Here I will document some key insights from The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) and how that relates to this blog series on Abrahamic Expansionism.
Pluck "Him" out (not your eye):
The following is from The Joseph Smith Translation by Kenneth and Lyndell Lutes; the words in bold and strikeouts document the changes Joseph Smith made in his translation (while he was using the KJV as his template):
Mark 9:
39 [verse 42 in KJV] And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
40 [verse 43 in KJV] And Therefore, if thy hand offend thee, cut it off; or if thy brother offend thee and confess not and forsake not, he shall be cut off. It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands, to go into hell.
41 [verse 43–44 in KJV] For it is better for thee to enter into life without thy brother, than for thee and thy brother to be cast into hell; into the fire that never shall be quenched, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
42 [verse 45 in KJV] And again, if thy foot offend thee, cut it off; for he that is thy standard, by whom thou walkest, if he become a transgressor, he shall be cut off.
43 [verse 45-46 in KJV] It is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
44 Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another.
… 46 [KJV 47] And if thine eye which seeth for thee, him that is appointed to watch over thee to show thee light, become a transgressor and offend thee, pluck it him out.
47 It is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God, with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
48 For it is better that thyself should be saved, than to be cast into hell with thy brother, where their worm dieth not, and where the fire is not quenched.
Some say that the literal reading of this verse in translations like the KJV led to some early Christians to actually remove body parts to try and subdue their bodily drives. The fact that Joseph Smith was inspired to modify this verse to mean not plucking out one's eye but to instead mean seeing that one's brother acts as your eye; and so you should pluck him out. This is not only a good correction of the body-despising tradition which entered into Mark's gospel through the ascetic tradition of the time (that of advocating celibacy); but Joseph Smith also adds an important teaching that if someone's not guiding you down the right path, to "pluck them out" from your friendship circle, so as to avoid them leading you down the wrong path.
... Official LDS church sources suggest that part of D&C 132 “emerged from Joseph Smith’s study of the Old Testament in 1831” and that “people who knew Joseph well later stated he received the revelation about that time.”[7]
... Between February 9 and April 4, 1831, Smith worked on text from Genesis about Abraham having more than one wife; and through September 12, covered text that would have mentioned other polygamous marriages.[11] However, Smith did not take the opportunity to expand or clarify text from Genesis about the practice of plural marriage.
On June 10, 1844, Joseph Smith explained to the Nauvoo city council that a portion of D&C 132 came when he inquired “concerning the passage in the resurrection [sic] concerning ‘they neither marry nor are given in marriage, &c.’”[12] In Matthew 22, Jesus was asked about the implications of resurrection and the Old Testament levirate practice of a brother marrying the wife of his deceased brother to “raise up seed unto his brother.”[13] If a woman married and outlived her husband, then subsequently married and outlived each of his multiple brothers one at a time, who would be her husband in the resurrection? Jesus responded that “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels.” ... The text would be reinterpreted in 1843 in D&C 132:16–17, which states that non-eternal marriages result in separation at death, forfeiting godhood:
Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.
Smith’s 1832 inspired translation of Romans 7:19–23 (20–24 in the JST) adds concepts that he may have used in later justifications for plural marriage in Nauvoo (discussed below). I have included his additions to Romans 7:19 (JST Romans 7:20–21) in square brackets: “For the good that I would [have done when under the law, I find not to be good; therefore] I do [it] not: but the evil which I would not [do under the law, I find to be good]; that, I do.”[15]
... three documents show evidence of an evolution of thought over time regarding marriage.
Shaker Revelation: “it is lawful that he should have one wife”—May 7, 1831
On May 7, 1831,[16] Smith dictated a revelation to be read to a nearby Shaker community that emphasized monogamy rather than Shaker-promoted celibacy: “whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God . . . Wherefore, it is lawful that [man] should have one wife” (D&C 49:15–16).[17] ...
JST Romans 7:20–21, quoted above, is likely an early indication that Smith had realized that what was deemed "evil" or "sin" is only that which is against God's law. So that once Smith became convinced that plural marriage and concubinage was not against God's law, he began to create the new law of celestial plural marriage and concubines (as explained in D&C 132).
In other words, Smith saw his role as revalator and seer as overturning previous laws that were thought to be good but were not, and instituting new laws and practices formerly thought to be sinful but are actuually good and holy. Let's look again at JST Romans 7:20–21, Smith's additions in square brackets and emphasis added below:
“For the good that I would [have done when under the law, I find not to be good; therefore] I do [it] not: but the evil which I would not [do under the law, I find to be good]; that, I do.”[15]
In other words, Smith makes it so Paul is saying here that he (Paul) as a revelator is the arbiter of what is "good" or "evil" in the Mosaic Law Code. Joseph Smith clarified this in the subsequent verse in JST Romans 7: 24, "And now I [Paul] see another law, even the commandment of Christ, and it is imprinted in my mind" (note: words in italics were added by Smith). Compare verse 9-12 as well where in the JST it is the lawful commands of Christ through revelation that are good and holy, and not all the laws of the Moasic Law. For in Christ one is dead to the Moasic Law(s) (see verse 6, 9, 14-15) and one is under a new law revealed though revelations of Christ given through Paul in the days of the New Testament. So Joseph Smith has Paul saying that the laws and commandments of Christ as revealed through him (Paul) supercedes any previous laws. This sets up a situation where Joseph Smith can take the reins from Paul and continue this traddition of replacing previous laws and creating new ones through the will of Christ as revealed through the seer and revelator, first through Paul and then through Joseph Smith.
Smith realized that in the Bible, God never called polygamy and having concubines a sin. In fact, the Jewish People were essentially "spawned" from the polygamist Abraham.
We read on pages 20-21 of Secret Covenants:
The 1835 Doctrine and Covenants “Statement on Marriage” indicates that rumors of polygamy were circulating. These may have been from Smith teaching an early form of plural marriage, allegations of non-monogamous relationships by Smith, Cowdery, and others, or rumors that Mormons were practicing a form of communal wives.[31]
The statement said: “Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband.”[32] An 1837 resolution also addresses concerns of polygamy, “we will have no fellowship whatever with any Elder belonging to the quorums of the Seventies who is guilty of polygamy.”[33] In 1838, Smith answered “not at the same time” to the question: “‘Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one?’[34] A year later, Smith addressed rumors that “Some have reported that we not only dedicated our property, but likewise our families to the Lord . . . a community of wives,”[35] and in 1840, he wrote “when a man consecrates or dedicates his wife and children to the Lord, he does not give them to his brother or to his neighbor.”[36]
Not long after the 1835 statement was published, without a license, Joseph Smith performed the marriage of abandoned and un-divorced Lydia Goldthwaite Bailey to Newel Knight on November 24, 1835. “I have done it by the authority of the holy priesthood and the Gentile law has no power to call me to account for it,” Smith stated. He would perform at least ten additional illegal marriages over the next two months, evidence that his views on marriage continued to evolve, and that he believed his authority superseded civil law.[37]
If sin is only that which is against God's law, then monogamous state marriages are not actually lawful and binding if a higher revelation-based law from a revelating prophet and seer supercedes it.
It is clear to me that Smith saw God (as described in the Old Testament) as not overly pious and prudish, but instead approves of sensual bodily pleasure, which is clear when one reads Smith's 1842 "Happiness Letter" to Nancy Rigdon.
On page 22 we read:
In the midst of his own plural marriage activity, on November 7, 1841, Smith referred to the New Testament story of a woman caught in the act of adultery (John 8:3–11). Pointing out that no one accused her, Joseph preached: “If you have no accuser you will enter heaven, and if you will follow the revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. . . . What many people call sin is not sin; I do many things to break down superstition, and I will break it down.”[45]
On pages 57-58 we read:
Charges of secrecy surrounding plural marriage were made in the Nauvoo Expositor, “they are told . . . to never divulge what is revealed to them . . . that she should be his (Joseph’s) Spiritual wife.” ... Sarah Pratt summarized her understanding of the approach to plural marriage: “God does not care if we have a good time, if only other people do not know it,” ...
... Smith’s 1832 retranslation of Romans 7:19–20 suggests an openness to reconsidering traditional interpretations of sin: “For the good that I would [have done when under the law, I find not to be good; therefore] I do [it] not: but the evil which I would not [do under the law, I find to be good]; that, I do” (JST 20–22).[171] His prioritization of priesthood authorized marriage over civil/legal marriage beginning in 1835 marks his first documented practical steps of a reconstruction of marital ethics, dubbed “theocratic ethics” by historian Michael Quinn.[172] This would come into stark relief later when the civil/legal marriage of Joseph Kingsbury to Sarah Ann Whitney was classified a “pretended marriage” to cover her plural marriage to Smith. A November 1841 sermon further illustrated Smith’s conceptual shift. Discussing the New Testament story of a women accused of adultery, Smith’s surmised that “no man will be condemned before God who has no accuser” and “if you will follow the revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven. . . . What many people call sin is not sin.” Statements in Smith’s 1842 letter to Nancy Rigdon justifying his proposal to her further illustrate his ethical views of marital relationships. For example: “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.” The Rigdon letter goes on to say that in answer to prayer, Solomon received “special revelation” that granted his “every desire” that would otherwise be considered “abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which, in reality, were right.”[173]
Revelation gave Smith authority that granted him whatever (and possibly whomever) he requested, as well as authority over sin. After eleven verses discussing Old Testament polygamy, Smith was reminded of his appointment to restore all things and told: “Ask what ye will, and it shall be given you.” Regarding sin he is told “whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens,” and that God “will forgive all your sins.” (D&C 132:40, 46, 50).
Section 132 further justifies polygamy via revelation: (35: “Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it;”); and also for Smith: (59: “if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit sin and I will justify him;”) and per Smith’s prerogative (48: “whatever you give on earth, and to whomsoever you give any one on earth, by my word and according to my law, it shall be visited with blessings and not cursings.”)
Page 24:
... In an interview in Utah ... Sarah Pratt [recalled] Joseph saying, “God does not care if we have a good time, if only other people do not know it.” She said that it wasn’t until later that Smith began including a marriage ceremony in his relationships.[51]
Page 27:
[Joseph told Martha Brotherton regarding plural marriage]:
I know that this is lawful and right before God, and if there is any sin in it I will answer for it before God, and I have the keys of the kingdom, and whatever I bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever I loose on earth is loosed in heaven; ...
