Homosexuality, Sodomy, Rape, Rape Culture & Pedophilia

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

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

Topical Guide: Homosexual Behavior

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

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

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

The men of Sodom were extremely wicked

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

But what were their sins?

Sodom and Gomorrah to be destroyed

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

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

[a OR sustain … ]

And they said,

So do, as thou hast said.

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

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

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

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

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

And the angel of the Lord said unto Abraham,

The Lord said unto us,

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

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

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

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

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

And the Lord said unto Abraham,

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

And Abraham answered and said,

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

And he said,

I will not destroy, but spare them.

And he spake unto him again, and said,

Peradventure there should be forty found there?

And he said,

I will not destroy it for forty’s sake.

And he said again unto the Lord,

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

Peradventure there shall thirty be found there?

And he said,

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

And he said,

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

And he said,

I will not destroy them for twenty’s sake.

And Abraham said unto the Lord,

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

And the Lord said,

I will not destroy them for ten’s sake.

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

Not even ten righteous souls

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

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

[a GR token, example.]

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

[c GR oppressed, afflicted.]

[d GR constituted authority.]

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

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

Righteous Lot does the same thing that righteous Abraham does

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

[a HEB messengers.]

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

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

And they said,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lot was old

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

Lot again attempts to stop the angels’ assessment

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

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

Judge not, that ye be not judged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verily, verily, I say unto you,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he that saith:

Show unto me, or ye shall be smitten

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

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

saith the Lord,

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

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

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

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

But Alma said unto him:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retaliation simply for calling a spade a spade

And they said unto him,

Stand back.

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

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

Wherefore they said unto the man,

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

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

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

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

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

Ritual sex had nothing to do with it

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

An assessment is made

And Lot said,

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

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

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

Down to four righteous souls

¶ And these holy men said unto Lot,

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

And they commanded Lot, saying,

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

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

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

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

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

Lot at least gets Zoar spared

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

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

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

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

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

And Lot said unto one of them,

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

And the angel said unto him,

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

And the name of the city was called aZoar.

[a IE Little (thing).]

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

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

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

Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed

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

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

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

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

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

Lo, here!


Lo, there!

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

And he said unto his disciples,

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

See here!


See there!

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

Down to three righteous souls

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

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

Only one righteous soul: Lot

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

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

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

And Abraham was comforted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Leviticus scriptures

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

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

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

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

[a HEB lies with a male.]

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

[a OR lewdness or an evil device.]

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

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

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

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

Sin, wickedness, iniquities and abomination

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

saith the Lord God,

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

[a HEB when I saw it.]

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

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

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

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

¶ Yet ye say,

The way of the Lord is not aequal.

[a HEB right or just.]

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

The way of the Lord is not aequal.

[a HEB right or just.]

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

saith the Lord God.

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

Yet the children of thy people say,

The way of the Lord is not aequal;

but as for them, their way is not equal.

[a HEB right or just.]

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

The way of the Lord is not equal.

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

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

Here is the definition of abomination:


1. Extreme hatred; detestation.

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

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

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

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

Sin causes the death of the spirit

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

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

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

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

Crying repentance, saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homosexual practices are entirely corrupting

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

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

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

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

No orgasm for the anal sex receiver

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

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

Unsafe sex

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

Total disrespect to God

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

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

Sodomy for men and women prohibited

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

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

[a GR corrupt in their reasonings, deliberations.]

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

[a GR incorruptible, immortal.]

[b GR (also) perishable.]

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

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

[a GR abandoned, delivered.]

[b GR sufferings, passions of dishonor.]

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

[a GR discern, choose.]

[b GR worthless, unable to stand test.]

[c GR strife, discord.]

[d GR Slanderers.]

[e GR violent, overbearing.]

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

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

Historical Interpretation of Romans 1:26

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

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

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

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

Oral sex falls under sodomy

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

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

There is to be no male sodomite in Israel

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

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

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


1. An inhabitant of Sodom.

2. One guilty of sodomy.

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

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

[a GR sexually immoral persons, male prostitutes.]

[b GR catamites.]

[c GR male homosexuals.]

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

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

[a The Greek text omits “filthy.”]

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

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

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

On to the topic of rape

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


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

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

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

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


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

Rape culture

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

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

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

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

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

No strings attached

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

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

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

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

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

The manliest of men

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

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

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

No conquests, only adventures

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

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

Lust not love

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

Patterned after Satan

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

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

Gay pride and its parades

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yea, and there shall be many which shall say:

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

And there shall also be many which shall say:

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

Imitating the doctrine of Sodom among heterosexuals

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

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

The lesbian death bed

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

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

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

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

2 percent of the population

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

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

The population would not die out if everyone were a homosexual

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

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

Inevitably, it is the children that become the target

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

Homosexuality and pedophilia are, in point of fact, linked

Don’t believe me?  Read the following articles:

Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse

Child Molestation & the Homosexual Movement

Report: Pedophilia more common among ‘gays’

Good luck to anyone that tries to refute them…

Pedophilia is the new civil rights battle

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

The great and abominable church

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

This church will be burned

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

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

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist


Marriage Equality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 …]

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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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

Cheerfully Doing All Things

In the beginning, there was man — and for a time, it was good.  But humanity’s civilization soon fell victim to materialism and covetousness.  Then man made a System in his own likeness — man becoming the architect of his own demise.  But for a time, it was good.

The Cynics were a philosophical group in Greece and Rome around two to three centuries before and after Christ.  They were named, by their critics, after dogs [The Greek kynikos] because of their shameless rejection of conventional manners, mores, and values.  They were a group of indifference towards the normality enforced by Luciferian control systems.  They were known for eating with hands, going naked and having intercourse in public, walking barefoot, sleeping outside, etc.  As dogs, who have a very discerning nature, they could recognize as friends and receive kindly those ready for their teachings and lifestyle – while they would drive away any unfitted or unfriendly.

I share, with the Cynics, a similar understanding of how happiness is attained in mortal life:

  • The goal of life is happiness, or joy – which is to live in harmony with Nature.
  • Happiness depends on freeing yourself from influences such as wealth, fame, materialism, or power – things that have no value in Nature.
  • Suffering is caused by assigning value falsely – striving after the wrong things leads to negative emotions and vicious character traits.

Paleoanarchism, or Anarcho-primitivism, is a critique of the origins and progress of human civilization.  As I studied human history I noticed a common trend, the shift from hunter-gatherer tribes to sedentary agrarian communities gave rise to the social stratification, coercion, and alienation from God, fellow humans, and Nature that have been the main reasons behind every success Satan has had with the human race.  Anarcho-primitivists advocate a return to non-“civilized” ways of life thru deindustrializing society, abolishing the division of labor, and abandoning large-scale organization power into states.

Satan’s first success story with using a mortal to alter conditions on earth was Cain.  Notice that Cain brought forth “of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord,” signifying his lifestyle of sedentary agrarianism.  He was the first to “build a city,” thereby establishing a rule of statism over his posterity.  His family initiated the first secret craft guild societies when they became “instructors of every artificer in brass and iron.”

This continued beyond the deluge in Noah’s time – with the great amalgamating power represented by Nimrod’s Babel.  As any statist, Nimrod was working to concentrate all power and knowledge at the top of his pyramid –archie.  Had the Lord not gone down and encrypted the human language, either Nimrod or someone following in his footsteps, would have succeeded.

Today, were are nearing that point again.  Babylon has brought all nations and people,

“to bow down with grief, sorrow, and care, under the most damning hand of murder, tyranny, and oppression, supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity.”

Her “iron yoke” and “strong bands” represent the “very handcuffs, chains, shackles, and fetters of hell.”  The innocent are murdered by this System – and we, as the ones awakened to it – have an “imperitive duty” to “work with great earnestness” – even “that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness.”

Babylon has entrapped us to an unbelievable extent.  There is no way to be truly pure in the world today.  Babylon provides all who suck at her breast a simulated sameness that removes humans from the natural cycles of life.  Our planet has boasted extraordinary longevity because she has been allowed to go thru the cycles of waxing and waning, decay and renewal.  These cycles are necessary for humans too – for the rejuvenation of our cells.  However, we are provided food produced in industrial factories without respect to seasons, water on tap at any time without respect to seasons, housing at the same temperature and amount of light without respect to seasons – but everything comes at a cost.  Urbanization and industrialization of human life has resulted in persistent stress, rampant responsibilities, less sleep, less play, less sunlight, creation of new environmental toxins, new pathogens, and reduced fertility.

We have falsely assigned value to monogamy, body modesty, consumption of things, “cheap” food, allopathic medicine, statism, hierarchies, and public education [Note that in that last link, LDS are half as likely as the general population to homeschool].  These manifestations of the Luciferian control system are intended to entice and derail the energies of the saints – until we come to lose agency and consciousness.  Humans are only truly happy when we embrace that which is designed into our constitution and nature – this means rejection of all things that are the result of convention or earthly –archies.

I believe firmly that if we “cheerfully do all things that lie in our power” – we can then “stand still, with the utmost assurance, to see the salvation of God, and for his arm to be revealed.”  In Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit came upon the believers gathered in that upper room — they immediately got up, left the room, and went to work.  Likewise, let us not focus on preaching to the choir, but instead focus on creating a little anarchy in the local congregations each of us has been placed into by the Lord [Examples of this can be found here, here, and here].

All things that lie in our power, which can restore humanity’s natural order, include:


Previous Article by Justin:  The World I See

Next Article by Justin:  Seeking the Good of Others

See also:  Zo-ma-rah’s Week in Faith October 17, 2010, comments at Tom’s Church Finance – Part III, and D&C 123: 7-15, 17

Connecting with Pixels

By way of full disclosure, I volunteered to write this post because I have personal experience with the topic.  I’ve viewed online pornographic movies both before and since I joined the church.  I felt no guilt associated with viewing it before joining the church (which was also before I was married), but when I began to view it after joining (which was also after I had been married), I desired to repent and have since studied the topic to better understand it.


When I use “pornography” in this post, I will be referring to video or photographs of adults engaging in sexual relations.  Currently, there are more than 300 million pages of pornographic material on the internet, an increase of 1800% over the last five years.  More than 70% of American men, ages 18 – 34, visit a pornographic website in a typical month.  Further, in 2006, the pornography industry netted just short of $100 billion – more revenue than that of Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple, and Netflix combined.  The state that contributes the most to those profits – Utah.

The inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

Porneia is rendered “fornication” all 26 times it is used in the New Testament.  It is from the word used to designate the temple prostitutes the Gentiles used for fertility worship.


The popularity of pornography relies on dehumanizing the subject, which is typically a woman.  The characters in pornography are not depicted as children of God with intellects and personalities – but as a collection of anatomical features that can be used to induce a physiological response.  Ask a man who watches pornography if he would want his wife or daughter to be in videos like the ones he watches – and 68.2689492137% will say, “No.”  (Note:  this figure was edited from 100% per comments below)  They want somebody else’s wife or daughter.  They prefer to do unto others’ daughters what they would not want done to their own.

The sexual climax is intended to be the sequel of the unification of two real persons.  The fact that the pleasure associated with the discharge can be produced in solitude demonstrates that the feelings are designed to conclude the sexual act – and are not a part of the unifying aspect of sex.  This is what I find most troubling about pornography use.  The release that ends sexual unification is designed to bind a person to the other person he or she is having relations with.  What are pornography users binding themselves to – a computer screen, pixels?  Humans are meant to make real connections with real people.


Recent discussion indicates that Satan introduced the concept of shame for nudity.  It is the same with sexuality.  Satan either covers up sexuality, teaching that it is too private to discuss openly, or he teaches only the physical biology of it, leaving out the spiritual connection that takes place.  He motivates sinners to hide from God and from others.  On the other hand, God sees all things, and thus He motivates sinners to be open, in full-fellowship and intimacy with Him and with others.

Sites like FightTheNewDrug promote addressing pornography by letting it into the light to be seen for what it really is – much like the “Truth” ads did for changing the discussion on cigarette smoking.  Having progressed, we can now look back on old cigarette ads as a deceptive venture to make an unhealthy practice popular for the sake of making money.  FightTheNewDrug focuses on addressing pornography by reducing demand – not supply.  When something is banned – rather by states, religions, etc. – without addressing the underlying motivations, the behavior is just pushed underground, becoming darker in the process.  When people learn that, for example, the reason for pornography actors shave their pubic hair is to make them look more like large children – people can choose to turn away from such perversions.  Instead of demonizing sexual expression or victimizing “porn addicts”, the rhetoric should focus on re-humanizing the people involved with pornography and re-emphasizing the sexiness of humans connecting with humans.

Intimacy is the opposite of what Satan suggested Adam and Eve do when they discovered their nakedness in the garden.  Before he found them, they were naked and were not ashamed.  Adam was fully exposed to Eve – and Eve to Adam.  This is the light that pornography should be seen in.  Humans are not meant to experience sexuality in front of computer screens, alone, feeling cycles of shame and guilt.


Boyd Packer told members during the most recent General Conference that:

The priesthood holds consummate power. It can protect you from the plague of pornography—and it is a plague—if you are succumbing to its influence. If one is obedient, the priesthood can show how to break a habit and even erase an addiction. Holders of the priesthood have that authority and should employ it to combat evil influences.

I think the evidence on this site should make it clear that you do not have to do anything with your bishop if you have viewed pornography.  A person that has viewed pornography has most likely committed adultery in his heart – if he were married, then confession to a spouse would be warranted.  But whether or not a person chooses to talk to his or her bishop is a personal decision – and it should be made in light of what will be the most helpful to the person.  When confession to a bishop is not expedient – as it would be in cases of unrepentant sin brought to the authorities by witnesses – then confession should be treated only as a tool to help the person.  One should weigh the risk of opening up grounds for a witch-hunt from an unprepared or unrighteous priesthood leader with the comfort that being completely open with a trusted and capable bishop can bring.  For example, I spoke with my bishop in the past when I had fell into a habit of viewing pornography – because I knew him to be a man of integrity and Godly love.  I received no formal or informal disciplines.  It was hard to speak openly about it with my wife, and I used my time with him to get many things off my chest.  I, unlike Packer, would not recommend confession to a bishop to everyone.  Many bishops are unprepared for dealing with such a nuanced situation and have been conditioned to use extreme measures with pornography because of inflated rhetoric about the subject.  So tread carefully.

Moving on:

I don’t mean to say porn can’t be a problem for some people.  However, it is more often the symptom of a different problem – e.g. poor socialization by parents on sexuality, unaddressed childhood abuse, an addictive personality, or feelings of insecurity.  The visual depiction of a man and women engaging in sexual relations is not, in and of itself, sinful – not any more than shopping is, or spending too much time on the computer.  The current state of pornography is a complicated issue and calling it evil or a plague doesn’t help anybody.  All you do is demonize something that, unless you have some dependence on it, isn’t bad for you.  Proclaiming some moral absolute on a mental health issue is just harmful to those involved.

We should take comfort in the fact that, for our generation, pornography is largely a problem of technology.  Just 30 years ago, to obtain pornography, a man would don a trench coat and sunglasses and go to the back of a dimly lit store to secretly purchase a VHS tape, hoping no one would see him walking back to his car – then he’d have to keep the tapes hidden at home, hoping kids or spouse didn’t find them.  However, today, I can type in a URL in the privacy of my home or office, instantly steam hours of free videos, and then delete my browsing history.  That’s it.  The reason this is a good thing for anyone who finds themselves habitually viewing pornography – if technology is the reason it is so available to you, then use technology to make it less available.  Effective webfilters are as readily available as free porn sites.  Humans should choose to connect with people — not pixels.

Next Article by Justin:  The Garment

Previous Article by Justin:  Tribal Relationships

Marriage without a marriage license is ordained of God

My text for this post is the following scripture:

And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. (D&C 49: 15.)

Between a man and a woman

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

Who forbids to marry?

And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. (D&C 49: 15; italics added.)

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

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

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

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

But I must add one more:

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage is a covenant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All three marriage covenants are ordained of God

And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. (D&C 49: 15; italics added.)

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

Marriage is ordained of God because it creates permanency

God is all about creating permanency: things that remain.

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

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

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

No mention of a State licensing requirement

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

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

No mention of a wedding ceremony

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

No mention of witnesses

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

Conflict between God and the Church

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

Consent in marriage

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

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

Sin in marriage

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

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

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

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

Polygyny is not sin

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

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

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

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

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

Polyandry is not sin

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

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

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

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

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

Objections to polyandry unfounded

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

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

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

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

Not giving consent to marry is sin

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

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

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

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

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

A secondary and third transgression

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

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

Plural marriage engenders charity

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

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

Plural marriage retains agency

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

Plural marriage creates Zion

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

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

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

Plural marriage corresponds to nature

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

Plural marriage causes rapid formation of super-strong tribes

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

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


And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. (D&C 49: 15.)

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

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

Inspiration behind this post

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

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist