In two previous posts, here and here, in the blog series Sex, Gods, & Mormon Zion, I covered the transition of Joseph Smith's thought from his originally more Protestant theo-philosophy prior to 1836, and his progression in thought and revelatory wisdom toward a more pro-body philosophy (that I have called Abrahamic Expansionism). Building off of my previous blog post on abrahamic expansionism, I will here present the case that The Book of Abraham in the LDS Pearl of Great Price was an attempt by Joseph Smith to present Abraham as a polygamist "hero archetype": with Abraham’s near sacrifice on the altar (depicted below) being a metaphor for Joseph Smith's heroic courage to promote and practice an alternative sexual lifestyle (plural marriage) as a way for the Latter-day Saints in the 1800s, to sacrificially expiate from their mindset their Protestant Puritan Creeds, thus entering into Pluto marriages at the altar in the temple as a sacrificial metaphor of expiating the sectarian creeds (that denied the body) from the consciousness of the Saints. Using Masonic midrash and ritual drama Joseph Smith presented Abraham as the hero who is nearly sacrificed himself seeking to present Hebrew theology to others:
As some Mormon scholars have said as well, I see the Book of Abraham as pseudepigrapha; just as the Gospel authors used midrash or figural reading, I interpret the events that produced the Book of Abraham as Smith looking at the Egyptian papyri and feeling inspired through the figural reading/midrashic method, in order to liberate the Saints from Augustine's puritanical clutches.
The first step in this process was reconceptualizing God apart from the immaterial Protestant deity that was without bodily parts or passions. In many ways the Protestant God was a projection of the life-denying celibate monk, so in contrast Abraham becomes in Joseph's mind the new heroic archetype: which provides the new center point hero for a new sexual theology based on sexual Gods. It was a return to the original attitude of Genesis that saw all of creation as good. In the The King Follett Sermon, Joseph Smith said
… what kind of characters are those who can be saved, …
… So long as a man will not give heed to the commandments, he must abide without salvation. If a man has knowledge, he can be saved; ...
The "kind of characters" that could be "saved" were not the Puritan characters who rejected the Commandments of God which included plural marriage at the time Joseph Smith was speaking. Man needed "knowledge" from Joseph Smith's revelations about a God with Parts and Passions and a sexual nature and sensual character. Joseph Smith provided this knowledge by revealing the new Abrahamic scripture in The Pearl of Great Price. It provided a scriptural story about how to be to saved (rescued/delivered) by overcoming one's own sexual repression from puritan conditioning and realizing "God is more liberal in his views" when it comes to human sexual expression. The heroic Abraham then becomes a symbol of deliverance from Puritan oppression and the body denying sectarian creeds; as a role model for sexual freedom and happiness; by returning to the culture of Abraham when sex was not inherently depraved, Smith was able to provide scriptural backing for his restored theology of the radiant body.
Abraham became the centerpoint surrounding his overall vision of a new Heaven and Earth; through the reputational authority of Abraham, Joseph Smith could then support his restoration of the original Hebrew Godhead: composed of a heavenly council of sexual embodied Gods (some of whom even apparently mated with mortal women in Genesis 6). Smith used the technique of masonic midrash in composing scripture. Smith also combined his study of Hebrew under a Jewish scholar with his already developing doctrine of deification/theosis (that began in the Lectures of Faith number 7, published in 1835).
The Hebrew God Condoned/Endorsed Polygamy in the Old Testament
The following documents show the God of the Old Testament does in fact endorse and command polygamy (despite the discomfort felt by some puritan Christians facing this fact). The FAIR website authors write:
With the authority of the Bible behind them, early Mormons argued for 'plural marriage,' and some Mormon fundamentalist sects continue to practice polygyny. They were and are right: if the Bible provides authoritative models, then a man should be allowed to have more than one wife, as did Abraham, Jacob, David, and other biblical heroes, with no hint of divine disapproval.
—Michael Coogan, God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says (New York, N.Y.: Twelve, 2010), 78–79.
… While sometimes forced to admit that some Old Testament figures practiced polygamy, some Christians insist that there was no biblical mandate or command to practice plural marriage.
This claim is false; levirate marriage was mandated by the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).
Even if true, this claim is immaterial. God did not condemn the practice of plural marriage in the Bible. If it was everywhere and always forbidden, God could and would have done so. Early Christian authors understood this [see https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Early_Christians_on_plural_marriage] …
… Deuteronomy 25:5-6, which the Sadducees quote in asking the question to Jesus. The practice of levirate marriage did not make any conditions on whether or not the brother-in-law was married. There was a way for the brother-in-law to avoid this marriage, through a ceremony called halitza, which was a mark of shame on the brother-in-law for refusing to continue his brother's name, thus declaring that his brother was irrevocably dead. This secondary option however, has become much more relevant to the modern practice of Judaism than it was to ancient Israel. Additionally, the practice makes no distinction to whether or not the brother was already married. It is the only instance in the Old Testament where polygamy was mandated under certain circumstances. Finally, the widow with no children, upon the death of her husband, was automatically considered to be betrothed, or engaged, to the next brother in the family of her now-deceased husband. … This practice was not just a custom, but an integral part of the religious law at the time of Jesus. While the above story happened only recently, ancient Israel was just as fervent in their keeping the Law of Moses, even in cases such as this. While a hypothetical situation was proposed to Jesus, it was a hypothetical situation that could actually happen, and the statements provided by the authors do not represent correctly this practice. …
Some Christians claim that plural marriage has no Biblical precedents—they point to condemnation of King David and King Solomon as evidence that polygamy is always forbidden by God. Some claim that Abraham's polygamy "portrays his acceptance of plural marriage as a mark of disobedience to, and a lack of faith in, God." It is claimed that since the Bible didn't allow a man to marry two sisters, this proves that LDS plural marriage was "unbiblical" because some Mormons did so.
The Bible does not forbid plural marriage. In fact, many of the most noble Biblical figures (e.g., Abraham) had more than one wife. Furthermore, Biblical laws quoted by critics forbid kings from being led astray by plural spouses, or entering relationships not sanctioned by God's authority. However, the same Biblical laws provide guidelines for legitimate plural relationships.
It is true that David and Solomon were condemned for some of their marriage practices
This problem was mentioned in Deuteronomy:
15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother...17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away... (Deuteronomy 17:15,17
Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat equitably plural wives and children
Critics ignore the fact that only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat equitably plural wives and children. (See Deuteronomy 21:15-17.) Why does He not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He instruct the Israelites on how to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?
So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
not multiply wives to themselves (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see 2 Samuel 12:8, Jacob 2:30, DC 132:38-39);
that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God (1 Kings 11:3-4);
not take excessive numbers of wives (see Jacob 2:24).
David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.
David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah
David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah (see 2 Samuel 12:1-27. Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:
7 ¶ And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. (2 Samuel 12:7-10)
Nathan here tells David that the Lord "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.
But, David sinned and did evil in the matter of Uriah. If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for it now? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier?
Solomon's wives turned his heart away from the Lord, as Deuteronomy cautioned
Solomon's problem is described:
1 BUT king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love...
7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. (1 Kings 11:1-8
Solomon's wives turned his heart away from the Lord, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.
Abraham and other Biblical examples demonstrate that plural marriage may, on occasion, be sanctioned David and Solomon do not prove the critics' point, but in fact demonstrate that plural marriage may, on occasion, be sanctioned (as in David's case certainly).
But, we need not rely on these examples only to demonstrate that plural marriage was practiced by righteous followers of God in the Bible. Other cases include:
Abraham married Hagar (Genesis 16:3), Keturah (Genesis 25:1) and other unnamed concubines (Genesis 25:6). Jacob (Genesis 29:21-30, Genesis 30:3-4, Genesis 30:9)
Abijah had fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 13:21) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord (2 Chronicles 13:8-12) and prosper in battle because of the Lord's blessing (2 Chronicles 13:16-18) Jehoiada, priest under king Joash had two wives (2 Chronicles 3:) and is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" (2 Chronicles 24:16).
... and also possibly:
Moses [married Zipporah (Exodus 2:22 and an "Ethiopian" (Cushite) woman Numbers 12:1 which may or may not be the same person. [1]
The Law of Moses provides rules governing Israelites who have plural wives
As noted above, Deuteronomy 21:15 provides rules governing Israelites who have plural wives. Further instructions are also given in Exodus 21:10. Why did God not ban plural marriage through Moses if it is always an immoral act?
Question: What are the "works of Abraham" and how does this relate to plural marriage?
D&C 132 tells Joseph and others to "do the works of Abraham." What are the "works of Abraham" and how does this relate to plural marriage?
The "works of Abraham" are fundamentally about obedience to God's laws, obedience to any commandment given, and willingness to sacrifice. For Joseph and the early Saints, a prominent part of such works was plural marriage, but this was (in a sense) incidental—the great work was obedience to covenant and law; plural marriage was simply their burden and trial.
It is often casually assumed that "the works of Abraham" refer mainly to plural marriage.[3] A consideration of both the phrase's orgins, and its use in D&C 132, may suggest that a broader meaning is intended.
The phrase has its origins in the gospel of John. Jesus rebuked unrighteous Jews, saying:
...Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father (John 8:34-38).
Stung, the Jews replied, "Abraham is our father." Jesus answered:
If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham (John 8:39-40).
At its most basic level, "the works of Abraham" are to obey and serve God, and not be "the servant of sin" …
Abraham plays a central role in D&C 132's justification of plural marriage.
Yet, it is not simply as a polygamist that Abraham is appealed to:
29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.
30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
Abraham received blessings because of revelation and obedience to covenant and commandment:
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
The works of Abraham, we remember, were obedience and service to God. Joseph and others were to "enter into [God's] law," which has been explained earlier in the section as the law of sealing as part of the new and everlasting covenant (DC 132:7; ...).
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.
… this revelation was written to persuade Emma Smith to endorse plural marriage; this argument, then, is especially directed at her (see verses 51-56).
We note also that Abraham was not condemned—but not because plural marriage was "the law" and he practiced it, but because he was commanded and then acted. And, it was this fundamental obedience to any and every commandment that made Abraham great, as the next verse makes clear:
36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
If taking a plural wife was "the law," which Abraham was bound by, then this analogy makes little sense—for it is surely not a law to murder. Indeed, the Lord acknowledges that the "default setting" for the law is not to kill. But, Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham took a plural wife not because it was the law, but because he was commanded (just as Joseph had been):
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
Abraham kept "the law"—the sealing power and conditions detailed earlier. He, Isaac, and Jacob were justified because they "did the works of Abraham"—they did "none other things than that which they were commanded."
The Lord returns to Abraham later in the section:
49 For I am the Lord thy God, and will be with thee even unto the end of the world, and through all eternity; for verily I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father.
50 Behold, I have seen your sacrifices, and will forgive all your sins; I have seen your sacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I accepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac.
The same themes recur—Joseph has been obedient, and thus will join Abraham. He has sacrificed (as with Isaac, notably, rather than as with Hagar) in obedience.
Source: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Not_Biblical Retrieved May 2, 2021
In the Mormon temple at the veil the candidate recites in part, "power in the priesthood be upon me and my posterity for all generations of time and throughout all eternity." This appears to be defining power of the priesthood as the ability to propagate by the male seed. Compare Abraham 2:11:
And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal.
In my view, what is being reproduced is not just genetic progeny through sperm and egg, but the Hebraic Covenant which produced the culture of the Hebrews. Joseph Smith was clearly aware of the spiritual rebirth (as described in the New Testament) and was combining that with the concept of the priesthood being seed of the male body; so that power in the priesthood was the power of the masculine erection and and sexual union with the woman. As discussed in my blog post on abrahamic expansionism, this is potentially why the image of God in the Book of Abraham depicts God with an erection:
Let's look again at and compare Abraham 2:11 (words in bold and brackets my own for emphasis):
... in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood [the priesthood right to practice plural marriage]) and in thy seed [sperm] (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body [i.e. Abraham's erection spilling his seed/genes into the womb of women]) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal.
Compare D&C 132 (words in bold my own for emphasis):
30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
… 37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, …
Abraham becomes the prototype for how Joseph Smith is to temporarily live:
62 And if he [Joseph] have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 ... for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
I already covered in previous blog posts how this "bearing of the souls of men" cannot be literal because of Book of Abraham chapter 3; wherein Joseph Smith already bound in scripture the doctrine that the soul is unbirthed and uncreated. So this language of reproduction has to mean something other than literal "spiritual birth"; in my view, it is referring to the propagation of a mindset and attitude of spreading the true nature of God (which Joseph Smith emphasizes in the King Follet discourse).
So that the "seeds" is a metaphor for the theological expansion of the Gods and their embodied nature. Abraham becomes the prototype of memetically spreading the true nature of Deity by being the seed-source that culturally reproduced the Hebrew mentality and the ancient Jews and their pro-body theology. So now let's look again at D&C 132 on bearing seed (words in brackets arecmy own in the words in bold are for emphasis):
19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, ... unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths ... and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. [The "seeds" meaning the ability to select intelligences (per Abraham 3) that would become future gods and thus further spread the true nature of God]
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue [by selecting other intelligences/souls and giving them the opportunity to obtain axsensual body and learn the true nature of God]; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.
21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my [plural marriage] law ye cannot attain to this glory. ...
Again, I interpret verse 21 in light of D&C 19, wherein Joseph Smith reveals that the language of Hellfire in the Book of Mormon is meant to work on the hearts and minds of the reader but not to be taken literally. So too, verse 21 above I see as non-literal, but meant to work on the hearts and minds of men during the the 1800s so that many of the Saints back then would be motivated to practice plural marriage which was meant to expiate from their consciousness the untrue nature of deity from their absorption of the sectarian Creeds.
So Abraham's priesthood is the power of his body to reproduce sexually through the right to be polygamous at that time which produced a theological culture that knew the true nature of God.
What we also know is that Joseph Smith had a strong desire for family relations and to feel close to his friends and church members as an extended family. As he dictates to a scribe in D&C 130:2
2 And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.
In other words, the afterlife is a realm of Gods in human form engaged in the same sociality as on earth, which would include the friendships that Joseph Smith clearly enjoyed and wanted to continue into eternity; as well as including the joys of sexual unions which Smith describes as the ultimate source of happiness and joy.
I believe that just like the gospel authors turned to the technique of midrash or figural reading, and searched the scriptures for inspiration in order to produce their first century scriptures, Smith did the same thing in the 19th century. Just as Paul quotes from and borrows from Stoic philosophers, Joseph Smith used the Egyptian papyri and use used Masonic midrash to produce scripture and temple rituals.
Smith was restoring the shameless sexuality of Abrahamic Israel that produced for example The Song of Songs. Biblical scholar Michael Heiser points out that in the Council of the Gods, the lesser gods (or angels) were sexual beings; and some of them even chose to disobey Yahweh and procreate with mortal women. Scholars even conclude that Paul said that women should cover themselves in church so they don't arouse these sexual gods. So Joseph Smith describing the Gods as having a sexual body is in line with the Hebrew Bible.
Not a Sexual "Fall" into Depravity
Listening to the audiobook version of All Things New by the Givens, in chapter 7 they note that the Book of Abraham rejects the Augustinian idea of the Fall by stating in Abraham 4: 21-22:
21 ... And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good.
22 And the Gods said: We will bless them, and cause them to be fruitful and multiply, …
26 And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.
28 And the Gods said: We will bless them. And the Gods said: We will cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and to have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
The Givens point out that in verse 28, the Gods caused them to be fruitful and multiply just as God caused the animals to be fruitful and multiply. The Givens point out that this means that the Gods "are active agents behind the couple's fecundity." Hence it was not a Fall downward into Augustinian-Calvanist depravity and seeing sexuality as evil; but part of the plan was to move upward toward the trajectory of embodied Godhood. Part of that Godhood trajectory was developing the sexual desire to multiply and replenish. God caused this to happen and as stated in verse 21 to 22, the God-created drive to have sex was good. Then in verse 28, the drive for power or dominion was also part of the divine plan. Hence, in the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith was going back to the original Hebrew understanding of the creation of man. This view, by the way, again coincides with the view of the Evangelical scholar Michael Heiser who argues that the story of Adam and Eve is about Humanity gaining the status as the imagers of God.
What is clear to me is that Joseph Smith was restoring to Christianity the original Hebrew mindset of the sexual body as good and the drive for power or dominion as good; which had been obscured by the theologies of Augustine and Calvin. Jordan Peterson has a chapter titled stand up straight with your shoulders back, where he seeks to provide a kind of Muscular Christianity and talks a lot about where you are on the dominance hierarchy (or social status totem pole) affects your physiology. I believe that a similar understanding of the masculine instincts was also understood by Joseph Smith as good.
Abraham on the Altar and a God with an erection act as restorative images, restoring the original Hebrew mindset that saw the body and sex as good. In Catholicism and many versions of Protestantism, the imagery of the Cross became an image for willful Life-renunciation, low-status, and celibacy among monks and priests. The words and imagery of Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, in my view, acts as a counteractive mythos: as the concept of sacrifice is applied to the action-oriented Abraham seeking to not be celibate but body-affirming and sexually active via wives and concubines while God is presented with a sexual body.
Abraham and Issac at the Altar & Joseph and the Saints at the Altar
Just as Abraham is willing to sacrifice Issac on the altar, in the Book of Abraham, Abraham himself is nearly sacrificed as a martyr for his preaching of things like the “... the Gods said: We will cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth …” Abraham is the messenger of the glad tidings of the truth that a Council of Gods caused mankind to have a healhty sex drive and the drive for dominion, and “it was good.” Hence we see, that the propagation of the seed of Abraham is the "memetic seed" of the Glad Tidings of the goodness of the body.
In the first Lecture on Faith we learned that "faith is the principle of action." To believe (by the seed of faith, per Alma 32) in the true nature of God, was the seedbed for the sprouting principle of action in affirming the body as God's good creation.
Thus, in my view, Joseph Smith was using the original faith of Abraham and his affirmation of the body as the prototype of the ideal saint. Paul writes in Romans 4:3 (NKJV), “For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’” As one scholar notes:
Abraham’s faith was also important to [the apostle] Paul, but he uses it to make a different point. Some Jewish Christians insisted that Gentile Christians needed to be circumcised to belong to the people of God (Acts 15:1). After all, Gen 17:12-13 calls circumcision an “everlasting” sign of the covenant, and says that it applies to any foreigners living in their midst. How can these Gentile Christians claim to have faith in God if they are unwilling to do what God requires?
Paul sees it differently. He thinks the demand for circumcision contradicts the gospel, where there is “no longer Jew or Greek ... slave or free ... male and female” (Gal 3:28). But he does not wish a separation between the children of Abraham and his Gentile converts, who can rightly be called children of Abraham because they share the faith of Abraham (Gal 3:6-9). Indeed, Paul can argue that Christian faith is similar to Abraham’s faith because both involve believing that God “calls into existence the things that do not exist” (Rom 4:17). Hebrews contains a similar argument, where Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac is similar to faith in resurrection, for he “considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead—and figuratively speaking, he did receive him back” (Heb 11:19).
Source: Steve Moyise, "Abraham in the New Testament", n.p. [cited 4 May 2021].
Joseph Smith is revealing that just as God brought forth the seed of Abraham as a nation, the Hebrews, from the barren womb of Sarah; so too, God brings forth the latter day saints (as sexually active "holy ones") and their theosis through plural marriage; which was meant to expiate from the consciousness Augustinianism. And just as faith in the resurrection is akin to the faith of Abraham regarding Isaac, so to faith in plural marriage as “moral” is accounted to Latter-day Saints for righteousness as it caused them to reframe their attitudes about the body.
Smith was indeed a religious genius, as Harold Bloom puts it, for like Paul he was adept at pulling from scripture in order to weave a tapestry of new scriptural ideas and concepts using midrash.
In Paul’s day the end times were expected soon in his lifetime, and so the tradition of celibacy became popular. This led to the tradition of celibate monks and what Nietszche referred to as the “despising of the body.” Smith, on the other hand, through scriptural midrash and inspiration, returns the body to it’s created good status. Like Paul using the story of Abraham to help explain to Jewish Chsitians why Gentile Christians do not need to be circumcised, Smith explored the story of Abraham to show that “God is more liberal in his views,” as he writes to Nancy Rigdon.
The midrashic allegory of Abraham on the Altar, by Smith, is in my view about the liberation of human seuxality: the freeing the natural body from Augustinian shaming; and from the slavery of puritanism and the anti-sensual creeds that present the deity as a bodiless, passionless, three-headed immaterial substance.
So I think that Joseph Smith is basically saying that just as believing in Christ's resurrection is akin to Abraham believing that his elderly barren wife could conceive, and Abraham had faith in God to put his son on the altar to sacrifice; so too, Latter-day Saints were to temporarily exercise faith in Christ once again in believing that God is not a vaporous essence but an embodied man and thus the unconventional sex in plural marriage was the pathway to deification by expiating from their psyche the untrue nature of God.
So what Mormon couples were doing at the altar of the temple in the 1840s and up to 1900, was sacrificing their Puritan morals and sectarian creedal beliefs, in order to bring to pass the elevation of the Saints and the eventual exaltation of mankind.
Paul himself talks about offering gentile holy ones as a sacrifice in a similar way. Paul presents Gentiles and their loving acts of agape love as a sweet aroma, a sacrifice to the Lord. Joseph Smith builds on this language of the altar and sacrificial expiation, so that in his restoration theology the goal is the sacrificing away the sectarian creeds and antibody theologies through the temporary practice of plural marriage; so that those engaged in the practice would learn how to be Gods and then gain their exaltation; and the continuation of the seeds by the spreading of the same seedbed of restoration theology into the eternities.
Just as Abraham is the hero in the LDS Book of Abraham, Abraham is the first person Joseph mentions. Note verse 34, "and from Hagar sprang many people." Let's now read in context Doctrine & Covenants 132:
29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.
30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.
36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
In my view, what Joseph Smith is intending to convey is that the practice of wives and concubines was commanded by God which shows God's positive view of the sensual body. But ultimately the practice of plural marriage was to sprout a people. So what is really going on here is, as Joseph Smith explains in the King Follet discourse, it's important to know the true nature of God and His embodied nature. So that the goal is to sprout a body-affirming people. Hence plural marriage was merely the means to the end of a change in consciousness among the saints; wherein they did not despise the body but affirmed the body as God's good creation.
D&C then discussess Solomon and the acceptance of plural marriage as sanctioned by the God of the Hebrew Bible, and then Joseph dictates versus 50:
50 Behold, I have seen your sacrifices, and will forgive all your sins; I have seen your sacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I accepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac.
The beginning scene of the LDS Book of Abraham is the patriarch Abraham about to be sacrificed. Abraham is the hero of the story. I think this is also an unconscious metaphor by Joseph Smith about himself: representing his heroic willingness to sacrifice his reputation as a preacher, in fact his very life, in replacing Protestant Puritanism with what I've called Abrahamic Expansionism. So Abraham on the Altar had a dual metaphor, with Joseph Smith as the hero in introducing the restoration of the true nature of God and the Saints/Mormons acting heroically in sacrificing their Protestant morals in temporarily practicing plural marriage. As we read in the recently published book by the LDS Church titled Saints:
... Still, [Joseph Smith] knew the practice of plural marriage would shock people, and he remained reluctant to teach it openly. While other religious and utopian communities often embraced different forms of marriage, the Saints had always preached monogamy. Most Saints—like most Americans—associated polygamy with societies they considered less civilized than their own.
… Yet Joseph felt an urgency to teach it to the Saints, despite the risks and his own reservations. If he introduced the principle privately to faithful men and women, he could build strong support for it, preparing for the time when it could be taught openly. To accept plural marriage, people would have to overcome their prejudices, reconsider social customs, and exercise great faith to obey God when He commanded something so foreign to their traditions” (Saints, pg.s 434-5).
