|
TRUTH NEVER CHANGES
Volume 11 February 2007 Edition Number 2
|
YIn The
Spirit and Tradition of Truth Magazine Y
_________________________________
E D I
T O R
I A L
UNTITLED
(From TNC
4:3-7)
I was reflecting the other day
upon some of my experiences in our ‘hermana Patria,’ Mexico, while I served as
a missionary for the Church. My
companion and I taught the lessons to a young man who was the grandson of Prof.
Gregorio de Gante. Brother de Gante was
a professor at the University of Puebla; although a baptized member of the
Church, he and his family were mostly inactive.
|
IN THIS ISSUE:
Editorial…………………………………….…14
Quote by John
W. Taylor…………………..…19
Description of
Jesus Christ…………………...20
The Family
Relation…………………………..21
Quote by John
Taylor…………………………22
The Marriage at
Cana………………………....23
A Pure
Language…………………………..….24
Commentary
On………………………………24
Quote from H.
C. Kimball…………………....26
None
But God Can Revoke…………………...27
|
During this process I came to
know and love this family, and by extension, the family of Dr. Salvador
Rosales, who was married to Liz de Gante.
Dr. Rosales and Sister Liz were the parents of five beautiful
children. Grandmother Magdalena de Gante
was typical of a Mexican matriarch—powerfully influential in all family matters
while deferring total authority to her aging husband. All of these family members were well read
even in the Gospel, though they remained aloof from the Church.
For some time I wasn’t sure of their reasons; I just
knew that when we encouraged them to attend Church, they would come, but then
remain inactive.
One day, the Grandmother (who was very
anti-American), while speaking of Fundamentalists and of Brother Margarito
Bautista, she said, “How wonderful it is to be descended from a prophet!”
I assumed she was referring to the Prophet Lehi of
the Book of Mormon, as she was pro-Lamanite and pro-Mexican, so I broke out
into a eulogy of Book of Mormon prophets, which she quietly endured.
“No Elder,” she replied, “You!”
“Me?” I asked incredulously, “Why me?”
She told me of a bearded white man that had
accompanied Brother Bautista on one occasion.
She had asked if this man was a prophet, and Bro. Bautista replied,
“Yes, he is.”
Sister de Gante asked for and received a blessing
from this man of God, with whom I shared the same appellation, albeit, I do not
descend from him as she had supposed.
I was informed that Brother Bautista had stayed in
their home and that Prof. De Gante reviewed Bro. Bautista’s books before
publication. They had been quite close
to Bro. Bautista.
The de Gante family was greatly impacted by the
Third Convention Movement and Fundamental Mormonism. Sister Magdalena more than once, stated that
she was willing to share her husband if he would qualify to live God’s
laws. Yet there was a love for the LDS
Church by this great family. They had
been (and still were, it seemed) torn between the two beliefs. Two perceived truths, and not able to resolve
this internal conflict. Upon my first
interview with them, I told one of those stories that Missionaries love to
tell: how the Lord appeared to President McKay.
Sister de Gante was joyful and exclaimed, “Thank God that the Lord is
beginning to recognize out Prophets again!”
Sister Liz de Gante de Rosales later told me of the
great turmoil their family had experienced not knowing which way to go. She related to me of a time that Brother
Bautista was in their home explaining the departures of the Church. Sister Liz asked Brother Bautista
point-blank, “Who has the authority: You or Them?” (Implying the LDS Church).
He responded, “Them,” and continued upon his
teachings. Sister Liz thinking that
perhaps he didn’t understand the nature of the question, or of it’s importance
repeated the question.
Brother Bautista repeated the same answer, “They
have it.”
Sister Liz then said, “Even though it pains us, we
will stay with the Church.”
And so they did—somewhat.
I have a great love for that wonderful family, but I
don’t think they remember me. The
question is worthy of consideration: Where does the authority of El
Sarcerdocio de Melquisedec lie? Who
holds the Keys? Why did Brother Bautista
respond as he did?
As a ‘gung-ho’ Missionary, I assumed that Bro.
Bautista knew he didn’t have the authority and surely knew it was with the
Church. How simple! But I had the world
all figured out back then, too.
About a year later in Atlixco, Puebla, a family that
we were teaching was also receiving Fundamentalist Missionaries. This family wanted a confrontation between
us, but for this, we needed the permission from the Mission Home. I was advised not to go, but I feared that
default would only make the Church position look weak. I was ready to fight for the Lord. Ah! Such is youth!
There was an older missionary accompanied by a
younger one about my age. My companion
didn’t speak Spanish yet, and I hadn’t yet learned that contention was from the
evil one. Towards the close of the
meeting, the older missionary said, “Elder, I don’t know how or when, but
someday you’ll be with us!” He was moved
by the Spirit to say this, and I felt perplexed, wondering why the Spirit would
move him to say such a thing. I shared
this experience later to my wife in our early married life.
Years later, after witnessing further departures in
the Church: Garments cut up and split; Cainite ‘Revelation,’ discarding the
Priesthood Garment even within the Temples, eliminating the Seventy throughout
the wards, doing away with penalties and covenants in the Endowment Ceremony,
to name a few; I found myself gravely concerned.
I now had received a testimony of the Adam-God
Doctrine, the Principle of Celestial Plural Marriage and many other cast away
Doctrines and Principles of the Restored Gospel. But where were the Keys? Which was the true group? How often I had gone out in the desert and
laid out a blanket and cried unto the Lord asking where are the Prophets like
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young who prophesy like they did?
Even without resolving this question, my questioning
came to the attention of the Church, (even though this was a slow process
during which I was blessed with many tolerant Bishops and Stake Presidents), I
was finally blessed with a Bishop who perceived himself as a knight on a white
charger, ready to purge the Church of what he perceived to be, ‘apostates.’ I was ordered to renounce my beliefs or
suffer the consequences. I could not do
that.
Now the internal conflict was mine. I had a testimony that the Church was God’s
true church upon the earth—yet the teachings of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith
had been betrayed. Though I admired many
people within the Groups and Independents, I did not find Mormonism in its
Fulness. I now found myself outside the
corporate structure of the Church.
I was befriended by a small branch of Mexican Saints
within the ‘Allred Group.’ Two Council
Members were to be in Phoenix, Arizona and I was invited to attend a meeting
there. I wasn’t too excited about
meeting ‘Council Members.’ Nevertheless,
after a couple invitations, I accepted.
I met Brother Joseph Blaine Thompson (who had lived the United Order
with my Grandfather) and Brother William N. Baird. I felt the Spirit with both of these men and
was quite impressed with the depth of their teachings.
About halfway through the meeting, I recognized the
translator to be the younger Fundamentalist
Missionary I had encountered so many years ago.
I immediately found myself with the same questions as Liz Rosales had so
long ago. The question is not wrong—it is how we receive our answer.
Last year marked the 112th Anniversary of
the eight-hour meeting of 1886. Keys
were given not just to perpetuate Plural Marriage, but to preside over the
Priesthood of God.
Where, then, in 1886, began a slow separation of the
Priesthood and the Church.
This is not new, but rather, it is ancient in nature
or practice. No one would dispute that
Isaac was the Heir of Abraham’s family.
But did not Melchizedek also
have righteous sons? Could a man such as
Melchizedek, who established peace by preaching the Word of God, not have
established the Holy Order? Where did
the Brother of Jared get the keys to administer the Fulness of Priesthood
Ordinances? And that, while Shem and
others were still alive!
Most would agree, that from Isaac to Israel, to
Joseph then Ephraim, were the heirs (Presidents) of the Priesthood. Nevertheless, while in Egypt, the Israelites
lost the Melchizedek Priesthood and the Fulness thereof.
Where did Moses get the Keys and Ordinances that
would prepare him or qualify him to see the face of God? From Jethro the Ishmaelite. Ishmael sired Twelve Princes. How could they be Princes, save Ishmael was a
King? Yea, he was a King—a King and a
Priest unto the Most High. Was it not
Jethro who came and instructed Moses in Priesthood organization?
Surely there should be one head when things are in
order, but as we’ve just seen, often times, there has been more than one. A true servant of God will not envy
another. I have observed that some
people judge others by using themselves as the measuring stick. They’ll say in their hearts, “God has not
spoken to me, therefore He cannot speak to you!” In so doing, they fail to see what the Lord
is doing.
The Church is true, but that does not mean that the
Lord approves of all the departures. The
Lord has been (and is) long suffering with backsliding Israel. He is slow to cast off. Men will cast another off in the blink of an
eye; God will not until a ripening of iniquity occurs.
My testimony is that all the keys came to Joseph W.
Musser—a Fulness of Keys. He bestowed
them upon the new Council the Lord called.
Not a Council of perfect men, but a Council of weak men just given a
Fulness of Blessings—The Holy Apostleship.
At one time, my Grandfather and Uncle Lyman went to
Bro. Musser and stated, “We know you have greater authority than John Y.
Barlow.”
Bro. Musser responded with, “I support John in all
the good he can do.”
Bro. Barlow did do much good, but there are some
areas in which I cannot support him.
One of those good things he did was to bestow
delegated keys upon Margarito Bautista and Rulon C. Allred in Long Beach,
California (Diary of Arnold Boss, April 14, 1946, “Morris told me his wife told
him that she had been informed that reports have it that Joseph Lyman Jessop
and Rulon Clark Allred had been called into the higher Priesthood body.”) I have stood in the open ramada that was used
for a chapel, where the Saints in Mexico testify they were present when Bro.
Barlow performed that ordinance for Brother Bautista. This was a delegated Apostleship, valid as
long as Bro. Bautista lived. Brother
Barlow also called several men into the Council. Some practices of the Barlow Council are
questionable to me—if not are outright departures from Mormonism. Yet, just as in the Church, there is a good
spirit among many in the Groups and Independents.
Looking at Bro. Bautista who implemented many of the
Barlow traditions, one is forced to conclude that there is truth and error in
these administrations. A hearsay
statement about any leader who has passed away is difficult to establish. So often we judge after only hearing one side
of any conflict.
The example of David and King Saul is worthy of
study: David would not rise up against the Lord’s anointed. He wasn’t willing to stick around to be used
for target practice either! David was
willing to let the Lord correct the situation, while he personally prepared
himself to do the work of the Lord.
Uncle Lyman returned twice more alone to Bro.
Musser, saying for the third time, “Brother Joseph, the Lord has revealed to me
that you hold greater authority than John. Y. Barlow.”
This time Bro. Musser responded, “I cannot help what
the Lord reveals to you!”
Not an affirmation, but also, not a denial, which is
very significant to me.
After the death of Bro. Barlow there was no question
who was the worthy senior in the Council.
Bro. Musser called Rulon C. Allred to be his 2nd Elder. They then traveled to Mexico and bestowed the
highest blessings upon Bro. Margarito Bautista.
Bro. Allred had already received such blessings. Two men, now with the highest blessings
possible—given in a time when these blessings had all but disappeared within
the Church. Bro. Musser called a new
Council. I will not belabor the
causes—either the Lord directed him to do so or He did not; I am satisfied He
did.
With such authority, blessings and keys—why did Bro.
Bautista tell Sister Rosales that the Church had the authority? Did he tell a lie? No. They did then and some in the Church
still do today (1999).
I heard one of Rulon’s sons state in a Priesthood
meeting that he had heard his father say that if President McKay would step
forward and begin to direct the work of the Priesthood, that he, Bro. Rulon,
would step to one side. Why would he say
that? It is because Pres. McKay had
received a Fulness of Blessings, and was then, the oldest living Apostle upon
the earth. But Pres. McKay would
not—neither would any other Apostles who perhaps had already received a Fulness
of Blessings (and there were others!) So the youngest Apostle, Rulon C. Allred had
to direct the work of the Priesthood.
President Owen Allred stands rightfully in that
place today. Nevertheless, he has
allowed departures to occur; one of which is when he allowed a Councilman to be
‘railroaded’ out of the Council in 1993, upon trumped up charges, then another
in 1998. Can Bro. Owen take their
respective Apostleship away? Did these
dismissed brethren have a Fullness of Blessings? If they did, could these brethren bestow this
authority upon others without the permission of Bro. Owen?
Sister Liz Rosales asked Brother Bautista, “Who has
the authority?”
The question is vital to our exaltation; the problem
is: To whom should it be addressed?
We need to be able to say as Uncle Lyman did to Bro.
Musser, “The Lord has revealed to me you have greater Priesthood than Bro.
John.” Uncle Lyman, who incidentally was
the Prophet introduced to Sister Magdalena de Gante by Bro. Bautista and
blessed her, sought the Lord to receive his knowledge that Bro. Musser held
greater authority or more keys than Bro. Barlow.
Not only did Joseph W. Musser receive blessings or
ordinations from Bro. Lorin C. Woolley in 1929, before that he and his young
wife were called into the Salt Lake Temple and were anointed to the Highest
Blessings that can be given; Pres.
Lorenzo Snow being administrator. Did
Pres. Musser have authority to fill all voids and vacancies in the Church or
Priesthood anywhere in the world? Did he
need Pres. Grant’s or Pres. McKay’s approval to perform ordinances? Did he need the approval of his dissident?
Council Members?
Did he have the ability to seek the Lord’s will and give higher
ordinances to the new Council, including the Councilman later released in
August 1993?
And following this dismissal, would this same
Councilman be able to bestow these blessings upon others? How can we know if this is true? What will be the price associated with that
knowledge? What will it cost one to know
the truth of these events?
What will the Lord require to allow us to share this
sacred knowledge?
Joseph Smith said a religion that did not require
the sacrifice of all things never
had the power to bring us to God. If we
look at Abraham, our father, we see that he withheld nothing from the
Lord. Shall we shrink? Shall we shirk? The
Elect of God will not!!-The editor—(the late Elder Jackson Ted Jessop, Spring,
1999)
Qadosh L’Adonai
As I understand it, the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is built upon the foundation of
revelation from God the Eternal Father—not upon revelation given eighteen
hundred years ago; for we would be slow to build a house with stones that had
been in a building eighteen hundred years; but upon revelation given in the
nineteenth century. In using this word
“revelation”, I do not refer to it as it is understood by the sectarian world;
but I mean new and continued revelation from God the Eternal Father, to guide
His people. John Whittaker Taylor,
Conference Report, April 1901, pp. 27
Description of Jesus Christ
(TRUTH
8:83-84)
Different attempts have been made to
describe and publish the personal appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. One account recently submitted by a valued
reader of TRUTH is taken from the Juvenile Instructor, November 1934, p. 510. Another is given in the interesting pamphlet
“Hidden Treasures”, by Charles W. Kingston, p. 32. The account we are submitting is taken from
the Millennial Star, Vol. 44:701-2. In
this we have made some slight variations and additions to bring the statement
in conformation with the two first mentioned accounts. Since there is no essential difference in
either of the texts, the statement we present, combining features of the
others, may be regarded as in substantial accord.
The following description of the personal appearance of
Jesus Christ is said to have been sent by Publius Lentellus, Governor of Judea,
tot he Senate of Rome. (It was the
custom of those days for the Governor to write home any event that transpired
while he held his office.):
There lives at this time in Judea a man of singular character,
whose name is Jesus Christ. The Gentiles
(or Barbarians) esteem him as a prophet of truth, but his own disciples call
him the Son of God. He is endowed with
such unparalleled virtue as to call back the dead from their graves, and to
heal every kind of disease with a word or a touch.
His person is tall and elegantly shaped, ruddy
countenance, and such far as the beholder may both love and fear. His aspect is amiable and reverent, his hair
flowing into those beauteous shades which no united colors can match, falling
in graceful curls below his ears agreeably crouching on his shoulders and
parting on the crown of his head like the headdress of the sect of the
Nazarites.
His forehead is smooth and large; his cheeks without
blemish and of roseate hue; his nose and mouth are formed with exquisite
symmetry; his beard is thick and of a color suitable to the hair of his head,
reaching a little below his chin and parting in the middle; his eyes are gray,
clear, quick, bright and serene.
He rebukes with majesty, counsels with mildness, and
invokes with the most gentle and persuasive language—his whole address, whether
in word or deed, being strictly characteristic of so exalted a being. It cannot be remembered that anyone has seen
him laugh, but many have seen him weep frequently, and so persuasive are his
tears, that the multitude cannot withhold their tears from joining in sympathy
with him.
He is moderate, temperate and wise: In short, whatever
the phenomenon may turn out in the end, he seems at present to be a man of
excellent beauty and Divine perfection in every way surpassing the children of
men.
THE FAMILY
RELATION
When the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints are laid before intelligent and ordinarily consistent people
they are generally constrained to admit their truthfulness. They are bound, anyway, to confess their
Biblical correctness. They mostly state,
however, “We have one obstacle—we do not believe in plural marriage.”
This objection is made, too, by professed believers in
the Bible, not withstanding the biblical character of that sacred
institution.
They say, “We believe everything we have heard except
that. We cannot deny that divine
authority is necessary; that faith, repentance, baptism by immersion for the
remission of sins and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost are
all right, but the marriage question is in our way.”
Well, you admit that these latter and many other
principles are all right?
“Yes.”
You believe them to be true, do you?
“Certainly.”
Well it is a question worthy of very serious
consideration whether you will be justified in the non-acceptance of so many
principles the truth of which you admit, on the ground of some one thing, that
you in your present condition cannot comprehend.
By the law of God, man, having his agency, is not bound
to obey that which he is not disposed to accept. Nevertheless there are blessings pertaining
to every law and it is only through obedience that they can be enjoyed. The Latter-day Saints claim that God has
commenced to set up His Kingdom on the earth, which will eventually spread over
all the world. The materials with which
to rear so magnificent a superstructure are scarce in the world, as evidenced
by the comparative sparseness of the number of devoted souls that embrace the
Gospel and gather with the Saints. The
world, in the infidel and corrupt state of its institutions, is unfavorable to
the educational development of the right kind of people to build up His rising
power. In view of this, should the Most
High, in the infinitude of His wisdom, for the glory and exaltation of His sons
and daughters, the peopling of His Kingdom and the accomplishment of other
designs, command, by revelation, the adoption of the doctrine of plural or
celestial marriage (marriage for eternity) who shall stay His hand?
The world has sunk so deeply in the scale of degradation
that it is difficult for the people at large, in their ignorance of the genius
of the institutions of the Latter-day Saints, to separate, in their views, the
true order of marriage from groveling sensualism (sic). On the contrary, those who truly comprehend
the nature of this sacred relation associate it with the highest and noblest
conditions, aims, and results. This
revelation is not intended for the wicked or corrupt, and really for such
depraved natures it has no attractions.
The obligations are sacred and binding, in time and
eternity, with the contracting parties.
Among the duties of the patriarchal head of a family is to cherish, care
fore and preserve those who are attached to him by the law of God. He is required to deal in kindness and
justice with those whom he has engaged to protect. He is required to rear and educate his
children, not only in the best ordinary educational advantages at his command,
but in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
If he fail in these respects, he falls below the requirements of the law
revealed by the Most High in this age for the building up, and strengthening of
His Kingdom. If instances occur wherein
persons are derelict to such obligations, it is no evidence against the fact
that they are inseparably connected with the true order of marriage, according
to the Gospel covenant.
Why should people marvel at the claim that the marriage covenant,
properly entered into and performed is eternal, stretching, in its conditions
beyond the grave? That is the nature of
every law and ordinance of the everlasting Gospel. If a person has faith in the mission of the
Savior, repent of his sins and is admitted into the Kingdom of God by the door
of baptism of water and of the Spirit, and he continue faithful unto death, he
remains upon the foundation laid by obedience to eternal principles in this
life when he passes to the sphere beyond.
All the ordinances performed by the legitimate authority of Jesus Christ
are recognized by, and held to be of binding force in heaven. This authority is the same in nature as that
conferred by Jesus upon Peter, when He said to him, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven.” This
recognition and binding force relates tot he marriage ordinance and covenant,
as well as any other connected with the Gospel.
In no part of the world are children so numerous, in
proportion to the adult population, as in Utah and the adjoining country where
the Saints are located. They are
generally beautiful and intelligent.
They are in flocks, and the hills and valleys are made glad with the
cheerful sound of their merry voices.
The genius of the work of God demands that they should be viewed and
treated as the heritage of the Lord. In
consequence, great care is taken, in devising and conducting means for their
proper culture. The system of Sabbath
schools is probably the most complete and, in proportion to the size of the
community, by far the most extensive in the world. These hosts of children constitute the coming
generation of the Saints of God, literal heirs of the Kingdom, reared in
comparative freedom from the corrupting and infidel influences of the world. Thus, by the institutions which He has
appointed, by revelation, is the Most High raising up a legitimate race, who
will soon make a mighty host to bear His name in the earth. (William
Budge, Millennial Star 41:612-613)
If we do not embrace that principle soon, the keys will be turned
against us. If we do not keep the same
law that our Heavenly Father has kept, we cannot go with Him. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to
preside over those who keep a higher law.
John Taylor
The
Marriage at Cana
It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a
marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it
will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that
occasion. If He was never married, His
intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must
have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it. I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ
were now to pass through the most pious countries in Christendom with a train
of women, such as used to follow Him, fondling about Him, combing His hair,
anointing Him with precious ointment, washing His feet with tears, and wiping
them with the hair of their heads and unmarried, or even married, He would be
mobbed, tarred, and feathered, and rode, not on an ass, but on a rail. What did the old prophet mean when he said
(speaking of Christ), “He shall see his seed, prolong his days, etc.” Did Jesus consider it necessary to fulfill
every righteous command or requirement of His Father? He most certainly did. This He witnessed by submitting to baptism
under the hands of John. “Thus it
becometh us to fulfill all righteousness,” said He. Was it God’s commandment to man, in the
beginning, to multiply and replenish the earth?
None can deny this, neither that it was a righteous command; for upon an
obedience to this, depended the perpetuity of our race. Did Christ come to destroy the law or the
Prophets, or to fulfill them? He came to
fulfill. Did He multiply, and did He see
His seed? Did He honor His Father’s law
by complying with it, or did He not?
Others may do as they like, but I will not charge our Saviour with
neglect or transgression in this or any other duty. At this doctrine, the long-faced hypocrite
and the sanctimonious bigot will probably cry, blasphemy! Horrid perversions of God’s word! Wicked wretch! He is not fit to live! Etc., etc.
But the wise and reflecting will consider, read and pray, if God be not
our Father, grandfather or great-grandfather, or some kind of father in
reality, in deed and in truth, why are we taught to say, “Our Father who art in
Heaven”? How much soever of holy horror
this doctrine may excite in persons not impregnated with the blood of Christ,
and whose minds are consequently dark and benighted, it may excite still more
when they are told that if none of the natural blood of Christ flows in their
veins, they are not the chosen or elect of God.
Object not, therefore, too strongly against the marriage of Christ, but
remember that in the last days, secret and hidden things must come to light,
and that your life also (which is the blood) is hid with Christ in God.
(Orson Hyde, J. of
D. 4:259-26)
A Pure Language
Again, when men set themselves at work to take heaven by
storm, they were all of one language; and while they remained of one language,
they were united in their efforts at building a tower, up which they might
travel to salvation; but the effect of disunion was quickly manifest, when God
confounded their speech, so that every man (except Jared and his brother and a
few of their friends) had to talk for himself, to himself and in his own
tongue, no one else understanding him; and we have not heard of the first job,
since that day, in which all the inhabitants of the earth have unitedly engaged
to labor for accomplishment and we do not expect to hear of universal man’s
engaging in building another tower to reach heaven, or in any one great
enterprise, until the Lord shall restore a pure language, which shall be spoken
by all the inhabitants of the earth.
It will take some time to accomplish this; for the
Lord will not restore a pure language till he has a people pure enough to
receive it with joyful hearts, and use it with thanksgiving; not abusing it as
did the Babelites. For the spread of the
gospel, the gift of tongues is given to the Elders of Israel and this, in part,
answers the purpose of a pure language; but when the pure language shall have
come, and been received by all, then that which is in part may justly be done
away having accomplished the purpose for which it was sent. (Willard
Richards, Deseret News, April 3, 1852)
—COMMENTARY—
ON
Patriarchy
vs. Modern Marriage
I suppose I am considered old-fashioned by many in our
society because I firmly believe in Patriarchy.
I believe that a man presides in his own home. Oft times in the past, I was required to
endure the modern thinking of governmental in-service training, where
Patriarchy is considered domestic abuse.
When I say, Patriarchy, I mean as defined by the dictionary:
1) Social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan
or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of
descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly: control by men of a
disproportionately large share of power.
Patriarchy was established by God in the beginning: “…and thy desire shall be to thy husband,
and he shall rule over thee.” (GEN 3:17)
We live in a day and age where Patriarchy is
considered by many to be old-fashioned.
We live in a society where monogamy has been the norm and polygamy is
considered to be an aberration, a curiosity.
However, most practitioners of monogamy have become so engrained with
50/50 household ruling, that when the transition from a monog to a polyg
occurs, the first wife inevitably tries to dominate the new wife, unless the
husband intervenes, and or tries to rule the family with her husband. This, I call the “Queen Bee Syndrome,”
because the first wife rules and the husband is merely a drone. Sadly, many men are faced with threats, “I’ll
leave if you get another wife!” Or, “If
you don’t get me this or that, I will leave!”
Or, “If you don’t stay with me tonight, you won’t find me or the
children here in the morning!”
To the contentious wife that is resistant to fulfill
her covenants and obligations or unwilling to compromise and continually
intimidates her husband or sister-wives into submission, I say, let that wife
leave, just as Ishmael’s first wife spoken of in the Book of Jasher:
“And Abraham
went to the wilderness, and he reached the tent of Ishmael about noon, and he
asked after Ishmael, and he found the wife of Ishmael sitting in the tent with
her children, and Ishmael her husband and his mother were not with them.
“And Abraham
asked the wife of Ishmael, saying, Where has Ishmael gone? And she said, He has gone to the field to
hunt, and Abraham was still mounted upon the camel, for he would not get off to
the ground as he had sworn to his wife Sarah that he would not get off from the
camel.
“And Abraham
said to Ishmael’s wife, My daughter, give me a little water that I may drink,
for I am fatigued from the journey.
“And Ishmael’s
wife answered and said to Abraham, We have neither water nor bread, and she
continued sitting in the tent and did not notice Abraham, neither did she ask
him who he was.
“But she was
beating her children in the tent, and she was cursing them, and she also cursed
her husband Ishmael and reproached him, and Abraham heard the words of
Ishmael’s wife to her children and he was very angry and displeased.
“And Abraham
called to the woman to come out to him from the tent…(and) said to Ishmael’s
wife, When thy husband Ishmael returneth home say these words to him…when thou
comest home put away this nail of the tent which thou hast place here, and
place another nail in its stead.” (Book
of Jasher 21:24-31)
The first wife was that nail, and she was replaced.
The ancient order of Patriarchy was established for
one reason: To help man become a better judge, and thus, eventually, become a
better god. There is a fine line between
Patriarchy and Tyranny, and a man must learn to govern with wisdom,
jurisprudence and justice. Patriarchy is
the order of the Gods—the man presides in his own home—or at least, should. A man should avoid becoming the feared and
hated tyrant, lest he find himself without a family at all; and on the opposite
end of that spectrum, a man must learn to be assertive, yet firm; absolute, yet
mild; strong, yet just and fair.
Otherwise, pity the man who allows any woman to govern him. Women are subject to the husband.
“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.”
(I COR 11:3)
Wives are a husband’s counselors. A man needs to learn to exercise diplomacy
when consulting his wives, and listen—truly listen. From these come prudence
and wisdom, patience and understanding, and love without bounds. I truly believe that if a man leads his
family in righteousness, harmony and unity will prevail, and the wives will want
to follow their husband because they are satisfied in their own minds their
husband is willing to achieve the Celestial Kingdom at any cost.
Oft times have I been criticized for my methods;
people’s gossip returns to my ears that I am a tyrant and don’t allow my wives
any freedom—but if they truly knew. My
wives have more independence and freedom than other women I know, and these
queens and I have a mutual understanding: They utilize their own agency in
every decision they make. My wives
respect me and I respect them. When
faced with life-changing decisions, we sit down and discuss the issue at hand,
and don’t leave until a positive resolution has been reached.
Were an outsider unobtrusively view within my home,
one would see that the Law of Patriarchy is fulfilled and harmony and peace
prevail. One would see that love and
unity can be achieved from practicing Patriarchy in a God-like
manner. No manual exists on this
subject, just plain, old, trial and error. I recognize the responsibility of
leading my family into the Celestial Kingdom.
I keenly acknowledge the responsibility of teaching my family the
Fulness of the Gospel, and pray my children will have their own desire to live
by my example to them.
There is only but one way to earn salvation. A woman cannot enter into the Celestial
Kingdom independent of her husband, nor can the man do likewise without his
wives, and expect to receive the glory of Godhood.
“I want to know if God
will love and respect and send His angels to one of my wives, though she were
fifty, sixty, or a hundred years of age, if she is disobedient to me when I am
as merciful, generous, and kind a man to her as ever lived? If she disobeys me, persists in taking a
course contrary to my will and the will of God all the time, saying, “I will do as I please, and the angels
will come and visit me?” Neither God
nor His Son Jesus Christ will send the holy angels to minister to such a woman,
and she need not tell about their coming to visit her, nor about receiving
revelations from heaven.” Heber C.
Kimball, J. of D. 4:226
None But God Can Revoke
(Millennial
Star, 14:592)
We would ask, For what is the priesthood given unto
men? It is that they may have a right to
administer the Law of God. Have they
then a right to make void that law?
Verily no. When the law of God
has gone forth from His own mouth, and been declared by the mouths of His
Prophets and Apostles, saying, “Thou shalt not lie”; who can say by virtue of
his Priesthood, You may lie and be approved?
The Lord and His Prophets have declared it as a law unto His people,
“Thou shalt not commit adultery”, Then who can say, Thou mayest commit
adultery, and it will be no sin? It is
written as a law unto the Saints, “Thou shalt not kill.” Then we ask again, Who can kill and be
forgiven? And in like manner it might be
asked of all the laws of God, who has the right to make them void? None can revoke the decree but Him by whom it
was given; neither can the laws of God be trampled upon with impunity, or
revoked by a lesser power than that by which they were framed.
Holiness
Y
To The Lord
Truth Never Changes
Volume
11, Number 02
February,
2007
No comments:
Post a Comment