The Nature of God’s Love

INTRODUCTION

This is a long post but I want to cover a lot of bases so that more people might be helped by the post. I also make no reference to LDSA’s post which has a masterful explanation of God’s love and should be read for a fuller understanding of the scriptural basis for the ideas of this post. So that post is here. And if you don’t take time to read it just keep these ideas in mind, “All are alike unto God” and from the post this paragraph, “There is only one type of charity: God’s charity.  If you don’t have an overwhelming desire and willingness to share everything you have with everyone else, you don’t have charity.”

If as you read this you think you are in complete agreement and are therefore wasting your time reading it (and you might be right) I encourage you to skip to the last section entitled in bold letters THE TRUE NATURE OF LOVE OR THE NATURE OF TRUE LOVE. There was something I learned while researching this which I have not seen expressed elsewhere. I think it is very important to understand.

NEW DOCTRINE

I was recently made aware that there is an official LDS church policy/doctrine/tradition of the brethren stating that God’s love is conditional.

It appears that the church has not always had this as a doctrine/policy/tradition. In 1992 the Church News had a small article talking about God’s love and it quoted F Enzio Busche in a 1982 conference talk where he pretty much said God’s love is unconditional. You can read it yourself here.

In the February 2003 issue of the Ensign there was printed an article attributed to Elder Russell M. Nelson. The article is named Divine Love. You can view it here.

I don’t know how much earlier this was taught, but from this time on the church’s policy is that it does not believe God’s love is unconditional. The thesis statement says:

“While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. The word does not appear in the scriptures. On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love—are conditional.”

Now you may wonder what difference it makes whether the church calls God’s love conditional or if we believe it is unconditional?

God is love. If I have a distorted concept of His love then I have a distorted concept of Him. To become like God I must understand what He is like. Give a man the wrong blueprint and the structure will be wrong. And to take if even further I believe the concept that God’s love is variable towards us it will prevent us from obtaining eternal life.

DEFINITIONS

I am speaking of the love of one member of the God family for other members of that family or the love one human has for another human. And this requires that I explain that humans, all of us are children, actual genetic offspring of God and His relatives. In this mortal sphere humans are not yet perfected but there is no fundamental difference between the species of Gods and us anymore than there is a species difference between a 2 year old human child and the adults who procreated his body.

I will define love as this:

The person who loves desires all that is good for the people they love.

Unconditional means it is not subject to conditions. As applied to love it says there are no requirements for the one being loved to meet. This love is given regardless of the actions of the one being loved.

Do we have to define love? Yes we do because there are those who think love is something which in fact it is not. And I think we might see that this subject gets at a deep problem among many humans, especially LDS humans today.

So my definition means a person who has unconditional love “desires all that is good for the people they love” regardless of the developmental state, the mistakes, the choices or actions of the other person. Now God wants to share all that He has with all of us. But if we are not ready to receive it, it would be a detriment to us. I love my 6 month old son with all my heart. But I am not about to put him behind the wheel of an automobile. It would not be good for anyone.

One of my daughters took a religion class at BYU on Isaiah. She told us part of what she learned in that class, The instructor had taught her, “There is nothing you can do which will make God love you any less nor any more than He does right now.” That is not in harmony with the current teachings of the LDS church. But it may have been back when he said it. My daughter took that class in 1999.

The fact that there was a shift in doctrine/policy/tradition of the brethren on such a fundamental principle should give you cause to think about this.

VALENTINE FROM RUSSELL M. NELSON – ENSIGN 2003

Now let’s look closely at that quote from the Ensign. The thesis statement of the article says:

“While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. The word does not appear in the scriptures. On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love—are conditional.”

Now I see a major problem with that statement. The problem is that the statement is erroneously trying to conflate God’s love and God’s spiritual blessings. And this problem just gets worse as you read the full article. The thesis statement says that divine blessings stem from God’s love. And later in the article he places God’s love and blessings on the same footing by saying:

“Understanding that divine love and blessings are not truly “unconditional” can defend us against common fallacies such as these:…”

Do you see what fundamental concept of the gospel as preached by Joseph Smith is contradicted by this pairing?

AP NEWS FLASH SLC, UTAH This morning the LDS First Presidency announced changes in the wording of certain scriptures to be in harmony with the correlation committee’s doctrine.  Section 130 versus 20 and 21 will now read,

“20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 But when we obtain any blessing from God, it is predicated upon how high the level of God’s love is for us.”

How much God loves us does not determine whether we receive the blessings of the gospel. That is what imperfect mortals do. They limit how much they love others and then limit what they are willing to do for them. And when we conceive of God as having a higher or lower level of love for us based upon our actions we make unto ourselves a God who has one of the worst of mortal failings. All are not alike to such a being.

God established the conditions of obtaining exaltation based upon each of His children’s use of their agency. It is not based upon higher or lower levels of love which some believe God feels towards us. If it were then what of our agency?

If we look closely at that thesis statement it is very confusing.  It says:

”On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us… are conditional.”

Okay it says Father and Jesus feel higher levels of love for each of us but it is conditional. That means they don’t feel it for those who don’t meet the conditions. So how can they feel it for each of us? Why was it worded that way?

Elder Nelson quoted several scriptures to back up his doctrine. In none of the scriptures does it say that God will not or does not love people who do wrong or don’t honor Him etc. Here are some quotes from the Ensign article.

“If ye keep my commandments, [then] ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.” 

I always thought that when a person quoted a scripture and placed a word in [brackets] that word was different, in fact it might be one word to substitute for a whole phrase, but it in no way changed the meaning. As I write these words it is about the 6^th draft of this post and I just searched the scriptures to see what the [then] replaced. I trusted “Elder” Russell M. Nelson that the scripture actually reflected a meaning of “then” or “therefore” or “in that case” or at least some other phrase which he replaced with “[then]”. You know what? I am upset. No, the word is disgusted.

The scripture is found only in the gospel of John chapter 15 verse 10. It has come to us without any words or phrase which the “[then]” would replace. It simply reads as follows:

“If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.”

If Russell [Misleader] Nelson was on a debate team and pulled that stunt he would be torn to shreds for false quoting by the other side. If he was testifying in a court of law and pulled that stunt he would be guilty of perjury or lying. This is a blatant case of perverting the word of God. By placing [then] in there Russell [Misleader] Nelson has tried to change its meaning. As the scripture actually reads it indicates that abiding in God’s love is an action on the part of the person, that keeping the commandments is the action of abiding in God’s love. It has nothing to do with God’s love for us changing.

So if I do not abide in a house does that mean the house does not exist? God’s love continues regardless of whether we choose to place ourselves where we can experience it. It is so ego centric and immature to think that we mortals can control whether or not God loves us.

I know that each human and God also has the ability to choose to love a person without any regard to that person’s actions. And this is where I get people saying, “When someone does bad to you why would you want to love them?”

Eternal truth is constantly shining on us. As we respond positively and resonate with it (follow the promptings of that light) we feel peace and we receive more guidance. If we choose to go contrary to it we damage ourselves and diminish in our power and darken in our minds. We can’t ignore the truth that we are humans and that we need love and that love is good for us. So when we refuse to love others we are convicted in our hearts. When you love someone less, you know you are doing wrong.

I lived for years in an abusive marriage. God did not want me to remain in this marriage. But it was not necessary to decrease my love for my wife in order to act upon ending the marriage. She took a lot of things from me. Money, possessions, my good name, my future, 4 of my 5 children, my love of myself, my health, my self respect. All were gone because of her lies and emotional torture. I did get my self respect and my self love back once I stopped listening to her lies. But she never was able to make me stop loving her. And I never had to. Even when I found she was truly insane. Of course you can understand that made me have more compassion for her. But it didn’t change whether I could be around her. Due to the nature of her sickness I was told by a psychologist that barring an outright miracle she would never recover. He also explained she could easily decide to kill me without out any provocation on my part. So he strongly advised as little contact as possible for the rest of my life.

That is an extreme case. But it illustrates the fact that there are times when even, despite our love we can not allow ourselves to be around another human. As humans we are extremely susceptible to being effected by the communications and actions of other humans. So if you are around someone who is constantly telling you lies about yourself or about life or maybe they are tearing you down and destroying your faith you really can’t afford to subject yourself to that barrage of Satan inspired communications.

Which is precisely why I do not attend the LDS church anymore. Sometimes you need to leave the community to allow yourself to progress toward truth. And hopefully you do it before they pass around the poison kool-aid. But even if not there is time to get your head on straight after death. I hear it is harder though. My point is why wait and delay happiness and progression? I am sure God wants us to live and learn rather than allow someone to abuse us.

So although it does not fit the classic look of love, cutting off contact with someone or a group of people can actually be inspired of God. And yet to this day I do not leave my ex wife entirely alone. I still pray for her and at times send priesthood blessings and thought forms over the miles to help her along in her progress. No I am not carrying a torch for her because I don’t believe in limiting my love to one person and that includes women. I love all of them. And it is the same with men. But I also don’t believe it is a correct principle to stop loving a person, any person. That is the way I believe God is also.

There is an eyewitness account of this fact in the book Return From Tomorrow by George Ritchie. He saw a huge place where the spirits of men and women who had died were gathered in a never ending combat of hate and viciousness aimed at each other. Their emotions of  anger, hate, fear and guilt kept them locked in this battle. They needed no food and there was no physical contact being made so the conflict continued non stop. He was being shown these things by Christ who was with him. He asked the Lord why there was no help for these most wretched of souls? He was then made aware of the presence of large bright beings hovering over each of the benighted spirits on the plain. These great and loving spirits were so bright that George had not realized they were there before. He had just perceived them as the bright sky above them.   This is an example of how, although the people in hell seem to be totally cut off from God He is still feeling after them. Is this verified by the scriptures? Who says the scriptures contain all the truth of God? And where would be the justice if God made people suffer even when the price had been paid? I believe where there is suffering there is an opportunity for growth; otherwise God is a sadist.

I have heard the question asked, “Why do we want God to look that way?”, meaning why do I think it is important to believe God’s love is without conditions? As a mortal I have no real idea how close I am to knowing all the truths of God that I will need to understand and live in order to live with Him and be like Him. From my own experience I have seen how I thought I knew how things really are only to find out later that my understanding was so lacking and in some cases down right wrong. So if God’s love for me is conditional upon my actions and choices then what is the real state of it now? Since I don’t know exactly what I still need to change I have no way to measure where I am on the higher level/lower level of God’s love. That is doubt and uncertainty. Faith in God unto eternal life can not be built on such a foundation.

Back to the article.

“If you keep not my commandments, [then] the love of the Father shall not continue with you.”

Again there is no word nor words which [then] replaces in this scripture. It is in there courtesy of Russell [Misleader] Nelson. The phrase “the love of the Father” is not congruent to “God’s love for you” is it? The words “the love of the Father” would actually refer to our love for the Father.  Just as the white fruit in Lehi’s dream which is explained to be “the love of God” can not be equated exclusively to God’s love for His children. And is there anyone reading this who does not realize that it is only when we love a person that we can sense their love for us? And is there anyone who thinks we can cause God to decrease in His love for us? Yes there are plenty who will believe this lie.

Here look at my analogy. My teenage son asks to borrow the car and I say he can. And then I say now if you will do such and such then you will be safe and be blessed. Perhaps I am even inspired and stating a prophecy. This is what God always does when He tells us truths. So if my son does what I tell him he does in fact remain in a blessed state which we can refer as “the love of the Father.” And that accurately describes it because out of love for me he is keeping my sayings. It is a safe and blessed state. But if he disobeys me then it is he that has departed from his love for me. And he surely will think I don’t love him when bad things start happening.

But I am sitting at home waiting to see if my son will chose to trust in my word, perhaps again by a fatherly foreknowledge I already know he is getting into trouble. So when I become aware that he is disobeying me what is my reaction? According to Elder Nelson in such a case God decides to start loving us less.

But I know that is not what happens in my heart. If there is any change in my emotions it will be that  my compassion will increase and my desire for my son’s welfare will increase (more love) as I learn that he has not trusted my word and is in trouble perhaps even the car is wrecked.

It reminds me of Matthew 7:11 when Jesus  said, “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” If I being a man know how to love then how much more God knows how to love?

Okay another quote from the 2003 article.

“If a man love me, [then] he will keep my words: and my Father will love him.”

This scripture may have been worded so as to work upon our minds as the Lord mentioned in D&C 19. But again we need to see the real scripture and not take big [M]’s word for what it is talking about. It is a misquote from John 14

Here it is:

“21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.”

The scripture does not say if a man keep not His commandments then God loveth him not. That fact is sufficient to make the point of this post. But this 2003 article was spun so as to pervert the truth of God and yet in the attempt there are a couple of places where the scriptures quoted condemn the 15 seers of the LDS church. And this scripture is one of them.

Okay so lets venture into falseidealand and pretend that God does love us more if we keep His commandments or to use the church’s words, that God has a “higher level of love” for us if we keep His commandments. If that is true please note the even greater problem it creates for the leadership of the LDS church.

On 2 April 1843 in Ramus, Illinios Joseph Smith remarked about that chapter and verse. The remark was recorded in the William Clayton Diary and written also by Willard Richards at the same event. It was also placed in the D&C in section 130, verse 3.

“3 John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.”

What does such a belief say about the 15 apostles of today? None of which have ever claimed to have been visited in person by God. And there hasn’t been an apostle who did claim such a visit since John W Taylor, son of the 3^rd president of the church who was first removed from the quorum because he was in disagreement with the other 11 and then later excommunicated for continuing to practice polygamy after the manifesto.  And yet he claimed openly to have been personally visited by Jesus Christ. Are you thinking of Lorenzo Snow being visited by he Lord? It does not change anything since he was called as an apostle prior to John W Taylor so again the truth remains none of those called as apostles since John W. Taylor have claimed a personal visit of Jesus Christ. Since the first apostles of this dispensation were told their apostolic calling was not complete until they had received a personal visit by Jesus Christ it makes you wonder how the latter ones can claim to be true apostles.

So if Elder Nelson is correct that this scripture proves God’s love is conditional then wouldn’t the facts of the last 100 years prove that God the Father doesn’t love the seers of our day?

I am not saying that. The doctrine of the LDS church as applied to this scripture says it. For my part I believe God does love those 15 men and all of us without condition. When we receive a blessing from God even the greatest of all gifts the gift of Eternal life it is because we love God enough to trust in His Word.  Yes blessings are 100% conditional. But blessings and gifts of God come based upon obedience to law, not based upon the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for us. What that really means is that we are the ones whose choice to love God determines whether we will become like Him.

“I love them that love me; and those that seek me … shall find me.”

But I the Lord don’t love those who don’t love me? What the ?? Don’t we teach young children and teenagers to treat others nice and love them even if the other person is acting mean?  So what is this? We hold God to a lesser standard? He is less loving than a spoiled brat? Even typing the question seems blasphemous.

“God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”

But those who do not fear Him He has no respect for? No that would violate the first clause. Again look at the wording “accepted with Him.” Does that mean accepted along with Him? And who accepts God as God? All of His creations with the exception of us, His children. And we are in the process of making our choice whether we will accept God as our God or not. That is the truth of the matter regardless of the way we interpret this scripture. Because God got to be God by His choices. And He has promised us the justice of it being our agency and our choice which will determine whether we are like Him and not the level of his love for us.

Is the problem here that these people don’t know the difference between love and acceptance? Come to think of it my fifth generation LDS ex wife did not know the difference either.  I am not jesting. This is dead serious. There are those who in all sincerity have been raised by parents who never gave love but always controlled their children (and their spouse) by giving or withholding acceptance. They do not actually comprehend true love since they were never given it by their mother. And if you think of it this is exactly what the church does to its members; it controls them by the offer of acceptance and the threat of withdrawing that acceptance.

Back to the article.

“The Lord “loveth those who will have him to be their God.”

Again the fact that He does love group “A” does not prove that He does not love group “B”.

Then we read this in the 2003 article:

“Understanding that divine love and blessings are not truly “unconditional” can defend us against common fallacies such as these: “Since God’s love is unconditional, He will love me regardless …”; or “Since ‘God is love,’  He will love me unconditionally, regardless …”

My close friend and I have gone around and around on this. He asked at one point, “If God’s love is unconditional then what would be the motivation for being good?” Now the answer to that question is the real heart of why this doctrine is damning to our souls.

WHY OBEY GOD IF HE LOVES ME NO MATTER WHAT?

There are many possible motivations for obeying God and living a principle of the gospel. Most any motivation will be included in one of these groups.

Fear of punishment

Desire for personal gain or money

Desire for acceptance or praise

Sense of obligation or DUTY (perhaps a higher harmonic of fear)

A good result in your life, good feelings or even blessings (perhaps just a higher harmonic of personal gain here)

Your love for God and others which is one and the same

Which of these groups would enable you to claim the same inheritance as Jesus Christ? Which of the above motivations were involved when Jesus suffered the atonement and death on the cross?

There is no higher love than God the Father giving His Son Jesus to suffer and die for people who are in a sinful state. He acted upon that love before the foundations of the world. Has His love waxed and waned since?

Looking at the various levels of motivation we can see that all contain the element of fear but the last. Even the desire for good results or blessings means we are doing it out of fear that we won’t get these things if we don’t do it.

Can we rationally have faith to obtain His glory if we must be motivated by the threat of losing His love? Was Jesus motivated by the threat of losing God’s love? Or can it be that the greatest motivator possible is the fact that no matter what we do or have done He did and always will love us completely. Then the question of whether we receive His glory is whether we receive and reciprocate His love.

Telling some one that you will love them more if they obey you is what you do when you want to control them. When you use this carrot of love and stick of less love you don’t want an equal with whom you can share all that you have. You want a slave who is controlled by the fear of losing your love.

But if you give your love without price then it is up to the other person to make an unfettered choice to love you back. So by your love they are motivated to be as you are. Love is the greatest power of influence in all existence. If it were not, Satan would win and God would be toppled and cease to be God.

But the idea in the minds of humans that God’s love is variable will force them to resort to the motivation of fear. And that is why Satan wants it to be part of the doctrine of the LDS church.

And why do some people like the doctrine of God’s love being variable? Well I don’t know exactly but think of this. If I believe that God loves me completely no matter what I do, then I know without doubt that if I do not love Him and others in that way I am being unjust. The responsibility to love others as He loves me is then left to my personal choice. It means that when I have less love for one person here than another that I stand convicted in my conscience. But if I accept the belief that God has higher levels of love for some and obviously lower levels of love for others then I can be justified in being the same way.

I said something once to one of my daughters when she was 14 years old. I said, “I am going to tell you something and you can spend the rest of you life thinking about it. When we love some one all we can do is give them our love. That is our choice. And then we hope they will love us in return. That is their choice. If we try to force them to love us it will not make us happy because it is not love. Love is freely given or it is not love.”

Now if we think of how we might go about “forcing” or even pressuring someone to love us we can see that it amounts to the same concept of a God who will apply the threat of not loving us unless we obey Him. There are many who won’t believe me on this, but it doesn’t work. What you get in return is not love. And when you are trying to manipulate you are not giving love. Motivation by pure love is the most powerful of all motivations. Motivation by fear is what Satan has always done.

Injecting fear into our relationship with God destroys our ability to actually obey out of love.

THE TRUE NATURE OF LOVE OR THE NATURE OF TRUE LOVE

In researching for this post I received an inspired understanding of the nature of love, how it should be. I was then able to see how the Babylonian culture has perverted what real love is.

There are 4 words in Greek which mean love. The definitions of these words are all stated in terms of which group of people are loved in this way. The words are:

Agape – This love for your spouse and children. It is seen as unconditional and self sacrificing and compassionate. It can also be applied to all the world of people.

Eros – This is sexual or passionate love. But Plato explained that it can also be without physical contact, still based on the beauty and sexual appeal of the other person but with a respect and admiration of them as a beautiful creation or an ideal to be admired even if there was not partaking. The latter is the actual meaning of platonic love.

Philia – This is termed brotherly love and is viewed as having its main focus on the community. But family is also included. I will show you in a second why all of them overlap.

Storge – This is often not mentioned. It is a love that accepts a person as they are. It is used to maintain a love for the ruler even when he is a pain at times. But also a family member immediate or extended who is well know to be a jerk at times but this love accepts him so we are willing to retain him as a member of the family/community rather than abandon him and cut him off.

As I studied these something suddenly occurred to me. The four types of love do not apply to four different groups. And by viewing it that way we miss the point and meaning of the different types. They apply to 4 types of actions we take towards everyone. We need all 4 types at all times with each person. Eros with our children? Eros is based upon our sexuality but it does not require sexual intercourse. I love my brother and I hug him and even kiss him and admire his manly body (its easier to admire in that way than mine) but I don’t need to have sex with him. Same is true of my sons and daughters and nieces and nephews etc. They are sexual beings. I should admire and be aware of that. But it is of no blessing to them to be intimate with them so out of love I do not.  Love always responds to the needs of the person you love.

Here is an example of how it applies to a spouse. Yes we can see our passion and desire to be intimate with them coming in to play. But we can also in our agape see sacrificing our lives for them if needed. And on a daily basis we serve and act out of kindness in a philia type love for them. But sometimes even the best of spouses can be a jerk. And when that occurs we need to have storge love for them and not cast them out.

But see what we have been taught? How many of us have heard this? “If you ever have sex with another person our marriage will be over.”

Or imagine you and you spouse have some real close friends another married couple. You have known each other for years. You love the guy like your brother or maybe more than your brother. You never want to lose him as a friend. But what would happen if he and your wife fell in love and are intimate with each other? It would be the real common thing to hear someone say. “If he ever had sex with my wife I would want to kill him.” Or maybe you hear the not so cruel, “If he had sex with my wife that would be the end of our friendship.” Your friendship with who, your friend or your wife? And in all sincerity why?

So what happened to your agape, philia and storge love? They are totally wiped out by the over-emphasis on eros love. All types of love are made of zero strength by being made insignificant compared to our worship of eros. This is where eros has been perverted. The S&M and pedophile effects himself and those he directly touches. And there may be millions involved. But there are billions who have perverted love by believing the Babylonian enforced monogamy laws and the popular media’s version of one true love songs which are a denial of actual God given human nature.

And if we are willing to see it for what it can be then ask yourself what about the love which developed between your spouse and the other person? Why is it evil? The only evil is your selfish demand that they deny their love for each other. And what makes your love for your spouse good? A government marriage license? Please don’t insult us all by thinking anything like that. Oh you had an agreement a covenant to not love any other people in that way and you are enforcing that same promise on your spouse. Is this not part of the covenant with death spoken of in the scriptures? Now if your spouse is stopping their love for you that is a different thing. And it should be addressed. But as always if you are trying to force them even with a previous covenant then you are not acting upon love. No in fact it may be you who had stopped loving them first.

But there is nothing in our nature as humans which prevents us from loving fully, in every way, multiple people. And by maintaining all types of love for our spouse we can honor their right to love all others as they honor our right to love all others. And then we both honor the way God made us in His image. And I believe that is what God wants us to do. I believe that is the way God is.

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

The Garment

The following post has an updated version, “The Garment, with additions“

Any member who has received initiation into the kingdom of God has been authorized to wear the garment of the holy priesthood — called “Garments” by most members.  My wife’s family, my ecclesiastical leaders, and my temple’s presidency spent a decent amount of time preparing me for receiving the garment.  These garments play an important role in the identity of Latter-day Saints.

What I was told:

• Garments should be kept completely white in color.  No stains, etc.
• Garments should not be left on the floor before or after doing laundry.
• Garments should be laundered separate from other clothing.
• Garments should not show under the other clothing you wear.
• Garments should only be removed for absolutely necessary reasons, e.g. showering and having sexual relations with spouse, and should be put back on as soon as reasonably possible.
• Garments must be touching your skin, i.e. no panties or bras under the Garments for women [my wife was told by a temple matron that during menstruation, the pad should be applied directly to the Garments instead of using panties].
• Garments offer physical protection from injuries such as burns.

What the ceremony says: [Note, I was initiated post-2005]

• The officiator is under proper authority
• The garment is now authorized
• The garment is to be worn throughout life.
• The garment represents what was given to Adam/Eve when found naked in the garden.
• The garment is called the garment of the holy priesthood.
• Inasmuch as the garment is not defiled — meaning the wearer is true and faithful to the covenants — it will be a shield and a protection against the power of the destroyer until the earthly probation is finished.

What I see as divergent:

Where is the physical color of white stated as important?  My stake president put a lot of emphasis on laundering our garments — inspecting and destroying an pair that become discolored.  Is the focus on the outward color a manifestation of dogmatism and focusing on the outward [clothing, behavior, etc.] in general?  Why focus on getting the garment physically soiled as a manifestation of “defiling” it — instead of on turning away from the covenants?

Why should we worry so much about covering our coverings?  I mostly mourn for women in this regard.  Both in my ward and online [here, here, and here], I have found that most women fret constantly about whether or not their clothing is covering their garments or whether to wear panties/bras under or over the garment.  Shopping is difficult for them, etc.  If the garment is intended to be our covering — then why care so much about covering the covering?

When worn, the garment will cover your nakedness.  We have previously discussed how this is only secondary — meaning the covering of nakedness is not the express purpose of the garment.  If this is the case, then why be so concerned with constantly wearing the garment?  That the garment covers nakedness does not imply that we should always cover it.  And, of course, there are the stories of members who believe in having intercourse will keeping the garment on — however, this may be an urban legend because I have never direct a direct anecdote from someone who does this [maybe someone here has].  Further, the garment is a shield and a protection inasmuch as it is not defiled — not inasmuch as you keep it on your body.

What I still wonder:

How does being instructed to wear the garment throughout one’s life relate to the truths learned from the Body Modesty post?

How problematic are the changes to the initiatory ordinance as it relates to nudity.  Mainly I wonder — when are we sprinkling?  I plan on redoing the washing, anointing, and clothing in the garment for my wife and me under tribal authority because I fear what the Church (TM) has done by succumbing to pressure to appease feelings of body modesty in members.

Next Article by Justin:  The World I See

Previous Article by Justin:  Connecting with Pixels

See also:  Body Modesty is not a principle of the gospel

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