Mauss' Book "All Abraham's Children"

 

The following will be my commentary and excerpts from the book All Abraham's Children by Armand L. Mauss.

From the very start of the book I can tell that the author is very politically progressive or far-Left, which is fine except that it's clear that the person has a bias.  

I agree with his initial assessment in the first few pages where he basically argues that as the LDS Church began to grow, through missionary efforts, to become a more globalist Church, the original doctrine of pure-blooded Ephraimites began to be less emphasized. 

I did notice that he tries to combine and tie together the concept of European Ephraimites with the former "seed of Cain" doctrine (which was officially repudiated by the LDS Church in 2013). In my opinion, the seed of Cain idea, which came from Protestants, can be rejected without needing to also reject the doctrine of European Ephraimites.

I noticed the first major error in his judgmental attitude toward original Ephraimite Mormonism, when he writes on page 4:

... the Apostle Paul envisioned a world outside Jerusalem, where all mankind could become "the children of Abraham," without regard to original race, lineage, or culture. 

To be honest, this is a problematic statement, given the fact that Paul himself is proud of his Benjamite Israelite heritage. Meanwhile, the whole point of the genealogy of Jesus in the gospels is in part to show that he descends from the Israelite genetic lineage through Abraham as the Davidic Messiah as an Israelite King.  Furthermore, Paul was not including Gentiles without regard to original race or lineage. In reality, as I explained in my blog post here, according to biblical scholars, Matthew Thiessen is most probably correct in his scholarship: wherein Thiessen explains that Paul was literally teaching that Gentiles needed to have their genes / race literally replaced with the lineage and race of the Israelite Messiah! 

Also on page 4, Mauss says that the focus on ethnic lineage and the Tribes of Israel in Mormonism, was influenced by the outside influence of British Israelism rather than LDS scripture itself. But British Israelism did not really develop and become popular until 1840. I do not see early Mormonism being influenced primarily by British Israelism but by Joseph Smith's scriptures canon and Patriarchal Blessings, all which was based on revelation. In other words, when the Book of Mormon declares that Joseph Smith Jr. is a descendant of the Israelite Joseph of the Tribe of Ephraim, you can't then blame the LDS Ephraimites doctrine on British Israelism! 

There is just too much evidence of the doctrine that Indo-European converts have an Ephraimite ethnic identity within the early LDS Scriptures themselves and Patriarchal Blessings, for his argument on page 8 to be true: wherein Mauss argues that it was the Mormon expulsions to eventually Utah and refugees from the British isles, Scandinavia, Germany and other European countries, that led to "the creation of a new people, a new ethnos ..." (pg. 8). I see what he is trying to do. He is trying to water drown original Mormonism and make it a more universalist religion. 

The problem is Mauss' premises are flawed. His first premise, that the pure doctrine of Paul was a non-ethnic universalist religion is wrong. The second premise, that Mormons only developed this idea of being European Ephraimites when they were in Utah is also mistaken. The problem with the first premise, as I covered above, is that Paul never taught this pure non-ethnic religion but thought that Gentiles needed to be literally transformed into Israelites. The second premise is wrong because the concept of European Ephraimites was already firmly established in LDS Scripture at the very beginning as early as 1830 through the Book of Mormon!  For example on page 10 he writes that "Mormons came to understand themselves increasingly as literal Israelites rather than as the Gentiles of the Book of Mormon." I disagree with this. We can read Patriarchal Blessings early on describing many LDS members as pure-blooded Israelites from the Tribe of Ephraim.

Excerpts from "Beowulf and Nephi"

 

Excerpts from Beowulf and Nephi: A Literary View of the Book of Mormon by Robert E . Nichols , Jr.

Excerpts from part (1):

In all the wide world, past and present, there is no greater body of literature than that which we call English. And in all the annals of English literature, spanning thirteen centuries of impressive expression, no single matter has had greater impact on the creative genius than the life of Jesus Christ and the Biblical account of events surrounding that Life. ... triumphed in the ninth century with Cynewulf's Dream of the Rood. That matter suffused the Arthurian legendry of early Middle English, ... Thirteen centuries, thousands of stylists, trillions of words in billions of lines of verse and prose - all influenced by a single written source, the Bible, itself little larger than a good-sized novel. ...

 ...  and given a century of literary art still fundamentally influenced by the same materials [in the Bible], ... viewed as an addendum to Scripture, the latter-day narrative [of the Book of Mormon] adds, at the very least, a provocative time-and-space dimension to Christian thought. Even viewed as an apocryphal tour de force, the work adds giant chunks of episodic adventure to Christian lore. ...

 

Note that Cynewulf's Dream of the Rood was written to make Christianity more acceptable to the Germanic peoples by presenting Jesus in a more masculine frame.  For more details see The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation by James C. Russell.

This is how I interpret the Book of Mormon, in that I see it being filtered through the author and translator Joseph Smith, who himself is of Germanic descent being British and Irish; and so the characters in the Book of Mormon represent that Germanic Anglo-Saxon vitality that Joseph Smith contained in his lineage and which I think came through in the text. The author of the article quoted herein, Robert E . Nichols , Jr., does not go into all of this on lineage but he does compare the Book of Mormon to the Germanic/Norse Beowulf in his analysis quoted below. The very fact that he reveals parallel heroic energy in both Nephi and Beowulf, is evidence to me of Germanic/Norse energy being filtered through the Germanic Joseph Smith in his characters in The Book of Mormon.

Excerpts from part (3):

... Lehi simply does not speak the language of his older children or his wife. Nor does he ever learn. ... He has obviously failed to convince Laman and Lemuel of the validity of his religious experience ... [Lehi insists] that he and his wife are not in a wilderness, for he has "obtained a land of promise." ... Lehi is a very human character. He is, of course, as Hugh Nibley has demonstrated, a product of a Heroic Age.[3] But his human traits make him readily identifiable with the domestically beleaguered patriarch in the life and letters of any age. He is today's well-to-do former businessman who turns, in early retirement and semi-retrenchment, to the religious avocation, an enigma to his wife and older children, who knew him during the pressure years as a hard-driving merchant.

By contrast, Nephi, equally a product of the same Heroic Age, is perhaps most clearly approached as a Book of Mormon figure, not through modern parallels, but through comprehension of his conduct as hero in the epic tradition, a tradition which, in Old English remnants, preserves Continental motifs dating into the pre-Christian era.

In that tradition, the hero displays certain typical physical propensities. Beowulf, a prime example, can wear thirty sets of armor; Nephi, even though "exceeding young, nevertheless [is] large in stature," so large as to elicit comment ment twice in an abridgment.

Beowulf is termed mankind's most powerful man, in his day; Nephi has "received much strength" and musters power to burst the bonds which bind his hands and feet, eluding destruction at the teeth of wild beasts. Beowulf possessess greater swimming endurance than any rival; Nephi, too, excels in the manly skills, such as hunting with the steel bow. Beowulf and Nephi both display undoubted personal courage, Beowulf in his combat with Grendel's Dam and Nephi in his daring impersonation of Laban. Both men are well-born, as genealogical references imply.

And both are quintessentially men of action, humorlessly dedicated to the pursuit of a righteous cause.

As a further facet of this tradition, the hero, imbued with an unshakeable sense of purpose, delivers a beot, or boast, affirming his prowess and confirming his resolution as the fateful enterprise looms near. Beowulf, preparing to meet the fearsome Grendel, proclaims:

I myself give no humbler tally in martial vigor than Grendel himself. Therefore, I will not kill him with sword, though I easily may. For, though he be renowned for battle, he knows not of such warfare as to strike against me, hewing my shield. But, if he dare seek hand-to-hand combat, tonight we two shall meet. And afterward the all-wise God, the holy Lord, will adjudge the glorious deed as He thinks proper, on whatever hand.

In a similar fashion Nephi, charged by Lehi to seek the Brass Plates of Laban, boldly announces:

I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

Subsequently, Nephi, after some indecision, takes command of the band of brothers, strongly reminiscent of the Old English dright, or warrior band. Ever the intrepid individual, Nephi causes the band to "hide themselves without the walls," while he reconnoiters the city himself, a solitary emprise like the aged Beowulf's solo attack on the Dragon to shield his companions, though they too have a clear commitment. That commitment, in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, may be one of noble purpose - to support their captain in destroying the monster - but more frequently it is only the promise of gold, mercenary payment made by the drighťs leader, their ring-giver. Nephi's band, ostensibly, undertakes their raid for* a lofty cause - securing "the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass" - but before ever trying for the plates, they "gather together [their] gold, and [their] silver, and [their] precious things." Ancient battle poems show that neither gold nor lofty cause could keep a drighťs courage at the sticking point: The warriors needed to be harangued into perseverance, reminded of their obligations to the ring-giver and their ultimate rewards. In such a vein Nephi, facing his band's defection, harangues, "As the Lord liveth, and as we live, we will not go down unto our father in the wilderness, until we have accomplished the thing which the Lord hath commanded us." He reminds them of their debt to the Lord, the waiting treasure, the coming destruction of the city, and the wisdom of their cause. Emboldened by the harangue, though not without certain further backslidings, Nephi's dright see their mission through.

 

Nephi is well cast for the heroic mantle - he's built of the appropriate materials in the correct proportions, he has developed enviable capacities in the proper skills, and he does things when they need to be done. However, he is far more complex than most of his counterparts in the epics. As early as the Plates of Laban Aifair, for instance, Nephi reveals himself to be a logician of the first water. A typical young champion like Wiglaf may try to spur Beowulf's dright by reminding them of their debts and shouting, "Let us press on." But when the young Nephi makes the same exhortation, "Let us go up again unto Jerusalem," he supplies a triad of illustrations to prove that the dright should advance and to demonstrate that they will achieve victory unharmed. And with rhetorical insight, he thrice calls for action, utilizing the power of incremental repetition, and "they did follow [him] up until [they] came without the walls of Jerusalem." It is this same logician's demeanor (which later safeguards Nephi from his mutinous brothers) with which he "said many things unto [his] brethren, insomuch that they were confounded, and could not contend against [him]; neither durst they lay their hands upon [him], nor touch [him] with their fingers, even for the space of many days."

 

Such a bent of mind, such a capacity for confounding and converting opposition through logic and reason[4] and appeal to emotion, strongly differentiates Nephi as a personality from Lehi his father: Nephi is a persuader of the foremost magnitude. In the entrapment of Zoram, for example, Nephi displays discrimination of action and reflection, mastery at merging the physical man with the philosophical man, sagacity in selecting the deed or symbol of the deed. Seizing Zoram and holding him, "that he should not flee,"Nephi, who reemphasizes his physical advantage, could have dispatched the servant as easily as he had the master. Instead, Nephi "spake with him ... [saying] that if he would hearken unto our words, we would spare his life," adding the surety of an oath and the mystery of a riddle. Nephi, like Marlowe's Tamburlaine, grasps the fine distinction between the word and the sword.[4] And Zoram surrenders, even as Theridamas to Tamburlaine - "Won with thy words, and conquered with thy looks." It is undoubtedly this same persuasive acumen which softens "the heart of Ishmael, and also his household," bringing Ishmael's daughters into the wilderness as the brothers' wives. For in the young Nephi persuasion is "the fulness of [his] intent." And it remained ever thus, as witnessed in the old Nephi, who, looking back on his life's work a half-century later, concludes that "it persuadeth [men] to do good" (II Nephi 33:4).

Indeed, it is Nephi's search for a more persuasive personality which seems to mark a progression in his character as he ages. As a green youth, wearing brotherly concern almost like a badge, Nephi says, "Being grieved because of the hardness of their hearts, I cried unto the Lord for them."As a maturing young man, he sorrows in frustration: "My soul is rent with anguish because of you, and my heart is pained." And as an old man he grieves for his people, the badge turned suit of hair: "For I pray continually for them by day, and mine eyes water my pillow by night, because of them; and I cry unto my God in faith . . . ." At the end of his days, he mourns that he is not "mighty in writing, like unto speaking," for the speech, with the Spirit, can carry his message "unto the hearts of the children of men."

Nephi's disclaimer rebuts its own author and closes his work on Nephi's disclaimer rebuts its own author and closes his work on the note of light irony which often marks a writer's deathbed retractions.[5] His impatience with the weak esteem accorded the written word (II Nephi 33:2) is the sort one would expect from a man, like Nephi, who remains, at heart, closer to the active life than to the contemplative. Yet in his farewell he writes with rhetorical strength, capturing in the written word the moving quality of incremental repetition that had marked the spoken words of his long-ago harangue outside the walls of Jerusalem. In some measure, consciously yet unconsciously, he has bridged his imagined chasm between writing and speech:

I glory in plainness;

I glory in truth; 

I glory in my Jesus,

For he hath redeemed my soul from hell.

 

I have charity for my people

And great faith in Christ

That I shall meet many souls

Spotless at his judgment-seat.

 

I have charity for the Jew;

I say Jew, because I mean them from whence I came.

I also have charity for the Gentiles. -

But behold,

For none of these can I hope,

Except they shall be reconciled unto Christ,

And enter into the narrow gate,

And walk in the straight path, which leads to life,

And continue in the path

Until the end of the day of 

path

Until the end of the day of probation.[6]

 

The Book of Mormon is, as I have suggested, part of a great literary tradition, yet a part, for all its uniqueness, which has still not achieved primacy, neither in its own right nor in its influence on the arts. ...

In this analysis by Robert E . Nichols, Jr., I see the Book of Mormon as a form of Germanic or Anglo-Saxon literature that presents a version of Muscular Christianity. Why this makes the Book of Mormon psychologically valuable to me as a literary tool for promoting  healthy masculinity, is that in my view it is a counteractive to some of the more emasculating aspects of the New Testament wherein traditional masculinity is often (though not always) replaced with an emphasis on men being celibate, pacifist, voluntary martyrs while willfully seeking lower status; as covered in books like Unmanly Men: Refigurations of Masculinity in Luke-Acts by Brittany E. Wilson and the early Christian martyrdom scholarship of Paul Middleton. To see how I deal with these "emasculating trends" in the New Testament but still find value in the New Testament as a phase and strategy of God see my website page here.

"Supercouples": Appreciating Your Polygamist Pioneer Ancestors through the Perspective of the Book "Selective Breeding" by Aramariu

 

The Case for Mormon People as a Quasi-Ethnic Identity and Unique Culture via the Selection Process of Plural Marriage and Male Kingdom Building in the 1800s:

Disclaimer: The following posts below are meant to express an appreciation for my LDS Pioneer ancestors who practiced plural marriage, and the religion and quasi-ethnic culture they contributed to forming in the 1800s. These posts however are not designed to promote the practice of polygamy today. Appreciation of the past (when plural marriages occurred) and how the temporary practice helped form the ongoing tribal cohesion still felt today amomg many LDS members, is not the same thing as prescribing a return to plural marriage. Knowing what the Latter Day Saint Movement was like in the 1800s, is not the same as believing it should be that way today. I agree with most Book of Mormon based sects that have become monogamous Christian churches.

 

•   Gene-Culture Coevolution & The Domestication of The Mormon People

•  Ex-Mormon Jonathan Streeter argues for the "Truth" of Mormonism by Seeing Mormonism as an Evolutionary Living Framework of Action, Ideals, Tradition and Heritage

•  Nauvoo Polygamy as Nietzschean-like Selective Breeding of Supercouples toward Creating a separate "Nicer" People (Peoplehood as The Kingdom of God)

• BH Roberts on "Nietzcheanish" Selective Breeding of the First Mormons via Polygamy to Create a People of Higher Character

•  Birthing the Mormon People through Plural Marriage by Selecting for Elect Men to Bear Noble Preexistent Spirits & Grow in Power and Dominion

•  Evidence that Mormon's are "Nicer" i.e. More "Christian" than Others through a Selection Process of Personality types and Character traits 

•  Big 5 Personality Theory & How Mormon Culture Filters in more Agreeable, Conscientious, and Friendly People

•  The New Covenant of the Priesthood and 1800s Plural Marriage as the Means to the End of Raising Up a Righteous Seed (Peoplehood) and Generating Zion as a Circle of Friends

• Mormonr article on Plural Marriage and LDS Population Growth in the 1800s

•  William Hyde & Building the Tribe of Ephraim

•  The LDS "Good" as Life Affirming & Species Preserving: Jacob 5 on Ripe Fruit Bearing Seeds in Good Cultural Soil to Grow Healthy Peoplehood

•  The Kingdom of Heaven as Selecting for Good Fathers with Civilizing Ideas, Upright Behavior Habits & a Receptive Child-like Attitude Passed Down from the Lineage of Patriarchal Fathers projected onto the Father God-idea that encapsulates Healthy Fatherhood and Tribal Fairness, Unity and Civility

• Mormonism & Indo-European Solar Pantheonism: The Case for a Subconscious Restoration of the Ancient Indo-European Solar Pantheon via the Selective Breeding of "Ephraimite Europeans" being Similar to Nietzche's Archetypal Heroic Overcomer and the Ubermensch 

BH Roberts on "Nietzcheanish" Selective Breeding of the First Mormons via Polygamy to Create a People of Higher Character

 

The following is excerpts from A Divinely Ordered Species of Eugenics By David G.March 5, 2008:

Following the Manifesto of 1890 and the decline of officially-sanctioned plural marriages among the Latter-day Saints, many Mormons worked to construct explanations for the practice of polygamy. ... One strategy, highlighted here, was to downplay the significance of plural marriage in both practice and in doctrine. However, at the same time that this was occurring, many Mormons were arguing that polygamy had produced a large and righteous posterity ... superior to other people born into monogamous families. B. H. Roberts presented one of the most insightful articulations of this narrative:

Plural wives among the Latter-day Saints, and first wives who consented to their husbands entering into these relations, accepted the institution from the highest moral and religious motives…that they might bear the souls of men under conditions that gave largest promise of improving the race and bringing forth superior men and women who shall lead the way to that higher state of things for which the world is waiting…its purpose was not earth-happiness, but earth-life discipline, undertaken in the interest of special advantages for succeeding generations of men. That purpose was to give to succeeding generations a superior fatherhood and motherhood, by enlarging the opportunities of men of high character, moral integrity, and spiritual development to become progenitors of the race; to give to women of like character and development a special opportunity to consecrate themselves to the high mission of motherhood. Race-culture, then, was the inspiring motive of the plural-wife feature of this revelation on marriage. It was in the name of a divinely ordered species of eugenics that the Latter-day Saints accepted plurality of wives (B.H. Roberts, The Truth, The Way, The Life: An Elementary Treatise in Theology, ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1996], 556-57).

Roberts was not the first to postulate that Latter-day Saint plural marriage would produce superior offspring. Susa Young Gates argued in 1907 that “it would be difficult to find a finer race of men and women, morally, mentally, and physically, than has been produced through that order of marriage.”[1] Josiah Edwin Hickman’s article “The Offspring of the Mormon People” was published in 1924 in the Journal of Heredity.[2] Gates and Hickman both argued that the Mormons were physically, as well as morally superior to other people. This may have been a result, as Kathleen Flake argued, of Protestant characterizations of the children of polygamous marriages as stunted and malformed. In 1902, the Improvement Era published a missionary’s tribute to his mother, which reveals that Mormons were still very conscious of criticisms of alleged Mormon polygamous deformities, charges which had been made for decades ...

... the fruits of keeping the commandments of God. The results of plural marriages as manifest in the intelligence, physical strength as well as in the features of the offspring of these relations are, and ever will be, man’s ever-able testimonies against those who assume to criticise, oppose and condemn this divine law.[3]

[BH] Roberts however argues in the above quote that the motivation behind polygamy was to allow men and women of superior moral qualities to populate the earth, in preparation for the great destiny to come. Although he uses the words race and eugenics, no where does he imply that polygamy was intended to raise up seed that was physically superior to the rest of human kind. ...

Note: While I am interested in the history of Mormon uses of eugenics, my primary interest here is in examining the inherently positive representations by Mormons after 1890 of their polygamous past (shaped by their participation in eugenics discourse) and how these positive representations should be understood in light of the trend of downplaying polygamy in other contexts. For a good summary of the overall history of Mormon participation in eugenics discourse, see the link to Sterling’s post in comment #1.

[1] Susa Young Gates, “A Message From a Woman of the Latter-day Saints to the Women of All the World,” Improvement Era 10, no. 5 (March 1907):

[2] Josiah Edwin Hickman, “The Offspring of the Mormon People,” Journal of Heredity 15 (1924): 55-68.

[3] A Missionary Boy, “Tribute to Mother,” Improvement Era 5, no. 3 (January 1902):

The comment section then noticed similarites between Nietzche and Roberts. Excerpts the Comments:

George Q. Cannon and other 19th century figures vehemently defended the eugenic effect of polygamy. Stirling has a good write-up here, and the comments are great.

I remember Talmage writing in Jesus the Christ about an intergenerational crescendo of the spirit, which is similar to the idea of superior moral traits.

Comment by J. Stapley — March 5, 2008

Thanks for that link, J. Sterling really did a bang-up job with that post. He reproduced a variation of the TWL quote from the CHC that does seem to imply a physical dimension.

"It was in the name of a divinely ordered species of eugenics that Latter Day Saints accepted the revelation which included a plurality of wives. Polygamy would have afforded the opportunity of producing from that consecrated fatherhood and motherhood the improved type of man the world needs to reveal the highest possibilities of the race, that the day of the super man might come, and with him come also the redemption and betterment of the race." (Comprehensive History 5:297, 1930 ed., first published in 1912).

I’m intrigued by the reference to the “super man.” I’m not an expert on Nietzsche, but that sounds like it’s derivative of his writings.

Comment by David G. — March 5, 2008

...  I’ve heard that Pres. Hinckley repeated the narrative during a mission presidents conference during the 1990s, as he looked out over the audience and said that he marveled at the good that polygamy had produced. So any argument that Pres. Hinckley always downplayed polygamy is shortsighted, imo.

Comment by David G. — March 5, 2008 

J.’s comment #1 and Ben’s #3 are actually directly tied together. George Q. Cannon’s descendants are clear evidence that plural marriage was successful in producing a superior race.

Comment by Christopher — March 5, 2008 

I worked as a research assistant for a short time, searching the archived official papers of John A. Widtsoe from his presidency of what was then the Utah Agricultural College (Utah State University now). I found several letters in that collection, wherein Widtsoe expressed approval for eugenics, including inviting speakers on the subject to address the student body. I wonder now if this was connected to the plural marriage justifications described above.

Comment by Nick Literski  

... maybe David was right that Roberts was borrowing from Nietzsche.

Comment by Christopher 

. A few years ago I noted that [“Indications point to the fact that as a rule the children of polygamous marriages were superior physically and mentally.”] appeared in What of the Mormons? (1947).

Comment by Justin 

My reading of the “superman” quote might be wrong, but it sounds to me like a reference to Christ. Though, I guess that Roberts might have been reading Nietzsche.

Comment by Joel

 

I don’t think Nietzche is among the books in the BH Roberts memorial libray (anyone got a BYU Studies edition of TWL? they’re listed in the back), though that doesn’t mean BH hadn’t read or wasn’ aware of Nietzche, though I don’t know that Nietzche was really that popular until a bit later (but I really don’t know).

Susa Young Gates also published an article in the North American Review in which she asserts that it is a well-known fact that the children of polygamous families (ie, herself) were intellectually and physically superior to those of even monogamous Mormon families.

Comment by Stan 

Stan: Nietzche is not listed in the appendix. Another possibility is that Roberts is getting Nietzche filtered through a work on Eugenics, but I know next to nothing about the eugenicists use of Nietzche.

Comment by David G.

 

Tithing Reform: What LDS Scripture Actually Teaches on Tithing

 

The way the current Brighamite/LDS Church requires tithing as ten percent of one's income regardless of financial hardship, in order to qualify in a "worthiness interview" for a temple recommend (and gain access to an LDS Temple to perform rituals required to reach the highest degree of heaven), is not an accordance with the original LDS Scriptures. The LDS System amounts to a coercive "pay to play" set up, as in: "Pay us to gain your exaltation and/or see to your LDS daughter or son get married in a temple." This pay to play set up is not found in the LDS Scriptures or original Mormon teachings. We can see this by seeing how other Books of Mormon based Churches teach tithing. For example, The Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Headquarters in Independence, Missouri), states on their website in the section Our Faith the following (words underlined for emphasis):

Finances

Church contributions are voluntary through free will offerings, oblations, the law of tithing (ten percent of the increase) and covenanted consecrated members. Local branches of the church are supported by branch offerings.

Doctrine & Covenants 70:2b-3b “Nevertheless, inasmuch as they receive more than is needful for their necessities and their wants, it shall be given into my storehouse, and the benefits shall be consecrated unto the inhabitants of Zion and unto their generations, inasmuch as they become heirs according to the laws of the kingdom. Behold, this is what the Lord requires of every man in his stewardship, even as I, the Lord, have appointed, or shall hereafter appoint unto any man. And behold, none are exempt from this law who belong to the church of the living God; yea, neither the bishop, neither the agent, who keepeth the Lord's storehouse; neither he who is appointed in a stewardship over temporal things.”

We become heirs to the kingdom of God and members of the Order of Enoch when we consecrate by laying all before the bishop. As such, we enter into a covenant with God and those of the Order of Enoch to exercise our total stewardship in a way that advances the kingdom of God upon the earth in fulfillment of God’s financial plan.

God’s Financial Plan

By way of illustration, consider the use of $1,000 of income:

Income: This includes income from all sources; wages, dividends, interest, bonuses, social security, retirement account withdrawals (401(k)s, IRAs), etc.

Needs: Necessary expenses which don’t represent an increase. These are the basic expenses required to maintain one’s life (food, shelter, and clothing) and those expenses required to maintain one’s stewardship (transportation, repairs, replacements, and retirement account contributions to 401(k)s and IRAs).

Increase: Income minus needs ($1,000 - $700 = $300). Increase is defined as the result of subtracting necessary living expenses from income.

Tithing: One-tenth of our increase ($300 x 10% = $30).

Offering: Free will offering from our increase above our tithing.

Oblations: Free will offerings for the support of the poor and needy.

Just Wants: From the nine-tenths. Expenses above the basic needs of life, development of talents, savings, investments, entertainment, vacations, hobbies, etc. (A good steward should attempt to restrain just wants to less than the total of the nine-tenths.)

Surplus: The remainder of resources left over after needs, tithing, offerings, oblations, and just wants. ...

... Stewardship: Your contribution to Zion; what you do with your time, talents, and temporalities for the benefit of your fellow man (creation of surplus).

Purpose and Use of Funds

Tithing:

• General church funds
• Missionary work
• General church operations, publications
• To build and maintain buildings involving general church interest

Offerings: Free will offerings to general and local church (normal and sacrificial) contributed from the nine-tenths portion of our increase.

Oblation: For the care of the poor and needy (food, shelter, emergency, transportation, clothing, utilities, etc.).

Surplus:

• For the building up of the storehouse
• For the laying the foundation of Zion
• The granting of inheritances
• The priesthood and the debts of the presidency
• The purchase of lands
• The development of stewardships (business, industrial, and agricultural)
• The care of those in need who belong to the Order of Enoch
• The building up of the New Jerusalem

Doctrine & Covenants 106:1a-b “Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church of Zion, for the building of mine house, and for the laying the foundation of Zion, and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the presidency of my church; and this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people; and after that, those who have thus been tithed, shall pay one tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.”

The creation of increase, tithes, and surplus is an important part of our spiritual development. In our stewardship, we should work towards reducing our needs and just wants to create tithes and surplus offerings as a natural response to God’s Spirit in our lives. With those tithes and surplus offerings, we express our love for God and our fellow man.

Matthew 25:41 “Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

Also see their Church Membership Manual, 2021 edition, pages 100-105.

The Book of Mormon believing church The Church of Christ: Temple Lot (in Independence, Missouri) states on their website in the Basic Beliefs section, the following regarding tithing:

The Church is financially supported by voluntary tithes and offerings.[19] Members are encouraged and expected to participate in the support of the Church; however, we feel that this is between the individual and God.[20] There is no requirement of the Church for financial disclosures from its members. 

 

Resources (Restoration Scriptures & Other Links)

 

Online Restoration Scriptures:

Simply Scriptures (Restoration Scriptures Unaffiliated with the Brighamite sect)

Book of Mormon with Commentary by Michael J. Preece, M.D.

Pearl of Great Price with Commentary by Michael J. Preece, M.D.

Book of Mormon: A Cultural Commentary by Alan Miner

Book of Mormon with Cultural Commentary by Step by Step (Affiliated with the Brighamite sect)

Book of Mormon Verses with Links to Commentary by Step by Step

Book of Mormon Analysis by Step by Step

Covenant of Christ: A Modern English Version of The Book of Mormon (includes AUDIOBOOK play options). Also see this link here. (Affiliated with Denver S. and The Remnant Fellowship)

Book of Mormon AUDIOBOOK 

Doctrine & Covenants in Modern English Online

Doctrine & Covenants Structured Edition (Edited by Nathan Richardson) The the intent of this D&C is "to visually reinforce and highlight the original authors’ outline and structure" for readers to "quickly orient themselves and more readily glean insights and spiritual principles ..." Color coding, poetic structuring, and historical timeliness are also used in this edition. 

D&C Editions Side by Side Comparison 

Remnant Fellowship's Restoration Scriptures Online

Restored Gospel Scripture Search

Recommended Print or Ebook Versions of Mormon Scripture:

• 1840 Book of Mormon in Modern English by Drew Briney

• 1844 D&C (JSV Edition)

• The Restored Version (RV) Print Version Set. This set is discussed here.

Mormon History:

Early LDS.com (On LDS Pioneer Ancestors)

Why Polygamy was considered Necessary for Exaltation? Obtaining Godhood was about Godly Kingdom Building with your "Talents" & The Propagation of the Male Seed

 

Note that in laying out the evidence below I am not advocating for modern polygamy. I am also not arguing that the ideas below should be taught today as Mormon doctrine. This is only meant to show that original Mormonism was different from what is taught today in the modern LDS ("Nelsonite") Church. I am only presenting this information for its historical value as evidence that Mormonism after 1840 and up until about 1900: had grown into a more ancient Hebraic and Indo-European religion when it came to its rejection of the Augustinian body despising ideas and monkish celibacy in other version of Christianity; with instead Mormonism's radical pendulum swing in the opposite direction toward the doctrine of procreating male priest-kings and queens growing their kingdom through the male priest-king's seed by way of wives and concubines like the biblical patriarchs and kings in the Hebrew Bible. As I see it, neither extreme (celibate priests or polygamist priests) is ideal in our modern society. In other words, neither the body-despising Augustinian ideals nor Nauvoo era LDS polygamy -- of accumulating wives to prove your worthiness for future godhood -- is ideal in today's world. Having said that, I'm not going to shy away from explaining below why polygamy was actually practiced in the Mormon Church for nearly a 100 years! 

Did early Mormon Prophets and Apostles teach the doctrine that plural marriage was necessary for the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom? 

Let's start with what Joseph Smith, the Prophet of the Restoration, had to say. According to Joseph's scribe Willam Clayton:

“ … [Joseph Smith taught that] the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fullness of exaltation in the celestial glory.

~ William Clayton, Joseph Smith’s secretary, Historical Record, vol. 6, page 226

The reason a Mormon was expected to be a polygamist in order to attain the highest exaltation among the Gods was for many reasons. One reason was because the Gods in Abraham 4, were not amorphous spirits but physical bodies with divine spouses as one expanding Divine Family. With the Gods having bodies of course they did not demand celibacy like we see with Catholic priests who believe in a bodiless Father God; but instead because the Gods are tangible sensual beings, mankind too was to be a joyful and sensual family-forming species. 

The Bible is all about begetting (i.e. reproducing) a lineage. This is why the Bible makes a big deal about Jesus needing to be descended from the royal lineage of David in order to be King. Jesus descended from royal kings who were polygamists (see David's lineage to Jesus in 1 Chr 3:9?). For example, God literally gave King David his wives and concubines (see 2 Samuel 12:8). For more on Jesus genealogy I recommend the article The Genealogy of Jesus Christ Explained by  Alison Ensign.

So if God "ordained" polygamy in the Bibe and Jesus himself decends from a royal lineage of polygamists, then God must not have a problem with polygamy when its used to reproduce a royal tribal lineage to Jesus being King of the Jews. 

To be a king in the Bible represented the pinnacle of manly wealth, status, and sexual virility. Effeminate males and eunuchs (males incapable of reproducing) or ruling were not crowned kings. Kingship came to represent on earth a stand in for God. The king was not expected to be a docile celibate monk but a great warrior, ruler, and lover of women. Just as a Hebrew king grew his kingdom through wives and concubines, in LDS theology an LDS priest-king in the 1800s, who sought to be like God (who has a body) and like the kings of old, was to invest in his "talents": meaning implanting his seed in his wives, kind of like compound interest only in this case you are investing your seed in wives and concubines who would reproduce your offspring. This is why D&C 132 says that the wives were  given to the man in order to "bear the souls of men" (D&C 132: 63). For the sperm/seed of the male body is the priesthood per Abraham 2:11 and so "priesthood power" is procreation-power, i.e. the male seed creating lives (see D&C 132: 19-22) to form a multigenerational kingdom of heirs just like Hebrew kings had heirs. For these lives meant future progeny that become for the future LDS male priest (who has been endowed in the LDS temple to be a king) an expansion of his future divine kingdom. Becoming a god was to be a king over a kingdom with wives and concubines and servants (see D&C 132: 19-22, 37-63) who would expand as a kingdom upon kingdoms thoughout all eternity. This is why LDS temples end with a reference to one's loins and your eternal posterity. Becoming a god through plural marriage was thus modeled after Israelite kings like King David depicted below:

The images above are from King David’s Love Life: How Many Wives Did David Have? by Ana Coteneanu. As she writes in her article:

The Royal Harem: How Many Wives and Concubines Did David Have?

By the time David was ruling in Jerusalem, he had what was essentially a royal harem—dozens (if not hundreds) of women in his household. But this wasn’t just about romance or attraction. In ancient kingdoms, having a large harem was a status symbol. The more wives and concubines a king had, the more powerful he appeared. ...

It is clear that Joseph Smith saw himself as a modern day Israelite king in the Council of 50. If this belief in being a king was sincere based on his understanding of the Bible, was he biblically justified in basically forming a kind of "royal harem" like King David did? As Smith begins D&C 132, verse 1 with: "I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, [King] David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines ..." Smith then dictated the following in verses 37-39: 

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; ... 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.

38 [King] David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

39 [King] David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me [God], by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; ...

Just as Israelite kings grew in wealth, wives, status, power, and progeny that created a noble bloodline, so too Joseph Smith's revelation encouraged him to mimic their reign and glory and generational heirs: basically calling such a lifestyle the way of all the Gods themselves, for the Gods have bodies and the divine seed carries on just like the biological seed among humans. For, as I explain about the LDS Godhead in my website here, the Deity was basically duplicating his divine genome; and LDS Christians were basically being donated the divine gene (seed) of the Godhead toward their deification.  

 Accumulating Mormon wives thus became a sign of acting out the way of the Gods, a kind of "divine recipe" on becoming powerful like a god through kingdom building and heirs. So Smith taught that the Gods accumulated wives and we should as well. On page 18 of An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, edited by George D. Smith, we read:

In support of Clayton’s second marriage, Smith assured him: “You have a right to get all you can.”[41] Shortly afterward the prophet refused Clayton permission to marry Lydia, the third Moon sister, citing a revelation “he had lately, [that] a man could only take 2 of a family.” Smith then asked if Clayton would “give L[ydia] to him.” Lydia Moon refused Smith’s offer because she had promised not to marry while her mother lived.[42]

Footnote 41 reads:

Journal 2, “Nauvoo, Illinois,” August 11, 1843. In Appendix C, “William Clayton’s Testimony,” Clayton quotes Joseph Smith as saying, “It is your privilege to have all the wives you want.” Smith also once reportedly explained: “The result of our endless union will be offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven or the sands of the seashore” (HC 5: 391-92). Compare Journal 2, “Nauvoo, Illinois,” May 16, 1843.

I think that Smith's revelation on plural marriage (covered in D&C 130, 131, and 132), clearly argues that only those humans who enter into the Mormon practice of plural marriage become gods in the highest level of the celestial kingdom of glory. I personally think that this was because Joseph Smith was seeking to incentivize those who were the pure-blood of Ephraim to raise up a righteous seed (a People), just like the polygamist Abraham did. So the wives and concubines given unto the polygamous male (in D&C 132) is for him to have an increase of progeny via his seed (i.e. the sperm of his body which is his priesthood according to Abraham 2:11); and thus through his seed implanted into multiple wives and concubines, he is able to bear the souls of men and generate the Tribe of Ephraim. So because the God of the Bible cares most about begetting and lineal tribe-making, 19th century Mormonism was all about begetting large families through polygamy: which glorified God the Father, whose own Son (Christ) descended from polygamist kings and a royal bloodline. 

This is why one of the earliest Mormon diagrams is Orson Hyde’s Kingdom of God Diagram, representing a polygamous male's ascending personal kingdom of added wives like rungs on a ladder leading to his exalted kingship, just like God the Father. To read Hyde's comments on his diagram see here or here. 

On the Parable of the Talents

In the documentary Hidden Bloodlines: The Grail & the Lost Tribes in the Lands of the North by The Joseph Smith Foundation, they explain that the early LDS leaders believed that they were a royal bloodline, of the literal seed of Israel even though most of them were Anglo-Saxons from Britain. This was based on the doctrine of gathering the lost tribes from the north (from Britain and Scandinavia, etc.) all those who had Israelite blood but did not know it until they joined the LDS Church and received their patriarchal blessings designating in most cases their Ephraimite lineage. Thus plural marriage had a larger context of God choosing to raise up seed a righteous branch from the tribe of Ephraim. Joseph Smith himself was believed to be of both the tribe of Ephraim and Judah and thus of a royal bloodline and heir to the throne and kingship. So this better explains the context of plural marriage in the 1800s as it being the restoration of God's method of growing a chosen tribe or lineage through polygamy; just like God did through Abraham and King David and others in the Hebrew Bible in order to birth the lineal tribe of Judah that were to gather to Jerusalem. With this grand historical view of the male seed and lineage and tribal formation as kingdom building via offspring, Joseph Smith interpreted the growth of the Kingdom of God as the growth of a literal Zion People as an actual Kingdom. So that the parable of the talents became a metaphor for taking wives in order to grow God's Kingdom (People), that as an Ephraimite Tribe would gather the other Lost Ten Tribes to Zion in America. It is in this context that the documentary then quotes Joseph Smith saying the following: 

Click image to enlarge

Click on image to enlarge

Note as well that Smith described the practice of plural marriage to Nancy Rigdon in terms of entering into the practice as one of his wives or concubines being akin to the parable of the talents. Smith says to Nancy (footnotes from The Joseph Smith Papers) regarding her becoming his next plural wife:

... in obedience [to the law of plural marriage] there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed, and as God has designed our happiness, the happiness of all his creatures, he never has, he never will, institute an ordinance, or give a commandment to his people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which he has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his laws and ordinances. Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant [see Matthew 25:25–26]—the proffered good returns to the giver, the blessing is bestowed on those who will receive, and occupy; for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly; but unto him that hath not, or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, [Matthew 13:12]or might have had. ...

Note that this aligns with D&C 132, wherein those who marry as polygamists have an increase of lives (progeny) through the male seed implanted in many wives and concubines ("given unto him"); while those who reject the law of polygamy are not "blessed" with celestial progeny (the ability to produce "eternal lives"), but remain permanently celibate in heaven without an "increase," i.e. without the ability to reproduce in heaven; thus, they remain without "blessings" because they basically "hid their talent" when on earth by refusing to practice plural marriage. 

Orson Hyde, who was eventually polygamous himself, clearly understood this idea that becoming a polygamous male was like investing your "talent" (money) wisely. In this case "talent" meant investing your "seed" by forming a kingdom of earthly wives that grows you a kingdom of progeny, and also forms Zion.

 For Zion was the formation of those "the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind ..." (Moses 7: 18); and those responsible for the "literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes" to form "Zion (the New Jerusalem) ... built upon the American continent" (Article of Faith #10) was the Lord's people: in particular those whose patriarchal blessings had declared them to be from the tribe of Ephraim; and were thus being called via polygamy to "raise up seed unto the Lord" (Jacob 2:30; note that the LDS footnote for seed in this verse points you to Malachi 2:15 and D&C 132:63 (61–66).

So to hide one's "talent" (seed) was to not fulfill God's will of growing an Ephraimite People on American soil. Note that Onan's "sin" in Genesis 38: 6-10, was pulling out to spill his "seed" (semen) on the ground to avoid getting his deceased brother's wife pregnant. The fact that God put Onan to death over this shows just how important "raising up seed" was to the Lord in the Bible.

Orson Hyde explains his Kingdom of God Diagram by stating:

 

.... he that has been faithful over ten talents, shall have dominion over ten cities, and he that has been faithful over five talents, shall have dominion over five cities, and to every man will be given a kingdom and a dominion, according to his merit, powers, and abilities to govern and control. It will be seen by the above diagram that there are kingdoms of all sizes, an infinite variety to suit all grades of merit and ability. The chosen vessels unto God are the kings and priests that are placed at the head of these kingdoms.

Again, compare this to D&C 132, that basically teaches that those Mormons who are exalted are those who are basically wise with their "talents," i.e. they accumulate wives and concubines by practicing polygamy in order to gain exaltation and eternal lives (progeny, i.e. "raising up seed") which grows one's kingdom of heirs; while those who do not practice polygamy squander their talent (the ability to implant their seed/sperm into wives to grow a kingdom of heirs (see Abraham 2:11; D&C 132: 19-21, 37-39, 63).

 According to D&C 132: 15-17, those who like Onan did not invest their "talent" (seed) wisely, in the afterlife they basically lose the chance for the highest degree of celestial glory (which is the continuation of heirs from one's seed into eternity); and thus these remain separate and single, i.e. celibate (without an increase of celestial progeny in the eternities). 

The idea of the increase of one's seed in the heavens is based on the concept of kingly enthronement as basically a god-king. As Christ says in Revelation 3:31 (ESV): "The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne."  To sit on Christ's throne means to reign with Christ as "co- heirs" (Romans 8:17) with him, and even "judge angels" (1 Corinthians 6:3). Kings on thrones rule over kingdoms with heirs. So those who entered into the law of plural marriage on earth learned how to exercise their sphere of influence and acquire a kingdom of wives and concubines, which could prepare them for kingly godhood in their role as a divine being or divinized "holy one": ruling and reproducing celestially in heaven via heavenly plural marriage, which would build new worlds and kingdoms of endless offspring for them to govern as a god (which is the way of all the gods before them, as Joseph Smith expanded on verses like Revelation 3:31 in the King Follett Discourse and the Book of Abraham chapters 2-4). 

In the book In Heaven As It Is On Earth, page 224 we read: 

…  After emphasizing that particular laws governed particular glories, Smith proposed afterlife glories as a cosmic map that met the requirements of the traditional Chain: “And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.”[111] Moving in and out of several loosely related proof texts, Smith praised the perfect order of heavenly bodies, the type of religious astronomy that carried the Chain into the nineteenth century. Smith then reappropriated Christ’s parable of the twelve laborers in the vineyard to confirm his 1832 Vision. … Smith revealed that the twelve laborers received different glories, according to the time they began to labor in the vineyard. With received interpretations, Smith acknowledged that each laborer would enter into the heavenly hierarchy and be saved; against Protestant interpretations, Smith saw the duration of their labor as the marker of the glory they would inherit in that heavenly afterlife.[112: footnote reads: JSPR1, 299 [D&C 88:51–61]; compare Matthew 20:1–16].

 

Here we see Smith changing traditional Protestant interpretations of Scripture, which is similar to changes he made to the Bible in his JST version which I discuss  here. The Laborers receiving different glories matches Smith's reinterpretation of the Parable of the Talents that he reinterpreted as The Taking of Wives and Concubines to grow your kingdom-glory: which reinterprets the entire concept of the Kingdom of God as a Vineyard, in that God's Kingdom becomes an actual royal kingdom dynasty: which is expanded every time a king and priest unto God expands his royal seed (Abraham 2:11) which expands the Royal lineage of the tribes of Israel; who descend from the Gods themselves with bodies of Flesh and Bones who have an eternal divine seed which produced the first Adamic humans.

In Journal of Discourses, Volume 13, Discourse 22 on Celestial Marriage, Apostle Orson Pratt clearly teaches this as well. Here is what Orson Pratt says in his book The Seer (emphasis added):

God raised up Solomon to sit upon the throne of Israel; and He appeared unto him twice and gave him great wisdom above all others and the Lord was with him, and magnified him exceedingly before all Israel, and hearkened unto his prayer and filled the temple which he built with a cloud of glory, and caused fire to descend from Heaven to consume the sacrifice. [95] This great man was much better calculated to train up children in the way that they should go than any other man living, for God had given him greater wisdom; hence he had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (1 Kings 11).  But even this wise man, turned away from the Lord, by taking wives from among surrounding nations who were idolaters which thing the Lord had expressly forbidden (see verses 1, 2).  Solomon was not condemned for marrying many wives of his own nation; but having transgressed the strict commandment of God in marrying out of his nation, he was left unto himself and turned away after the idolatrous gods of his wives; and God rent the kingdom in twain in the days of his son, and gave ten tribes to another not of his seed.

 

Thus it will be seen that even among the people of God there are some who are more worthy than others, consequently God gave such more wives and children than He did to others.  These blessings were dispensed, like all other blessings, according to the righteousness, wisdom, faith, holiness and qualifications of those who professed to be the people of God.  Some receiving more; some less; some none at all; and some having taken from them even those they had received.

 

Therefore though the males and females had been of equal number in Israel, yet God would confer upon some more than upon others, according to their worthiness.  As it was among Israel, so it is among the people of Utah.  Some are entitled to a greater number of wives than others, because of their righteousness.  Though the census should show an equal number of the sexes in that Territory, that does not prove that all the men are equally qualified to instruct, counsel, govern, and lead wives and children in the paths of righteousness.  A father would not confer upon his children equal blessings, authority, and power, unless they were equally faithful.  A wise king having many sons would confer authority and power upon [96] such only as would use the same for the benefit of the people.  Those who would not be subject to good laws themselves, he would not entrust to govern others.  Our Heavenly Father acts upon the same principle.  He is willing that all should enjoy equal rights and privileges, upon the ground of equal obedience.  We have this illustrated in the parable of the talents:  one having one; another two, and another five.  Those who made a proper use of what was entrusted to them, gained more:  those who made an improper use of their blessings, lost all they had:  their blessings were taken from them and given to others, who had more abundantly.  This explains the mystery why the Lord in ancient times gave more wives to one than what he did to another, when to all appearance the number of males and females were about equal. ... 

 

... The continuation of the name and posterity of a righteous man was considered a great blessing; hence David exclaims before the Lord, saying:  “The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee.” (Psalm 102:28).  To have the chain of posterity broken by death was considered a great calamity, therefore the Lord made strict provisions for such cases. ...

 

Brigham Young also uses the analogy of a "talent" to describe a man marrying polygamously. As this person online explains:

Brigham Young's sermon (1873) detailed role of non-polygamists in the Celestial Kingdom—as servants. Mormon polygamy seems very misogynistic—ah, but I repeat myself.

[Brigham Young, sermon at Paris, Idaho, August 31, 1873)] [skip down some] This doctrine of baptism for the dead is a great doctrine, one of the most glorious doctrines that was ever revealed to the human family; and there are light, power, glory, honor and immortality in it. After this doctrine was received, Joseph received a revelation on celestial marriage. You will recollect, brethren and sisters, that it was in July, 1843, that he received this revelation concerning celestial marriage. This doctrine was explained and many received it as far as they could understand it. Some apostatized on account of it; but others did not, and received it in their faith. This, also, is a great and noble doctrine. I have not time to give you many items upon the subject, but there are a few hints that I can throw in here that perhaps may be interesting. As far as this pertains to our natural lives here, there are some who say it is very hard. They say, “This is rather a hard business; I don't like my husband to take a plurality of wives in the flesh.” Just a few words upon this. We would believe this doctrine entirely different from what it is presented to us, if we could do so. If we could make every man upon the earth get him a wife, live righteously and serve God, we would not be under the necessity, perhaps, of taking more than one wife. But they will not do this; the people of God, therefore, have been commanded to take more wives. The women are entitled to salvation if they live according to the word that is given to them; and if their husbands are good men, and they are obedient to them, they are entitled to certain blessings, and they will have the privilege of receiving certain blessings that they cannot receive unless they are sealed to men who will be exalted. Now, where a man in this Church says, “I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one,” he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, “Here is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one talent,” and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single forever and ever.

 

But if the woman is determined not to enter into a plural-marriage, that woman when she comes forth will have the privilege of living in single blessedness through all eternity. Well, that is very good, a very nice place to be a minister to the wants of others. I recollect a sister conversing with Joseph Smith on this subject. She told him: “Now, don't talk to me; when I get into the celestial kingdom, if I ever do get there, I shall request the privilege of being a ministering angel; that is the labor that I wish to perform. I don't want any companion in that world; and if the Lord will make me a ministering angel, it is all I want.” Joseph said,“Sister, you talk very foolishly, you do not know what you will want.” He then said to me: “Here, brother Brigham, you seal this lady to me.” I sealed her to him. This was my own sister according to the flesh. Now, sisters, do not say, “I do not want a husband when I get up in the resurrection.” You do not know what you will want. I tell this so that you can get the idea. If in the resurrection you really want to be single and alone, and live so forever and ever, and be made servants, while others receive the highest order of intelligence and are bringing worlds into existence, you can have the privilege. They who will be exalted cannot perform all the labor, they must have servants and you can be servants to them.

 

The female portion of the human family have blessings promised to them if they are faithful. I do not know what the Lord could have put upon women worse than he did upon Mother Eve, where he told her: “Thy desire shall be to thy husband.” Continually wanting the husband. “If you go to work, my eyes follow you; if you go away in the carriage, my eyes follow you, and I like you and I love you; I delight in you, and I desire you should have nobody else.” I do not know that the Lord could have put upon women anything worse than this, I do not blame them for having these feelings. I would be glad if it were otherwise. Says a woman of faith and knowledge, “I will make the best of it; it is a law that man shall rule over me; his word is my law, and I must obey him; he must rule over me; this is upon me and I will submit to it,” and by so doing she has promises that others do not have.

 

The world of mankind, the world of man, not of woman, is full of iniquity. What are they doing? They are destroying every truth that they can; they are destroying all innocence that they can. Priest and people, governors, magistrates, kings, potentates, presidents, the political world and the religious world, are on the highroad to eternal misery. There are exceptions. There are honest persons wherever there is an honest principle. If the men of the world would be honest and full of good works, you would not see them living as they do. And the women are entitled to the kingdom, they are entitled to the glory, they are entitled to exaltation if they are obedient to the Priesthood, and they will be crowned with those that are crowned.

 

When Father Adam came to assist in organizing the earth out of the crude material that was found, an earth was made upon which the children of men could live. After the earth was prepared Father Adam came and stayed here, and there was a woman brought to him. Now I am telling you something that many of you know, it has been told to you, and the brethren and sisters should understand it. There was a certain woman brought to Father Adam whose name was Eve, because she was the first woman, and she was given to him to be his wife; I am not disposed to give any further knowledge concerning her at present. There is no doubt but that he left many companions. The great and glorious doctrine that pertains to this I have not time to dwell upon; neither should I at present if I had time. He understood this whole machinery or system before he came to this earth; and I hope my brethren and sisters will profit by what I have told them.

 

 A few notes about the fundamental doctrines of mormonism—Young learned at the foot of Joseph Smith:

 

1. Polygamy is a requirement because the men of the world are unrighteous. The women must be realigned to reproduce with the most righteous men. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were much more righteous than the unworthy men they replaced (Jacobs, Hyde, Holmes, Lyon, Lightner).

 

2. Young equates polygamous marriages to the parable of the talents, Matthew 25. Women are chattel property and used as poker chips.

 

3. Women who refuse to enter the harem of the most righteous men in the Celestial Kingdom and insist on being single will take on the role of ministering angel to the elite polygamist gods. D&C 132:17

 

4. Young sealed his sister, Fanny Young, to Joseph Smith to ensure she wouldn't end up a servant and could be aligned in his harem of wives.

 

5. Women's fate in the resurrection relies on having a worthy man and being obedient to him. The man and all of his wives will be reunited in a glorious afterlife as a god, with the power to reproduce and make new worlds, etc. D&C 132:20

 

6. The earth is a manufactured object, made expressly for man to use and kick ass upon.

 

7. Father Adam had many more companions than Eve in the garden. 

Brigham Young also said (emphasis added):

I want every [Mormon] Elder to make his calculations to get rich here, and not go abroad to get riches from the Saints there. Plan and operate here to make as much property as you please; and if you can put it in a shape to gather the Saints, do so; and when you are abroad use every sovereign to emigrate the poor. You may have one shirt on and one at the washerwoman's, and decent and comfortable clothing; but what you  obtain over this must be used to gather the poor. "May I obtain money enough to come home?" Yes. "How many coats and pantaloons may we bring, and how many trunks packed with clothing of the most expensive kinds, for our wives and children?" I utterly forbid this practice. I forbid your bringing or sending home silk dresses and the like. Send and bring home the poor. I forbid your coming home in your carriages; I forbid your going out preachers and coming home merchants, but come home bringing your sheaves with you—the souls of the children of men—spirits clothed in tabernacles. I forbid the Elders of Israel coming home as they have; but men, women, and children must be all the property, means, wealth, glory, and power that they bring home.

 

O ye gentiles [non-Mormons], let me tell you that every Elder will do as I have told him, when he learns that the opposite course is wrong. And let me tell you that you will see the day when you will wish that you were "Mormon" Elders. By-and-by the Elders of Israel will have gold and silver for plates, cups, saucers, &c.; and when we have adorned and furnished our houses we will have gold and silver to pave our streets, and their enemies will be in hell, unable to raise a decent fiddler there, or any liquor, for it will all burn up, and every decent fiddler will go into a decent kingdom: we will have them. We are going to have the kingdom of God and the fulness thereof, and all the heights and depths of glory, power, and knowledge; and we shall have fathers and mothers, and wives and children.

 

Brother Cannon remarked that people wondered how many wives and children I had. He may inform them that I [Brigham Young] shall have wives and children by the million, and glory, and riches, and power, and dominion, and kingdom after kingdom, and reign triumphantly. "What will you do with all those who have sought to kill you?" Make them soap boilers and kitchen flunkeys. We are not going to send them into hell fire, for it takes a good Latter-day Saint apostatized to get down into that deep (did I say bottomless?) pit. A person, to become an angel of the Devil, has first to be a good Saint, and then deny the Lord who bought him.

 

Do you query why we give endowments to A., B., and C.? It is to make devils of those who will deny the faith, for that is also necessary, as a host of devils will be needed. We also want Saints, angels, holy ones, and those that are exalted to the highest glory—we want them to inherit kingdoms that number millions on millions.

 

... Will the Latter-day Saints so live that they can enjoy the fulness of the heights, depths, glory, and intelligence in which the Father and the Son dwell? If they do not, they must go into another kingdom. He has designed that we should become Gods—the sons of God—fathers of eternal lives, like Abraham. This is the promise he received—to be the father of endless lives, that his posterity and generation should never cease, in time nor eternity.

 

Source: Journal of Discourses  Volume 8, Discourse 46

 

This is echoed in the 1844  anonymous poem Buckey’s Lamentation for Want of More Wives, attributed to Wilson Law, someone who clearly understood Mormon Doctrine at the time (emphasis added): 

The narrow gate did well enough
  When Peter, James,and John,
Did lead the saints on Zion-ward,
  In single file along:
When bachelors, like good old Paul,
  Could win the glorious prize,
And maids, without a marriage rite, 
  Reach “mansions in the skies.”

But we have other teaching now,
  Of greater glories far;
How a single glory”s nothing more
  Than some lone twinkling star.
A two-fold glory”s like the moon,
  That shines so sweet at night,
Reflecting from her gracious lord
  Whatever he thinks right.

A tenfold glory-that”s the prize!
  Without it you”re undone!
But with it you will shine as bright
  As the bright shining sun.
There you may reign' like mighty Gods,
  Creating worlds so fair;-
At least a world for every wife 
  That you take with you there.

 The man that has got ten fair wives, Ten worlds he may create;

And he that has got less than this, Will find a bitter fate.

The one or two that he may have, He'd be deprived of then; And they'll be given as talents were 

To him who has got ten.

All this is coroberated in Kingdom of God Vol. 1 (June 1999) by Ogden Kraut (emphasis added):

... The Gods planned to create a world, (a territory) and place a God (a King) over it, then put His children (subjects) on it and give them the gospel (law). Thus, this definition fits perfectly the description of the Kingdom of God as proposed by the Council of the Gods in the beginning. …

Joseph Fielding Smith [said]:

 

"Christ Created Many Worlds. Under the direction of his Father, Jesus Christ created this earth. No doubt others helped him, but it was Jesus Christ, our Redeemer, who, under the direction of his Father, came down and organized matter and made this planet, so that it might be inhabited by the children of God.

Jesus Christ is the light and the life of men; he was a Creator before this world was made. * * *

This we know, and that will suffice until all things are revealed, the inhabitants of these worlds created by Jesus Christ, are begotten sons and daughters unto God." (Doc. of Sal., Smith, p. 70).

[Joseph Smith said]:

"If a man gets a fullness of the Priesthood of God, he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord." (Joseph Smith, TPJS, p. 308)

 

The first great commandment which God gave unto mankind, as recorded in the scriptures, was to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” (Gen. 1:28) The principal object was to people this creation with myriads of intelligent mortal beings, after His own image and likeness, endowed with God-like capacities, and capable of progressing in the grand scale of knowledge and happiness, until they should receive a fullness, and become like God, and be glorified in Him, and He in them, that they might be one in glory, and in power, and in dominion. Herein is God glorified, because there are millions of beings who eventually become like Himself, with whom He can associate, and who are capable of understanding and appreciating all the fullness of His glorious attributes, and of acting with Him in the most perfect harmony in all the magnificent works of Creation. Herein are the dominions of the Almighty enlarged, by the accession of new worlds, peopled with beings in His own form and of His own order. And herein joy, and gladness, and happiness, reign in the bosom of the great Creator, in all their fullness and perfection, because He exercises His infinite goodness in the formation of numberless worlds, peopled with beings upon whom, if obedient, He bestows all the fullness of His own great perfections. (The Seer, Orson Pratt, p. 25)

 

Just as a man increases the number of his children and expands the size of his real estate, he is adding power and dominion to his own kingdom here. This, in a nutshell, is the great mystery to God and His Kingdom.

 

… THE LAW [is the] The Gospel

 

To build a kingdom of our own, or even remain with God in His Kingdom, we must “obey the rules of the house”–in other words, we must obey the laws of His Kingdom. Joseph Smith explains the nature of those laws and why they are given:

"The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits." (TPJS, p. 354)

 

… And the grand key to understanding this information was given by Joseph Smith:

 

"Here, then, is eternal life–to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. * * * To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before." (TPJS, pp. 346-7)

The law that God has given to His children is the “Gospel,” referred to more appropriately as “The Gospel of the Kingdom.” (See Matt. 4:23)

…. The Prophet Joseph Smith leaves us with this thought:

"Who but those who have duly considered the condescension of the Father of our spirits, in providing a sacrifice for His creatures, a plan of redemption, a power of atonement, a scheme of salvation, having as its great objects, the bringing of men back into the presence of the King of heaven, crowning them in the celestial glory, and making them heirs with the Son to that inheritance which is incorruptible, undefiled, and which fadeth not away–who but such can realize the importance of a perfect walk before all men, and a diligence in calling upon all men to partake of these blessings? How indescribably glorious are these things to mankind! Of a truth they may be considered tidings of great joy to all people; and tidings, too, that ought to fill the earth and cheer the heart of every one when sounded in his ears. The reflection that everyone is to receive according to his own diligence and perseverance while in the vineyard, ought to inspire everyone who is called to be a minister of these glad tidings, to so improve his talent that he may gain other talents, that when the Master sits down to take an account of the conduct of His servants, it may be said, Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things; I will now make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." (TPJS, p. 48)

… Chapter 9 THE PRE-EXISTENT ROLE OF WOMEN

"To be a priestess queen upon thy Heavenly Father’s throne, and a glory to thy husband and offspring, to bear the souls of men, to people other worlds (as thou didst bear their tabernacles in mortality) while eternity goeth and eternity cometh; and if thou wilt receive it, lady, this is eternal life." (John Taylor, “Origin and Destiny of Women,” as quoted in Marriage Covenant, Kraut, p. 25)

Continuing along the lines of the previous chapter on representation, women are often considered as representatives of many wonderful attributes: love, kindness, emotion, caring, mercy, creation, life, endurance, and jewels in a man’s crown. The scriptures speak of the Zion of the Lord and the New Jerusalem as being like the bride of Christ. (See Rev. 18:23, 21:2.)

… Parley P. Pratt explained:

"The Sodomites, Canaanites, etc., received the reverse of this blessing. Instead of giving them a multiplicity of wives and children, He cut them off, root and branch, and blotted their name from under heaven, that there might be an end of a race so degenerate. Now this severity was a mercy. If we were like the people before the flood, full of violence and oppression; or if we, like the Sodomites or Canaanites, were full of all manner of lawless abominations, holding promiscuous intercourse with the other sex, and stooping to a level with the brute creation, and predisposing our children, by every means in our power, to be fully given to strange and unnatural lusts, appetites, and passions, would it not be a mercy to cut us off, root and branch, and thus put an end to our increase upon the earth? You will all say it would. The spirits in heaven would thank God for preventing them from being born into the world under such circum-stances. Would not the spirits in heaven rejoice in the covenant and blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in relation to the multiplying of their seed, and in every additional wife which God gave to them as a means of multiplying? Yes, they would; for they could say–“Now there is an opportunity for us to take bodies in the lineage of a noble race, and to be educated in the true science of life, and in the commandments of God.” O what an unspeakable contrast, between being a child of Sodom, and a child of Abraham!" (JD 1:259)

 

… Joseph Smith [said]:

 

"Gods have an ascendency over the angels, who are ministering servants. In the resurrection, some are raised to be angels, others are raised to become Gods." (TPJS, p. 312)

Here [and in D&C 132] it is clear that some people will be resurrected as angels or servants, while others will become Gods. In mortality we decide our eternal inheritance–either to become a God over our own kingdom, or to be like the son who “wasted his substance” and spent his inheritance on the things of this world and merely asked to “make me as one of thy hired servants.” How much better to have the Father say, “Son, thou are ever with me, and all that I have is thine.”

Note how Kraut explains that the concept in Mormonism of "God's Kingdom" is about territory, status, and governing control over subjects. Thus, the access to women through the law of polygamy was about male status and governance just like the kings ruled in the Hebrew Bible. As I see it, such a theology is based in part on acting out our biologically mammalian male instinctual drives to gain territory (resources or riches), status, and spread one's seed (genes). If these instincts are God-given and in the Bible God used these instincts to produce heroic kings like King David and a bloodline that produced Jesus as a King, then was not 19th century Mormon polygamy just as biblical as the Hebew Bible? Even if Joseph Smith was just acting out his biological drives for territory,  status, and power, and seeking to build as Peoplehood, is that not what the patriarchs in the Bible also sought to do, from Abraham to David and the reproduction of the tribe of Judah through polygamy and the bloodline that produced Jesus? So that if Joseph Smith was seeking to reproduce the tribe of Ephraim through plural marriage, how is that not acting out the same biblical method as one finds in the Hebrew Bible?

Furthermore, even if you leave God out of the equation and look at it naturalistically, were not celestial wives  bearing the souls of elite Ephraimite LDS men an affirmation of biological life itself by securing the lineage of these men, just like Jesus was needed to be of a specific Israelite lineage?  So too, from a modern more atheistic or psychological perspective (where self-esteem is paramount), the Mormon men and women both gained a kind of immortality of their person (self), through an infinite increase and thus overcoming feelings of meaninglessness and nihilism: through their biological self image continuing beyond death via their genes and lineage being reproduced forever. 

I would also argue that for the atheist,  how can they really criticize Mormonism when with our closest living relatives, chimpanzees, "male rank typically predicts male chimpanzee reproductive success ..." (Source: Male dominance rank and reproductive success in chimpanzees). So a priesthood ranking system, simply elevated the most virtuous and noble men to the top of the priesthood hierarchy: giving them the most access to plural wives, and the securing that their genes were passed on to future generations. How can the atheists condemn this if it's just part of nature?

Another way to better appreciate 19th century Mormon polygamy is to realize that it was in my view a counteractive theological practice: in that it reversed the Pauline ideal of becoming a celibate Gentile as a "male-Bride" who was allegedly supernaturally inseminated by the seed of an Israelite "Husband." The Apostle Paul simply did the best he could with the knowledge he had, as he used the Jewish method of midrash to mix the Greek mystery religions and Stoicism with the Hebrew Bible in order to produce a theology that he thought saved Gentiles from an imminent coming destruction of the world in his lifetime. Instead of emphasizing celibacy and "gene swapping," Joseph Smith declared that most Mormon converts are among the Lost Tribes of Israel, most of whom being from the northern countries, of mostly British, Germanic, and Scandinavian ancestry. So that one's Indo-European genes were not "swapped out", but instead one was to continue their own Indo-European genetic lineage by spreading their seed on earth and into the eternities.

The Brighamite sect's media and correlation departments often try to ignore and/or deny the real reason for why polygamy was practiced. For example, in a new Questions and Answers section on plural marriage on the Church's official website in 2025, on the page titled Church and Gospel Questions: Plural Marriage, the Brighamite Church states the following (words in bold my own for emphasis):

Does the Church teach that plural marriage is required for exaltation?

No. No scripture or revelation teaches that plural marriage is a requirement for exaltation nor has this been an established doctrine of the Church. In the 19th century, some Church leaders taught this idea. Since that time, however, the consistent, unanimous teaching of Church leaders is that only monogamous temple marriage is necessary for exaltation. They have also emphasized that such a marriage will eventually be available to all who worthily seek it.

I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that plural marriage was never a requirement for exaltation and that it was not an established doctrine; when D&C 132 was considered doctrine. But at least they acknowledged that in the 1800s some Church leaders taught the idea. They just carefully omitted the fact that among those Church Leaders was none other than Joseph Smith himself which nearly all Mormon Scripture derives from. 

The point I am making is that the Brighamite sect today does not want to fully own its original doctrine in today's current "politically correct" culture, and it seems they want to appear today to be basically just another Protestant sect that teaches monogamy. I understand this. They don't want to throw under the bus the polygamist Mormon Pioneers of the 1800s. But they also want to kind of hide just how much polygamy was actually practiced and why. But they can't "have their cake and eat it too" without sounding like they are talking out both sides of their mouth. LDS women are often told at church that polygamy was "just for the widows," an untrue folk tale in LDS Church culture; while today LDS men can be sealed in an LDS temple to more than one woman. I think it is best to be honest and teach the actual truth as to why polygamy was practiced.

The Brighamite sect should make a decision in my opinion. If the Leaders want to deny that polygamy was at the core of Joseph Smith's Mormonism, why not just remove D&C sections 130 to 132 from the canon? Why not de-canonize the Book of Abraham and verses like Abraham 2:11? Why not reinstate the 1835 edition of D&C section 101 that said the doctrine is monogamy only? They could do this.

As I see it, the other option is what I am proposing on this website: which is to see polygamy as being a mere temporary practice, done in the past but no longer necessary today because it has already fulfilled its purpose: that purpose being a kind of midrashic means to the end of literally birthing a quasi-ethnic Indo-European Ephraimite Mormon People during the 1800s; while simultaneously revitalizing healthy masculinity in Mormon men in the 19th century, and teaching the true nature of God as an embodied being through what I consider to be a midrashic expiation of false doctrines in the Creeds of Christiandom. 

From this perspective, polygamy can be seen as a temporary practice for People-making and affirming God's body; and so although it was probably not actually divinely sanctioned in how it was carried out and practiced in every detail in all cases, nevertheless, it did practically function in the past as the means to the end of counteracting the Augustinian despising of the body in the Creeds and  reaffirmed biological life as good, and also leading to the growth of a quasi-ethnic culture.

In short, early LDS polygamy was based  on rank hierarchy, wherein only the most emotionally and socially intelligent, virile, and masculine of men gained access to the most polygamous wives, which led to a funneling effect in the birthing of the Ephraimite Mormon People; while the plural wife doctrine of Supercouples (who join the Gods as Supercouples), led to the changing of the minds of the first Mormons: wherein they stopped seeing the sexual body as depraved and inherently sinful. Afterall, as the 19th century Mormon theology basically explained, if God the Father himself has a sensual body and wives, then the very way of the Gods themselves was the pursuit of the biologically masculine drives for territory, status, and powerful expansion through the male seed and kingdom building; therefore, within the early polygamist theology, the bio-masculine attributes and instincts for dominance and expansion were personified onto the Gods themselves making human nature not depraved but good and holy; as male virility and the will to power became godlike and divine.  

For more details on how all of this radically shifted the consciousness of early Mormons, moving them further away from an anti-body worldview and toward a more pro-body worldview, see my post here. 

What I am proposing therefore is that just as the "Hell fire and brimstone" language of the Book of Mormon was used by Smith as a means to the end of encouraging conversion (but was not to actually be taken literally according D&C 19), so too, the early Mormon polygamy doctrine can be seen as equally "midrashically useful" as a means to an end but perhaps not literally true. 

So that as I see it, D&C 132 and the Book of Abraham, can and even should remain in the LDS Canon but can be seen as a kind of temporary midrash, that has fulfilled its purpose and is now obsolete, just as the New Testament replaced many Old Testament ideas and practices; or just as the Book of Mormon's Hell language fulfilled its purpose among the first LDS readers. So that a Father God with wives and men taking on multiple wives in order to be fully exalted, doesn't need to be taken literally today or seen as official LDS doctrine (which it isn't currently). Meanwhile, LDS members have the option of going back to the original Godhead doctrine as found in The Lectures on Faith, if they so choose.