In Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for Everyone and Nobody (Oxford World's Classics) by Friedrich Nietzsche (Author), and Graham Parkes (as translator), we read in Part 4, section 8 The Voluntary Beggar the following (note: the original footnotes by Parkes are interspersed in the section itself):
... behold, there was a man sitting on the ground who seemed to be urging the cows not to be afraid of him, a peaceable man and sermonizer on the mount,* from whose eyes goodness itself was preaching. ‘What do you seek here?’ cried Zarathustra in consternation.
*sermonizer on the mount: there are several allusions in this chapter to Christ’s Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7).
‘What do I seek here?’ he answered. ‘The same as you are seeking, you disturber of the peace! Namely, happiness on earth.
‘To that end I want to learn from these cows. …
‘Except we be converted and become as cows, we shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.*
*the Kingdom of Heaven: cf. Matthew 18: 3, where Jesus says to his disciples: ‘Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.’
For there is one thing we should learn from them: chewing the cud.
‘And verily, if a man shall gain the whole world and not learn this one thing, chewing the cud: what is he profited!* He would not be rid of his misery
*what is he profited!: cf. Matthew 16: 26, where Jesus asks: ‘For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?’
… And as [Zarathustra] spoke thus, he kissed the hands of the one to whom he [the sermonizer on the mount] was talking, his eyes overflowing with tears, and altogether behaved like one to whom a costly gift and jewel falls unexpectedly from Heaven. …
‘Do not speak of me, you wondrous man! Dear fellow!’ said Zarathustra, restraining his tenderness. ‘First speak to me about yourself! Are you not the voluntary beggar who one day threw away great riches–
‘– who was ashamed of his riches and the rich, and fled to the poorest, that he might pour out his heart and plenty to them? But they received him not.’*
*But they received him not: cf. John 1: 11: ‘He came unto his own, and his own received him not.’
… answered the voluntary beggar: ‘today when all that is base has become insurgent and coy and in its own way haughty: namely, in the mob’s way.
‘For the hour has come, well you know, for the great, bad, long, slow mob-and slave-insurrection: it grows and grows!
‘Those who are base are now indignant at all beneficence and small donations; and let the over-rich be on their guard!
‘Whoever today, like big-bellied bottles, lets drops fall out of all-too-narrow necks:– people today are happy to break the necks of such bottles.
[Kaufman translation: Now the base are outraged by any charity and any little giving away; and the overrich should beware. Whoever drips today, like bulging bottles out of all-too-narrow necks-such bottles they like to seize today to break their necks.]
‘Lascivious greed, bilious [nauseous] envy, aggrieved vengefulness, mob-pride: all that flew in my face. It is no longer true that the poor are blessèd. But the Kingdom of Heaven is with the cows.’
‘And why not with the rich?’ asked Zarathustra temptingly, warding off the cows who were trustingly nuzzling their peaceable friend.
‘Why do you tempt me?’ answered the latter. ‘You yourself know it even better than I. What was it after all that drove me to the poorest, O Zarathustra? Was it not disgust with the richest among us?
‘– with the convicts of riches, who glean advantage from every piece of rubbish, with cold eyes and lewd thoughts; with this rabble which stinks to high Heaven,
‘– with this gilded counterfeit mob, whose fathers were pick-pockets or carrion-birds or rag-pickers, with females compliant, lascivious, forgetful:– for they are all of them not far from being whores–
‘Mob above, mob below! What are “poor” and “rich” today still! I have unlearned this distinction– I fled from it all, farther, ever farther, until I came to these cows.’
The voluntary beggar is Buddha according to some interpreters, but I think it's clear from the Christian language that it could also be Jesus or a combination of both Jesus and Buddha. Zarathustra, as I see it, is making the argument that Jesus had compassion on the lower classes of people and they turned against him and crucified him; and today they have grown into a mob of ungrateful takers. So now this version of Jesus by Nietzsche is disgusted by how they have turned out and so he now goes to the docile cows.
Zarathustra then points out the resentment of this character (the voluntary beggar) playing Jesus and/or Buddha, saying:
‘You seem to me rather a man of plants and roots. Perhaps you crush grains. But you are certainly averse to pleasures of flesh and rather love honey.’
‘You have divined me well,’ replied the voluntary beggar, his heart relieved. ‘I do love honey, and I also crush grains, for I was seeking what tastes delightful and makes one’s breath pure:
‘– also what takes time, a day’s and mouth’s work for gentle idlers and lazybones.
‘Of course these cows have taken it farthest: they invented for themselves chewing the cud and lying in the sun. They also abstain from all heavy thoughts, which distend the heart.’ –
‘Well then!’ said Zarathustra: ‘you should also see my animals, my eagle and my serpent– their like is not to be found on earth today.
Nietzsche is thus, on my interpretation, contrasting the philosophy of Jesus which is fit for grazing docile cows (as prey animals) and his philosophy: represented by the predatory animals of the eagle and serpent.
Nietzsche (as Zarathustra), then encourages Jesus and/or Buddha (as the voluntary beggar) to essentially leave the "rabble" behind, to essentially leave the one sheep behind and focus only on the 99 sheep (as the parable of Jesus has it in Luke 15). In other words, instead of caring for most people, focus on the few elite sheep who overcome their sheepishness. Thus Zarathustra says:
‘But now straightway take leave of your cows, you wondrous man! dear fellow! hard though it may be for you. For they are your warmest friends and instructors!’–
I interpret this as Nietzsche having an imaginary conversation with Jesus and/or Buddha, and saying the following in my own words:
Look, the soulless worthless rabble among the poor lower classes turned on you Jesus/Buddha and don't appreciate almsgiving. This is why you are now sermonizing to cows. Your life-philosophy encourages a docile serenity not fit for complex humans capable of jealousy, hate, resentment and revenge. The poor are not blessed indeed because as time went on all the charitable giving became more prominent after you died, and the poor have just become poorer and are envious of the rich and powerful and want to destroy them; which is an attack on life itself which seeks to grow and expand powerfully. Sustaining the rabble simply becomes the watering of the weeds of producing yet more rabble (that chokes the powerful) the more you give to these weeds charitably. You can't change them and they will turn on you. Leave the rabble (the weak and unsuccessful lower classes) behind; let them decay and die off like withered leaves on the tree of lives in order to make room for the more healthy and bright growing green leaves of the higher humanity that shall spiritually evolve into the Superhumans.
Hence in my view, Nietzsche is giving a philosophical grounding for the endorsement of the strong and elite upper classes that oppress and subjugate the lower classes. Compare the Temptation of Jesus in Matthew 4:1-11 (Revised Standard Version):
4 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And he fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterward he was hungry. 3 And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” 4 But he answered, “It is written,
‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written,
‘He will give his angels charge of you,’
and
‘On their hands they will bear you up,
lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”
7 Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’” 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; 9 and he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” 10 Then Jesus said to him, “Begone, Satan! for it is written,
‘You shall worship the Lord your God
and him only shall you serve.’”
11 Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and ministered to him.
Nietzsche also writes about being annoyed himself by beggars saying, "Beggars should be abolished. It annoys one to give to them, and it annoys one not to give to them” (Source: "On the Pitying," Thus Spake Zarathustra).
He then laments that the average person, the lower and middle class, or the "rabble" will always be with us in the section below (words in bold my own for emphasis):
XXVIII. THE RABBLE.
Life is a well of delight; but where the rabble also drink, there all fountains are poisoned.
To everything cleanly am I well disposed; but I hate to see the grinning mouths and the thirst of the unclean.
They cast their eye down into the fountain: and now glanceth up to me their odious smile out of the fountain.
The holy water have they poisoned with their lustfulness; and when they called their filthy dreams delight, then poisoned they also the words.
Indignant becometh the flame when they put their damp hearts to the fire; the spirit itself bubbleth and smoketh when the rabble approach the fire.
Mawkish and over-mellow becometh the fruit in their hands: unsteady, and withered at the top, doth their look make the fruit-tree.
And many a one who hath turned away from life, hath only turned away from the rabble: he hated to share with them fountain, flame, and fruit.
And many a one who hath gone into the wilderness and suffered thirst with beasts of prey, disliked only to sit at the cistern with filthy camel-drivers.
And many a one who hath come along as a destroyer, and as a hailstorm to all cornfields, wanted merely to put his foot into the jaws of the rabble, and thus stop their throat.
And it is not the mouthful which hath most choked me, to know that life itself requireth enmity and death and torture-crosses:—
But I asked once, and suffocated almost with my question: What? is the rabble also NECESSARY for life?
Are poisoned fountains necessary, and stinking fires, and filthy dreams, and maggots in the bread of life?
Not my hatred, but my loathing, gnawed hungrily at my life! Ah, ofttimes became I weary of spirit, when I found even the rabble spiritual!
And on the rulers turned I my back, when I saw what they now call ruling: to traffic and bargain for power—with the rabble!
Amongst peoples of a strange language did I dwell, with stopped ears: so that the language of their trafficking might remain strange unto me, and their bargaining for power.
And holding my nose, I went morosely through all yesterdays and to-days: verily, badly smell all yesterdays and to-days of the scribbling rabble!
Like a cripple become deaf, and blind, and dumb—thus have I lived long; that I might not live with the power-rabble, the scribe-rabble, and the pleasure-rabble.
Toilsomely did my spirit mount stairs, and cautiously; alms of delight were its refreshment; on the staff did life creep along with the blind one.
What hath happened unto me? How have I freed myself from loathing? Who hath rejuvenated mine eye? How have I flown to the height where no rabble any longer sit at the wells?
Did my loathing itself create for me wings and fountain-divining powers? Verily, to the loftiest height had I to fly, to find again the well of delight!
Oh, I have found it, my brethren! Here on the loftiest height bubbleth up for me the well of delight! And there is a life at whose waters none of the rabble drink with me!
Almost too violently dost thou flow for me, thou fountain of delight! And often emptiest thou the goblet again, in wanting to fill it!
And yet must I learn to approach thee more modestly: far too violently doth my heart still flow towards thee:—
My heart on which my summer burneth, my short, hot, melancholy, over-happy summer: how my summer heart longeth for thy coolness!
Past, the lingering distress of my spring! Past, the wickedness of my snowflakes in June! Summer have I become entirely, and summer-noontide!
A summer on the loftiest height, with cold fountains and blissful stillness: oh, come, my friends, that the stillness may become more blissful!
For this is OUR height and our home: too high and steep do we here dwell for all uncleanly ones and their thirst.
Cast but your pure eyes into the well of my delight, my friends! How could it become turbid thereby! It shall laugh back to you with ITS purity.
On the tree of the future build we our nest; eagles shall bring us lone ones food in their beaks!
Verily, no food of which the impure could be fellow-partakers! Fire, would they think they devoured, and burn their mouths!
Verily, no abodes do we here keep ready for the impure! An ice-cave to their bodies would our happiness be, and to their spirits!
And as strong winds will we live above them, neighbours to the eagles, neighbours to the snow, neighbours to the sun: thus live the strong winds.
And like a wind will I one day blow amongst them, and with my spirit, take the breath from their spirit: thus willeth my future.
Verily, a strong wind is Zarathustra to all low places; and this counsel counselleth he to his enemies, and to whatever spitteth and speweth: “Take care not to spit AGAINST the wind!”—
Thus spake Zarathustra.
(Source)
Compare this to The Joseph Smith Papers: Documents Volume 2, where in the introduction the authors point out that in these early documents on the life and philosophy of Joseph Smith, one learns that they "illuminate his [Joseph Smith's] vision of Zion--a righteous, poverty-free community ..." In the The Joseph Smith Papers: Journals Vol. 3, we read Joseph's journal for the following date of 21 May 1843 Sunday:
I love that man better who swears a steam as long as my arm and administering to the poor & dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites
In other words, for Joseph Smith being good is not about being pious and acting holier than thou as much as how you treat others, especially the poor and those in need. In 3 Nephi 26: 19, in the Book of Mormon, after Jesus teaches the people, it says they "they taught, and did minister one to another; and they had all things common among them, every man dealing justly, one with another." This emphasis on mutual respect and commonality, and everyone should esteem their neighbor as themselves (see Mosiah 27:4; D&C 38:24–25). D&C section 38 goes on to state:
26 For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am ajust? 27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.
Compare this to section 29, On the Tarantulas where Nietzsche has his Zarathustra say:
"With these preachers of equality will I not be mixed up and confounded. For thus speaketh justice unto me: "Men are not equal." And neither shall they become so! What would be my love to the Superman, if I spake otherwise?
Sparknotes explains this section this way:
Chapter 7: On the Tarantulas
Zarathustra calls those who preach democracy, equality, and justice "tarantulas": secretly, they spread the poison of revenge. By preaching equality, they seek to avenge themselves on all those who are not their equals. Life thrives on conflict and self-overcoming. If we were to make everyone equal, how could we strive for the overman [Superhumans]? ...
... Nietzsche considers the idea of justice to be the invention of those who cannot secure justice on their own. Democracy ensures that the weak do not have to suffer the abuses of the strong and that the strong cannot oppress the weak. At least, that's what democracy is supposed to do.
In other words, Nietzsche as an honest atheist had abandoned all traditional ethics (derived from Christianity) and rejected democracy and American notions of inalienable Rights and fairness and equality, for the Greek Agon and the cold hard reality of evolutionary strife within warring species. Since his Superhumans are a new species of humans, they are to replace the Last Man as the future evolutionary trajectory; and in the process the weak and unequal to the strong, need to be sacrificed to produce the Superhumans. For more details see Unpublished Fragments from the Period of Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Summer 1882–Winter 1883/84): Volume 14, where we read in a review of the book the following:
The volume consists of 599 pp. of translated text, 111 pp. of notes, an index of persons, an index of subjects, and an 80 p. Translator’s Afterword. The focus of my review will be on this Afterword; I will let more qualified readers comment on the translation. The Translator’s Afterword is mainly, but not exclusively, concerned with the rendering of Nietzsche’s term Übermensch, in the past translated variously as “superman” or more recently “overman”. Loeb and Tinsley elect to use “superhuman”. In doing so they admit to “contradict[ing] in many ways the reading of Nietzsche’s term Übermensch that was first proposed by Walter Kaufmann in his extremely influential study of Nietzsche’s philosophy …” - Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. Kaufmann coined the translation “overman” Loeb and Tinsley correctly state that Kaufmann, writing immediately after WWII, was concerned to rehabilitate Nietzsche from his association with Nazi ideology and the contamination of his ideas by racist, eugenic ideas of a superior master race. Loeb and Tinsley write “According to Kaufmann, Nietzsche’s Zarathustran concept of superhumans is identical to his concept of superior individuals and is best exemplified by the figure of [the German poet] Goethe.” By identifying the overman with specific historical individuals, some nefarious, others laudable, Nietzsche, according to Kaufmann, was not advocating a eugenic policy of breeding overmen, but rather pointing to their spontaneous, if not random, appearance in the course of history. Loeb and Tinsely write that Kaufmann’s interpretation of “overman” is “… in the sense that it refers to a great man like Goethe who has overcome (mastered, sublimated) his animality (his passions, instincts, impulses) and thereby attained self-mastery and become truly human.” Loeb and Tinsley point to inconsistencies in Kaufmann’s argument, his supposed ignoring the development of the concept of overman in Nietzsche’s thought, and his downplaying of any evidence to the contrary in Nietzsche’s writings. Loeb and Tinsley’s translation of “superhuman” is supported by a well argued philological thesis regarding the history of the word “Übermensch”. They feel it does better justice when considering the use of the term in Nietzsche’s works as a whole (which they catalog as being surprising little outside of Thus Spoke Zarathustra). However they go on to argue that “superhuman” is a better translation because it fits with a thesis that Nietzsche actually meant a new species of humans, superior to present day humans in much the same way that humans of today are superior to animals. They are superior because, according to Loeb and Tinsley, they have “ … no viable competitors in the universal struggle for power. But they want to feel more power still, and so they are driven to create something greater beyond themselves, that is, a future species that will be much more powerful than they are. They must therefore breed stronger offspring and then select themselves out of existence by seeking the greatest risks and dangers - thus leaving their descendants to flourish and repeat the same cycle until eventually a new species has emerged.” This is not an unfamiliar line of thinking associated with Nietzsche and is similar to the one Kaufmann was at pains to dispel. Kaufmann might have pointed out that Loeb and Tinsley rely somewhat on the notes and fragments they are translating to support this thesis, something that Kaufmann argued against - stating that Nietzsche did not include them in the final published versions of his writings and never intended for them to be published separately or taken as his final thoughts. I think that one can accept the translation “superhuman” and keep an open mind regarding the above contrasting interpretations. However it shows how difficult it can be to feel totally comfortable with Nietzsche's philosophy. Which interpretation the reader feels more comfortable with will probably be determined by what attitude they bring to his works. Consideration of the issue ultimately demands a full immersion in the study of Nietzsche’s writings. ...
I read the Afterward discussed above myself, and it is clear to me that Nietzsche very clearly meant a new species and thus Superhumans, or Parke's Overhumans are better translations than Overman.
We read in the compilation of Nietzsche unpublished notes, THE WILL TO POWER, BOOK IV:
2. The Strong and the Weak
871 (Nov. 1887-March 1888)
The victorious and unbridled: their depressive influence on the value of the desires. It was the dreadful barbarism of custom that, especially in the Middle Ages, compelled the creation of a veritable "league of virtue"--together with an equally dreadful exaggeration of that which constitutes the value of man. Struggling "civilization" (taming) needs every kind of irons and torture to maintain itself against terribleness and beast-of-prey natures.
Here a confusion is quite natural, although its influence has been fatal: that which men of power and will are able to demand of themselves also provides a measure of that which they may permit themselves. Such natures are the antithesis of the vicious and unbridled: although they may on occasion do things that would convict a lesser man of vice and immoderation.
Here the concept of the "equal value of men before God" is extraordinarily harmful; one forbade actions and attitudes that were in themselves among the prerogatives of the strongly constituted--as if they were in themselves unworthy of men. One brought the entire tendency of the strong into disrepute when one erected the protective measures of the weakest (those who were weakest also when confronting themselves) as a norm of value.
Confusion went so far that one branded the very virtuosi of life (whose autonomy offered the sharpest antithesis to the vicious and unbridled) with the most opprobrious names. Even now one believes one must disapprove of a Cesare Borgia; that is simply laughable. The church has excommunicated German emperors on account of their vices: as if a monk or priest had any right to join in a discussion about what a Frederick II may demand of himself. A Don Juan is sent to hell: that is very naive. Has it been noticed that in heaven all interesting men are missing?-- Just a hint to the girls as to where they can best find their salvation.-- If one reflects with some consistency, and moreover with a deepened insight into what a "great man" is, no doubt remains that the church sends all "great men" to hell--it fights against all "greatness of man."
(Source)
For more information see https://www.the-philosophy.com/nietzsche-will-to-power
Joseph's philosophy is the opposite of Nietzsche's emphasis on the elite rising to the top at the expense of the weak or less fortunate.
Nietzsche rejected Christian morals, belief in God, and the afterlife. In his view the only reality was cold and indifferent nature and nature operated through this cosmic constant, the will to power. Thus he writes in his notes:
And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by “nothingness” as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a space that might be “empty” here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms striving toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self- creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my “beyond good and evil,” without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself— do you want a name for this world? A solution for all of its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?— This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power
In the book, Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman, author Abir Taha argues that Nietzsche basically wanted to create a pagan "spiritual" philosophy where the strong artistic geniuses and warrior tyrants subject and enslave everyone else. Nietzsche thus fully embraced atheism and evolution, so that if there was no God, no soul and no afterlife, we are just evolved organisms subject to evolution; and so to affirm Life, we need to form of a life philosophy or "spirituality" that embraced nature red in tooth and claw, and its evolving aspects. In the process, ideals of justice, fairness, and democratic equality are nonsense in the jungles of nature of predator and prey, and only occasionally mutualism among species amidst the over cycle of life forms feeding on life forms. In contrast, Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon, where a character named Korihor as an anti-Christ is treated as a villain who disrupts civilized society with his anti-theism. In Alma chapter 30 in the Book of Mormon, it says Korihor "was a Anti-Christ" (verse 6) because basically he sought to disrupt Law & Order, and the laws against criminality and the belief in the Christ which grounded objective notions of Right and Wrong (as "all things which are good cometh of Christ ..." according to Moroni 7:24). Thus Korihor says to the people in Alma 30: 14-16:
Behold, these things ... are foolish traditions of your fathers. How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ. ... it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so. And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that ... every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime. And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.
Note that this actually sums up Nietzsche's philosophy quite well, as he argues against notions of objective Right and Wrong, and has a section (the Pale Criminal) on how criminals don't commit actual moral crimes because they don't have a soul nor fee will and are just pre-determined. And Nietzsche's notions of the will to power and the strong subjugating the weak and his rejection of equality is very much in line with Korihor saying, "very man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength." Interestingly, Nietzsche also describes himself as the Antichrist. Hence, Joseph's philosophy is against anti-theistic notions of there is no God and no soul nor afterlife, so no Right or Wrong, and everyone man should prosper over others through their genius and conquer through strength, hence might makes right. Joseph Smith taught self-reliance and power and strength as well but in the name of building the ideal of Zion. So that while Joseph Smith's philosophy was enlivening and positive about our human nature and instincts, he also was a compassionate person who cared about human relationships and the betterment of society. Smith truly believe that Christianity was a unifying theology and life philosophy that could unite Americans and his own family.
Radical Egalitarian Equality (No Rich Class or Poor Class)
Going back to D&C section 38, like the historical Jesus before him, we see Joseph's early life in poverty makes it so he detests unfairness and classism, and thus Jesus says through the voice of Joseph:
25 And again I say unto you, let every man esteem his brother as himself.
26 For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just?
27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.
The later Utah-based LDS Church would pretty much abandon this radical communitarianism yet the sentiment does live on within the LDS Church in providing relief to poor members. And even though Smith later builds a mansion, it was not for his selfish desire as some critics have argued, but instead it was designed for boarding people for free, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Mansion_House
So that Joseph's emphasis on power and dominion in his writings is always in the context, not of selfish egoism (like with Nietzsche and Rand), but of the spirit of esteeming the other as yourself, and building Zion.
