CELIBACY, the Doctrine of Marriage & the Shaker Connection


“Marriage is ordained of God… It is Lawful that he should have one wife”

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away…. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face; now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”

The above words of Paul seem somewhat appropriate for the topic of this post. In the words of the apostle, mortal man sees through a glass darkly. We have a very incomplete understanding of the spiritual creation, the eternal world, and many of the details regarding the plan of salvation.

Nevertheless we have been commanded to search the mysteries and seek the face of God and we have the hope that we shall someday know even as we are known.

Paul speaks of a time when “that which is in part shall be done away” “when that which is perfect is come“.

Christ was of course the archetype and prototype of perfection. Yet he commanded us to be perfect.

In this post I am going to discuss several scriptures that I have addressed in previous posts but I want to approach the subject beginning with a more historical perspective.

I want to address the eternal role and relationship of the male and female genders as it relates to the plan of salvation.

Recently the following diatribe showed up on a popular chat board-

Women Probably Don’t Have Souls!

[link to www.landoverbaptist.org]

BIBLE FACT!

Landover Baptist Creation Scientist, Dr. Jonathan Edwards, announced findings related to his research into the female soul early this week. “The absence of either salvation or condemnation for women finds extensive support in the Word of God.” He reported. “Jesus said that the sole reason God created women in the first place was to provide company and service to men (1 Corinthians 11:9), God determined that men would be lonely living alone, so he created women purely to keep men company and serve their needs (Genesis 2:18-22). Women are therefore completely subordinate to men (1 Corinthians 11:3). It stands to reason, though, that once men enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they will be one with God, and will no longer be lonely and in need of mortal companionship. Thus, the reason behind having women will no longer exist. Women, like the members of the animal kingdom, will fall by the wayside.”

I was taken back a little bit by the above statements on the chat board by a protestant (even though the Landover Baptist Church is a PARODY) because the content and conclusions contained therein so closely resembled some of the remarks that Brigham Young had made concerning the female gender and their incapacity to fall as far or excel as high in the eternal world as their counterpart male gender.

Perhaps one of the most important and dynamic aspects of this mortal existence is the male, female dynamic of human sexuality pertaining to the roles and relationship between the two genders and yet very little about it is openly discussed and understood.

For some strange reason I have felt impressed to attempt this topic once more.

Jesse Gause, Leman Copley & the Shaking Quakers

Two of the many interesting figures to initially embrace the restored gospel in early LDS history were Jesse Gause and Lemon Copley.

Jesse was called to be a member of the original first Presidency of the Church and within a very short time, he disappear, creating the necessity for Joseph Smith to literally replace his name with the name of Fredrick G. Williams in section 81.

Leman was the one who came flying across the room during the special conference at the Morley Farm when the “man of sin” was revealed and many people became possessed.

Both of these fascinating characters from Quaker backgrounds played significant roles in the history of the LDS restoration (foundation) movement.

The thing Jesse and Lemon had in common with each other was their prior involvement in the Shaker movement which taught, among other heresies, that celibacy was a way to become more consecrated and closer to God.

Jesse Gause- The Lost Counselor

The son of William Gause and Mary Beverly, Gause was born in 1785 in East Marlborough, Chester County, Pennsylvania. Gause followed the faith of his parents and in 1806, apparently still single at twenty-one, he requested and was received into the Society of Friends, becoming a Quaker.

Although a Quaker in good standing, Gause’s Quaker pacificism did not prevent him from joining the Delaware militia in 1814 during the War of 1812. Upon leaving the military in 1815 he moved to Wilmington, Delaware, where he married Martha Johnson.

In 1822 the family finally settled in Chester County where he become a teacher in a Friends’ school. Martha died in 1828 after the birth of their fourth child.

In the same year of Martha’s death, Gause quickly remarried a woman named Minerva, and they settled in Hancock, Massachusetts. Shortly after the birth of a daughter, Gause resigned from the Quakers on January 30, 1829, and joined the Hancock “family” of the United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Coming, or the Shakers.

Gause’s new wife followed him, apparently accepting the Shaker practice of celibacy, even for married couples. In 1831, Gause, his wife, and infant daughter moved to the Shaker community near North Union, Ohio, leaving Martha’s four children in the care of his sister, who was also a Shaker.” (Ref)

“Jesse Gause (1785 – c. 1836) was an early leader in the Latter Day Saint movement and served in the First Presidency as a counselor to Church President
Joseph Smith, Jr.

For decades Gause was generally unknown to LDS historians, and so could be considered Mormonism’s
lost counselor of the First Presidency.

At the same time that Gause was moving to North Union, Latter Day Saints from New York were also emigrating to Ohio, settling in the environs of Kirtland, some fifteen miles east of North Union. It is not known when Gause came into contact with these new settlers, but some time after October 1831 he was baptized a Latter Day Saint; this time his wife refused to follow him.

Gause rose quickly to a position of prominence in his new faith; in an early record book it states that on March 8, 1832, Joseph Smith “[c]hose this day and ordained brother Jesse Gause and Broth[er] Sidney [Rigdon] to be my counsellors of the ministry of the presidency of the High Priesthood” (Kirtland Revelation Book, p. 10, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah).

A week later, Smith received a revelation concerning Gause’s selection as a counselor in what later became known as the First Presidency, as well as giving him additional instructions concerning his new assignment.[1] Smith may have chosen a recent convert for such a responsible position due to Gause’s experience with the Shaker communal society, because the Latter Day Saints had recently commenced their own communal experiment, the Law of Consecration. Both Gause and Smith’s other counselor, Sidney Rigdon, had previous experience living in communal societies.

Gause settled into his new role, accompanying Smith to Jackson County, Missouri, between April and June 1832, in order to set up the Law of Consecration. Upon returning to Kirtland, Gause started on a mission with Zebedee Coltrin on August 1, 1832. The two missionaries traveled to North Union, where six days later Gause attempted to persuade Minerva to accept Mormonism, but she continued to refuse to join him. He then attempted unsuccessfully to take their daughter, but had to leave “very much [e]nraged.”

Within a short time Coltrin became ill and decided to return to Kirtland. The two men “parted in the fellowship of the gospel” on August 20. From this date Gause simply disappears from Mormon history. It is not known what occurred to sour him on Mormonism, but by the end of 1832 he had “denied the faith” and was probably the “Jesse” excommunicated on December 3.

Gause’s role in Mormon history went unacknowledged for decades. The revelation given to him in 1832 was altered by replacing his name with his replacement in the First Presidency, Frederick G. Williams. His name was only recognized in the 1980 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, but then only in the historical introduction to the revelation; his replacement’s name remained in the text itself.

Only after historians demonstrated his role in the formation of the Mormon hierarchy, beginning with Robert J. Woodford in 1975 and D. Michael Quinn in 1983, was his name restored to the church’s list of General Authorities. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Gause)

Leman Copley- Called to Preach to the Shaking Quakers

Much less is known about Leman Copley.

Leman Copley (March 25, 1781 – December 1862) was an early convert to Mormonism. Prior to his conversion, Copley was a Shaker.

In March 1831, Copley was called by Joseph Smith, Jr. to preach the gospel to the Shakers along with Sidney Rigdon and Parley P. Pratt.

In June 1831, Copley was excommunicated from the church. He was readmitted in October 1832. He served another mission with Doctor Hurlbut.

After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., Copley joined the Church of Christ (Brewsterite) which was led by Hazen Aldrich. He left this church in 1849 and joined a Latter Day Saint denomination led by Austin Cowles, about which little is known.

Leman was, present at the special conference at the Morley Farm when the man of sin was revealed and the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored to the earth.

Leman was the one who was thrown across the room by an evil spirit during that conference. The following was a recollection of the event by Philo Dibble-

“Next thing I saw a man came flying through the window from outside. He was straight as a man’s arm as he sailed into the room over two rows of seats filled with men, and fell on the floor between the seats and was pulled out by the brethren. He trembled all over like a leaf in the wind. He was soon apparently calm and natural. His name was Leman Copley. He weighed over two hundred pounds. This I saw with my own eyes and know it is all true, and bear testimony to it.”

As noted earlier, Leman had been a Shaker. (also known as the “Shaking Quakers” and as the “United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing).

Ann Lee and the Quaking Shakers

Founded upon the teachings of Ann Lee, the Shakers were known for their emphasis on social equality and rejection of marriage, which led to their precipitous decline in numbers after their heavy involvement in the running of orphanages was curtailed. With few surviving members, Shakers today are mostly known for their cultural contributions (especially style of music and furniture).”

Wikipedia provides the following information about Ann Lee, the founder of the shaking quakers.

Ann Lee’s father was a blacksmith during the day and a tailor at night. Her father’s name was John Lees. Little is known about her mother other than she was a very religious woman. Originally Ann Lee’s name was probably Ann Lees but somewhere through time it changed to Ann Lee. When Ann was young she worked in a cotton factory, then she worked as a cutter of hatter’s fur and later as a cook in a Manchester infirmary.

Beginning during her youth, Ann Lee was uncomfortable with sexuality, especially her own. This repulsion towards sexual activity continued and manifested itself most poignantly in her repeated attempts to avoid marriage and remain single. Eventually her father forced her to marry Abraham Standley. They were married at Manchester Cathedral on 5 January 1761[2]. She became pregnant eight times, experiencing four stillbirths and four living children, none of whom lived past the age of 6.

Her difficult pregnancies and the loss of eight children were traumatic experiences that contributed to Ann Lee’s dislike of sexual relations.[3] Lee developed radical religious convictions that advocated celibacy and the abandonment of marriage, as well as the importance
of pursuing perfection in every facet of life. She differed from the Quakers, who, though they supported gender egalitarianism, allowed for marriage and sexual relations.

In 1758 she joined the Wardleys, an English sect founded by Jane and preacher James Wardley; this was the precursor to the Shaker sect.[4] She believed in and taught her followers that it is possible to attain perfect holiness by giving up sexual relations. Like her predecessors, the Wardleys, she taught that the shaking and trembling were caused by sin being purged from the body by the power of the Holy Spirit, purifying the worshipper. Ann Lee eventually decided to leave England for America in order to escape the persecution (i.e. multiple arrests and stays in prison) she experienced in the hostile religious climate of the United Kingdom.

Distinctively, the followers of Mother Ann came to believe that she embodied all the perfections of God in female form. The fact that Ann Lee considered herself to be Christ’s female counterpart was unique. She preached that sinfulness could be avoided by not only treating men and women equally, but also by keeping them separated so as to prevent any sort of temptation leading to impure acts.

Lee often was characterized as a virago (a woman with masculine, domineering attributes) because most English and Americans could not accept her ideals of gender equality. Lee recognized how revolutionary her ideas were when she said, “We [the Shakers] are the people who turned the world upside down.” Lee was also a neutralist during the revolution. She did not side with the British nor the colonists. If it had been necessary she may have sided with the Colonists due to religious freedom in the colonies, unlike Britain.”

The beginning of her ministry began with a vision she had while incarcerated-

During a lengthy incarceration in 1770, Lee beheld the “grand vision of the very transgression of the first man and woman in the Garden of Eden, the cause wherein all mankind was lost and separated from God.” It was further revealed to her that she was the female successor to Jesus, the incarnation of the second coming of Christ. She felt filled and united with Christ in such completeness that from then on she referred to herself as Mother Ann or Ann the Word. Ann Lee emerged from this experience with a confidence born of mysticism, the status of a martyr within the society, and the undisputed new leader of the sect. As Mother Ann, she boldly proclaimed her gospel at every opportunity. The message was uncomplicated: life with God begins by confession and is perfected by denial of the lusts of the flesh through celibacy.”

The Shakers reject the Trinity; instead they believe in a God made up of female and male elements.. The requirement of celibacy is based on the belief that sin arose from Adam and Eve’s sexual behavior in the Garden of Eden, although they do not feel that non-Shakers who marry and have sexual relations are sinners.”

The Deity is dual in nature. God is both male and female”

The Shakers believe “The Deity is dual in nature. God is both male and female.

They also believe the male principle of Christ came to earth as Jesus, the son of a Jewish carpenter. The female principle is represented in ‘Mother Ann’ [Ann Lee, founder of the Shakers, and in her the promise of our Lord’s Second Advent was fulfilled. Incidentally, the Shakers believe that even angels and spirits are both male and female.” (Ref)

A little context for Section 49

After embracing the gospel and joining the church, Leman Copley continued to hold on to some of his shaker beliefs.

At the insistence of Copley, The Lord gave a revelation in March of 1831 through Joseph Smith commanding him and Sidney Rigdon and Parley Pratt to take the message of the restored gospel to the shakers. In the revelation, the Lord corrected several of the prominent teachings of the Shakers (section 49… more on this later)

The Call to Repentance was Rejected

The following historical sketch is provided by Saints without Halos

Leman Copley … was anxious that some of the elders should go to his former brethren and preach the gospel. He also teased to be ordained to preach himself, and desired that the Lord should direct in this and all matters & thus saith the Lord:

Leman shall be ordained unto this work, that he may reason with them, not according to that which he has received of them, but according to that which shall be taught him by you, my servants [Sidney and Parley], and by so doing I will bless him, otherwise he shall not prosper:   ¶ D&C 49:4, March [20–26], 1831. Shaker mission

Sidney reads revelation   According to Shaker leader Ashbel Kitchell, Sidney and Leman arrive Saturday and agree not to interrupt the Sunday morning service, but (they later explain to him) when Parley arrives Sunday morning, he insists that they fulfill their responsibilities by reading the prophet’s revelation to the congregation. So at the end of the meeting, Sidney rises and requests permission to read a statement. Permission is granted and he reads D&C 49.   D&C 49

Shaker interview, 96–97.     At the close of the reading, he asked if they could be permitted to go forth in the exercise of their gift and Office.   Shakers and Mormons,     Ashbel denies permission and the congregation votes against hearing more. Sidney quietly retires, but:   Shaker interview, 98. Parley shakes coat tail   Parley Pratt arose and commenced shaking his coattail; he said he shook the dust from his garments as a testimony against us, that we had rejected the word of the Lord Jesus.     Shaker reprimand   Before the words were out of his mouth, I was to him, and said;—You filthy Beast, dare you presume to come in here, and try to imitate a man of God by shaking your filthy tail; confess your sins and purge your soul from
your lusts, and your other abominations before you ever presume to do the like again, &c.         While I was ministering this reproof, he settled trembling into his seat, and covered his face;     Leman in tears   and I then turned to Leman who had been crying while the message was reading, and said to him, you hypocrite, you knew better;—you knew where the living work of God was; but for the sake of indulgence, you could consent to decieve yourself and them, but you shall reap the fruit of your own doings, &c.—         This struck him dead also, and dryed up his tears; …     Parley leaves   Parleys horse had not been put away, as he came too late; he mounted and started for home without waiting for any one.—     Sidney stays for supper   Sidney stayed for supper, and acknowledged that we were the purest people he had ever been acquainted with but he was not prepared to live such a life. He was treated kindly and let go after supper.     Leman stays overnight   Leman stays overnight and starts for home in the morning

Needless to say, the call to repentance did not go very well.

Frankly, the circumstances didn’t seem ideal to me. It seems like you would want to provide some context about the restoration of the gospel before entering into their worship service, reading a revelation, and demanding to know if they are willing to deny their current belief system…

In hind sight, it is interesting to see how differently Sidney, Leman and Parley all responded to the rejection of their message by the Shaker community.

Leman was quite distraught. Possibly wondering what he had got himself into in his persistent whining to take the gospel to the Shakers.

Sidney was quite composed and stayed for dinner and was quite complimentary of the people and their communal lifestyle.

Parley was angry and dusted them off. He then rushed off, not even waiting for his brethren.

Years ago I would have felt that Parley did the right thing and that Sidney was not being very passionate and valiant in the faith.

I see things a little differently now however.

Also, I can’t help but see a little irony in the rebuke that Parley Pratt received from Ashbell, about being lustful, given his future propensity for acquiring lots of wives, while Sidney would hold fast to the marital law of monogamy according to the law of the gospel.

confess your sins and purge your soul from your lusts, and your other abominations before you ever presume to do the like again…”


Prominent Shaker Beliefs

Five of the more unusual and prolific teachings of the shakers were as follows-

  1. Baptism by water is not considered essential
  2. Eating pork is forbidden
  3. The second appearing of Christ had already occurred in the form of Ann Lee
  4. A celibate life was considered a higher spiritual life than marriage.
  5. God is composed of both male and female elements, as are spirits and angels.

Section 49 addresses the topic of meat, the appearance of Christ in the form of a woman and the necessity of water baptism.

It also addresses the topic of marriage.

Although the Shaker congregation collectively rejected section 49 and the message of the restored gospel and Lemon eventually became estranged from the church, Section 49 is very instructive because in it the Lord addresses four areas of doctrine that were taught by the shakers.

In prefacing this revelation, the Prophet wrote, “In order to have a more perfect understanding on the subject, I inquired of the Lord, and received the following.”

The Mystical Doctrine of Marriage

Section 49 provides a more perfect understanding on the doctrine of marriage within just three short verses and for that reason, we are going to dissect them in this article for more clarity on the topic.

Interestingly the Lord declares that the Shakers “desire to know the truth in part, but not all because they are not right before me

It is fascinating to read section 49 in the context of what the shakers believed because the Lord acknowledges that they desired to know the “truth in part

It would appear that not all of their heretical teachings were false.

In particular, part of their teachings regarding the eternal role and relationships of the genders might be true.

For that reason it is not only important to review section 49 to see what they taught that was wrong, but also to review what part of their beliefs were true!

Although the revelation goes on to explain away and correct four prominent falsehoods taught by the religion, including the belief in celibacy, the revelation actually declines to correct the shakers belief that God is composed of both male and female spirit, which was taught by the Shakers.

It also declines to challenge the teaching that angels are composed of both male and female spirit, which was also taught by the shakers..

I would submit that the revelation actually upholds and confirms the shakers belief that God is a composite being and that those who become one in Christ are not just one designated gender… they are “neither male nor female” exclusively, or singularly.

Let us take a close look at one of the greatest mysteries of the gospel which has been hidden in plain sight for about six thousand years in ancient scripture and is reiterated in verses 15-17 of section 49-

Whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God

Obviously this verse is not only reiterating what the creation story teaches, it is also reiterating what the LAW of the GOSEPEL contained in section 42 states about marriage;

Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else” (42:22)

After declaring that marriage is ORDAINED of God, the Lord informs us that

“Wherefore it is LAWFUL that he should have ONE wife…”

The 1828 Websters dictionary states this about the term LAWFUL.

Lawful

LAW’FUL, a.

1. Agreeable to law; conformable to law; allowed by law; legal; legitimate. That is deemed lawful which no law forbids, but many things are lawful which are not expedient.

2. Constituted by law; rightful; as the lawful owner of lands.

I would submit, based on the fact that marriage is ORDAINED of GOD and that it is CONFORMABLE to and CONSTITUTED by gospel law, that gospel law does not just allow,
permit and tolerate marriage but rather that gospel law actually requires marriage.

This is further backed up by the fact that one of the very first commandments that God gives us in Genesis is for the man and woman to leave their parents and to multiply and replenish the earth by uniting with someone of the opposite gender.

After noting that gospel law requires being married to ONE wife, the passage in section 49 continues-

“…and they twain shall be ONE FLESH…”

Again, this of course is reiterating what God said in Genesis.

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

I have mentioned in other blogs that I believe this statement is literal when it commands the man and wife to become one flesh. – ( See also Matt. 19: 5-6 Mark 10: 8)

After God separated the female part of Adam out of his body to create his female helpmate, he commanded them to eventually become “one flesh” again. I believe this will happen with Adam and Eve if it has not already happened.

(it is interesting to note that Eve is never mentioned again after Gen 4 even though Adam is. Additionally, she is conspicuously missing at the baptism of Adam baptism in the Pearl of Great Price. We have no account of her death, baptism or her presence at the baptism of Adam. This seems a little odd since she is the mother of the human race…. could this be because Adam and Eve had already fulfilled the commandment of God to become one flesh again? End times prophesies telling about the Ancient of Days return to the earth to bless his posterity also say nothing about the presence of Eve at this great family gathering in the end times… is she really that insignificant? I think not. I believe she is the Ancient of Days along with her male counterpart….)

Let us now review an amazing scripture in Galations that provides part of the doctrinal documentation for one of the undisputed beliefs that Ann Lee and the Shakers taught.

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gal/3/28#28

My goodness Paul was quite a heretic wasn’t he?

Interestingly, despite the fact that the apostle Paul provides some controversial statements about marriage which some people use to question the merit of the marital relationship (see 1 Cor. 7: 9) it is actually Paul himself that teaches the wonderful mystery that after one has been baptized into Christ, they lose their distinction of being singularly male or female!

Imagine the ramifications of people no longer being a distinctive gender after the resurrection!

This brings us to a most remarkable change that Joseph Smith appears to have made in the Inspired Version of the New Testament.

When the Sadducees came to Christ asking which of the seven husbands would be married to the wife during the resurrection, that they had all been married to in succession, in mortality, the Saviour stated,

“…Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

The above rendering of the scripture is out of the King James Version of the scriptures.

Notice however how Joseph Smith deleted the “s”on the end of the word angels in the JST

“…Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angel of God in heaven.” (oddly, that change is noted in the online JST, but not in some of the hard cover books.. I don’t know for sure which is correct)

We often quote the above scripture to prove that marriages must be sealed during time and cannot take place after mortal probation, however the inspired version of this passages reveals another great truth-

Christ was also teaching that the man and wife are no longer separate and single individual entities. The two of them jointly become AN ANGEL, singular, not angels plural!

Not ANGELS!

SINGULAR!

As additional context for the above passage, we are reminded of what Joseph said about angels.

There are only two types of beings in heaven, angels and the spirits of just men made perfect (who are waiting to become resurrected angels!)

There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones….— Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory.” (D&C 129)

This scriptural modification in Galations confirms the commandment in Genesis and section 49 for the righteous man and woman in Christ to become ONE FLESH.

ONE ANGEL!

From this we see the literal truth in Pauls statement in Corinthians that

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” (1 Cor 11:11)

Those who become baptized into Christ and receive the complete three part baptism of water, fire and the holy ghost cannot enter into the presence of God as an independent gender.

From the above testimony of ancient and modern scripture we learn that

  1. Gospel law requires a man to marry ONE wife.
  2. There are only two types of beings in heaven, spirits and angels. Angels are resurrected personages of flesh and bone.
  3. Angels are neither male or female
  4. The man and wife who are baptized into Christ are to become ONE FLESH. ONE ANGEL.

The possibility that we were created as a composite male/female spirit brings up lots of interesting questions in my mind.

One is, how many married couples in mortality ended up with their original partner from the spiritual creation?

Another is, will everyone ultimately end up with their original partner even if they did not marry them in this probation?

Paul brings up another possible ramification that if one is a believer in this life and their partner is not, perhaps they will sanctify that other one. (admittedly, this interpretation of the following passage may be a stretch but it is worth pondering)

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

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

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” (1 Cor. 7: 14 see also D&C 74: 1)

But lets not get carried away with speculation on this magnificent doctrine..

Lets continue dissecting the passages on marriage in section 49

“..and they shall be one flesh, AND ALL THIS THAT THE EARTH MIGHT ANSWER THE END OF ITS CREATION; AND THAT IT MIGHT BE FILLED WITH THE MEASURE OF MAN….”

Did you catch that?

Eventually the earth will be filled with the MEASURE of man!

What is the measure of man?

Let us consult Webster-


measure


MEASURE, n. mezh’ur.

1. The whole extent or dimensions of a thing, including length, breadth and thickness.

The point being made in the passage of scripture is that eventually the earth will be filled with the WHOLE EXTENT of man in his completeness!

The natural man living on this earth is currently incomplete!

The mortal man and woman are each incomplete beings.

Eventually the earth will be filled with men in their complete form… in their “whole extent or dimension”!

Just to make sure that we understand what the Lord is saying, he continues with a clarification-

THAT IT MIGHT BE FILLED WITH THE MEASURE OF MAN ACCORDING TO HIS CREATION BEFORE THE WORLD WAS MADE

There you have it.

The earth is NOT going to be filled with incomplete men like those of us that are living after the FALL OF ADAM.

It will be filled with men who are organized in the same way they were ORIGINALLY created BEFORE THE WORLD WAS MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reason the man Adam was a composite being when God created his physical body from the dust of the earth AFTER the spiritual creation is because in the spiritual creation, that is how Adam was created.

That is how all of the elect souls were created in the spiritual creation.. as composite beings.

The ending of that passage in section 49 is not speaking about fallen man. It is not speaking about an incomplete man or woman of singular gender.

It is referring to the complete “MEASURE OF MAN ACCORDING TO HIS [COMPOSITE] CREATION BEFORE THE WORLD WAS MADE

The earth will not be filled with the natural man who is incomplete and is an enemy to God.

It won’t even be filled with repentant mortal males and females who have been filled with the holy spirit. Why? Because they have not reached their full measure yet!

It will be filled with the measure of men who have been completed and perfected by uniting with their female counterpart.

It will be filled with perfected men who are not singularly male or female but rather they are complete.

In the spiritual creation, before this world was made, God created man as a whole, complete composite being containing both male and female spirit. A meshing of male and female spirit is necessary for completion.

Completion is necessary for perfection.

It is only during this temporal probation that the elect male and female spirits are separated with the commandment for men to marry one wife and become one flesh so that they can return to the whole extent in which they were originally created.

The prophet Joseph was quoted as saying,

In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood  And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.”
D&C 131: 2

Brigham Young later had the following insertion put into the D&C to clarify what the highest order of the priesthood is-

[meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]

That phrase erroneously implies that one must experience a special mortal marital sealing ceremony. However the accurate clarifying insertion according to the scriptures would be as follows-

[meaning the new and everlasting covenant of baptism]

It is through the ordinance of baptism (of water, fire and the Holy Ghost) that a person enters into the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood and the associated celestial kingdom of glory.

It appears to be this same ordinance that seals the righteous candidate to their spiritual counterpart. This spiritual uniting makes them both complete.

Of course to LDS fundamentalists the insertion by Brigham Young also implies the necessity of being sealed in a temporal ceremony to multiple wives… which is diametrically opposed to the law of marriage contained in the gospel law given in section 42, 49 and the article on marriage!

Section 131 claims that those who do not enter into the everlasting covenant may enter into another kingdom of glory but will not have increase..

Other sources attribute Joseph Smith as stating that Angels that do not live gospel law and enter into the everlasting covenant will “remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

If indeed the above claim is true, it would appear that only celestial souls are composite beings while all others do live separately and singly without merging with the other gender element.

The creation Story is literally true!

Although Brigham Young passed  off the creation story in Genesis as a fairytale, Joseph Smith obviously took it quite literally. He preached about it as being literal and produced additional revelation pertaining to the creation story to prove it was.

Once one comprehends the truthfulness of this marriage doctrine that is being reiterated in section 49, the beauty and reality of the literalness of the creation story begins to unfold in its magnificent splendor.

This is why the complete man Adam and all of the animals were first created from the dust of the earth but Eve was not created separately from the dust of the earth.

She was not an independent entity.

She was taken out of Adam because she was originally created as part of the man Adam.

He was created physically from the dust of this earth in the same manner that he and Eve had originally been created… as a composite being consisting of both genders.

Adam and Eve were one being. They were male and female spirit meshed together to make a complete MAN without singular gender.

This is why God originally named THEM ADAM, instead naming THEM Adam and Eve.

8 Now this prophecy Adam spake, as he was moved upon by the Holy Ghost, and a genealogy was kept of the children of God. And this was the book of the generations of Adam, saying: In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

9 In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls in the land upon the footstool of God. (Moses 6:8-9)

Allow me to paraphrase,

In the image of Gods own body which was composed of male and female spirit, God created man during the spiritual creation. Each of these composite spirit children was called ADAM.

Initially Adam and Eve were BOTH created as one being and were called ADAM.

The spirit children of God are all created the same way… they are “begotten sons and daughters unto God” (76:24) in like manner during the spirit creation.

Before being separated, the composite sons of God were called Adam.

God had to separate the female intelligence from the male intelligence in order for our father Adam to become incomplete and for the fall to take place.

This is explained in some of the ancient texts-

“When Eve was still in Adam death did not exist, When she was separated from him death came into being. If he again becomes complete and attains his former self, death will be no more.”

“My God my God why have you forsaken me?” It was on the cross that he said these words, for it was there that he was divided.

“If the woman had not separated from the man, she would not die with the man. His separation became the beginning of death.

Because of this Christ came to repair the separation which was from the beginning and again unite the two and to give life to those who died as a result of the separation and unite them.

But the woman is united to her husband in the bridal chamber. Indeed those who have united in the bridal chamber will no longer be separated. ” (The Nag Hammadi Library James M. Robinson General Editor)

The gospel of Thomas quotes Peter as saying to Christ  ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’

Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven'” (Thomas 114).

The first and Last Adam were both composite beings

Realizing that the term Adam is a generic term for the sons of God before they have their female element separated out of them, it is interesting to note that Christ is referred to as the “last Adam”.

“And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit… The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.”

The above passages appear to be implying that Christ was not a mortal human being nor was he an incomplete, singular gender.

He was a composite being just as our father Adam was when he was initially placed in the garden, before the Lord took the Eve portion of him out.

This is why he could not be born from the act of lust resulting in the uniting of a sperm and an egg. Such would produce an incomplete mortal male or female.

Christ was a composite God who had to provide an infinite and eternal atonement for a fallen race of people who needed to be restored to a state of spiritual completion.

I will not take the time in this article to develop the supposition that Christ was a God who condescended to take on a physical body. I have blogged about this concept before, those wanting doctrinal proof that Christ was NOT mortal but was literally God in the flesh, please click here.

Being CONFORMED into the image and likeness of Christ

In a discourse given on July 9th 1843 the prophet Joseph Smith said;

And through the atonement of Christ and the resurrection and obedience in the Gospel we shall again be conformed to the image of His Son Jesus Christ, then we shall have attained to the image, glory and character of God.” ( HC 5:498-500)

The Lectures on Faith provide some remarkable information regarding the fulness of the Father.

Fulness of the Father

“And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father-possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit,”

“…The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all–the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father–possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father–a Mediator for man–being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments:

and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.

At-ONE-Ment

This mystery pertaining to composite beings provides much greater meaning to the term ATONEMENT.

At-ONE-ment. To return back into agreement or conformity… a state of oneness.


atonement


ATO’NEMENT, n.

1. Agreement; concord; reconciliation, after enmity or controversy. Rom. 5.


agreement


AGREE’MENT, n.

1. Concord; harmony; conformity.

So what about Joseph Smith, did he understand that the destiny of man is to become angels in a world where the man is neither without the woman neither the woman without the man?

He obviously understood this doctrine.

As the inspired prophet who received and obviously understood section 49, as the one who made the above noted changes in the inspired version of the bible pertaining to the man and woman becoming an angel, as one of the two witnesses that saw the three degrees of glory, bore witness of the Father and Son and comprehended the nature of the angels around the throne, he obviously understood the deeper mysteries relating to the eternal relationship and roles of the two genders.

Joseph once said,

We shall by and by learn that we were with God in another world, and had our agency: that we came into this world and have our agency, in order that we may prepare ourselves for a kingdom of glory; become archangels, even the sons of God where the man is neither without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord“. (The Mormon Hierarchy Pg 623)

Not only does the above statement make it clear that Joseph understood the doctrine of composite beings, he taught it in a very veiled way because he understood that the time was not right for most people to comprehend it.

we shall by and by learn….”

Clearly many of the Saints of his generation were not ready to embrace that much light… but “by and by” it would happen… Sometime in the future.

It is possible that Joseph tried to teach these doctrines in other discourses and that they have been lost or covered over.

The following remarks were made by Bishop Newell K. Whitney in the presence of Joseph Smith in front of the Relief Society shortly after it was formed (brackets inserted for interpretive commentary purposes by Watcher):

“Bishop Whitney arose and after some preliminary  remarks, proceeded to address the congregation by saying  that he rejoic’d and did rejoice at the formation of the  Society that we might improve upon our talents and to  prepare for those blessings which God is soon to bestow  upon us.

In the beginning God created man, male and female,  and bestow’d upon man certain blessings peculiar to a  [composite] man of God, of which woman partook, so that without  the female all things cannot be restor’d to the earth.

It takes all [male and female] to restore the Priesthood. It is the intent of  the Society, by humility and faithfulness; in connexion with  those husbands that are found worthy.

Rejoice while contemplating the blessings which will be pour’d out on the  heads of the saints. God has many precious things to  bestow, even to our astonishment if we are faithful.

I say  again I rejoice in the prospect of what lays before. It  becomes us to prepare by striving for union one with another,  that we may be prepar’d for the day of choosing— man will  not choose but God will say who is and who is not worthy.Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book May 27 1842

Whitney obviously was speaking about that fact that composite beings were created in the spiritual creation and that woman partook of priesthood in the spiritual creation as part of a composite man of God. He was pointing out that women are essential in restoring priesthood in its fulness.

Whitney is not the only general authority that learned and taught this doctrine. There are general authorities in later years who clearly understood the scriptures relating to this doctrine.

“God… is composed of the man and woman united”

Interestingly enough the concept that God is a  composite/androgynous being composed of male and female, although a mystery to most people, was actually taught by Erastus Snow, an LDS general authority:

“What,” says one, “do you mean we should understand that deity consists of man and woman?”

Most certainly I do.

If I believe anything that God has ever said about himself, and anything pertaining to the creation and organization of man upon the earth, I must believe that Deity consists of man and woman.

Now this is simplifying it down to our understanding, and the great Christian world will be ready to open their mouths and cry, “Blasphemy! Sacrilege!” Open wide their eyes and wide their mouths in the utmost astonishment. What! God a man and woman? . . .

I sometimes illustrate this matter by taking up a pair of shears, if I have one, but then you all know they are composed of two halves, but they are necessarily parts, one of another, and to perform their work for each other, as designed, they belong together, and neither one of them is fitted for the accomplishment of their works alone. And for this reason says St. Paul, “the man is not without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord.

In other words, there can be no God except he is composed of the man and woman united, and there is not in all the eternities that exist, nor ever will be, a God in any other way. I have another description: There never was a God, and there never will be in all eternities, except they are made of these two component parts; a man and a woman; the male and the female..

. . and there is no Lord, there is no God in which the two principles are not blended, nor can be; and we may never hope to attain unto the eternal power and the Godhead upon any other principle. . . ” (ES, JD 19:266-270)

Is it possible that the elect of our generation who will help to redeem Zion are preparing themselves to accept this grand doctrine?

An understanding of the doctrine of marriage puts the eternal relationship of the man and wife into perspective along with many other issues including the false doctrines relating to homosexuality, polygamy and celibacy in the eternal perspective of the genders.

The truth is that both genders are incomplete until they once again unite and become one flesh. It is then that they become whole and powerful.

If two make peace with each other in a single house, they will say to the mountain, ‘Move from here!’ and it will move.” Gospel of Thomas

The time is coming when the elect of God will need to be weaned from the milk and to ingest the meat of the gospel.

Until then, as Paul prophesied, we truly we live in a time when people can no longer endure sound doctrine. The commandment for the man and wife to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise and become one flesh is being ignored while the quest for greater enlightenment is attempted via such heresies as polygamy and celibacy.

 “God separated Adam into his two sexual component parts, one male, the other female—Eve—taken from his side. The longing for reunion which love inspired in the divided halves of the originally dual being, is the source of the sexual pleasure…”  Philo

37 Responses to CELIBACY, the Doctrine of Marriage & the Shaker Connection

  1. I can always count on “Because I Am Watching” to contain some of the most fascinating and well-researched articles in the bloggernacle. Highly interesting!

  2. Thank you for the kind words Rock

    This heretical post was inspired in part by the incredible ruckuss you have created on you blog regarding the topic of polygamy.

    You are certainly getting people engaged and thinking about a very important issue.

    Watcher

  3. NEPT says:

    I think I’ve shared some of this with you before, Watcher, but I thought it would be appropriate to post it here also. For simplicity’s sake, I will just copy verbatim what I’ve read in a book by Robert Alter entitled “The Five Books of Moses.” It’s his attempt to render a more literal (and true to form) translation of the Pentateuch into English from the Hebrew. Some of his footnotes are very applicable to this topic:

    Gen 1

    26 And God said, “Let us make a human in our image, by our likeness, to hold sway over the fish of the sea…

    27 And God created the human in his image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them.

    footnote 1–“The term ‘adam, afterward consistentlty with a definite article, which is used both here and in the second account of the origins of humankind (Gen 2), is a generic term for human beings, not a proper noun. It also does not automatically suggest maleness, especially not without the prefix ben, “son of,” and so the tradition rendering “man” is misleading, and an exclusively male ‘adam would make nonsense of the last clause of verse 27.”

    footnote 2–“In the middle clause of verse 27, “him,” as in the Hebrew, is grammatically but not anatomically masculine. Feminist critics have raised the question as to whether here and in teh second account of the human origins, in chapter 2, ‘adam is to be imagined as sexually undifferentiated until the fashioning of woman…”

    —–

    Gen 2

    7 …then the Lord God fashioned the human, humus from the soil, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the human became a living creature.

    footnote 1–“the human, humus. The Hebrew etymological pun is ‘adam, “human,” from the soil, ‘adamah.”

    21-25 And the Lord God cast a deep slumber on the human, and he slept, and He took one of his ribs and closed over the flesh where it had been, and the Lord God built the rib He had taken from the human into a woman and He brought her to the human. And the human said: “This one at last, bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, This one shall be called Woman, for from man was this one taken.” Therefore does a man leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife and they become one flesh…”

    footnote 1–“built Though this may seem an odd term for the creation of woman, it complements the potter’s term, “fashion,” used for the creation of first human (out of clay), and is more appropriate because the Lord is now working with hard material, not soft clay. As Nahum Sarna has observed, the Hebrew for “rib,” tsela’, is also used elsewhere to designate an architectural element.”

    Some more food for thought.

  4. NEPT

    That is a spectacular find!

    I recall you mentioning to me that you had found some additional information pertaining to the subject of composite beings a long time ago and that you were going to shoot it my direction, but I think you forgot to send it to me..

    Thank you for sharing..

    Incredible!

  5. I too found this information to be fascinating, Nept, particularly the word “human” being derived from “humus”.

  6. NEPT says:

    I’m glad I was able to contribute. Alter’s book is a pretty good read in case you guys are interested. If you recall, Watcher, I got the stuff about the “fit” man or “man for the hour”(Lev 16) from there also.

  7. Must be an incredible book.. the fit man information that you added to the Sidney Rigdon article also provide very insightful validation.

    Is Alder’s book online?

    Where did you get it?

  8. What is the Sidney Rigdon article Watcher refers to?

  9. wewingtonheet says:

    Wow, this is indeed an interesting day! Definately food for thought. This discussion makes very good sense. Here is a website you may or may not have come across.

    http://innertech.com/blog/

    The author is Timothy Sakach. He devotes much of his time to developing a working calender based on the Book of Enoch and he blogs/preaches from a direct Hebrew to English translation of the Bible where applicable. It may even be his own translation as I believe he is also a linguist.

    Anyway, in his blog he mentions how our destiny as children of Elohim are to become one again with God (Elohim being a plural word meaning Gods). Nothing new there except he believes our genders are to be rejoined together and that we are now seperate but our true nature is composed of both the male and female and all our preoccupation with gender will cease when we are restored.

    I don’t paraphrase very well so go check his site out!!

    I admit I was a little taken aback when first reading this a year ago but it had a lingering affect on me and now that I read your blog ,Watcher, you have come across a similar truth. I believe seperately. If so, then I have 2 seperate witnesses to this ‘idea’. It may not be so new to others but for me this was pretty sweet.

    I am sometimes amazed at how easy it is to accept or be willing to ponder new and deep doctrines when your mind is open and willing to learn. There are so many different places to find truth.

    On a side note, You also mentioned homosexuality but didn’t provide your thoughts on false doctrines regarding this? I wonder how attraction to the same sex might be reconciled with this doctrine. My wife and I both know a couple of members who have ‘come out’ to us and still desire to live the gospel but also to act on their sexual preferences. One next door neighbor of ours tried to live a heterosexual lifestyle with wife and 2 children but eventually divorced his wife in order to stop cheating on her and live a gay lifestyle

    I wonder if perhaps this is a part of some who subconsciously understand at a greater level that they have been split genderwise and they subconsciously see the man as both genders and are attracted both spiritually and mentally and this becomes also a physical attraction as they get older?

    More food for thought. I would like to here your thoughts on that.

    Also, take note that Timothy’s calender reconstruction also coincides with John Pratt’s Enoch and Jubilees calendar (they both cross referenced the Book of Enoch with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of the Essenes) although they differ in interpretation. This also alludes back to David Cohen and his Adamic Calendar reconstruction.

    By the way, did you get an opportunity to read his book? Extrememly fascinating.

    Anyway, long comment but worth the time. Please let me know what you thing either by comment here or email.

    It is good to have a place to voice my thoughts and to have such wonderful brothers return comment/critique and share light and knowledge.

  10. “Anyway, in his blog he mentions how our destiny as children of Elohim are to become one again with God (Elohim being a plural word meaning Gods). Nothing new there except he believes our genders are to be rejoined together and that we are now seperate but our true nature is composed of both the male and female and all our preoccupation with gender will cease when we are restored. ”

    Sounds like a fascinating blog. I will visit and devour. thank you for sharing wewingtonheet!

    BTW Last night I ordered Cohen’s book. I look forward to reading it.

  11. […] CELIBACY, the Doctrine of Marriage & the Shaker Connection The Eternal nature of the Genders & Doctrine of Composite Beings […]

  12. John says:

    Great stuff. However, Joseph Smith believing in a composite being makes his stance on polygamy more confusing or at worst more demeaning to the women he married. What celestial world did he think he was condemning them into?

    Similar to my last comment, I think we fail pretty miserably when we try to use our earthly knowledge to reconcile the nature of God, yet this post is definitely in the open-minded category and I stand reproved over my thoughts on your motives.

  13. LOL

    I don’t know if you have read my four or five posts on polygamy so I am not sure if you understand fully how profound your observation is from my point of view.

  14. JennyP1969 says:

    Wait…….you mean women are just a man’s feminine side? That we will be re-absorbed into a man? We have no identity of our own? Mrs. Watcher….help! This sounds really horrible for women. Everything is all about men and for men. “Sons of God.” Patriarchal Order. “Sons of men.” Men preside, women abide. Women are just a part of men. Women are largely without power, authority, a voice that matters, or of much worth other than providing sex, and bearing and rearing children. And now I’m supposed to disappear as my own individual worthwhile self into my husband? Bro. Watcher, I feel traumatized. It all makes sense — scriptures almost totally silent about women. I feel completely, utterly ill. It’s always been about men, and it always will be. No wonder we are queens and priestesses to our husbands and not to God. No wonder why we hearken to him. I feel sick. I mean, I feel physically very ill. I feel sick at heart and in my soul. Or his soul. Whatever. I wish I’d never been born.

  15. Dear Jenny

    I want to thank you for your response on my blog.

    I had decided to not post your comments because I didn’t feel they were faith promoting or uplifting. You didn’t seem to disagree with the accuracy of my post about composite marriage, and the wealth of supporting scriptures and additional documentation, you seemed to disagree with God’s plan for you and his gift of eternal life, for you.

    When I tried to send a personal response to the email address that comes with the comment, it was rejected as invalid.

    Mrs Watcher encouraged me to post your comment so I did.

    I don’t think those would be your true feelings if you could see things through the lens you were looking through in the pre-existence. Paul reminds us that in this life, with the veil over our eyes, we see through a glass darkly.

    I am sorry that you feel the way you do.

    I confess that when I first came upon the doctrine I didn’t like it even as a man at first, because I covet my own uniqueness and my own separateness, agency and identity, etc. There were stakes I had put up with regard to just how much I would consecrate to God. I didn’t like the idea that I am an incomplete person that cannot be made complete and perfect without my other half.

    I am surprised that the true doctrine of marriage is more repulsive to you than the BY version of eternal marriage that pits you against multiple other wives in fighting for the attention and affection of your husband as you kick out babies for eternity. Oh my.

    It seems to me that you would rather rather inherit godhood than to be an eternal helpmeet.

    Anyway, Mrs Watcher wanted to personally respond you to you so I am posting her comments below.

    “Dear Jenny,
    Brother Watcher sent me your response.

    I have to say, I have felt your pain but in a little different way.

    You see, after we had been married about 10 years, we had learned a lot about the gospel and the condition of the church. I had drunk deeply from the scriptures and couldn’t find out anything about the salvation of women, so to speak. When I read about the 144,000 “High Priests” that were “virgins” that were exalted I felt a deeply concerned that women didn’t appear to be included.

    Why wouldn’t God mention it? I knew if men were exalted that women were, too.

    The small number of references of women in the scriptures had always been interesting (strange) to me.

    I never liked the polygamy aspect but felt if it was God’s plan then he would give me the grace to live it. (I have since learned it isn’t for our salvation, section 132 as it stands is not true in that it contradicts several previous revelations and that the spiritual wifery that was lived in Nauvoo and Utah is a total curse)

    I remember feeling like boiling water in a teapot one day and went into my husband”s office and DEMANDED that he find out what and where it talks about women’s salvation.

    He found me all the references in scripture and the Nag-hamadi and the understanding of composite beings. I felt I had come home. I felt instant peace.

    I think the reason it wasn’t repugnant to me is because I had previously learned that all exalted beings look alike. Joseph Smith taught that perfection could only be one idea of perfect. As I recall, he had seen all the twelve apostles in the Celestial Kingdom and they looked exactly similar, just like the Father and the Son looking exactly similar. They could be differentiated by the Holy Ghost telling you who they are. I remember reading this in Truman Madson’s book, Joseph Smith, the Prophet.

    You see, the bottom line for me is that I have come to the understanding, very slowly, but finally I kinda get it that we were created for God’s purposes. As a Christian, when I was baptized I gave up my will for His will. I know it will make me happy to obey the commandments. I am so grateful for His atonement and plan for me.

    In the pre-existance, I was created as the female part of a whole soul and my husband was the male part of our soul. “Neither is the man without the woman or the woman without the man in the Lord.” We had different callings on earth. We are both equally important to the plan of the Lord, we just have different jobs. It’s kind of like in Corinthians when Christ is explaining the different limbs on a person as each being necessary and all contributing to the whole. One part can’t say it has no need of the other. He was describing the different callings in the church and the different gifts we would each have to contribute to God’s plan, “Behold, this is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”

    My husband being in charge, means to me that his whole job is to serve……me, our family, our God.

    I was created to be the helpmeet of my husband to help get US back into him for God. I am married to an imperfect, yet, kind, loving, non-possessive, honoring, and agency promoting man. When you are married to a man who loves God more than me, and I totally love God more than him, you are able to love each other better and be satisfied with the amazing part of this soul that I am.

    I have always been delighted to have the role I have been gifted with in this life. I get to mold young minds, teach homeschool, serve neighbors, etc. etc whilst he has to earn the money by the sweat of his brow in Babylon the Great.

    I have learned that I was created for God’s purposes, not my own purposes. I know that if I can be humble and teachable by the Spirit and take the scriptures as the measuring yardsticks to every man’s doctrine,that Jesus Christ plans on making me EQUAL with Him. I will receive the same gifts and blessings as God’s Son. It doesn’t get any better than that.

    My identity is the same as it was in the pre-existance. I just forgot what it was. A kind and loving God has a great plan for me and it will be greater than my wildest dreams. I have to just let my ego go to get back to who I was. Christ will make me back At-one-ment.

    I am constantly kidding my husband saying, “You might be in charge now but wait until I get in there and we’ll see who’s boss.”

    I don’t mean to minimize your concerns but as a woman you have as many if not more privileges as a man has. Your identity is your whole soul, male and female. Do you seriously want to be just like you are for eternity? I don’t and I know my husband isn’t very happy with his incompleteness, either.

    I hope this has helped, God will give you peace with truth. Only the Celestials will have the joy of being a complete male and female soul back together. I would think all the other kingdoms would not have this great blessing.

    I love you, I totally validate how you have felt in the past. I just think if you pray about who you were and who you get to be now and who you will be in the future it will meld together in a non-scary, sweet truth.
    Sincerely,
    Mrs. Watcher

    I

  16. JennyP1969 says:

    I have a question if you have time.

    When the Savior taught that we would be resurrected and not a hair of our heads would be lost, does this apply only to men? I mean what happens to female bodies during the resurrection?

  17. That is a facinating question.

    I don’t know.

    For one thing, I don’t know when the couple that is sealed togather actually merge into their celestial temple. I have often wondered if the translated Nephites had merged with their soulmates at that point.

    Does the merging take place before or after the initial resurrection???

    Obviously, we don’t know the details of how procreation takes place in the eternities… that is another consideration.

    And then there is the Adam and Eve scenario… of being separated for a season….. fundamentalists think we will all become Adams and Eves upon other worlds… I have greatly backed off of that belief, nevertheless, there is always the possibility that the female intelligence could temporarily be separated from the male intelligence if need be… for Gods perposes.

    All of this falls under the topic of the mysteries that we just don’t know.

    Admittedly, my interpretation of the whole composite thing could certainly be wrong… I just don’t think it is 😉

  18. JennyP1969 says:

    Another question: I have never found any reference to a Mother in Heaven in scripture or from the prophet Joseph. I have only found quotes regarding Her by BY, and of course Eliza R. Snow. Do you have any scriptural references or inferences of Her I might be overlooking, or from Joseph?

  19. JennyP1969 says:

    Still, another…..

    You said angels are neither male or female. Yet Joseph knew Moroni was a male. The name would be unfamiliar to him and wouldn’t indicate a particular gender. So is Moroni appearing as a male for Joseph’s sake?

    And didn’t Joseph see his brother Alvin and a sister — both of whom died — in vision in the Celestial Kingdom? Were they being manifested to him in a recognizable manner? Or couldn’t this mean they were still themselves, only perfected? Not merged composites?

  20. Actually, it was the apostle Paul that made the statement and he was not necessarily referring to all angels. He may have only been referring to those angels that inherit a celestial inheritance.

    We don’t know if ministering angels such as Moroni have been made complete yet, although it is an interesting thing to ponder.

    I remember the quote about Alvin, perhaps he saw his sister, but that doesn’t really prove anything as we don’t know if he saw her in her final exalted state.

  21. I am not aware of any. Perhaps a reader can enlighten us.

  22. Fabledsog says:

    19 And now, when Ammon had made an end of speaking these words the king rejoiced exceedingly, and gave thanks to God, saying: Doubtless a great mystery is contained within these plates, and these interpreters were doubtless prepared for the purpose of unfolding all such mysteries to the children of men.
    20 O how marvelous are the works of the Lord, and how long doth he suffer with his people; yea, and how blind and impenetrable are the understandings of the children of men; for they will not seek wisdom, neither do they desire that she should rule over them!

    (Book of Mormon | Mosiah 8:19 – 20)

    I don’t believe there is a spelling error in this particular passage.

  23. Bravo my mystic friend fabled-

    Once again you have extracted a hidden treasure

    “..SHE should rule over them…”

    🙂 🙂 🙂

  24. JennyP1969 says:

    I don’t understand Fabledsog. “She” is referring to wisdom, not a female. Or as Heavenly Father is referred to as Man of Holiness, are you saying Heavenly Mother is called Wisdom? If so, then wouldn’t it be Woman of Wisdom? Hmmm…Word of Wisdom…..Here is Wisdom……And if Her name is Wisdom, could this mean she is an individual? Like Orson Hyde’s scissors analogy? — two separate pieces joined at one point to make a unified PAIR? — but of one heart, might, mind and strength? — sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise?

    Are there no scriptures to support this paradigm? I thought “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female” meant that in Exalted states we would have moved past our imperfect concepts of who is chosen and who is defined by gender-specific “earthly” roles with one gender deemed greater or weaker than another…..

    I thought this was the meaning taught to me by the Spirit….

    What’s a girl to do?

  25. JennyP1969 says:

    Luke 7:35 But wisdom is justified of all her children.

  26. Jenny

    I can’t speak for fabled, but, what I got out of his remark is that if you take many of the scriptures that list the attributes and charactoristics of God, some of them are believed to depict Masculine and some are Feminine. Mercy and wisdom for instance might be considered feminine while justice and judgment masculine.

    That simply supports the doctrine depicted in this post, that God, and even Adam, when originally placed in the garden, was composed of male and female intelligence.

    Images of the tree of life depict this as well

    Greek words are often gender related.. Christ refers to himself as Alpha and Omega. While He is obviously stating that he is the beginning and the end, those that have studied the gender inferences relating to the greek, would point out that Alpha would be male and Omega female.

    There are some feminizations of Yahweh in Isaiah (e.g., “As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you” [66:13]; see also 42:14 and 49:15).

    etc., etc.

  27. Fusion says:

    Jenny,

    You can find something interesting at the following page, which seems to have been put together by an RLDS person- it certainly got my thoughts aroused. I am quite impressed with what this website contains, for the most part. This is from part of a series they have written, which is well worth reading in its entirety:

    http://www.restoredgospel.com/Issues/Stray/QueenOfHeaven.asp

    Entire series:

    http://www.restoredgospel.com/Issues/Stray/Index.htm

    Fusion

  28. Fabledsog says:

    Wisdom may refer to a she or female for some, but not to me. Not everyone looks at things the same way. And as much as I am intrigued by etymology, I am not fond of the idea that esoteric nouns such as wisdom, intelligence, grace, mercy, love, spirit, justice, judgment etc etc; are gender based terms. Sure I don’t mind that they may be used to convey people or ideas as either gender, but for me to support the idea that a man or woman is incapable of generating the above esoteric nouns if it is not provided by the other specific gender; causes me to feel disintegritous.

    40 For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.
    (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 88:40)

    The reason I linked Mosiah 8:19-20, is that of all the references of God, it is a rare one in the portrayal of the Lord as a she, instead of the usual male pronouns. If you pay attention to the whole passage itself, and not try to understand my perspective, it should clearly make mention of a great mystery in the plates of Ether, and how the Urim and Thummim will again help the children of men by bringing forth similar mysteries. And a king that laments that even the Lord with all his power and patience can not cause the children of men to understand the great mystery, because they won’t adhere to James 1:5. To understand the great mystery, that is the mystery of godliness.

    21 Yea, they are as a wild flock which fleeth from the shepherd, and scattereth, and are driven, and are devoured by the beasts of the forest.
    (Book of Mormon | Mosiah 8:21)

    That final verse pretty much clarifies who the she is in vs 20 of Mosiah 8. It really puts the she in shepherd. Wild can be defined as unruly, specially concerning that the passage from Mosiah 8:19-21 is actually a passed prophecy that took place in Joseph Smith’s time and also a future prophecy that is eerily close.

    Long post short, he and she can have a lot more meanings than wisdom etc. I would rather be ruled by a Unified Single Being with lots of beneficial qualities, than be ruled by contentious multiple beings with limits. Stinking gentile mythologies lol.

  29. JennyP1969 says:

    Why can’t we be one in ideals, goals, purpose? Why can’t identity be kept but each identity become perfect? Why can’t gender be eternal? Why can’t we be one with God while still being our own selves? I do not feel incomplete. I feel whole. I feel at times that I am one with Heavenly Father and the Savior. What about those who have seen Heavenly Mother? If this life is patterned after the one we came from, why are we separated here on earth? When husband and wife have intercourse, they are one flesh. My husband and I are one in so many ways, and have been one with the Spirit many times. Why is this not the prototype of celestial oneness?

    I have studied this composite being concept, prayed about it, and these are the questions and answers that the Spirit has brought me. If you could share your thoughts, it would further my study on this subject. Thank you very much.

  30. Why can’t we be one in ideals, goals, purpose?”

    We can. That is exactly how the corporate church interprets the passages provided. Non-literal, symbolic. If that is what the Holy Spirit confirms the true interpretation to be, go with it.

    Why can’t identity be kept but each identity become perfect? Why can’t gender be eternal?”

    I agree that it really is more comfortable to create a religious world view around how we want things to be, rather than how the scriptures tell us they are. (Section 1:16)

    Why can’t we be one with God while still being our own selves? I do not feel incomplete. I feel whole.

    The natural man does not want to become a “new creature” in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17 Gal 6:15 Mos 27:26. The natural man does not want to have the (image of God engraven upon our countenances” (Alma 5:14, 19)

    “I feel at times that I am one with Heavenly Father and the Savior.”

    I would suggest that is but a taste of something much more glorious that the Holy Spirit is sharing with you.

    “What about those who have seen Heavenly Mother?”

    It is certainly possible for a composite being to separate from time to time. The Father and the Son share the same physical tabernacle and yet they can manifest themselves independently. The man Adam shared his physical tabernacle with Eve yet was able to be temporarily separated from his female intelligence. Having said that, in all probability, most of the people you are aware of that have seen heavenly mother are delusional.

    If this life is patterned after the one we came from, why are we separated here on earth?

    Satan happens to be the God of this world according to the New Testament. (2 Cor 4:4) What makes you think his world is patterned after the Celestrial world? John informs us that the way we appear right now in this temporal world is not how we will appear when we become like Christ in our appearance:

    “BEHOLD, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the
    Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”

    “When husband and wife have intercourse, they are one flesh. My husband and I are one in so many ways, and have been one with the Spirit many times. Why is this not the prototype of celestial oneness?”

    It probably will be for you if that is the extent of what you desire and if the Holy Spirit does not infuse you with the desire of total submission. Please understand that nobody is going to be forced into a composite state that doesn’t want to be. Those who desire to retain their singleness will. Very very few people will become spiritually born again into a new creature. Very few will enter into the gate and recieve the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost. I think you are putting way to much intellectual energy into a doctrine presented by a pathetic religious heretic. If the doctrine does not taste good to you, let it go. Quit worrying about it. I probably should have never posted my views on it.

  31. JennyP1969 says:

    Thank you, Watcher, for your answers to my questions from the Spirit. Your answers make sense according to your composite Being doctrine. I will continue to study, ponder, pray and even fast regarding these things. I want to know the truth.

    Another question…….how can Jesus Christ be part of Heavenly Father’s body? If I understood you correctly, They are a composite Being? I would think HF and HM are a composite, and Christ is a composite with His wife. Are four intelligences and spirits in that one Being? Are they a unique case? Do you think they get tired of being around men all the time? Do you think they miss walking hand-in-hand with their female halves, or kissing them, talking with them? Or is that so horribly mortal and beneath them in nobility and dignity? Do they miss their daughters? Perhaps these questions are pathetically irrelevant because they all come from a mortal paradigm? Mortality is less than a speck on eternity. Perhaps we dreaded it for it’s perameters and inevitable paradigms and will be more than grateful to be rid of them when it’s over…

    And please, if you ever discern scripture or come across teachings from Joseph explaining where the resurrected female bodies go would you post that? Or any further light on this subject. Thanks.

  32. Me thinks your love of mortality skews your ability to comprehend a greater existence in the new world.

    Since your interpretation of “becoming one flesh” from a previous comment is reduced to sexual intercourse, and since the commandment is clearly referring to an ongoing state, and not a temporary one, the outcome would be an eternal and never ending orgasm.

    Let me say that I am highly in favor of such a concept, I simply think the outcome will be achieved in an other worldly way where the male and female share the same tabernacle, instead of spending the rest of existence face to face.

  33. This is a really interesting and fascinating line of reasoning. I have thought a lot about this when pondering the King Follet sermon. If we are all Immortal Spirit Entities or ImSpirEnts(my little phrase) when did we become uniquely male or female? Maybe when we became spirit children of God? And was that a temporary state? But it is reasonable to think that we were(are) inherently neither and that maybe we only experience that reality on this earth for the process of procreation.
    And so it isn’t a stretch to think that we might again be neither or if as it seems advancement means becoming one is necessary then we could become a more advanced and capable ‘one’. But since we have and I believe always had agency we can choose what state we want to continue in as long as that choice will be within our capabilities.

  34. Ryan says:

    Can you elaborate more on Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ Sharon the same body?

    Also, how is the Holy Ghost not composite but has reached some level of godhood?

  35. “All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.“ JST

    The mystery of Godliness is just that, a mystery. For that reason, it is very difficult for humans who have not seen God to comprehend who and what he is. The scriptures give us some good information but the intellect will always fail to fully comprehend what is being said.

    Regarding your question, there are two passages of scripture and the lectures on Faith that inform us that one of the distinquishing characteristics between the Father and the Son is that the Son is a personage of tabernacle while the Father is a personage of spirit that dwells in everything…. including the Son’s Tabernacle.

    The Father dwells in the Son’s tabernacle and the Son dwells in the Fathers spirit and yet they have the ability to manifest themselves independently.

    Here is an article that covers some of this stuff

    https://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/is-god-a-who-or-a-what/ 🙂

%d bloggers like this: