we have got to learn to interpret them and to trust in God more than man. A return missionary in the Fresno, California North Stake by the name of Marc Bordner had been attending the Temple every day for a couple weeks when one day, unexpectedly, a vision of bright light broke upon him while in the dressing room. Over the next couple of days he had a series of visions at home and in the Temple. He could not decipher much of the meaning of many of the strange and wondrous signs he saw. Then he had a dream of the future in which severe food shortages threatened to devastate America. He said that the Bishop’s Storehouses of the Church became one of the only places where one could obtain food so they were converted into grocery stores. Logically these grocery stores generated immense amounts of revenue for the Church. Then Brother Bordner said that he saw, in his dream, a dollar sign with two strokes  and he watched as the two lines became one ($). Then Marc said that the Church founded a bank. And he saw the name of the bank and it was “THE BANK OF ABRAHAM”.

In contrast to the visions he had received, Marc seemed to be very clear on the meaning of his dream. To him it seemed very literal and he felt it was his duty to inform “The Brethren”. He spoke with his bishop who was very afraid when Marc started to tell of the visions he had seen in the Temple. The bishop interrupted Marc and told him that he should speak with the Stake President. An appointment was set up and when the Stake President heard Marc tell him about the visions and the dream, the Stake President became very upset with Marc. He told Marc to repent and to never speak of those things which he had seen to anyone. Marc at first was so impressed by the feelings and sensations accompanying his visions, that he did tell a few people. But since that time he has ceased talking about them and has begun to doubt them. He says he now thinks that he should just repent and forget about the whole thing. But how do you repent of receiving revelation? Why?

A few weeks before Marc confided in me about his personal revelation, I received an email from Daymon Smith a friend who worked in the Church Office Building. He told me that he had a contact who told him that the Church was piloting a new program in the Yucatan, that phased out Welfare, and substituted a more liberal lending policy (with interest) under GBH’s PERPETUAL DEBT-U-CATION FUND. Since I and much of my family were living in Mexico at the time, Daymon wanted to know if we had seen or heard any such things down there. We had indeed seen posters on bulletin boards and heard multiple invitations from local leaders to any and all interested youth, to attend meetings where the law of tithing would be discussed and where they could enroll in the programmes the Church offered them for funding their education. By the time that Daymon made this inquiry, however, none of us were attending regular Church meetings and had not for almost 4 months. The taboo of breaking away from the religious system was a strong force and we felt, at first, the need to not openly advertise the fact that we were “inactive”. But within a short time spiritual manifestations began to unfold before us and the whole family began an adventure in the spirit that continues to lead us to further light and knowledge. When our friend, Daymon, later asked us to help him out with an anthropological study he was doing, we had to politely decline to take precious time to interview Mexican Mormons. But the things our eyes and ears did take in were astounding to us. Almost like the servant of Helaman, who discovered and intercepted Kishkumen in his murderous objectives, we found ourselves open to information that would have normally been concealed from us. Our good friend, who owned a restaurant in a major port city, informed us of the visit of a “Mormon leader with his many wives and bodyguards.” We knew this man was not from the Salt Lake faction and later discovered that he had come from Colonia Juárez. Established in 1886, the colony was one of many colonies in Mexico settled by Mormon pioneers. This colonization was part of the larger LDS campaign to establish the State of Deseret while evading the anti-polygamy Edmunds Act of 1882. Mormon colonies outside of the U.S. proved financially important to the LDS Church during this time when the U.S. Federal government had confiscated much of Church holdings. There are many descendants of these colonies that have attained prominence in both countries, including Mitt Romney. In my younger years, in a history class in high-school, I felt the Spirit witness to me that the Roman Empire was a very literal representation of the “beast that was, and is not, and yet is” (Revelation 17). John Lennon spoke the truth when he said “Today America is the Roman Empire.” If Mitt is admitted into the presidency it is because the Unholy Union of Church and State is finally complete. It is a good cop/bad cop routine, of which even the Devil himself is growing weary. He is anxious to expose himself so that we may worship him more fully. But if the two are merging before our eyes it is only our perspective which has changed. The divisive effects of the forbidden fruit upon our psyche are beginning to wear off. When we come to, we will no longer see double but with a new clarity we can see the devil.

BETTER BRIGHAM

In parting, I have a few words to say to the wicked who fight against Zion. In parting truth from error I am under no illusions. I know that the two are related. We used to say “The Church is true”. Many of those who we once sustained as leaders labored for you, whether knowingly or unknowingly. The day after the ribbon cutting ceremony for the City Creek Center Shopping Mall, you released a movie called ‘The Hunger Games’ as a sneak preview of your awful plans and to garnish the power of the emotions and subconscious of the public. In it, you depicted a glistening city in the mountains called “The Capitol” where the ruling class brought poor youth (ages 12–18) from the surrounding countryside (divided into 12 districts) to compete in a gruesome televised battle to the death during the 74^th Annual Hunger Games. Anyone with eyes to see will notice the dilapidated handcarts strewn about the poverty stricken scenes. It requires little imagination to understand that you are targeting the Mormon people. You dressed the youth in washed out colors and styles vaguely similar to the FLDS but crossed with a preppy 1950s look. The looming grey stone buildings and the huge video screens broadcasting a not so fictional Pres. Snow’s address to the people. The 74^th Annual General Conference in April of 1904 was when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints finally capitulated once and for all to the demands of the Washington.

You proponents of the False Zion that was, and is not, and yet is to come, seem to take great offense when we lift up our voices to preach against unrighteous dominion. But the corporation is without feeling, so we know that we need not act as if we must spare its feelings. You have used the past transgressions of past Prophets, Presidents and other overly reverenced men, to convince us to lend support for the False Zion now sprawling across the landscape. But if the Salt has lost its savor then Salt Lake City turns to False Fake City Utah. Repentance is rethinking. Repentance is time travel. The Lord remembers Brigham’s sins no more. So, that which you fools are working for no longer matters nor does it exist. It is an illusion, a mirage, glaring on the road ahead of you and blinding your eyes. Upon arrival you will find that it has already been disassembled. We, the Children of Light, are realizing that the Kingdom of Heaven is within us, like Willow Ufgood and his fellow travelers upon arriving at the fabled kingdom of Tir Asleen, only to find it has been cursed, in the movie Willow.

The future only looks to be undetermined. The HOR-I-ZON is a place where the wHORe of Babylon and the ZONe of GOD appear to coincide in an eternal struggle. But the ((I)) of individual choice and agency stands between the two and is the One God who pronounces final judgment with the concept on the right hand and the CONcept on the left. You whorish workers of inequity appealed to our desire for community with the concept of “We The People” but we now realize that “w – e” were divided by the wHORe in the first place. A whore is someone who sells the CONcept of “Love for Money”. Such a transaction is impossible. After we have bought into that scam we do not like to admit to being duped. Thus you have been suck-cess-full in leading us in a soulless chorus of corporate sound-bites. This has been music to your ears. But we are changing our tune, and the ZION-NOIZ will be excruciating to your egos. In the chapel we sang “Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of Heaven.” In the office we said that “There’s no ‘I’ in t-e-a-m.” But there is a ‘ME’ in there. As we invest ourselves fully in the right side, we find that the ‘I’ remains intact as part of the ZION of Our God.

I have said that repentance is time travel. We saints press forward still, but we have now discovered the more full range of movement that the at-one-ment grants us. With truly forward thinkers like the Prophet of the Opening of this Last Dispensation, we are free to also move backwards. Through our repentance we have undone your chains of false unity. When we prevail it will be for you as when a hungry man dreameth, and, behold, he eateth; but he awaketh, and his soul is empty: so shall the multitude of all the nations be, that fight against mount Zion. (Isaiah 29:8) So much for your 10 year and 100 year plans. While among us in the flesh, Brigham seemed to be under the impression that God only could “organize and build” whereas the Devil’s “whole study was to destroy” (DBY, p. 69). This misunderstanding has been exploited by Zion’s enemies. 10 years after Packer’s mischief, lawyer, Dalin H. Oaks, pulled a fast one over the pulpit. He quoted B.Y. and then added, “Whatever builds people up serves the cause of the Master(?), and whatever tears people down serves the cause of the adversary. We support one cause or the other every day, by our patronage (“Powerful Ideas,” General Conference, Oct. of 1995). Powerful ideas indeed! But the Holy Trinity is more than a Father & Sons Construction Company.You lack a full understanding of the Godhead! If you want your version of zion, don’t worry, you shall have it. Go ahead!  Have joy in it while you can. But be aware that afterwards we will bring up the rearward and your evil will be rewarded with evil. Generator Operator Destroyer (GOD) lives inside us. So make sure you stay on our good side. Stay out of our way we will stay out of yours. Paul, the original badass apostle, stated clearly that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood,” So we have stopped fighting bodies – especially our own. We feel the kingdom of God within us and we know if we stand in its way then we will be swept aside in the destruction. You should know that the same goes for you, you den of vipers. Do not forget the second part to Paul’s words. We DO fight against the rulers, against the authorities, even general authorities, against the powers, the cosmic powers over this darkness presently filling the world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms, yea the spiritual wickedness in high places. Those “high places” are first and foremost in our own heads atop our bodies. We call power down from the higher to the lower chakras to serve God’s purposes. From there, the stone rolls forth into all corners of this sphere as we invoke the spirit of Capt. Moroni to pull down power.

“Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.”

–     Matt. 15:13

So to all my enemies I say, “PLUCK YOU!” Pluck all the phony friends of Zion out by the roots. All the plants from the CFR, FBI, CES, COB, BYU……pluck em! These are the words of Brigham Young to modern-day Mormons and Masons, and to the whole world. Oh how I loved dancing in my day. DANCE, my people! Dance with the Devil to his downfall! It is all a dance. The battle is the Lord’s. Let us then dance onto the battle field rejoicing like the Israelites under King Jehoshaphat. Let us be carried away in the righteous rhythm that beat in the indomitable hearts and pumped through the veins of the stippling warriors; who did not doubt what their mothers knew. But the time has come to transcend even our dear earthly biological mothers if necessary – to answer the rallying cry of The Son to the defense of our goddess our HEAVENLY MOTHER EARTH. We have the honor of being numbered among the remnant and assisting in the building of a true Zion. Make no mistake, those who consider themselves our enemies are coming out of the woodwork. These enemies in secret chambers seeketh your lives. You hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but you know not the hearts of men in your own land. I know of whereof I speak. We say of Brother Joseph, and it is true, that, mingling with gods he can plan for his brethren. Well, mingling with Masons one may also plan for his brethren. Shortly the wickedness of men will reveal these things unto you by their wickedness, in a manner which shall speak in your ears with a voice louder than that which shall shake the earth; but if ye are prepared ye shall not fear. Fear not the devil worshipers. In setting one manifestation of God above all others, the Luciferians make the same mistake that most of these Sectarians do. The joke is on them. For, though they suppose themselves in the service of Satan, they will one day see that the devil himself works for Almighty God.

WATCH OUT BITCHES…… BRIGHAM’S BACK!

Deep Waters: Having their Hearts Knit Together in Unity and in Love

DISCLAIMER:  This post has been tagged Deep Waters because is discusses human sexuality.  

I personally do not believe avoiding the topic of sex or that teaching sex-negative messages is advisable.  I think the hope is that doing so can keep people from having sex — but all that it appears to have done is keep people from having good sex:  From asking questions about it, from communicating with their partners about it — and from being fulfilled by it.  

I also think avoiding it or teaching a negative/shame-based view of it blurs the line between sex and rape by making all human sexuality this one, undifferentiated mass of “bad”.  If we’re taught to repress ourselves sexually, it doesn’t just go away.  The “uncontrollable” horny boy and the “good girl” syndrome are all caused by our current approach of teaching young men and women about sex.  It leads to either rampant breaking of the law of chastity — or depression and unhappy sexuality within marriage [which is why an LDS couple wrote And They Were Not Ashamed], both of which are exactly what Satan wants us doing.

In any event — there’s the disclaimer, so now I’ll start.

The unity of marriage:

Adam and Eve were married before they were ever aware of their nakedness or their sexuality [see, Intimacy as the Opposite of Sin].  The marriage union was in response to loneliness – not lust.

The sexual union is the chief means of physically expressing an existing connection of Love between two people.  Sex for both procreation and pleasure is not unique to being human — it is common to all other animals.  Our unique experience in sexuality is the bonding or social adhesion between two people.

When acting as animals, we may experience the two dynamics common to all life [procreation and pleasure], we conceive children and it can feel good – but only when acting as humans may be partake of the third [or ideally all three at once].

Reproduction and sexual union are distinct events:

The genitals have three distinct purposes:

• Urination
• Reproduction
• Unification

Thus, they may be considered as conduits of three things:

• Nitrogenous waste
• Reproductive gametes
• Social adhesion

These three are all physiologically distinct from each other.  Sexual union and reproduction are considered just as separate from each other as reproduction is from urination.

• The testes and the ovaries/uterus [reproductive organs] are not the ones involved in the sexual union
• Just as the urethra is not the organ involved in producing new life

The pleasure of sex arises entirely within one’s own body.  This is why the pleasure of it can be generated in solitude.  Thus, this aspect is better considered as the sequel to a sexual union, or the end-result of one.

Disconnected the pleasure from the union:

Often, a person who is going out for a “hook-up” is said to be “lookin’ for a woman” or “out to get a man”.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

A woman is exactly what a man like that does not want.  What he wants is the pleasure for which a woman happens to be a desirable apparatus for obtaining.  If a bona-fide union with the other person is not the end you are seeking – then he/she is just the means to the end you’re really seeking, your own pleasure [just as if you were producing the pleasure in solitude].

This is not Love.  Actual union did not take place.  The other person will be regarded about the same as a drug addict would regard the used syringe after he is done injecting.

and Amnon said unto Tamar

bring the food into the chamber
that I may eat from thine hand

and Tamar took the cakes which she had made
and brought them into the chamber
to Amnon her brother
and when she had brought them unto him to eat
he took hold of her
and said unto her

come lie with me my sister

and she answered

nay
my brother do not force me
for no such thing ought to be done in israel
do not commit this folly
and what of me?
whither shall I cause my shame to go?
and as for thee
thou shalt be as one of the fools in israel
now therefore
I pray thee
speak unto the king
for he will not withhold me from thee

howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice
but being stronger than she
forced her
and had sex with her

then Amnon hated her exceedingly
so that the hatred wherewith he hated her 
was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her
and Amnon said unto her

arise
be gone

[2 Samuel 13:10-15]

Union is a “sacred-act” — or “sacrament”:

The “sacrament” of sex arises from the fact that, in Love, we are not merely our Self anymore.  We become representatives or proxy of the universal Male and Female.  In the temple, we are considered as if we were Adam and Eve.  In the pagan mysteries, the man acts in the role of the Father Sky-god and the woman the Mother Earth-goddess.  All that is masculine and feminine in the whole universe – all that exerts and all that yields – all form and matter, all spirit and element – is momentarily focused and present in that singular event [see, Masculinity, Femininity, and Gender].

The word “naked” originates as the past tense of the verb for peeling or stripping – meaning it referred to something that had undergone a “naking”.

In this sense, each of us are more our Self when we are dressed.  The naked person is not one who has abstained from wearing clothing – but is one who [for a specific reason] has undergone the specific process of removing clothes.  Nudity emphasizes the common human image we all bear [or would that be bare, pun intended].

Like the story of Inanna descending to the realm of the dead, passing the seven gates, removing an article of clothing at each [or Mary, being freed from seven spirits] – we strip off all that it means to be our Self, and put on nakedness as a ceremonial robe to re-enter the garden as the universal He and She [Adam and Eve] to re-enact the drama of creation.

Sacred symbolism in LDS temple liturgy:

In BiV’s post at Wheat & Tares, The Sacred Embrace as Five Points of Fellowship, she describes how [before this aspect of the ceremony was removed] the initiates were not allowed to enter the presence of the Lord until they had conversed with Him embraced in the Five Points of Fellowship.  The closeness symbolized in that act was to represent our oneness with God — a complete embrace of our Self into Him — and was presented as the way through which we all passed from death into celestial Life.

The Five Points of Fellowship were described as:

• inside of right foot by the side of right foot
• knee to knee
• breast to breast
• hand to back
• mouth to ear

In Wicca, there is a ritual of the “Fivefold Kiss”, which is another form of the Five Points of Fellowship.  The ritual involves kissing five parts of the body — each kiss accompanied by a blessing.

• Blessed be thy feet, that have brought thee in these ways
• Blessed be thy knees, that shall kneel at the sacred altar
• Blessed be thy womb / phallus, without which we would not be
• Blessed be thy breasts, formed in beauty / breast, formed in strength
• Blessed be thy lips, that shall utter the Sacred Names.

Greeting or saluting [aspazomai, “to draw into one’s self“] with a “holy kiss” was an early Christian practice referenced in the epistles of Paul [Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20, 2 Cor. 13:12, 1 Thes. 5:26].

And not only did the Five Points of Fellowship get cut from the LDS temple ceremony — but so did the complete ritual blessing of the naked body done part-by-part:

• The head, ears, eyes, nose, lips, neck, shoulders, back, breast, solar plexus, arms and hands, genitals, and legs and feet.

The ritual established by Joseph Smith was performed in a bathtub — washing with water and spiced whiskey [strong drink for the purpose of ritual washing, D&C 89:7] and anointing with olive oil:

Oliver Cowdery gave even more detail about one of these temple preparation meetings, noting how the Latter-day Saints followed Old Testament patterns in washing and anointing priests for temple service.

Oliver wrote that he met with Joseph and others at the Prophet’s house:

“And after pure water was prepared, called upon the Lord and proceeded to wash each other’s bodies, and bathe the same with whiskey, perfumed with cinnamon. This we did that we might be clean before the Lord for the Sabbath, confessing our sins and covenanting to be faithful to God. While performing this washing with solemnity, our minds were filled with many reflections upon the propriety of the same, and how the priests anciently used to wash always before ministering before the Lord.”

Admittedly, these acts were obviously cut from our temple rituals because participants felt uncomfortable with the intimacy they suggest.  This was especially the case for women — who were not allowed to have priestesses ministering at the veil ritual for them, but had to be received by a male priest to whom they were not married.

Much like the intimacy suggested in the ritual washing and anointing of Jesus’ feet by Mary [without which He was not prepared for His death and burial] …

then Mary took a pound of ointment of spikenard
very costly
and anointed the feet of Jesus
and wiped his feet with her hair
and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment

[John 12:3]

and did wipe them with the hairs of her head
and kissed his feet
[…] Jesus said

seest thou this woman?

[Luke 7:38, 44]

she hath done what she could
she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying
amen I say unto you
wheresoever this gospel shall be preached
throughout the whole world
this also that she has done
shall be spoken of for a memorial of her

[Mark 14:8-9]

… many felt some “indignation within themselves” when presented with such ritual acts that were quite sexual in nature.

The reason these sacred acts were removed:

These rituals are inherently intimate in nature because they express the unity between men-and-women, humanity-and-God — that the gospel is designed to achieve.  Zion requires great intimacy and connection among the body of believers who comprise it.  The church currently lacks this intimacy and connection — so these rituals felt strange for most of the people who participated in them.

However, the leadership addressed the genuine feelings of discomfort in the wrong way.  Instead of getting at the reason why we all still feel like strangers at church and are not comfortable with the level of intimacy required to be comfortable in the temple rituals — they just axed the intimate parts out of the ceremony.

The only way to achieve Zion, or even a Zion-like atmosphere at church, is for the men and women to all be connected to each other through covenants.  As it stands, we are connected 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 conversations [and actions] will never approach the level of intimacy and sharing required of that ideal.

Knitting the estranged back together:

The experience of ecstasy [ekstasis, “to stand outside yourself”], the complete unification of two people expressed through the sexual union — is what exists beyond the concepts of separateness, beyond the concepts of God-and-humans, Self-and-neighbor, man-and-woman, or any of the other this-and-that’s we might split existence into.

This is the transcendent “mystical experience” present in nearly every religion or spiritual path.  One might immediately think of the New-Agey, Eastern religions [Zen, Yoga, Hinduism, etc.], but even the big three Abrahamic faiths have their own ecstatic, mystical sects [Kabbalah, Sufism, Gnosticism].

The fervor for which some Christian writers have described being given over to the ecstatic worship of God border on the sexual:

Only in God is everything pure, beautiful, and holy; fortunately we can dwell in Him even in our exile!  But my Master’s happiness is mine, and I surrender myself to Him so He can do whatever He wants in me.

[Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity]

I saw an angel beside me toward the left side, in bodily form. I saw in his hands a long dart of gold, and at the end of the iron there seemed to me to be a little fire. This I thought he thrust through my heart several times, and that it reached my very entrails. As he withdrew it, I thought it brought them with it, and left me all burning with a great love of God. So great was the pain, that it made me give those moans; and so utter the sweetness that this sharpest of pains gave me, that there was no wanting it to stop, nor is there any contenting of the soul with less than God.

[Saint Teresa of Avila]

A common monoplot in all human myth is this sacred act of the interplay between the aspects of God considered as a man and as a woman.  Their interplay manifested in:  Birth, Puberty, Marriage, Sexual Union, Death — cycling back to New Birth [or Resurrection].  It has been considered in various ways across human culture:

• YHVH and His covenant people Israel
• Christ, the bridegroom and His Beloved, the church
• Jesus and Mary Magdalene
• Sky-God and Earth-Goddess
• Inanna and Dumuzi
• Isis and Osiris
• Yin and Yang
• Shiva and Shakti
• Krishna and Radha
• Pan and Selene

But right now – The Father and Mother are estranged. The exalted Man sits up in the sky upon the throne. While the Woman is locked away in the tower.  As such, they can never be friends.

The Mother is nature and all of the physical elements – but that’s become everything we are supposed to deny in order to be “holy”.  Most religions go about separating the very things that is the purpose of religion to bring together – body and spirit, man and woman, sexuality and holiness, humanity and divinity.

I think people are scared of natural because it doesn’t seem as “self-sacrificing” — like the Catholic priest who feels his life of sexual restriction is “more holy” than a family-life.  Or a Buddhist who would run away to “find himself” on a mountain top, leaving anything “worldly” behind.  Or the monogamist who would insist that a polygamist ought to “deny their natural man” and get with one-on-one monogamy instead of a natural state of polygamous families.

But “natural” and “supernatural” need not be considered as separate things.  Let us bring back together the things that shouldn’t ever have been separated in the first-place – or perhaps it would be to realize that they were never separate in the first-place.  Just that a hardened mind, conceived in sin, perceives this-and-that, good-and-evil, heaven-and-earth, mental-and-physical, spirit-and-flesh, gods-and-humans, etc. as these separate and exclusive things – and our minds just need to be soften, or broken.

Next Article by Justin: The Concept of Race, in the Gospel

Previous Article by Justin:  Intimacy as the Opposite of Sin

[When Things Get Broken …]

CHI #5

CHI #5

Section 4 deals with missionary service. There are a tremendous amount of procedures and regulations which are used to enable the church to have 50,000 plus full time missionaries serving around the world. I am not going to pick through all of the minutia to try and judge what is scriptural and what is not. The majority of full time missionaries are young men aged 19 to 22. The guidelines address them and their situations especially.

There is something which caught my attention. Section 4.10 is under the heading of temple recommends. This is concerning the issuing of a temple recommend as the missionary is released. The procedure is different for the young missionaries as for senior missionaries. For young missionaries the procedure is when a missionary finishes his 2 year mission the mission president interviews him and takes his temple recommend. He is then given a recommend which is dated to expire in 90 days.

The CHI directs the missionary’s stake president and bishop to interview him, commit him to live his covenants and maintain his standards, get him a calling and monitor his progress at adjusting back to normal life. And then when they are convinced he is doing well, and being righteous they issue him a regular recommend good for two years.

I will give the church leadership total benefit of the doubt that they have good reason for this rule. Obviously there must be a problem in this regard.

Jesus said, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”
I would say if a young man has truly just spent two years serving Jesus Christ he is not going to be at risk of committing transgressions to jeopardize his worthiness. Truly serving Christ is a good tree. It will not bring forth evil fruit.

What is happening? What is the corrupt tree which brings forth this fruit? I won’t try to answer that in detail. But there is obviously a corrupt tree somewhere. And to simply say that ’21 year old men are just that way’ or speaking the judgmental slur more overtly to accuse them of being inherently disposed to do evil, will truly hide the reality of the problem.

I believe there are at least two problems. First the rules missionaries are expected to follow are unnatural and external. Being cowered into obeying a set of restrictive rules by an organization that keeps close tabs on your behavior, I mean in some cases missionaries are required to call their leader every night to report they are in bed, is not righteousness. Righteousness is a choice freely made. Since it is not an exercise of agency it does not produce the blessings of being righteous.

Secondly what do we really think we are doing? God makes men and women a certain way. I believe 18 years of age is the time of maximum levels of sex hormones in a male (in some countries young men can serve missions starting at 18). He is the most fit and most eager to be wed. And we tell him to deny all these God given signals and become a monk while still moving among everyday life for two years. It is a recipe for tragedy. And I don’t mean just the tragedy of committing sexual sin on his mission. When you deny a healthy God given desire you must numb yourself to a sacred part of your soul. That does damage to your heart and mind. You think Satan doesn’t laugh his spiritual hind end off seeing all the damage which may extend for years for hundreds of thousands of young men?

I had never considered this a problem till I began looking at the reality of life. I was like many people in the church trying very hard to repent of being what God had made me to be. I was lucky to have the mission president I had so that my experience was probably much better. Yet it still did a number on my heart and mind.

From talking with other men who have served a mission I have seen that my two year mission was a departure from the norm. Not because I was so good and pure. I think I was as others my age. My mission president however was radically different in his views and actions towards us missionaries. He did not allow the white bible (missionary rulebook) to destroy his role as judge in Israel. On our mission the temperature got hot in the summer. He was asked what was the policy on wearing suit coats; optional after the 1st of May or anytime the temperature was above 90° or what? He said Elder I look at it this way, when it is hot and uncomfortable to have suit coat, take it off. And that was the rule.

We had Saturday as our preparation day. Our mission president was asked what were we allowed to do from Friday night at 9:30 till Saturday at 5 pm. He said Elders you are Melchizedek priesthood holders, you have made covenants with the Lord in His house. I expect you act like it.

That was his attitude toward the white bible and Salt Lake gave him static for it. We were one of the highest baptizing missions in the church and I know of myself pressure tactics and baseball baptisms were not practiced. We were not pressured or taught to have unreasonable goals for the number of discussions or baptisms in a month.

As I said my experience seems to be an exception to the normal missionary’s experience. I invite those with a different experience to comment.

For me adjustment back to non missionary life was nothing. A close friend of our family a few years my senior noted my relaxed attitude just one week after being home. He said, “Aren’t you nervous like you should be doing some missionary work right now?” Nope I wasn’t.

We might do well ask ourselves if it is wise to have a young man, who’s physical creation has prepared him be getting married at 18 or 19, deny those God given desires and become a monk for two years. What damage does it do to force ourselves to be numb to deep and sacred feelings? Is it in accordance with the scriptures? Is there anyone out there who has memories of how this affected them?

In case some may be thinking otherwise I am quite sure there was only one case of a missionary’s having to be sent home from our mission in the three years we had that president. And this was back in the days when we had about 450 missionaries per mission.

Wives, follow your husbands! – Patriarchy, androcracy and the egalitarian tribe

My text for this post are the following scriptural passages, written by the apostles Peter and Paul:

Peter: Wives, be in subjection to obedient and disobedient husbands

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conduct of the wives; while they behold your chaste conduct coupled with fear.  Let your adorning be not that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and wearing of gold, or putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.  For after this manner in old times the holy women, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands; even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord; whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do will, and are not afraid with any amazement. (1 Peter 3: 1-6 Inspired Version)

Paul: Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. (Colossians 3: 18 Inspired Version)

Paul: Wives, your husband is your head, submit and subject yourselves to him

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11: 3 Inspired Version)

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the Savior of the body.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5: 22-24 Inspired Version)

Androcracy

Androcracy is “rulership by the men.”  (From Webster’s 3rd Unabridged International Dictionary.)

Although there is little doubt that biblical patriarchy existed, what Peter and Paul taught under the gospel framework in the above scriptural passages was theological androcracy, not biblical patriarchy.  Patriarchy is androcracy with the added dimension of father-right.  Here are the definitions of patriarchy and patriarch, as well as matriarchy, from the same dictionary.

Patriarch

A patriarch is “the father and ruler of a family or tribe; one ruling his family or descendants by paternal right; –usually applied to heads of families in ancient history, esp. in Biblical and Jewish history to those who lived before Moses.”  The word comes from patri-, meaning father + arch, meaning a leader, chief.

Patriarchy

A state or stage of social development characterized by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family in both domestic and religious functions, the legal dependence of wife, or wives, and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line.  Patriarchy is distinguished from androcracy, or the physical and social supremacy of men in primitive society, patriarchy being held to involve, besides such supremacy, father right (adaptation of the Ger. Vaterrecht), or descent and inheritance in the male line.

Matriarchy

A state or stage of social evolution in which descent is reckoned only in the female line, all children belonging to the mother’s clan.  Such a system increases the mother’s social and political importance, making her the head of the family and the guardian of religious rites and traditions.  Hence, with many writers matriarchy means not only descent reckoned through the female line (called uterine descent, or cognation), but also rulership by woman.  Others, however, discriminate the rights and customs characteristic of uterine descent, as mother-right (adaptation of G. Mutterrecht), from the political or domestic supremacy of woman, known as gynecocracy, or gynocracy, “rulership by women,” or metrocracy, “rulership by mothers.”  Matriarchy in the narrow sense (that is, as “mother-right”) is found among many primitive peoples; whether it ever existed in the broader sense is disputed.

The priesthood is patterned after the egalitarian tribe

We modern LDS tend to view the the gospel in terms of only patriarchy and androcracy, but this view is only held because we are not numbered in functioning tribes.  The gospel, when lived tribally, encompasses patriarchy, matriarchy, androcracy, gynocracy, father-right and mother-right.  When taken out of the tribal context, some aspects of it manifest or dominate more, while others are suppressed, depending on the non-tribal culture we find ourselves in.  The gospel can be adapted to the cultures and societies of the world, but it is designed to be lived in egalitarian tribes.

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.

Tribal bishops

A man married to a woman acts in the office of a bishop.  The office of a bishop “is in administering all temporal things” (D&C 107: 68) and in being a common judge.  This is the duty of a husband, to provide the temporal (material) necessities of life for his wife and children, and to sit as a judge in his family.

His wife, as his helpmeet, may act as his counselor in matters of temporal administration or in judgment of family affairs, or may simply defer all judgment to him, allowing him to sit as a literal descendant of Aaron, without counselors.

The tribal bishop (with the single counselor) is superior to the church bishop because there is a covenantal bond between bishop and counselor.

Tribal bishoprics

When a man is married to two wives, the arrangement corresponds to a bishopric with two counselors.  The two wives are not equal to the man, just as a bishopric’s counselors are not equal to the bishop: he is the wives’ bishop (with responsibility to provide temporal salvation) and they are the husband’s counselors.  Because of the covenantal bonds between the man and his wives, this marriage bishopric is superior to a church bishopric.

Common judge

A husband in a tribe sits as a common judge of the wife with whom he lives and their children.

Higher judges the lower; lower judges the higher

The gospel principle set forth in the Book of Mormon of a system of higher and lower judges, the lower one judging the higher and the higher judging the lower, is based upon ancient tribunals (tribe-unals), or tribal judgment systems.

Higher and lower judges

When a man has more than one wife, his wives form a quorum or council of lower judges. Because common consent must reign supreme, the combined decision of his wives upon his head is the end of controversy concerning him. If a husband, a common judge, acts up the lower judges (the wives) can convene to decide the issue.

When a woman has more than one husband, her husbands form a quorum or council of higher judges. If she acts up, the matter can be taken before a council of her husbands, for judgment.

These are the true “courts of love,” for all these people are married to each other and are under covenant to love one another. They are superior to church higher, lower and common judges, as well as church higher and lower courts of love. The church courts are mere imitations of the tribal courts.

A jury of peers

In an egalitarian tribal system, the jury of peers consists of the husbands of your wife, or the wives of your husband. The modern jury of peers is inferior to the tribal peers, because there is no mechanism to link the peers together. In the tribal system, they all have a vested interest that justice and mercy be done, for they are all linked together through a web of marriage covenants.

Priesthood councils, presidencies and quorums

Every conceivable priesthood council, presidency and quorum is found within the tribal quorums and councils of husbands. Three husbands of one wife form a presidency. Twelve husbands of one wife who are free to travel, form a quorum of apostles (sent ones). Seven husbands of one wife who are free to travel, form a presidency of seventy. Seventy husbands who are free to travel form a quorum of seventy. 12, 24, 48, or 96 husbands form quorums of deacons, teachers, priests and elders.

The United Order

A woman who has multiple husbands essentially is married to multiple bishops, meaning she is married to men who are responsible for her temporal welfare. Her husbands form a bishopric quorum, or quorum of bishops, in which they share what they have with each other and with their wives and children, so that all have everything common. They are bound to the all the wives by covenant to care for them and thus are bound (or linked through her) to each other, also. In other words, this is the what the United Order is patterned after. The United Order binds men together by covenant to care for the poor and the needy and to dispose of their material possessions in their behalf.

Androcracy and patriarchy are found in egalitarian tribes

The egalitarian tribe is what Zion is based upon, nevertheless, an egalitarian tribe may or may not use the gospel as its tribal law. Just as a husband is free to “obey not the word” of God, so an entire egalitarian tribe is free to adopt or reject the gospel. But regardless of whether a husband obeys the word of God or rejects it, the gospel, being patterned after the egalitarian tribe, requires that wives submit or subject themselves to their husbands. This is a manifestation of androcracy. The husband is the common judge, the bishop. When there are multiple husbands, they constitute the high council, or higher judges.

When one husband lives with the wife and the other husbands live with other wives, the children of the one wife that lives with the one husband may be counted as posterity of the one husband, even though any of the husbands may have fathered the children and despite all husbands treating them as their own flesh and blood. But on the tribal records, all children may be written down as being fathered by the one husband living with the wife. This is a manifestation of patriarchy.

Gynocracy and matriarchy are also found in egalitarian tribes

When acting as a quorum or council, as a court, as a jury of peers, or when giving or withholding consent, the wives manifest gynocracy. All the children born to a woman are posterity of that woman and her lineage is recorded on tribal records. This is a manifestation of matriarchy or mother-right (uterine descent). If the woman lives with multiple husbands and not just one of her husbands, then uterine descent is the preferred method of recording lineage.

When a woman marries a man from another clan or tribe, she remains with her clan and her husband leaves his own clan to join with her clan, not vice versa. The gospel imitates this tribal function by instructing the man to leave his father and mother and become one flesh with his wife.

Gospel checks and balances

The gospel provides checks and balances to abuses that may result in relationships between men and women.  Although women are instructed to obey their husbands, even if the husbands are not themselves obeying the gospel, the law of common consent still applies.  Also, men are instructed to love their wives and to use only persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, unfeigned love, kindness and pure knowledge to influence their wives.  If any husband attempts to maintain his power or influence over his wives by virtue of his title of husband, or if he attempts to exercise control or unrighteous dominion over his wives, his authority as a husband is null and void and his wife is justified in withdrawing her consent from him.  But as long as that husband follows the gospel-prescribed way of influencing people, even if the man himself is an unbeliever, or was a believer in the gospel but has since departed from it, or even if the man believes in the gospel but his views of the gospel have become markedly different than the wife’s, she is still bound by the gospel to obey him.

Proper protocol: go through covenant lines of authority

Sometimes a woman is tempted to by-pass her husband and his divinely appointed leadership and go to an ecclesiastical (church) authority for direction.  She may feel justified to talk to her bishop, or perhaps even to her stake president, about her husband, because she feels that his beliefs about, and actions concerning, the gospel are incorrect.  She may feel that he is breaking his gospel covenants in some way, shape or form (even though he himself may not see them as broken).  Or, perhaps he no longer believes in the gospel.  Because of this, she may see him as a sinner and as a man no longer worthy of following, submitting and subjecting herself to.

If she goes to see the bishop or stake president for guidance and direction, by-passing her husband and tattle-telling on him, she will be guilty of committing sin.  Men and women are free to believe what they will and act however they want.  They are free to accept the gospel, modify the gospel or reject it outright.  As long as a husband is following the proper manner of influencing a wife, in other words, as long as there is no unrighteous dominion, the wife is to obey the husband.  That is the gospel law.  He can start drinking and smoking and swearing, he can start growing a beard and stop wearing ties, he can do all sorts of things that his wife may think are incompatible with the gospel, but as long as he is not exercising unrighteous dominion, she is bound by the gospel law to submit to his authority.

The reason why there is no gospel justification in holding a bishop or stake president’s authority above a husband’s is because the Lord considers the authority of a husband as carrying more weight than the authority of a bishop or stake president.  The bishop or stake president is under no covenant relationship with the man’s wife.  They have no vested interest in her.  They have not become one with her.  The husband, though, has become one with her and has a vested interest in her, and she in him.  Even without the priesthood, the husband still acts in the tribal office of bishop and common judge.  The Lord looks upon him as if he were an un-ordained priest, as if he possessed priesthood.  And the Lord fully recognizes the tribal authority of that man.

When a wife goes to a priesthood holder who has no covenantal relationship to her, for leadership and guidance, she shows by her actions that she has no respect for her husband’s tribal office, nor for the gospel law or their marriage covenant.  She disrespects both her husband and the Lord.

Proper priesthood protocol is to go through the lines of authority.  The first line of authority that a wife has access to is her husband with whom she is living.  This line is created by her covenantal relationship to him.  Her next lines of authority are all her other husbands, who do not live with her, but who also have covenantal relationships with her.  The next line of authority would be the wives of her husband, what some call the “sister wives.”  These wives are linked to her through covenants they have with her husband.  An ecclesiastical leader, who has no covenantal ties to her, is the very last line of authority she should resort to, and only after all tribal lines have been exhausted.

Not submitting is iniquity

Again, if a woman in such a situation, whose husband is not engaging in unrighteous dominion, does not submit to her husband, she commits the sin of rebellion and treason by ratting out his beliefs and actions which she believes are incompatible with the gospel to an ecclesiastical authority who has no covenantal relationship to her.  It is disloyalty and betrayal on her part, akin to cheating, by revealing family matters essentially to strangers and is unbecoming of a saint.  It also will create even greater problems in her family as now the ecclesiastical leader will often go on a witch-hunt and interfere in their covenantal connection.

If there are beliefs or actions that the wife doesn’t like, she and the husband need to work it out among themselves, and not drag persons who are not in a covenantal relationship with either one of them into the matter.  If there is genuine iniquity, it needs to be confessed to the offending party (the wife or the husband) and then forgiveness and reconciliation between the two needs to occur.  Ecclesiastical authorities are only to be called in for cases of unrepentant sins in which the offending party refuses to confess to a sin witnessed by two or more persons.  But in most cases a spouse should never testify against another spouse.  That would be an act of betrayal.

Speaking in terms of plasma theology, this would be like two planets linked to each other through a plasma column (the marital covenant) and one of them moves toward, or attracts, a third planet that has no plasma column linking it to the first two planets.  The resulting plasma interactions will cause disruption of the plasma column found between the first two planets.

Paul’s words

In a gospel-centered marriage, the man and woman have covenanted with each other, making them equals.  They have also covenanted with Christ, which binds both of them individually to Him.  This makes a triangle, with the husband, wife and Christ each taking a corner.

Paul’s words, though, about God being the head of Christ, Christ being the head of man, and man being the head of woman, creates a straight line of authority (a plasma column) : creating a patriarchy or androcracy.  What needs to be kept in mind when reading Paul is that this is only one frame of the picture.  If the full, tribal picture is not seen, if only the one frame is observed, it is understandable that the gospel may be understood as containing only patriarchy.  With only the single frame to see, patriarchy or androcracy dominates the view.

Paul’s words, then, must be viewed in light of the complete, tribal picture, that also contains matriarchy and gynocracy.  This makes it plain that the gospel is egalitarian in nature.  We cannot clearly see it now because we are not currently living in egalitarian tribes.

The head is the chief, which is the servant

In the gospel, the chief ones are to be the servants, by entrance into the priesthood.  So, when Paul says that the man is the head of the woman, it is because he is meant to be the servant of the woman.

But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.  But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: and whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.  For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Mark 10: 42-45, emphasis mine.)

Here is the same scripture, re-worded a little different:

But Jesus called them, and said to them,

You [Twelve] know that they who are appointed to be -archs(a) over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.  But among you [Twelve] there shall be anarchy(b); whoever desires to become great among you [Twelve], shall be minister of you [Twelve].  And whoever of you [Twelve] desires to become the chiefest, shall be servant of all.  For even the Son of Man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.  (Mark 10: 42-45, emphasis mine.)

(a) “-arch” and “arch” defined: -arch Function: noun combining form. Etymology: Middle English -arche, from Anglo-French & Late Latin & Latin; Anglo-French -arche, from Late Latin -archa, from Latin -arches, -archus, from Greek -arches, -archos, from archein, to begin, rule. : ruler : leader  (Taken from Merriam-Webster’s Online Collegiate Dictionary.)  -arch [Gr. archos chief, commander, archein to rule. See ARCH, a.]  A suffix meaning a ruler, as in monarch (a sole ruler). arch, a. 1. Chief; eminent; greatest; principal.  (Taken from Webster’s 3rd Unabridged International Dictionary.)

(b) anarchy Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler.  (Taken from Merriam-Webster’s Online Collegiate Dictionary.)

So, whoever wanted to be great, was not be be great (they were to be the least) and whoever wanted to be first (chief, principal), was to be last (servant of all).  The priesthood, then, is not an archy, but an anarchy.  The order is reversed: whoever wants to be first must be last.  There are to be no rulers, only servants.

Follow the Brethren

Although many LDS find this annoying saying (“follow the brethren”) to be counter-productive to a gospel-enlightened life, it actually does have some basis in truth.  In a tribal setting, in which a wife is married to multiple husbands, her husbands form a tribal quorum of “brethren.”  If these men hold the Holy Priesthood, they also form a priesthood quorum.  It is this quorum of husbands, or council of husbands, that the wife must follow.  When meeting together to decide issues pertaining to this woman and her children, they form a council of husbands.

In the church, the saying “follow the brethren” applies to quorums, or men who hold priesthood together as a quorum, and specifically to the highest two quorums in the church: the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

In a tribe, the highest quorum that has anything to do with a wife, being bound to her by covenant, is the quorum of her husbands.  If she is in a monogamous relationship, then she is to follow her “brother” (singular husband) until such time as she gets another husband.  So, the only “brother” or “brethren” that the gospel requires to be followed (by women) is the council of husbands.  For the men, we are to “follow the sisters”, meaning that quorum or council of our wives that decides issues in tribal settings.

Conclusion

A tribal view of the gospel helps us to see it for what it really is.  There is no aspect of the gospel that we need be ashamed of.  It is completely egalitarian in nature and divine.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Body modesty is not a principle of the gospel

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

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

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

What I teach my children

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

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

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

Heavenly Father’s rule of modesty

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

Everything above and beyond that standard is man-made.

Moroni the naked angel

Said Joseph of the angel Moroni:

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

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

Isaiah, the naked prophet

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

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

Our first parents naked

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

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

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

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

Satan did.

Why Satan told our first parents to clothe themselves

I think Bette Davis said it best:

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

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

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

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

The Lord looks upon the heart

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

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

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

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

Not all Mormons are prudes

For example:

LDS Skinny Dippers Forum

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

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

The audience of all modesty talks

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

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

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

Legal public nudity is coming soon to a city near you

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

GoTopless.org

Here are some quotes from the web site:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK

VENICE BEACH, CALIFORNIA

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA

AUSTIN, TEXAS

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

OAHU, HAWAII

DENVER, COLORADO

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

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

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

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

What will the LDS ever do?

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

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

Eyelids, necks and feet to the rescue

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

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

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Spicing up your church experience

Combating Cultural Mormonism with a Little Anarchy

In my estimation, there seems to be a growing number of LDS that are starting to recognize the difference between doctrinal Mormonism and cultural Mormonism, with a discontent concerning the latter.

I, personally, worry that cultural Mormonism is killing too many of these good people with boredom.  So, if there are any out in Cyberspace who are tired of the Utah culture being exported to every part of the globe, here are some suggestions from your friendly, neighborhood LDS Anarchist to spice up your church experience and bring a little leavening to the doughy masses.

Feel free to run with any of them and to encourage your LDS and, depending on the suggestion, non-LDS friends to do the same.  With enough people doing the following small things, the church will quickly be de-culturalized, leaving only doctrinal Mormonism left.  But even if only a very few people do these things, it will still cause a tremendous shift of attitude among the saints and bring about significant cultural change.  Lastly, if it is only you working, and you are not having any effect, at all, upon the Cult of Conformity, at least you will have de-culturalized yourself and removed much of the boredom you might have been going through.

Bring back the visual cues of manhood

• Men and boys, grow your beards out.

This is a very easy thing to do, as there is nothing that needs to be done.  It is a passive act.  You simply allow the facial hair to grow out.  This will save you time, energy, electricity (for electric shavers), damage to the skin (no more nicks and cuts) and money (no more shaving equipment needed.)

Many men desire to grow a beard but use the excuse that it grows out in patches and ends up looking horrible, so they cut it.  The truth of the matter is that if you just let the hair grow, even the patches start to sprout hair and eventually everything looks even and full, but sometimes it may take six months for a very patchy man to have a full beard.  A little patience is all it takes.

Teenage boys of 15 and 16, when they start to notice that their peach fuzz is turning into terminal hairs, will immediately start shaving it off.  This is a mistake, as the facial hair is a visual cue that manhood is now upon them.

Young men, aren’t you tired of people treating you like a child?  Grow your facial hair out and watch how quickly people begin treating you as a more mature individual.  Watch the reaction of your parents, male peers, school teachers and the young women of your age.  A beard is a very strong visual cue of manhood and everyone will start to treat you as an adult, especially when your voice deepens.  Remember, things should match.  A deep voice goes with a full beard.  A high pitched voice goes with a clean-shaven (boyish) face.  These visual and audible cues were given to us by God on purpose.

Men, unless you are in a profession that requires you to be clean-shaven, let the hair grow out into a full, bushy beard.  Ditch the fads and trends of trimming into this or that beard style.  You don’t need a goatee, you need a full beard.  You were created in the image of God.  He’s got a full beard.  You’re supposed to have one, too.  Be like God in heart and look like God in image. Don’t trim his image.  If the mustache gives you trouble when you eat, or if you find that the beard becomes a “flavor saver” (because food gets stuck in it), just exercise the patience of the saints and let it grow until it is long enough to no longer get in the way.

Now, I say grow a full, bushy, untrimmed beard because that is the most manly of beards. Short beards, even when full, indicate young men, whose beards have not yet attained the length of a fully grown man.

Women, compliment your husbands and sons on the fine beards they are growing.  You are hard-wired to find beards attractive.  Why?  Because beards are manly, and women love manliness.  So, dump all the (beardless) Roman and (beardless) homosexual propaganda that has filled your head and embrace the real image of Christ. You don’t want a beardless Roman, now do you?  Remember, the beardless Romans killed the bearded Christ.  You want a Christ-like man, right?  So, encourage the growing of the beard, ladies.  Besides, you know that women constantly complain of how grown, adult men act like immature 12-year olds, right?  Well, have you ever considered that they act like 12-year olds because they still look like 12-year olds?  Can you really expect your men to grow up and be adults if they just look like bigger versions of beardless kids?

Men, women and children should consider the functions of the full beard and respect them.  Here are some examples:

• Beards come in quite handy during intimacy.  (I ain’t gonna elaborate on this one.)

• Beards help to develop the manual dexterity of infants and toddlers, who, as they are held by their fathers, grasp the beard, which fully develops the hand and fingers of the child.

• Beards help to distinguish the father from the mother in the eyes of the child, causing them to view the sexes as very, very different.  (“Viva la difference!” as the French say.)  This causes young girls to develop into very feminine women and young boys to develop into very masculine men.

• Bearded men (full, bushy beards, mind you, not the sissy trimmed beards) elicit an involuntary reaction upon all who see them.  Beards emit power and virility and evoke instant respect.  Big, clean-shaven men with tattoos all over the place, piercings, etc., who look for confrontations, involuntarily avoid bearded men because they don’t feel manly in the presence of bearded men.  In point of fact, bearded men look upon beardless men as less manly.

• When two bearded men enter an area and spot each other, they are naturally drawn to each other, involuntarily complimenting the other for their fine facial hair.  (This is significant, as men normally do not give compliments of appearance to one another.)  A bearded man talking to another bearded man feels like he is talking to a man. A bearded man talking to a beardless man feels like he is talking to a boy. All beardless men know this, or feel this inferiority of manliness when in the presence of fully bearded men.  There is no worse feeling to a man than to feel less than manly.

• Conversely, there is no greater feeling to a woman than to feel feminine, but femininity must be contrasted with masculinity to get its greatest effect.  A fully bearded man gives the highest contrast of manliness to a woman, which is why women who have experienced fully bearded men don’t want them to ever cut the beard off.  They feel supremely feminine in the presence of such a manly man.  (Of course, cultural conditioning can take away this natural affinity that women have towards manly beards.)

• Fully bearded men have an air of authority around them that children and women (and beardless men) respond to.  There is something in our psyche that still remembers Heavenly Father and that responds to His bearded image.

• There may be many other reasons to grow a beard, but I’ll end with this one: if the Lord ever wants to send you out among the people to prophesy like one of His prophets of old, shouldn’t you look the part?

Worldly trends to eliminate beards Can you imagine a homosexual male with a full beard?  Kind of hard to picture, isn’t it?  Ever wonder why adult, homosexual males are almost always clean shaven, or have a minimum of facial hair?  Every wonder why the “playboy” image, started by Hugh Hefner, is clean-shaven (kind of like the homosexuals?)  Homosexual males don’t have children because they don’t get into long-term, committed relationships with females (otherwise known as “marriage.”)  “Playboys” (or nowadays the term is “players”) don’t get into long term, committed relationships with females, either.  (No marriage.)  You think the parallels between homosexual males and players is mere coincidence?

How about the sex performers and industry?  The only hair on their bodies (male or female) is found on their heads (and sometimes not even that for the men.)  Ever wonder why all this shaving of armpit hair, pubic hair and facial hair?  All of the visual cues of adulthood (for men and women) are snipped off by this industry, by the homosexuals and often by the playboys.  But think about it, if you take away this hair, what does an adult look like?  Answer: A large child.

None of this is coincidence.  Just as the hair that develops during puberty is designed by God to be a visual cue that the body is becoming an adult and getting ready for its sexual function between ADULTS, the world would remove all this hair so that it looks like CHILDREN are performing these sacred acts.  Thoughts to consider.

(After writing the above, which is based upon my own, personal observations, I did some Internet surfing and came across the following web site that confirmed what I had perceived about beards.)

All About Beards (beards.org)

Pay your tithing in silver

Stop writing checks or paying in cash.  Take whatever cash amount you would spend on tithing and convert it into silver coins, specifically, this silver.  Package and mail the coins off to your bishop, along with a tithing slip inside.  Make sure the slip is filled out so that you are anonymous.

Leave boring sacrament meetings after partaking of the sacrament

If you are tired of banal, boring, lame sacrament meeting talks and seriously consider going inactive, don’t.  Just go to church, partake of the sacrament, and as soon as the priests and deacons are dismissed to sit with their families, walk out and go home. You can return later to attend the Gospel Doctrine class, Relief Society or Priesthood Meetings, if you want or need to.  If Gospel Doctrine is lame, skip that, too. (However, to remain in good standing, priesthood holders must attend their priesthood meetings, even if they are boring.)

Doing this will allow you to keep your sanity for a few more years.  Also, if enough people in your ward participate in collective ditching, the bishopric may get the message that boredom is not a generally accepted principle of the gospel and may make needed improvements to the sacrament meeting.  But don’t hold your breath on that one.

Ditch the necktie and white shirt

Last I checked, you can’t be ex’d for that, or even disfellowshipped.  But some anally retentive bishops may decide that you are no longer worthy to bless or pass the sacrament, give talks, teach classes or perform ordinances of church record, so, if you are looking for a breather from a heavy church load, conveniently make sure that every Sunday your white shirts and ties are too dirty to wear and dress in nice, comfortable, casual clothes, instead.  And if you are called to give a priesthood blessing to some sick person in the ward, don’t be anally retentive yourself and rush home to get dressed in a white shirt and tie.  Just go as you are and bless them.

Grow your hair long

Jesus did it.  Samson did it.  Who is more manly than those two?  Long hair and a full, bushy beard complement each other.  If you have the Roman hair (short cut) and the Israelite beard (full and bushy), it will almost look hypocritical, like having one foot in Babylon and one foot in Zion.  Put both feet in Zion and grow the hair out.  You’ll look a whole lot more handsome and manly if you do.  Plus, you’ll save on all the barber shop money you spend.  (Or, to appease a wife that is unaccustomed to long hair, tell her that you are going to the barber, but instead come back with chocolates and roses…and uncut hair.  She’ll soon look forward to your “barber shop” excursions and will end up being the one insisting you never cut your hair.)  If anyone asks you why you are not cutting the hair, say you are trying to be like Jesus, or that you have taken a Nazarene vow, or that you’ve noticed that your strength increases the longer your hair is, and you’ve decided to enter a strongman contest.

Call everyone brother and sister so-and-so

And I do mean everyone.  Bishops, presidents, missionaries, apostles, prophets and all General Authorities.  Everyone.  And make it part of every sentence, too, when you are called out on the practice.  So, for example: “Hello, Brother Brown.’  “Uh, I’m the bishop, Brother Green.”  “Yes, I know, Brother Brown.”  “Well, it is customary to call one’s bishop by the title bishop and not brother.”  “I was aware of that, Brother Brown.  But thanks for the information, anyway.”  You get my drift, right?  If anyone asks why you are doing this, just get all emotional and, if you are able to, shed a few tears while giving him (not her) a big hug and saying that you love him as your own brother.  Fairly quickly, no one will ask you again about it.

Print out your own set of scriptures

Include whatever canon you want.  Let it contain the four standard works (any version of the Bible you want, or multiple versions, or the red-letter version, etc.), the Apocrypha, the Inspired Version, etc.  Use a desk-top publishing program and a good printer and take it to a binding shop to get it professionally bound.  Remember, the saints set the canon.  You are a saint, so set your own canon.

Reverse the order of prayer

Instead of ending “in the name of Jesus Christ,” make it a habit of starting with “Heavenly Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, …” and then end with a simple “Amen.”

Reverse the order of priesthood blessings

Instead of saying, “John Smith, by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood, we lay our hands on you…etc.” and then ending with, “…and we leave this blessing with you in the name of Jesus Christ, amen,” just begin with, “John Smith, in the name of Jesus Christ and by the authority of…” and end with, “amen.”  Sure, you”ll undoubtedly get elders telling you afterward that you screwed up the blessing and must do it again because the order was reversed, but stick to your guns and teach them a thing or two, namely, that stating the authority is what is required, not the order in which the authority is stated.

Drop all the archaic expressions of prayer

Don’t worry, you won’t tick God off by calling him “you” instead of “thee.”  Lol.  That is a Mormon cultural artifact, nothing more.  Use plain, modern English when talking to God and drop all the thees, thous, wilts, etc.  Do this in private and in public, after all, it’s going to take practice to get out of this habit.  But it’ll be well worth the effort both to witness the expressions of horror by the LDS around you after you’ve said your prayer, as well as seeing how more accepting Christians are of you when you’ve said a prayer without archaic, “holier-than-thou” expressions.

De-McConkie-ize the church: stop ending talks with “In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.”

This practice was started by Bruce R. McConkie.  The early saints just said, “Amen.” to end a talk, or just ended it however they wanted to end it and then sat down.  Surely you don’t think your entire talk speaks for Jesus, now do you?  So, leave off speaking in His name except for ORDINANCES which require speaking in His name and for those times when you are filled with the Spirit and are prophesying in the name of God.  (Now how many times has that happened, huh?)

Build an altar in your home

Purchase bottles of vodka and leave them out to be seen

Use the vodka to wash your bodies, as directed by the Word of Wisdom.  Make sure they are conspicuously displayed and then invite some church members over for dinner.  Have fun with the discussions that ensue.

Other ideas

Obviously, these are just ideas to get you started.  Cultural Mormons will probably call you a sinner for doing these things.  But then, they also see anarchy as evil, which it isn’t.  Just smile and do them anyway.  Eventually, the tide of Mormon cultural crap will turn.  If you have any other ideas to offer, or if you are already doing some of these or other things, feel free to leave a comment and inform us all of your experience.

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: Anarchism

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: Let Us Unite Our Efforts to Establish Gift Societies Based Upon Tribal Anarchism

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

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

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

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

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

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

and

“We are instructed to give unto you the law of chastity. This I will explain.

“To the sisters, it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your husband to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded. To the brethren it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.”  (Source: The Terrestrial World.)

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

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

The 1990 revision does not have women and men covenant separately to keep the law of chastity. Instead, women and men simultaneously covenant to have no sexual relations except with their “husband or wife” to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded.  (Source: The Terrestrial World, Notes 1 and 2.)

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

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

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

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

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

Would the real law of chastity please stand up?

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

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

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

(Definition taken from this page.)

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

: SEXUAL INTERCOURSE

(Definition taken from this page.)

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

More on the second shade of meaning

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

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

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

(Definition taken from this page.)

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

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

(Taken from the Sex organ entry of Wikipedia.)

Church manuals give the same definition as the temple definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sexual laws of the Bible

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

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

Where fornication and adultery fit in the law of chastity

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

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

Masturbation does not break the law of chastity

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

Kissing does not break the law of chastity

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

Petting does not break the law of chastity

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

Viewing pornography does not break the law of chastity

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

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

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

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

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

Immodesty does not break the law of chastity

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

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

Why knowing the definition of chastity is helpful

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

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

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

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

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

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

SEXUAL SIN—AMONG MEMBERS

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

SEXUAL SIN—AMONG INVESTIGATORS

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

Discuss.

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

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

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist