I do not agree with everything that Rock Waterman says on his blog puremormonism. For example, I think it's naive to claim Joseph Smith was only ever a monogamist. But when it comes to his criticism of leadership worship or what I call Brethrenism, I think he is spot on. Here are some blog posts I have read and recommend:
Tuesday, December 6, 2022
Monday, November 28, 2022
My Core Thesis:
The Expiation of Sectarian Dogma & The Seeding of The "Mormon People"
In my blog series, Sex, Gods, & Zion, my thesis in brief is that Joseph Smith instituted plural marriage in order to save (deliver) the Saints from false beliefs regarding the body and God. By the year 1840, Joseph Smith came to believe that the true nature of God was that He was an exalted man with a physical body; and the true nature of reality was that all matter was spiritual matter. Thus, I believe that for him plural marriage was the means toward developing a new attitude of affirming the material body and learning how to be a god yourself (as Joseph Smith explains in the King Follet discourse). The Nauvoo temple ritual was thus a metaphor for influencing a transformation in consciousness: wherein the temple initiate was sacrificing -- on the metaphorical altar of the temple (representing the plural marriage sealing) -- their former Protestant ideologies; through the ritual of celestial marriage they were in effect expiating from their consciousness the sectarian Creeds (that taught a God without bodily parts and passions) and Augustinian puritanism (which taught the "despising of the body").
What my thesis does is present plural marriage as a metaphorical ritual "sacrifice" that was meant to be temporary from the beginning; as the purpose and intent of plural marriage was to change the mind of the Saints regarding the true nature of God. Through the ritual enactment of imiating the sexually liberated Gods by practicing polygamy, they were engaging in a radical form of bodily affirmation. I think the expectation was that the Saints would in time liberate their minds from the Augustinian shame cycle and puritanical oppression by rethinking the attitude of God regarding human sexuality. This liberation of the body and mind from repressive puritanism, and and the false notions of God presented in the sectarian Creeds, was ultimately accomplished by 1890. Hence, anyone in the Smith-Rigdon Restoration Movement who is uncomfortable with the history of polygamy, can find peace of mind through my theory which argues that polygamy was a temporary practice and its purpose was accomplished by 1900.
Even the historical scholar Dan Vogel, who is not a believer in Mormonism, acknowledges that Joseph Smith was sincere in his Christian convictions when producing The Book of Mormon. In his book Joseph Smith's Response to Skepticism, non-LDS author Robert N. Hullinger, also assigns Christian motives to Joseph Smith when dictating The Book of Mormon.
Joseph Smith was tall, good looking and athletic. He was anything but stupid. If he just wanted to have sex with other women other than his wife, there were far less complicated ways of doing that. So the more likely explanation from a historical and theological point of view, is in my view that Joseph Smith was willing to go out on a limb in promoting plural marriage because he had noble intentions in doing so. In other words, just as he had good intentions in orating The Book of Mormon, he continued to have noble intentions for the Saints up to 1844 (just before he died).
My interpretation of the historical facts we have solves the riddle of Joseph's clearly sincere convictions in producing The Book of Mormon, and his later more controversial Nauvoo theology and practices. For my thesis presents Joseph Smith as not just attempting to sincerely unite his family and convert America to a restored Christianity from the position of authentic conviction (as Vogel argues), but that Smith was also attempting to sincerely change the mindset of the Saints because he truly believed he had discovered the true nature of God. This discovery occurred gradually overtime, but the pinnacle of his enlightenment was studying Hebrew around 1835 and learning that there were Gods plural. Having attempted to "translate" the Old Testament by inspiration earlier on, he would have also already become familiar with God the Father having a body. So by 1839 he had become convinced in his belief in the plurality of Gods with tangible bodies. To understand what a radical new understanding this would have been for Joseph Smith, we need to remember he grew up saturated in Protestant dogma (which was all around him as basically the "air" he breathed). So he would have been aware of how radical his biblical insights would come across to his mostly Protestant-minded audience. Even today, there is resistance among Protestants to fully accept the same biblical scholarship Joseph Smith discovered in the 1830s. For example, Evangelical Bible scholar Michael Heiser and the biblical scholar Francesca Stavrakopoulou (author of God: An Anatomy) have been writing and speaking in the 2020s on the biblical scholarship that supports much of Joseph Smith's Nauvoo theology of God; and even they (Heiser and Stavrakopoulou), in the 2020s, have to deal with a lot of biased resistance to the facts and evidence they present. So I believe that Joseph Smith, way back in the mid 1830s, realized he had discovered the true reality of God's Realm; yet he knew what he was up against in converting the Saints to these truths he learned studying the Bible. He must have spent a lot of time thinking in the mid 1830s about how he was going to restore the true nature of God to the Saints.
He received his answer on how to redeem the Saints of false notions of God, when he became more involved in Freemasonry; which clearly caused his creative mind to begin producing a ritual drama which would restore not only "pure Masonry" (as covered in the book Method Infinite: Freemasonry and the Mormon Restoration), but also gave him the means to deliver the Saints from false ideas of deity and implant in them the true nature of God.
From this perspective, whether one believes he was inspired or not, he likely thought he was inspired and on a mission from God to change the attitude of the Saints in regards to the embodiment of God.
So to change their consciousness so that they came to accept the true nature of God (as having a body and a sexual nature), I think he felt inspired to restore Old Testament polygamy temporarily: as a metaphorical ritual sacrifice through polygamy which was aimed at transforming the mindset of the Saints toward embracing God's true nature by breaking out of their puritanical comfort zone.
Steeped in the Bible, after producing The Book of Mormon and translating The Inspired Version of the Bible, I believe Joseph Smith sincerely felt that plural marriage was sanctioned by God (as long as it was implemented for a time to raise up a righteous seed per Jacob 2:30). In this case, the Saints needed to be "implanted" with a new theological seedbed or bundled ideas; and so using the method of masonic midrash and bricolage, he saw within the Old and New Testaments that he could combine their sacrificial altar language and using masonic midrash could produce a restored temple ritual; which would initiate the Saints into plural marriage (as a type of ritual enactment of the sexually embodied nature of the Gods), which would sacrificially expiate false ideas of God from their consciousness by having them practice the alternative sexual lifestyle of polygamy.
So using bricolage and Masonic midrash he produced The Book of Abraham. I think he sincerely believed that the Egyptian hieroglyphics that fell into his hands occured by Divine Providence. I think he sincerely believed that he could translate the papyri through the power of seership; as for him they acted as a catalyst for revealing God's true nature.
Bridging Divisions with My Third Alternative
My theory provides a middle way/path between ex-mormon anti-mormonism and other Restoration branches who present Joseph Smith as a "fallen prophet." Some Restoration branches even go so far as to even try to deny that Joseph even practiced plural marriage at all, which can't be supported by the historical evidence.
On my thesis, Joseph Smith retains Dan Vogel's initial theory of Joseph Smith as a sincere believer in the early 1830s, but expands that sincerity till his death in 1844. On my theory, Joseph Smith is not a "fallen prophet" but a fallible reformer in the role of prophetic seer and revelator; with the noble intentions of liberating the Saints from Augustinian puritanism: by revealing to them the true nature of God, which he believed he was called to do.
Whether or not Smith went about introducing plural marriage in the right way, and whether the methods he used to take on additional plural wives was done in ways that one might consider unethical or unwise, is open to debate and the criticisms are fair to ponder. Yet these criticisms in no way undermine my thesis. For my thesis is that Joseph Smith was sincere in his belief in the plurality of Gods who have holy sexual bodies, and thus he tells Nancy Rigdon in a private letter that "God is more liberal in his views." In other words, he had discovered in his biblical studies that God is not the puritan god of the sectarian Creeds which had led to doctrines of monasticism and other body-denying practices; in counteraction to these monastic ideas and practices, I think he truly believed his divine mission was to reveal the true nature of God and how in contrast to these body-denying ideas, God was "more liberal in his views" when it came to sexuality and the body. If at times he overstepped the bounds of "decency" or "appropriate behavior" is open to debate, but his overall intentions I think were sincere and noble throughout.
At the heart of his Nauvoo theology is a life-affirming theology of the Body. With this in mind, the Nauvoo theology, scripture and rituals become liberating passages in time as "transitional religious fossils" representing the after affects we see today among the Latter-day Saints who have in fact had their consciousness changed by the Nauvoo theology and practices; and have now fully adopted the belief in an embodied God the Father who is a sexual being with a divine spouse. This was the main goal Joseph Smith was seeking to accomplish in Nauvoo (which is made most clear in his King Follet discourse), which we see manifest today among most of those who call themselves "Mormon"; in other words, Joseph Smith affectively changed the mindset of the Saints and thus I believe he fulfilled his mission.
This view also explains the secrecy of the Nauvoo temple which some find problematic; as it was originally designed to restore authentic Masonry and also safeguard the controversial practice of plural marriage and the new doctrine of the Plurality of Gods within a largely Protestant World that was intolerant of new theologies that challenged the Creeds. So the Freemasonic inspired rituals were in part designed to maintain secrecy regarding the practice of plural marriage while restoring pure Masonry. Understanding that the entire theological and ritual structure of the temple is couched in plural marriage, modern day Saints who no longer practice polygamy today can move toward a future when the "grace of Christ" is emphasized more than ritual works; which is already occurring among enlightened Utah-based Mormon intellectuals and scholars who are emphasizing grace over works.
What this means is the Nauvoo temple ritual has ultimately become outdated for today; as its very design was to initiate the Saint into the practice of plural marriage. However, this does not diminish its historical value as ultimately a ritual attempt at spiritual enlightenment through understanding the sexual nature of the Gods; which was ultimately an affirmation of life in the body. Meanwhile, the core themes of the Temple can still be fruitful today because the emphasis is still on the affirmation of the body: with the fig leaf apron representing sexual desire and fecundity, and the washing and anointings designed to bless the body in part for sexual love and procreation; and the recitation at the veil itself is an affirmation of the material body and sexual desire. Therefore, the Nauvoo Temple Ritual, while originally meant to safeguard the secrecy of plural marriage, can still be appreciated and practiced today for its practical message of revering the sensual body and celebrating sexual love by reciting the words at the veil: referring to strength in the loins and power in the spermatic priesthood (see Abr. 2:11) before passing through the veil and symbolically entering the Realm of the Gods (who have bodily parts and passions); and thus one is affirming organic life itself and proclaiming the natural body as good and holy every time they attend a Mormon temple.
My thesis solves nearly everything
There are basically three theories among historians and scholars as to Joseph Smith's life in Nauvoo and his introducing of polygamy. The first theory is that Joseph Smith was a charlatan and conman from the very beginning going back to 1829. Evangelical historians like Sandra Tanner and atheistic writers tend to take this position. The second theory is that Smith was a "fallen prophet," which is the view held by many in the Smith-Rigdon Restoration Movement (like many in the RLDS Church); even secular scholars hold this view, with Dan Vogel considering him pious in the beginning but then as his power and status escalated he took advantage of his position and basically fell from grace so to speak. This "fallen prophet theory" is also found among followers of the Remnant Movement and others, like the Iron Rod Podcast.com.
What I am offering instead is a third alternative: of seeing Joseph Smith as not a conman and charlatan, nor a pious fraud who became a fallen prophet; but Joseph as sincere believer and restorer of the true Divine Realm which has been substantiated today through modern biblical scholarship.
My thesis is that plural marriage was meant to expiate Augustinian anti-body sectarian theology from the psyche of the Saints; and as Todd Compton and Samuel Brown argue, it was also meant to unite the Saints into an interwoven tapestry of dynastic unions. These efforts I would argue were sincere and had biblical precedent.
I believe that Smith thought the Saints would achieve true happiness and joy in the body (as God's good creation) by imitating the tangible Gods of flesh and bone; by realizing the Gods are in the form of men and women like themselves, the Saints could better affirm the sensual body as good (like God does); and they would come to know not just the true nature of God, but the Saints would be delivered from repressive Puritan ideologies that despised the body and God's good creation.
I believe that my theory solves many of the problems that divide Mormons and ex-mormons and Utah-based Saints and the other Smith-Rigdon Restoration Saints who sometimes deny Joseph ever practiced plural marriage at all. What I am suggesting is a third alternative that I believe integrates all of the historical facts and evidence and provides an interpretation that solves many problems. For one of the problems with the fallen prophet theory is that you have the problem of, if Joseph Smith was acting as if he was a seer in Nauvoo but doing so insincerely and deceptively when producing the Book of Abraham for personal gain only; that calls into question everything Smith produced. In other words, those in the Restoration Movement who say The Book of Mormon is inspired but not the Book of Abraham or D&C 132, are in my opinion defending an impossible position logically: for to say Joseph was inspired and can be trusted during one project in 1830 but not in others (after 1835) strains credulity. As that is basically removing the four legs from the table of Joseph Smith as a prophetic seer and revelator with sincere intentions, so that the whole Restoration collapses by removing the four legs from the table of Joseph Smith (as the prophet of the Restoration).
The Utah-based Church's answer is equally problematic for they essentially ignore the facts and evidence regarding the history and intent of plural marriage, or they present a watered down version of events and often rewrite history in their church manuals or interpret events through a very puritanical lens (which Joseph Smith was seeking to overcome). My theory in contrast deals with the facts head on without white washing the details; and without using the type of apologetics that seeks to deny any sexual component to the practice of plural marriage, my theory provides what I believe to be the real reason for plural marriage, which was to be like the gods (who are more liberal in their views) and thus liberate the Saints from Augustinian puritanism and the body-denying Creeds, while forming dynastic unions.
Ironically, after seeking to maintain the dogma of Augustinian Purity Culture, the Brighamite sect upholds the belief in "celestial polygamy," which is criticized in books like The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy: Haunting the Hearts and Heaven of Mormon Women and Men by Carol Lynn Pearson. With my theory the Brighamite sect can be fully honest about their polygamist past by fully embracing the radical liberating theology of Joseph Smith (which was against Purity Culture); and they can repudiate the practice of polygamy in heaven with my theory as well. For there is this conflict in the Brighamite Church among many members, especially women, who want to completely erase polygamy from the Canon. But the problem with that position is that it undermines the devotion and sacrifice of former polygamist women in the 1800s. But on my theory, those sacrifices by these pioneer women becomes a heroic effort to live out the practice for the greater good of changing the mindset of the Saints; and thus they are heroes in taking part in expiating false dogma from the consciousness of the Saints, and producing a more life affirming pro-bodied theology.
As a result of my own polygamist ancestors, I grew up in the Brighamite sect: wherein there was no celibate ideal (the denial of any sexual expression), nor were there celibate priests like in the Catholic Church: and no doctrine that Mary was a perpetual virgin as if sex in and of itself was "dirty" and defiling. I was not taught the Calvinist dogma that I am depraved and God hates my material body and wants to torment me eternally because of my created nature; but instead I was taught instead the second Article of Faith. Thus, in my view these women practicing plural marriage in the 1800s and the body-affirming theology surrounding it, did in fact "raise up seed" (Jacob 2:30) and thus from them there "sprang a [liberated] branch" of The Mormon People. I find support for this view in LDS scripture itself; for example here is 2 Nephi 3:5-6 (words in brackets are my own and words highlighted in bold is for emphasis):
5 … Joseph [who was carried captive into Egypt] truly saw our day. And he obtained a promise of the Lord, that out of the fruit of his loins the Lord God would raise up a righteous branch unto the house of Israel; not the Messiah, but a branch which was to be broken off, nevertheless, to be remembered in the covenants of the Lord that the Messiah should be made manifest unto them in the latter days, in the spirit of power, unto the bringing of them out of darkness unto light—yea, out of hidden darkness and out of captivity unto freedom.
6 For Joseph truly testified, saying: A seer [Joseph Smith Jr.] shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins.
8 … for he [Joseph Smith Jr.] shall do my work.
9 And he shall be great like unto Moses [who practiced the plural marriage], whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to deliver my people, O house of Israel.
13 And out of weakness he shall be made strong … 14 And thus prophesied Joseph, saying: Behold, that seer will the Lord bless …
15 … for the thing [the Restoration?], which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand, by the power of the Lord shall bring my people unto salvation.
Compare these verses to the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, Book of Moses 1: 39, "For behold, this is my [God's] work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Then compare that to the King Follett discourse where Joseph Smith speaks of salvation being tied to knowing the true nature of God and that God is in the tangible form of a man. Thus, "eternal life" spoken of in Moses 1: 39 is in part the understanding of the eternal embodied nature of God the Father.
In 1842 Joseph spoke of cleansing the Church from not just your typical vices but from lacking knowledge which "knowledge" was further articulated in the King Follet Discourse as knowing the true nature of God the Father as a Man with a body. Spiritual degeneration was caused by both iniquity/non-equity and lacking saving knowledge; thus the need to cleanse the Church with new revelations like D&C 132 and the temple endowment. Thus Joseph Smith said in 1842
… As far as we degenerate from God we desend to the devil & loose knowledge & without knowledge we cannot be saved & while our hearts are filled with evil & we are studying evil their is no room in our hearts for good or studying good, is not God good, Yes then you be good. if he is faithful then you be faithful Add to your faith virtue to virtue knowledge. [2 Peter 1:5-7] & seek for evry good thing the church must be cleansed … A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge for if he does not get knowledge he will be brought into captivity … [4] hence it needs Revelation to assist us & give us knowledge of the things of God.
[Footnote 4 reads in part:
… These public teachings reflected his private thought and revelations concerning the endowment ordinances, in which a fuller knowledge of this subject was first communicated on 4 May 1842 ( History of the Church, 5:1-2, or Teachings, p. 137). …]
Source: 10 April 1842 (Sunday Morning). Grove. 1 Wilford Woodruff Diary, from Words of Joseph Smith by Joseph Smith, Andrew F. Ehat, Lyndon W. Cook. Words in bold for emphasis.
Thus, on my theory Joseph Smith was prophesied as a choice seer in bringing salvation/deliverance to the Mormon People by liberating them from the bondage of the body-rejecting sectarian Creeds -- and the captivity of Augustinian shaming of the body -- through the restored gospel revealed through Joseph Smith (despite his "weaknesses" mentioned in the text). In other words, Joseph's life-affirming Theology of the Body would cleanse the Saints of the stain of Augustinianism and raise up a righteous generative branch in the form of the Mormon People.
Plural marriage was the method of knowing God after centuries of indoctrination from the sectarian Creeds that rejected God's bodily form and shamed Christians: making them feel ashamed of their sexual desires even in marriage, and establishing monasteries and promoting celibacy. The plural marriage revelation was thus a method of overcoming the abomination of the Creeds by learning to know God again as the ancient Israelites did (as an embodied being) by acting like a god in one's own body. Thus we read in D&C 132:21-24 (words in brackets my own; words highlighted for emphasis):
21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law [of plural marriage] ye cannot attain to this glory [in heaven]; [compare D&C 76 on differing degrees of resurrected glorified bodies]. 22 For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives [gods] [see previous verses 15-20 and Moses 1:39], and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me [my true bodily nature, see D&C 130: 22; and Abraham 4 about the embodied Gods). 23 But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also. [Compare: "You have to learn how to be gods yourselves" in the King Follet Discourse]. 24 This is eternal lives [godhood/deification]—to know the only wise and true God [the Father], and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law.
In other words, to know God is to gain the knowledge that God is in the form of a Man (and is a sexual being) by recieving his law and embracing being a sexual being yourself by practicing his law of plural marriage; in order to attain the exalted glorified bodily state of a divine being and thus recieving knowledge of him as a body of flesh in the form of a man. Wherein, this is "eternal lives," this knowing God and acting like a Supercouple on earth is the way to eternal lives, i.e. the immortal lives of the gods via the law of celestial marriage. So to receive his law (the sacrificial law of plural marriage) was to practice being a God on earth in order to know God. As D&C 132: 23 puts it:
But if ye receive me [his law, verse 24] in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also.
Again, compare "You have to learn how to be gods yourselves" in the King Follet Discourse. To go where God is is to be exalted to the glorified bodily state of a creative being (see D&C 76) in the realm of embodied creators (Gods): who produce further "eternal lives" (gods/Supercouples) by choosing Intelligences (unbirthed/uncreated eternal souls) who are given the opportunity to obtain mortal bodies to be able to then grow spiritually into Supercouples themselves (see Abraham, chapters 3 to 4).
So to know God the Father is to be like him bodily. But without the polygamy law it says, "ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me." The Saints at that time (mid 1800s) did not know God as their minds were saturated with the anti-body content of the secretatian Creeds. So to know God was for early Mormons to live a life like his embodied life so that they would overcome being indoctrinated by the Augustinian puritanical body-shaming Creed and come to understand that God is "more liberal in his views" about sex. Plural marriage and the production of multiple children was also a way to learn to be a God themselves as preparation for their becoming Gods in heaven and selecting the unbirthed self-existent Intelligences (souls) who would become the Supercouple's "spiritual children" and given an opportunity become immortal Gods themselves. So to know God was to obtain eternal lives, that is the continuation of lives (the cycle of souls expanding into immortal gods); in other words, Intelligences (souls) becoming mortal bodies after being selected by the exalted Gods so they too can learn and grow to be creative Gods (see Abraham 3:18-26). And thus the divine species of Gods continues, i.e. the eternal lives (Supercouples/Gods) continue to increase.
The sectarian view of God on the other hand, as a being without a body or passions, denies God's body and good fleshy creation and the increase of Eternal Lives (Gods); and treats God as a static, formless, "nothing" and not the creator God He is: who wishes to expand the species of "eternal lives" (Gods). The static, formless, Sectarian God led to a denial of God's good creation (flesh life) and a "despising of the body." So to know God, the true God in bodily form, the Saints needed to cleanse themselves of the mentally contaminating Creeds by practicing polygamy.
Before Moses and the Mosaic Law, Abraham showed faith (meaning that he showed loyal allegiance to Jehovah) and thus was chosen to become the seed-bearer of a Jewish People/Nation (Genesis 12: 1 - 3; Abraham 2:11). Joseph Smith then believed that he was called to also create the Mormon People (Zion). As Denver in one Restoration Branch/Movement puts it:
The original development under Joseph Smith was something quite distinct from all existing faiths. It was not just a new religion. It was a wholesale resurrection of an ancient concept of “Peoplehood.” It was radical. Its purpose was to change diverse assortments of people, from every culture and faith, with every kind of ethnic and racial composition, into a new kind of People. They were to be united under the banner of a New and Everlasting Covenant, resurrecting the ancient Hebraic notion of nationhood and Peoplehood. No matter what their former culture was, they were adopted inside a new family, a covenant family. Status was defined not be virtue of what you believed or confessed, but instead by what covenants you have assumed.
What returned through Joseph Smith was not a religion, nor an institution, nor merely a faith. It was instead the radical notion that an ancient covenant family was being regathered into a separate People. This return to ancient roots brought with it, as the hallmark of its source of power, the idea of renewed covenants that brought each individual into direct contract with God. [For Denver this is a visionary experience of seeing the literal face of God. On my theory, knowing God is knowing God's true bodily nature]. It did not matter what they believed. It only mattered that they accepted and took upon them the covenant.
Once inside the new People, there was a new culture where ancient ties returned to bind the hearts together. There was a dietary regimen where the People were reminded at every meal that they were distinct and apart from the world. There was the gift of sacred clothing, in which they were reminded of their separateness by the things put upon their skin. There were financial sacrifice of tithes, gathered from the People to help the People. The fortunes of all were intertwined with each other by the gathering of tithes and offerings into the Bishop’s storehouse to help the poor and needy among the People. It was NOT a religion. It was a People. It was to become The People. And The People were required to extend to all others the same equal opportunity to become also part of the covenant.
This is different from a religion. It was cultural, personal, and as distinct as a Jew views himself to be from a Christian. To a Jew, religion is a part of the equation. They share blood with other Jews, and therefore even if a Jew is not attending weekly synagogue meetings, they retain their status as one of the Jews. ...
... Joseph restored Peoplehood. ... we are neither a new form of Christianity, nor a return to Jewish antecedents. We are something quite different from either. We are an Hebraic resurrection of God’s People, clothed with a covenant, and engaged in a direct relationship with God that makes us distinct from all other people. ...
... Read the earliest of Mormon materials and you will be shocked by how differently they viewed themselves from how [many LDS] now view ourselves. They were building a separate People. They invited all to come and partake of the covenant, renounce their prior errors, and return to living as one of God’s New and Everlasting Covenant holders.
(Source)
I agree with this. Joseph Smith was producing a People who no longer believed in a God without body parts or passions, nor a deity that wanted everyone to despise their body and form celibate monasteries; producing a theology of everyone is "punished for Adam's transgression" which Joseph rejected; instead Joseph preached a Fortunate Fall and that we are to "have joy."
Thus Joseph dictates the following in D&C 132 (words in italics for emphasis):
29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.
30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are [see Abraham 2:11], namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
Here we see that to be "saved" (delivered from something) is to do the works of Abraham in producing a Nation, a "People." Again, Abraham was chosen to become the seed-bearer of a Jewish People/Nation (Genesis 12: 1 - 3; Abraham 2:11). What we see in D&C 132 is that Joseph Smith is to be the prophet of the restoration of all things, including God the Father's true bodily nature; and he was to restore the truth about the plurality of Gods as described in the Book of Abraham chapter 4, and chapter 3: that explain that eternal souls (Intelligences) are selected by the Gods to obtain mortal bodies to grow into immortal Exalted Men (Gods) and receive their own thrones and dominions. Thus polygamy was implemented to save/deliver the Saints from the abominable Creeds and to teach them "how to be Gods themselves": how the Gods are a divine species of Supercouples who continue to create and expand the divine species by selecting more souls (Intelligences) that then grow into Gods themselves. As we read in verse 19:
And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant [plural marriage]; …Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection [as a Supercouple]; … and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths ... and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
Note that the "continuation of the "seeds forever" in scrptural context clearly meant the continuation of eternal souls in Abraham 3:18 that like a planted seed would (per 1 Cor. 15) transform from their outward mortal shell (containing their unbirthed soul) into a resurrected glorified body as "gods, even the sons of God— ... whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all ..." (D&C 76: 58, 70, words in italics for emphasis); thus glorified bodies as eternal lives that continue the cycle of unbirthed/uncreated souls (Intelligences) that are selected by Supercouples (D&C 132: 15-20; Abraham 3: 18) to grow into Gods themselves, which glorifies God (see D&C 132: 63) as the progenitor of a lineage of gods.
Many LDS scholars have already shown that the idea that heavenly parents literally birthed the souls of mankind, is not based on original Mormon doctrine nor scripture, but was a later theological development. For example see, A Response to Hales on “Spirit Birth” (Dec.
11, 2019) by J. Stapley. With this in mind, and building off of the scriptural analysis I've provided above, let's now analyze Doctrine and Covenants 132: 63 that explains that plural wives are given unto the man:
… to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified. (Emphasis added)
In the context of the scriptural analysis above, it is clear to me that to "bear the souls of men" is referring to the souls referred to in Abraham 3: 18. Note that the The Kingsbury Manuscript of D&C 132: 63 states:
... & for thine | exaltation in the eternal worlds[,] that they may have [bear] the Souls of men, for herein is | the work of my father continued[,] that he may be Glorified- [¶]
(Source)
Thus we see that the word "bear" was possibly added as an interpretive choice by Kingsbury; so that perhaps the meaning was, "that they may have the Souls enlarged", that is they could select these Intelligences (Abr. 3:18) and expand/enlarge these souls abundantly; by giving them an opportunity to become gods themselves. Note that John 10: 10 NASB has Christ say, "... I came so that they would have life, and [a]have it abundantly" [Footnote [a]: Or have abundance]." Thus it may have meant to have an abundance (i.e. plentitude) of eternal lives borne from souls becoming gods. For example, the Disciples’ Literal New Testament defines the word "abundance" in this verse as:
Or, excess, overflow, surplus. That is, have an overflowing spiritual life abounding to others (as in 7:38) …
The 1828 dictionary defines the word bear as a verb with the "primary sense is to throw out, to bring forth, or in general, to thrust or drive along." So to "bear the souls of men" could mean to drive along or bring forth the continuation and increase of eternal lives (gods) by having unbirthed souls expand into Gods. After all, "bring forth" sounds a lot like God saying "this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39, emphasis added).
The 1828 dictionary then gives the definition of bear as to basically support or basically bear something up; but then definition 10 states: "To bring forth or produce, as the fruit of plants, or the young of animals; as, to bear apples; to bear children." Thus to bear did not necessarily mean birthing but "[bringing] forth or [production] of, as in seeds bearing/producing fruit; which is how Paul describes deification in 1 Corinthians 15. Then it gives the definition of bear as "14. To carry on, or maintain…" Hence to have/bear the souls of men would mean to carry on having souls develop toward eternal lives (see Moses 1: 39; and D&C 132:24 and John 17:3). Further on it defines bear as:
To bear up, to keep afloat.
To bear a body. A color is said to bear a body in painting, when it is capable of being ground so fine, and mixed so entirely with the oil, as to seem only a very thick oil of the same color. …
2. To produce, as fruit; to be fruitful, in opposition to barrenness.
This age to blossom, and the next to bear
3. To take effect; to succeed; as, to bring matters to bear
So to "bear the souls of men" could mean to "bear the soul a body" like a "color is said to bear a body in painting." Note that definition 2 above refers to the production of fruit as opposed to barrenness. This is what D&C 132:17 points out:
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. ' (emphasis added).
So the language of enlargement, increase, and continuation in D&C 132 is about the exalted state of having a glorified body as a non-single divine couple, as a member of the Gods in Abraham chapter 4: who select from the Intelligences (souls) which are then given the opportunity to expand into gods themselves (see Abraham 3). So "they remain separately and singly" means in context they will not continue God's "work and His glory" of bringing forth eternal lives (Moses 1:39); but are like barren fruit that don't replicate its species. For the exalted Supercouples (gods) are now members of the divine species of Gods in Abraham 4, and have glorified bodies (see D&C 76: 58, 70) that radiate like the life giving sun; and are capable as Creator Gods of transforming Intelligences (souls) into mortal bodies that can become Gods. This transforming of Intelligence into mortal bodies who then become gods (or eternal lives) is how the Gods are "enlarged" (see verse 17) and "inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions" (verse 19) after "[entering] into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods" (verse 37). In other words, the gods like kings on thrones expand their kingdom through bringing forth (bearing/having) souls selected to also inherit/bring to pass eternal lives (godhood).
Note that the first definition of the word "righteous" in the 1828 dictionary is:
Just; accordant to the divine law. Applied to persons, it denotes one who is holy in heart, and observant of the divine commands in practice; as a righteous man. Applied to things, it denotes consonant to the divine will or to justice; as a righteous act. It is used chiefly in theology, and applied to God, to his testimonies and to his saints.
When the Saints accepted Joseph's Theology of the Body and were observant in acting out plural marriage for a time, they were engaging in a theological renovation or cleansing of the mind and soul; as they began to rethink the nature of God as not a bodiless nothing without parts or passions, but that God Himself has a body of flesh and bone and was a sexual being with a goddess wife. As these men and women who entered into plural marriage raised up seed genetically they were more importantly raising up seed psychologically (or memetically) in producing a righteous culture; which is one of the main lessons in the Book of Mormon, that of the power of a religious culture in how it shapes a people from the ground up; so that they are either clothed in a mist of darkness or shining with light, having a countenance of misery or joy.
In 1844, Parley P. Pratt (one of the first members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) published the pamphlet titled An Appeal to the Inhabitants of the State of New York; in the section titled Intelligence and Affection, Pratt discusses the effect on the countenance that the body affirming restored gospel has when he writes on pages 37-40 (words in brackets and words highlighted in bold are my own for emphasis):
… Some persons have supposed that our natural affections were the results of a fallen and corrupt nature, and that they are "carnal, sensual, and devilish," and therefore ought to be resisted,
subdued, or overcome as so many evils which prevent our perfection, or progress in the spiritual life. In short, that they should be greatly subdued in this world, and in the world to come entirely done away. And even our intelligence also.
[On the contrary]… our natural affections are planted in us by the Spirit of God, for a wise purpose; and they are the very main-springs of life and happiness-they are the cement of all virtuous and heavenly society-they are the essence of charity, or love; and therefore never fail, but endure forever. …
… All these [LDS] revelations to man, touching this subject, are calculated to approve, encourage, and strengthen these emotions, and to increase and perfect them; that man, enlightened and taught of God, may be more free, more social, cheerful, happy, kind, familial, and lovely than he was before; that he may fill all the relationships of life, and act in every sphere of usefulness with a greater energy, and with a readier mind and a more willing heart.
All the monkish austerity [i.e. the mortifications of a monastic life] all the sadness and reserve, all the unsocial feelings and doings of priests, and monks, and nuns; all the long-facedness, unsocial sadness, groanings, sighs, and mortifications of sectaries [sectarians], whether of ancient convents, where men and women retire from all the busy scenes and pleasures of life, to live a life of celibacy, self-denial and devotion; or whether in the more modern and fashionable circles of the [Protestant] camp meetings, or the "mourners bench."
All these, I say, are expressly and entirely opposed to the spirit, and objects of true religion; they are so many relics of superstition, ignorance, and hypocrisy, and are expressly forbidden, and condemned by our Lord and Savior.
In all these things, man has mistaken the source of happiness; has been dissatisfied with the elements and attributes of his nature, and has tried, and sanght, and prayed, in vain, to make himself into a different being from what the Lord has wisely designed he should be.
The fact is, God made man, male and female; he planted in their bosoms those affections which are calculated to promote their happiness and union. …
... to seek to overcome and subdue the natural affections with which God has endowed him, is not a religious man at all …
Man, know thyself,--study thine own nature,--learn thy powers of body … Learn to act in unison with thy true character, nature and attributes …
… Instead of seeking unto God for a mysterious change to be wrought, or for your affections and attributes to be taken away and subdued [like with those who piously deny their bodily drives and choose permanent celibacy], seek unto him [God] for aid, and wisdom to govern, direct and cultivate them in a manner which will tend to your happiness and exaltation, both in this world and in that which is to come. Yea, pray to him that
every affection, attribute, power and energy of your body and mind may be cultivated, increased, enlarged, perfected and exercised for his glory [see D&C 132: 63] and for the glory and happiness of yourself, and of all those whose good fortune it may be to be associated with you. …
This was the philosophical-seedbed of Joseph's bodily theology, that cultivated and sprang up the righteous body-affirming Mormon People; who ideally had a countenance of joy rather than the miserable faces like those that Pratt describes in the Protestant "camp meetings, or the 'mourners bench" and those engaged in "the mortifications of a monastic life." From this we see clearly that Joseph Smith's Restoration was intended to liberate the Saints by initiating them into a restorative affirmation of the body.
So what my theory does is give the lives of the polygamist women of the 1800s a purpose and gives their lives meaning, i.e. their lives had a design: to expiate (or cleanse away) Augustinian puritanism from the countenance and consciousness of the Saints; and spring up a new liberated and joyful Mormon People.
My theory also avoids the problems of the "fallen prophet theory," by instead saying Joseph was not "fallen" but simply had "weaknesses," and that we just did not fully understand why polygamy was instituted; but that if we instead emphasized polygamy's original liberating intentions when practiced in the 1800s, then it's past utility could be better appreciated; while also seeing it as only temporary, and not an eternal practice; as it has performed its intent and accomplished its goal in liberating the Saints and restoring a positive view of the body (as contained in the Hebrew Bible); while producing a Mormon People who united around and bonded over their radical affirmation of the polygamous lifestyle which mirrored their body-affirming and distinct Godhead theology.
My theisis solves the problem of polygamy being interpreted as a permanent practice in heaven as well. For, instead the understanding that it was a temporary practice. As it was a symbolic sacrifice on the temple altar, and it had a time frame just as the Old Testament sacrifices were temporarily used before they were replaced by the Pauline mysticism of Christ-in-you. Likewise, the Nauvoo temple endowment that initiated certain Saints into plural marriage, was a temporary ritual practice: that was designed to expiate anti-body theology from the psyche and implant the theological seeds of the true nature of God; in order to raise up an enlightened seedbed of ideas (meaning the sprouting of a new cultural consciousness among the Saints); which on my theory was accomplished between 1842 and 1890. Thus polygamy was never meant to be a permanent practice nor an eternal principle in heaven; as it was a midrashic ritual to produce a righteous seed (People) that would spring up a new consciousness in the form of a new branch as the Mormon People.
On my theory, the words in D&C 132 that sound as if one must practice plural marriage to enter the highest heaven, are words that were designed to merely work on the hearts and minds of men and women in the 1800s (but were not meant to be taken literally for all Saints for all time); for just as the permanently neverending "eternal Hellfire torment" language in The Book of Mormon was only meant to motivate Protestant readers (familiar with that type of language) but was actually not meant to be taken literally (see D&C 19: 5-12); likewise, the permanent sounding language of plural marriage in D&C 132 was also meant to work on the hearts and minds of the Saints in the mid 1800s; but is not to be taken literally by the Saints today, for the working upon the hearts and minds of the Saints to encourage polygamy had been accomplished by 1900.
For those who are drawn toward non-Brighamite versions of Mormonism, yet they don't believe in eternal polygamy, my theory allows them to revere Smith as inspired and to see polygamy as only a temporary practice and not necessary to be exalted in the highest degree of heaven. With my theory, one can be honest about history and recognize and acknowledge Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. But they are now able to put it in perspective as a temporary practice, as a spiritual exercise in overcoming Augustinian puritanism and the body-denying sectarian Creeds; thus the purpose of it was fulfilled by 1900 with the evident change in mindset among the Saints today; and thus in my view polygamy has permanently ended, both on earth and in heaven.
Part 2:
In her book Paul: The Pagan's Apostle, biblical scholar Paula Fredriksen points out at Location 2,549 of the ebook:
[The] theme of the nearness of the End shapes the substance of Paul’s pastoral advice. Some members of the Thessalonian ekklesia had died in advance of Christ’s return, surprising survivors—and giving us an index of their (and of Paul’s) timeframe. Paul writes to console them while they “wait for [God’s] son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the coming wrath” (1 Thes 1.10), and to describe for them how the final events will unwind (4.15–18, quoted above). But he also writes to reassert how close these events are, for the recipients of this letter will be alive, too, at the second coming. “May your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thes 5.23; cf. 1 Cor 11.30: such deaths before the Parousia may be punitive, therefore exceptional). So close is the End that Paul can reasonably instruct his gentiles in Corinth to foreswear sexual activity, if they are able.
As we can see, the consensus of most critical biblical scholars (without a theological agenda), conclude that Paul’s advice in 1 Corinthians 13 for virgins and widows to not marry and for those who are able to be celibate, is based on his belief that Christ would return very soon. Fredriksen goes on to write at Location 3,163
How much longer, then, before history reaches this happy climax? “You know the time,” Paul tells the Roman community, “that it is now the hour for you to rise up from sleep. Salvation is nearer to us than when we first became convinced [RSV: “believed”]. The night is far gone; the day has drawn close” (Rom 13.11–12).
After repeatedly pointing out Paul's warning of the impending End-Times coming very soon throughout her book; Fredriksen then writes about how the early Pauline communities dealt with Christ not returning soon as expected, by continuing to move the expected date further forward based on the Pauline communities adding new criteria to complete as reasons for why the End-Times hasn’t occurred just yet; as she writes at Location 1,950:
If not at that Passover, then surely by the following Pentecost/Shavuot (the story implicit in Acts 1–2). No? Then soon, especially once the message moved out into the Diaspora (c. 33?). Still not yet? Then at any time—“like a thief in the night” (1 Thes 5.2)—now that pagans too, through the gospel, were turning in numbers to Israel’s god (c. 33–49?). No? When? Perhaps once the “full number” of the pagan nations was brought into Christ’s assemblies (c. 56?; this is Paul’s view, Rom 11.25–29). Or perhaps only once the ten tribes “lost” in the Diaspora were reunited with Israel-according-to-the-flesh (the view, perhaps, of Paul’s circumcising competition). “Where is the promise of his coming?” cried some weary insiders finally, in the early years of the second century. “For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation” (2 Pet 3.4). Their impatience masked a silver lining, this Christian writer reassured his listeners. These very doubts, insisted “Peter,” were themselves proof that “the last days” had arrived (3.3). By the middle decade of the first century—the period of the factious meeting in Jerusalem, of the circumcising missions to Galatia, and of Paul’s letters more generally—all of these early Christ-followers must have realized that their initial expectations had not been met. Jesus had not returned. The dead had not been raised. The evil powers of the age had not been defeated. Israel was not gathered in. The world still worshiped idols. The Kingdom had not come. Worse, the traditional prophetic scenario—from which the kerygma, in proclaiming a messiah crucified, raised, and returning, had already deviated—had gone awry. Though some pagans, disavowing their own gods, continued to join the movement in numbers, the mission to Jewish communities seems to have foundered (Rom 9 passim). What sense could be made of this unforeseen situation? How could the scattered communities of Christ, faced with these facts, continue to hope in the euangelion [good news/gospel], to hold to their conviction that Jesus truly was the messiah, and to trust that his resurrection had indeed signaled the beginning of the turning of the age, the first fruits of the general resurrection, the proximity of his victorious return, the defeat of lower gods, the nearness of the End?
The biblical scholar Marcus Borg, and many others, make it clear in their talks and books that Paul was simply wrong about his expectation of the second coming of Jesus coming soon. Yet Borg goes on to honor and respect Paul as a great figure; as do I. This is the view of many Christians in-the-know regarding Paul being simply wrong about the imminent End-Times. Can we then offer the same grace to Joseph Smith? At Location 3,190, Fredricksen writes (words in bold my own for emphasis):
… it is upon his gentile [Pauline] community that the ends of the ages have come (katēntēken, 1 Cor 10.11). And his reading of scripture, clearly, not only confirmed him in his convictions: it also articulated for him how he had to proceed. Heaven had commissioned Paul specifically to go to pagans, to turn them to Israel’s god.
Paul’s expectation was that Gentiles in Christ (i.e. possessed by, participating in, the resurrection power of Christ) would join Torah-observant Jews as one Israel when Christ returned. In short, the earthly world of mortal (perishable) bodies was ending soon and God would soon set up a Kingdom of resurrected immortal Gentile-Christians and religious Jews as one Israel on a new earth. So Paul’s admonishing the early saints to be celibate for example, was based on his “reading of scripture” which “articulated for him how he had to proceed.” Similar to Paul feeling called to gather in the pagans/gentiles, Joseph Smith felt called by Heaven to go specifically to the Native Americans (whom Joseph Smith believed to be the Laminates of the Book of Mormon) and turn them to Israel’s God. This commission to the Lamanites may have contributed to Joseph's belief that he needed to restore plural marriage as a way to gather the Lamanites into the Fold of Christ. As The Joseph Smith Papers Podcast Back to Kirtland, City of Revelation explains in Episode 1: “Missionaries in Kirtland” explains:
Joseph Smith receives revelations in the fall of 1830. So this is only a few months after the church was organized, and one of the revelations tells him that there should be a city—a Zion built, in the language of that time—built on the border of the Lamanites. And Joseph Smith and others understood the Lamanites to mean American Indians. Lamanites, of course, is one of the people in the Book of Mormon, and they understood the American Indians to be descendants of the Lamanites. So, one of the revelations told them there would be a city built. Another of the revelations called for men to serve as missionaries to the Lamanites to take the gospel of Jesus Christ, as found in the Book of Mormon, to them. …
Source: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/kirtland-city-of-revelation-podcast-episode-1-transcript
The Book of Mormon speaks of the gathering of the Lamanites (presumed by Smith to be the Native Americans who are Israelites) into the fold, that is Gentile/Protestant-Christians and Israelite-Lamanites united in Christ as one church/ekklesia. This clearly did not happen soon as Joseph anticipated. So that whereas Paul tried to integrate Jews and Gentiles through the belief and practice of the mystical Messiah-in-you -- using midrash and the concept of the corporate body in Stoicism, based on apocalyptic End-Times expectations -- Joseph Smith sought to integrate Native Americans and Protestant-Christians through his Book of Mormon acting as a kind of Fifth Gospel. In other words, both men (Paul and Joseph) had noble intentions but were mistaken about the timeframe of their goals of integration. This similar goal is encapsulated in two scriptures below, the first by Paul and the next was composed by Joseph Smith:
Galatians 3:28 (NKJV):
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
The Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 26:33:
and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.
Joseph Smith also likely believed that plural marriage and temple rituals acted as an integrative and unifying means to create social unity and social harmony. LDS defender, Brian Hales, who has written extensively on Mormon polygamy, writes on his website:
Nauvoo polygamist Joseph B. Noble recalled in 1883: “That the Prophet Joseph told him that the doctrine of celestial marriage was revealed to him while he was engaged on the work of translation of the scriptures [Joseph Smith’s revision of the Bible], but when the communication was first made, the Lord stated that the time for the practice of that principle had not arrived.”[3]
The Prophet [Joseph Smith] was working with Genesis in February and March of 1831.4 There, he would have encountered the accounts of polygamous patriarchs like Abraham (Genesis 16:1–6) and Jacob (Genesis 29:30).
… On June 19, 1831, Joseph Smith, W. W. Phelps, Martin Harris, Sidney Rigdon, and several others traveled to Jackson County, Missouri, on a
missionary journey arriving there a few weeks later.
Reportedly while they were on this mission Joseph received a revelation relevant to polygamy. Some of the missionaries were to marry Native American women.
1830s Mission to the Lamanites:
In 1861, thirty years after the revelation was reportedly dictated, W. W. Phelps wrote a letter to President Young sharing the substance of the revelation.5
The details found in the revelation raise questions about whether Phelps was actually recalling its content or was working from contemporaneous notes or from some other source. The statement is far too detailed for a three-day-old recollection let alone a thirty-year-old one.
That Phelps would bring this to the attention of President Young so many years after it occurred is curious and appears somewhat random as well.
Phelps ended his letter to President Young by writing:
About three years after this was given, I asked brother Joseph [Smith, Jr.] privately, how “we,” that were mentioned in the revelation could take wives from the “natives”—as we were all married men? He replied instantly “In th[e] same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Katurah [Keturah]; and Jacob took Rachel Bilhah and Zilpah: by revelation—the saints of the Lord are always directed by revelation."[6]
Whatever Joseph taught at that time regarding plural marriage apparently did not make much of a stir among the early Saints who heard it because no other contemporaneous accounts are found. In addition, when the practice was started in Nauvoo, it appears that no one recalled it, and the Prophet never referenced the incident.
Source: https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history/polygamy-early-1830s/
In other words, if this document is reliable, which is questionable, Joseph Smith is consistently trying to unify Native Americans (Lamanties) and Gentile-Christians into one unified people through the Book of Mormon and perhaps by plural marriage. As I argue in my document, Peeling Away Skins of Blindness & Putting on Skins of Brightness the Book of Mormon is actually not racist despite what some Critics say, but in fact it is more likely anti-racist; and it elevates Native Americans to the status of Israelites. Thus, the Book of Mormon, regardless of its historicity, is at the very least meant to motivate American Protestant Christians to welcome Native Americans into North American Christianity without prejudice. So plural marriages with Native Americans, like Paul's mystical messiah in you, could have been for Joseph Smith another additional way to create Zion.
Turns out though, that just as Paul was wrong about the imminent End-Times, Joseph Smith was simply mistaken in this belief that the Israelite Lamanites were the Native Americans. So the LDS Church changed the introduction to the 2006 edition of the Book of Mormon. According to Deseret News:
Past editions of [the Book of Mormon said] all of the people chronicled in the book "were destroyed, except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." The new introduction reads much the same, but says the Lamanites "are among the ancestors of the American Indians."
(Source)
The early sections of the Doctrine & Covenant repeatedly speaks of the second coming of Christ happening soon. But that never happened as expected. Eventually Joseph Smith dealt with the anxiety of an impending End-Times by basically telling Mormons to essentially relax, that the second coming was not going to occur before he turned 85 years old. As we can see from this, Joseph Smith like Paul, while feeling like he was a conduit of Christ in revealing God’s will, was not immune from revealing ideas or concepts that did not pan out. In other words, both Paul and Joseph were fallible yet had good intentions.
At Location 2,638 of her book, Fredrickson writes that “Paul’s definitions of Christ and his view of Christ’s role in the imminent redemption of the cosmos [rested] on messianic, charismatic biblical exegesis,[9] not on systematic dogma or doctrine.” In other words, as other scholars point out, Paul was using midrash (aka figural reading) to exegete/interpret Old Testament scripture in writing his letters and epistles. Can Joseph Smith be seen as providing his own biblical exegesis using midrash like Paul did in order to produce the Book of Mormon? This is in fact the view of many LDS scholars, including LDS historian Patrick Mason, that the Book of Mormon was formed through midrash which view is explained at churchistrue.com. If Paul was justified in interpreting Scripture through midrash and him making mistakes at times, and yet revered by Chrstians, can Joseph Smith be given the same leeway and grace?
The official LDS Church Essay Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo, states:
The revelation on plural marriage was not written down until 1843, but its early verses suggest that part of it emerged from Joseph Smith’s study of the Old Testament in 1831. People who knew Joseph well later stated he received the revelation about that time.[4] The revelation, recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 132, states that Joseph prayed to know why God justified Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon in having many wives. The Lord responded that He had commanded them to enter into the practice.[5]
Latter-day Saints understood that they were living in the latter days, in what the revelations called the “dispensation of the fulness of times.”[6] Ancient principles—such as prophets, priesthood, and temples—would be restored to the earth. Plural marriage was one of those ancient principles.
Retrieved March 2023
Note what is implied in that last sentence with my words in italics for emphasis, “Latter-day Saints understood that they were living in the latter days, in what the revelations called the 'dispensation of the fulness of times.' Ancient principles—such as prophets, priesthood, and temples—would be restored to the earth. Plural marriage was one of those ancient principles.” Note the emphasis on how they understood it was the last days, but yet clearly they were not in the last days in the sense of Christ returning soon! Yet this understanding of restoring the principle of plural marriage because it was understood to be the last days, we shall see served a larger purpose even if it did not inaugurate the End-Times as they expected.
It is my belief that the "dispensation of the fullness of times" for the restoration of the priesthood -- allowing Joseph Smith to act as a temple priest in restoring polygamy in the "last days" during the last dispensation for practicing Old Testament principles like polygamy -- occurred between the 1840s and 1890. What this means, as we shall see, is that temple ordinances and the priesthood, especially the role of Joseph Smith as temple priest offering Mormons up to God via plural marriage, was fulfilled by 1890; and thus the temple rituals which are based on plural marriage are no longer necessary. I will discuss this in greater detail below.
Again, Joseph ended up postponing expectations of when the second coming would occur until he was at least 85 years old in February 1891. As an LDS apologetic website puts it, “This would be shortly after Joseph's 85th birthday (he was born 23 December 1805)” (Source). Note that the LDS Church (Brighamite sect) told the world that the practice of polygamy had ended by 1890. The current 2023 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, for Official Declaration 1, states:
The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7–8 and Jacob 2:27, 30). Following a revelation to Joseph Smith, the practice of plural marriage was instituted among Church members in the early 1840s (see section 132). From the 1860s to the 1880s, the United States government passed laws to make this religious practice illegal. These laws were eventually upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church.
As we can see Joseph Smith instituted plural marriage because it was "understood" that it was the last days (or End-Times), just as Paul encouraged celibacy because he understood it to be the End-Times. Yet just as Paul’s ideas served a larger purpose even if he was mistaken, can Smith’s implementation of plural marriage have been for a larger purpose as well? What are we to make of the second coming being postponed until Smith was 85 in 1891 and the LDS Church ending the practice of plural marriage in 1890, just a year prior? Are these dates correlated and their close proximity noteworthy? In my view, this allows for the interpretation of plural marriage as one of God’s strategies during a particular phase, which I discuss in more detail on my website The Phases and Strategies of God.
The strategy of God here being that of postponing any expectation of the return of Christ until at least 1891 in D&C 130, and thus allowing Joseph Smith to basically declare that it was the last days in D&C 132:7 but within the context of D&C 130, so that "last days" were meant the last days of belief in the false Creeds (that denied God's body). In other words, applying modern midrash through hindsight, it was the last days among the nineteenth century saints when it came to holding false beliefs based on the sectarian Creeds. This is why in Joseph's 1838 recounting of the first vision he says "the [heavenly] Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight" in The Joseph Smith History verse 19. What was abominable is likely in part the common Creeds' denial of God's body, as this LDS website puts it:
Beyond the setting and tone of the 1838 [first vision] account is the consideration of what creeds specifically Joseph may have had in mind with this account. …
Deriving from the Latin credo, meaning “I believe,” a creed, at its most basic definition, is “a statement of the shared beliefs of (an often religious) community in the form of a fixed formula summarizing core tenets.”[5]
… the content of the [sectarian] creed that riles Latter-day Saints [today], such as in the case with the Westminster Confession of 1647, which affirms: “There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible . . .”[7] This formulation of the nature of God runs directly at odds with the Latter-day Saint belief in an embodied God who is knowable through revelation and certainly not immutable, without passions (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22–23; Moses 7:26–31).
Source: https://pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/are-the-christian-creeds-really-an-abomination/
From this we can surmise that the first vision was calling "abominable" the Creed that denied God the Father's body and rejected His passions; which view of God as body-less and passionless was reflected in the puritanical culture that despised the body and human sexuality based on this body-denying Creed. Thus the lasts days meant the dispensation of practicing plural marriage, as early Latter Day Saints would live out the true doctrine of God from the 1840s to 1890 by practicing plural marriage as a way to ingrain the true identity of God as an embodied being into their consciousness; and thus expiate Augustinian Creedalism from the consciousness of Mormons between the 1840s and 1890, as the lasts days of restoring Old Testament principles like polygamy. Thus it was the last days for believing in the abominable Creeds for the Mormons.
As I argue in my document, The Secret Doctrine of God: Moving Toward A Theology of the Body, the temple ritual of Nauvoo can be seen as a radical affirmation of the body: with the intention of changing the mind of the Latter Day Saints from seeing bodily life as cursed and depraved (as taught by Catholicism and Protestantism), and instead embracing life in the body more fully as good and holy. Thus Joseph Smith can be seen as using the midrash of the Book of Mormon and the temple ritual, as a way to affirm God’s good creation and create a harmonious society around the conceptual ideal of Zion.
So it is my view that when Joseph Smith dictated D&C 132:7, saying it was "the last days" for "the restoration of all things", I think it is reasonable for a Mormon today to interpret that as referring to it being the last days for practicing plural marriage. Again, in D&C 130, Joseph reveals that the Lord would not return before 1891, which I interpret to mean that the sacrificial offering of plural marriage in temples would end by 1890 when Christ returned "spiritually" through the US government forcing the LDS Church to end the practice; which would be the end (or last days) of temple sacrifices and plural marriage.
When the United States Government entered the holy sanctuary of the Salt Lake City temple (just as the Romans defiled the Jerusalem temple's sanctuary in 70 AD), the "last days" of restoring Old Testament principles like polygamy had ended; and the necessity of the temple had ended (just as the need for the Jerusalem temple sacrifices had ended in 70 AD). Thus the same pattern had repeated itself. 1890 marked the end of the days of Old Testament polygamy, just as 70 AD marked the end of sacrifices in a physical temple. So that just as biblical scholars believe that a mini apocalypse occurs in 70 AD according to the Gospels, where Jesus predicts the destruction of the Jerusalem temple by the Roman armies. So too, unbeknownst to Joseph Smith, I think he had predicted the end of plural marriage (as a sacrificial offering in temples) by 1891, when he revealed in D&C 130 that he didn't believe Christ would return before 1891. He understood Christ was not returning sooner than 1891, which just happens to be a year after the LDS Church ended the practice of plural marriage in temples. Just as 70 AD was predicted by Jesus, I think Joseph's prediction of 1891 was similar to 70 AD in that Joseph indirectly predicted the last days of plural marriages performed in Mormon temples. In other words, 70 AD marked the explosion of gentile conversions to Christianity as Paul's Christ-in-you, without the need for circumcision or temple rites, increased the influx of Gentiles into the Jesus Movement through Paul's good news; as there was no need for a temple in Paul's agape mysticism, and so agape love became the way to worship God, and even most Jews stopped using the temple after 70 AD and developed Rabbinic Judism. In other words, after 70 AD God fully moved from dwelling in a temple to His Spirit manifesting itself outside of walls and beyond blood sacrifices and through indwelling individuals' love. So similarly, the year 1891 can be seen as the Spirit of Christ ending the sacrificial ritual of plural marriage in the Mormon temple (which was based on affirming the body), as now the Spirit could inspire the Latter Day Saints to affirm the body outside of temples. Just as 70 AD ended blood sacrifices, which Jesus predicted in the 30s AD, 1890 can be seen as the end of practicing plural marriage as a sacrifice, and Joseph can be seen as predicting in this in the 1840s in D&C 130, in that he believed Christ would not return until 1891 or after. So 1891 was when Christ returned "spiritually" with His spirit more fully enlightening Mormons outside of temple rituals involving polygamy. In other words, just as Christ returned momentarily in 70 AD in the form of the Roman army to destroy the Jerusalem temple in order to inaugurate the spiritual temple of Christians as the post temple Body of Christ; so too, Joseph Smith had received insight that Christ would not return until 1891 which was as I see it a kind of premonition of Christ using the United States Government to end plural marriage by 1890 by forcing the LDS Church to end the practice; and then pouring out greater light and knowledge on Mormons to further embrace belief in God having a body but doing so without the temple rituals. It is my view then, that from 1891 onward, just as Christ had come in 70 AD to orchestrate the end of temple sacrifices back then, 1891 marked the year when Christ completed the orchestrated end of plural marriage sacrifices in LDS temples.
What this interpretation of events means is that all the temple ritual elements related to plural marriage had also become nill and void by 1890, allowing Christ to fully pour out his spirit in 1891; which made the temple rituals obsolete and no longer necessary. As the whole purpose of Mormon temples was based on restoring true Masonry and learning and knowing the true doctrine of God having a body, while the temple altar was for the sacrificial offering of plural marriages which would solidify the doctrine of God's body by affirming human sexuality and reproduction. Hence the whole ritual was designed to change the minds of the Mormon People to embrace the belief that God the Father has a body, which had been accomplished by 1891; and so the temple ritual since then hasn't been necessary.
This would mean that any temples built or used from 1891 onward should not be used with the ritual designed in Nauvoo which was for practicing plural marriage. Thus the temple ritual should ideally return to the original ritual format of the Kirtland temple or something similarly basic in worship style, omitting ritual elements related to plural marriage.
As Patrick at uncorrelatedmormonism.com writes in his article Temple Recommend: The Gatekeeper of God, unlike the current Brighamite temples today:
.. the Kirtland temple…had no entrance requirements. You had to answer no ["worthiness"] questions and didn’t need to prove your worthiness to anyone. … The Kirtland temple was honestly not the same as the temples we have today. It was much closer to a meeting house; however, it was a dedicated building for worship. Therefore, for purposes of sanctification it was quite similar to modern LDS temples. In addition to a lack of entrance requirements, there also was a distinct lack of worthiness interviews or anything similar.
… in ancient times, the entire purpose of the [Israelite] temple was to atone for the unworthiness of God’s people. Today [in the Brighamite LDS Church] it is to further spiritually increase an already worthy person. This seems like a major shift in focus that many don’t consider.
Patrick goes on to discuss other problems with the current worthiness interview system in the LDS Church. For our purposes here, as Partick points out, on my thesis Brighamite temples today should in fact operate more like they did in Kirkland at this point. For as Patrick put it, "the entire purpose of the [Israelite] temple was to atone for the unworthiness of God’s people", and on so my thesis the atoning expiation of the abdominal Creeds (that were unworthy of God's true sensual nature) from the consciousness of the Mormon People, had been accomplished by 1890.
Other Restoration Branches have done just this in removing any "gatekeepers" (and an purity interview system) while changing the rituals to reflect something more similar to the Kirtland era; such as with the Community of Christ (RLDS) temple; while the Remnant Fellowship (aka Restoration Movement) currently meets mostly in homes following the pattern of the early Pauline Christian communities; while redefining "church" as not necessarily meeting in a church building and pointing out that Joseph Smith was trying to resurrect the ancient concept of Peoplehood; and they intend to build a temple someday but it will not include Nauvoo temple ritual elements (which again were based around plural marriage which the Remnant Fellowship rejects).
Crafting Theology Using Temple Concepts
In the book 15 New Testament Words of Life: A New Testament Theology for Real Life by Nijay K. Gupta, on page 164 he writes:
God called Israel to be special, set apart from the other peoples, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exod 19:6). They must behave differently, imitate their God, because "You shall be consecrated to me" (Exod 22:31; cf. Deity 28:9, Ps 34:9; Is a 62:12). ... Walter Brueggmann explains that Israel was called to represent YHWH [Jehovah] and embody his redemptive work on earth.
What would it then mean to imitate and embody Jehovah as a sexual being with a wife, as Joseph Smith discovered studying Hebrew and other sources? God liberated the Israelites (God's People) from bondage once, would he do it again? If Jehovah is "more liberal in His views" then would he "set apart" (make holy) Mormons to live beyond the bondage of the body-denying and repressive Sectarian Creed? Would Jehovah provide an escape, a sacrifice (see D&C 132: 50-51), to expiate the abominable sin of the body-denying Creed and make holy (set apart) Mormons as His People: who would affirm the flesh-body as good by becoming polygamists as a temporary sacrifice to change their consciousness?
On pages 166-167, Gupta writes:
In [1 Peter] chapter 2, Peter develops his holiness exhortation using metaphors from cultic life: temple, priesthood, and sacrifices--images familiar to both Jews and gentiles. For most people in the ancient world, temple and altar rituals were about placating the gods through material offerings, sacrifices and prayers. These were gestures of goodwill, humility, submission, thanksgiving, and as necessary, penitence. Peter takes these common experiences and reorients them toward a transformed communal identity for Christians. ... "Come to him" Peter urges (2:4). ... be formed with the living Stone (Christ) into a new social structure, a Spirit-house and a holy priesthood (2:5a). Gather for worship, offering Spirit-sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ (2:5b). ... Peter's use of holiness language and imagery is quite masterful in this letter. ... Not bloody animals or plumes of smoke, [like in the physical cultic Jerusalem temple] ... but...through the purifying blood of Jesus Christ ... [and through Christians] who gather for worship and [their] offering...[of] goodness, mercy, love, beauty...as they conduct his holy light throughout the world.
Can Joseph Smith be equally respected as producing language and imagery using cultic temple language in an equally masterful way? Can the early Utah-based Saints of the mid 1800s be seen as offering to God sacrificial worship by offering up plural marriages on the altar as an embodied lifestyle that affirmed God and His' wife's sensual body and God's good physical creation; affirming the revelations that all bodily matter is "spirit matter" and the same touchfelt "sociality" that exists here does and will exist there in Heaven?
Seed Sprouting a New Consciousness
Joseph Smith's use of the metaphor of “seed” in D&C 132: 19, 30, 63 and Abraham 2:11, can be seen as a midrash similar to Paul’s use of referring to Abraham’s sperma. As Fredricksen writes at Location 2,022:
… the full arc of the story of the covenant between Abraham and God spanned from Genesis 12 to Genesis 17, and God’s commanding circumcision. By following Abraham’s example, these [other] apostles perhaps urged, Paul’s gentiles too would enter into the covenant, thus the redemption promised to Abraham’s sperma, his descendants [compare the LDS Book of Abraham 2:11]. By turning these many nations/ethnē into Jews, the gospel would sweep them into the redemption of Abraham’s descendants vouchsafed by the returning Christ. Some such argument would certainly help to explain Paul’s own contravening emphases when retelling these same biblical stories to his Galatian communities. Paul focused instead on Genesis 15, and Abraham’s pistis, his “fidelity to” or “confidence in” God’s promise. It was through this pistis that Abraham was “righteoused” (Gal 3.6, citing Hab 2.4 …)
In other words, Gentile-Christians did not need to be of Abraham’s sperma/seed nor converted to Judaism by circumcision, but were included into Israel through faith (pistis), baptism and participation in Christ, followed by acts of charitable agape love. At Location 3,178, Fredricksen writes (words in bold my own for emphasis):
This movement of Romans opened with the temple and Jerusalem (site of God’s “glory” and of his cult, Rom 9.4), and closes with the temple and Jerusalem. As Christ’s minister to the nations, Paul like a priest “sacrifices” the gospel, “so that the offering of the nations might be acceptable, having been sanctified by holy spirit” (15.16; this “sanctified sacrifice” can be understood both as the collection from the gentile assemblies in support of Jerusalem’s poor, vv. 25–27, and as the sanctified gentiles themselves).
Paul, as a kind of temple priest offering sacrifices, writes in Romans 12:1-2, 4 (Expanded Bible):
12 ·So [Therefore] brothers and sisters, since God has shown us great mercy, I ·beg [urge; appeal to] you to offer your ·lives [selves; L bodies] as a living sacrifice to him. Your offering must be ·only for God [holy] and pleasing to him, which is the ·spiritual [or authentic; true; or appropriate; fitting; or rational; reasonable] way for you to worship. 2 Do not be ·shaped by [conformed to; pressed into a mold by] this ·world [age]; instead be ·changed within [transformed] by ·a new way of thinking [or changing the way you think; L the renewing of your mind]. Then you will be able to ·decide [discern; test and approve] what ·God wants for you [is God’s will]; you will know what is good and pleasing to him and what is perfect. … 4 [L For just as] Each one of us has ·a [L one] body with many parts, and these parts all have different ·uses [functions].
Paul as a type of priest is sacrificing Gentiles to God through their acting as “living sacrifices.” Including the call to be celibate if they feel able (1 Cor. 7). The goal was as Paul puts it in verse 2 cited above, for them to develop “a new way of thinking [or changing the way you think; the renewing of your mind].” Thus, sacrificing one’s body in this way served the larger purpose of changing the mind of the early 1st century Saints toward being more compassionate, other-centered, caring and peaceful (and the other fruits of the Spirit). This counteracted the Might-makes-Right morality of much of pagan religion and philosophy of the time. By turning more inward and exercising self-control and being more other-centered, a new consciousness was able to ripen and emerge among the early Christians as they bore the fruit of agape love; as they were known for their radical hospitality and care for others. This led to a radical change in the meaning of morality over time, creating greater solidarity and civility which we moderns enjoy today. This is evident when one read’s Nietzche’s On the Genealogy of Morality and Tom Holland’s book Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World. Thus Paul’s error of an imminent End-Times and problematic advice to be celibate served the larger purpose of basically changing the world for the better!
Joseph as Temple Priest
Can one say the same thing about Joseph Smith? Joseph Smith, similar to Paul, saw himself as Christ's minister to those on the American continent (both Lamanite and Gentiles). Just as Paul as priest offers up Gentiles to God as a sacrificial offering in Romans 12:1-2; 15:16, and offers up the gospel (good news), Joseph Smith also acted as a priest who offers up "sacrifices" to God through the new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage during the last dispensation; so that the offering of plural marriages might be acceptable as a sanctifying sacrifice. Thus we read in D&C 132 (words in bold my own for emphasis):
7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him [Joseph Smith] who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed [Joseph Smith], whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.
8 Behold, mine house [temple] is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.
9 Will I accept of an offering [sacrifice], saith the Lord, that is not made in my name?
40 I am the Lord thy God, and I gave unto thee, my servant Joseph, an appointment, and restore all things. Ask what ye will, and it shall be given unto you according to my word.
41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, …
44 And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent and hath not broken her vow [see verse 7], and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you, my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many.
45 For I have conferred upon you [Joseph Smith] the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I [the Lord] restore all things, and make known unto you all things in due time.
Thus plural marriage was a sacrificial offering with Joseph acting as temple priest in the last days of "restoring all things" including (Old Testament polygamy), similar to Paul offering Gentiles as living sacrifices. In other words, just as Paul interpreted his role as a kind of temple priest offering up the Gentiles, Joseph saw his role as a temple priest with the "keys" to offer up plural marriage vows as a sacrifice to God.
The Last Days of Restoring Old Testament Priciples
Note the emphasis in D&C 132: 7 that the institution of plural marriage and the power to seal polygamous unions was based on the belief that Smith was living in the last days and was called to restore all things in the Old Testament:
D&C 132: 7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him [Joseph Smith] who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed [Joseph Smith], whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, …
Yet just as Paul was mistaken about the last days, Joseph Smith seems to have been confused as to when the End-Times would occur, if at all. Thus, again the LDS apologetic site below reveals some interesting facts:
Joseph Smith did make several interesting statements about seeing the Savior. B.H. Roberts in History of the Church notes the Prophet's remark in 1835 when he is reported to have said that,
...it was the will of God that those who went Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh—even fifty-six years should wind up the scene.[1]
In Feb 1835, fifty six years in the future was February 1891. This would be shortly after Joseph's 85th birthday (he was born 23 December 1805).
Joseph made continuous reference to this date in light of a revelation which he reported. It is recorded in D&C 130:14-17, and it is clear that the revelation leaves the exact date of Christ's second coming much more uncertain. Whatever Joseph meant or understood by "wind up the scene," it must be interpreted in light of the revelation as he reported it, and the conclusions which he drew from it.
Source: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Did_Joseph_Smith_prophesy_that_Jesus_Christ_would_return_in_1890%3F
From these facts, it is clear to me that like Paul, Smith did not know for sure when the second coming would occur. I think he believed he was articulating actual revelations, but he was a fallible human, and so he is constantly working through things and what he thinks the Lord is revealing to him. It is interesting though that in April 2, 1843 (when he composed D&C 130) he clearly believes the Lord would not appear before 1891, yet just a few months later in July 12, 1843, he composes D&C 132 with verse 7 revealing that plural marriage was to be instituted in the 1840s because it is the last days. So which is it? Are the last days the 1840s or 1890s? I think this is rememdied when we allow Joseph Smith to be a fallible prophet who was using midrash to compose scritupre. Thus he intended to relieve anxiety of an imminent second coming in D&C 130, so as not to trouble the Saints with stress and anxiety; meanwhile, with the End-Times postponed, the focus on this life, this earth, and one’s sensual body could be focused on; and plural marriage is justified as holding the power to seal polygamous couples in the last days, meaning the last days when polyamy would be practiced. Thus 1840 to 1890 became the "last days" of the restoration of all things, with 1890 being the end of temple sacrifices like plural marriages performed on altars.
God Has a Body
So the last days of practicing polygamy was in the 1800s, which was meant as a sacrifice to change the minds of Mormons. Hence we read in D&C 132:
36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
51 … as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.
Plural marriage was an offering of sacrifice, meant to expiate the Creeds from the mind of the Saints. In Joseph Smith-History 1:18–19 we see that the Creeds that deny God’s body are an abomination. The sacrifice of polygamy (instead of monogamous marriage) on the altar in the LDS temple was meant, as I see it, to remove the sin of Sectarian Creedalism that denied God’s body and His true sensual nature. Thus, the sacrifice of plural marriage was an offering of expiation, as a show of obedience to provide a remission of the abdominal sin of the belief in the Sectarian Creeds (that preached a bodiless deity without parts or passions), that denied God's body and His true nature (as a physically alive Exalted Man composed of spirit matter). This is why, for example, prior to 1990 the LDS temple ritual depicted a sectarian Preacher presenting the false doctrine of a God without parts and passions. According to an 1923 transcript, Adam is depicted as basically saying he doesn’t “believe a word of it [the sectarian Creed]” and awaits heavenly messengers from God to reveal the true embodied nature of God the Father. When the heavenly messengers arrive Adam says that the Preacher “tells of a God without a body … I cannot believe it.” The heavenly messenger Peter says to God the Father (named Elohim) that “Lucifer is there with a preacher [on earth] who is trying to teach him [Adam] all manner of false doctrine; yet amid it all he still remains true and faithful.” In other words, Adam in the ritual learns the true nature of God, i.e. the true doctrine of God having a body. Thus the ritual has the endowment initiate, the candidate for exaltation, acting as Adam (i.e. they are Adam) and thus they too are to be enlightened like Adam in rejecting the sectarian Creeds that denied God’s embodied. Thus the temple initiate entering a plural marriage is in context about the Mormon candidate for godhood (D&C 132: 15-20) accepting the true doctrine of God’s physical body. I discuss this in more detail in my document here.
Paul & Joseph as Temple Priests
So just as Paul offered the Gentiles as an offering in the form of their collection to support the poor and their virginal/celibate piety as female and male "brides" engaged to the Male Messiah (see 2 Corinthians 11:2) as willing sacrificial martyrs; similarly, though differently, Joseph was offering up nineteenth century Mormons and their sacrifice of polygamy, so that they could "learn how to be Gods [themselves]" (as Smith admonished in the King Follett Discourse) by engaging in the sex-affirming lifestyle of polygamy; which would ideally expiate Augustinian Creedalism from their consciousness while acting out God's true bodily nature in their sex-affirming behavior; and the Mormons could build up both genetic and psychological seed that would sprout a spiritual culture: the Mormon People (Zion).
"Above" the Law
Just as Paul felt called to resist circumcision being placed upon his Gentile converts by Judaizers, Joseph Smith felt called to resist "legal monogamous marriage contracts'' that bound Mormons to a Gentile/Sectarian piety based on belief in a God without sexual parts or passions, that was based on a vilification of earthly matter and the doctrine of Original Sin (that Joseph Smith repudiated in the second Article of Faith). Like Paul's Christ-in-you that revoked the necessity of the Mosaic Law for Gentiles, celestial marriage (plural marriage) revoked the American Laws of Marriage and the puritanical sectarian piety of the Creeds. In other words, legal marriage contracts were seen as similar to the Mosaic Law in that those who entered a celestial marriage were no longer bound to American Law on Marriage. Just as Paul's converts were no longer bound to the Mosaic Law after baptism-into-Christ -- representing their burial and rising mystically with Christ-in-them (which freed them from the Law) -- similarly, Mormons who married polygamously in the temple were not committing adultery but were freed from the constraints of marital monogamy through the temple sealing. Just as Paul’s Christians had been baptized into Christ and thus symbolically dying which freed them from the Mosaic Law which was meant for unbaptized religious-Jews, Joseph's Mormons were released from the bonds of monogamous marriages when they were sealed in the temple polygamously. This freed them from the Law by the new covenant (the new law of celestial marriage). As D&C 132 puts it:
41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, …
... 45 For I have conferred upon you [Joseph Smith] the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I [the Lord] restore all things, and make known unto you all things in due time.
... 59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys of the power of this priesthood, 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. 60 Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God. 61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified
Thus a Mormon man was not committing adultery nor bigamy when he added a second wife in a celestial marriage. Even though the American Law held that a man could only marry and have sex with one wife, celestial marriage removed the requirement and contract of American Law in the eyes of the Mormon believers. So that just as in Christ the Mosaic Law was done away, in Celestial Marriage sealings the American marriage Law was done away. So just as there was freedom in Christ in Paul's mysticism to reject the need for circumcision, and choose to avoid marriage altogether and be celebate if able, and focus on acts of agape charity to change the minds of early Christians and undo the pagan moralities; there was in Mormonism, sexual freedom to build up seed through celestial marriage in order to change the minds of early Mormons and undo the Augustinian moralities that despised the body.
The "Imiatation Games"
Just as Paul's converts were imitating the martyred Suffering Messiah by being called to suffer themselves and potentially die celibate martyrs (during that phase and strategy of God in the first century); in the 1800s, the restoration of all things included the restoration of Hebraic Sexuality: and so Mormons were called to imitate the true nature of the Gods: as Mormons learned to be Gods themselves through plural marriage; that is they learned how to be more sexually liberated like the Gods themselves who are "more liberal" in their "views" on sexuality (as Joseph Smith explained to Nancy Rigdon).
A Larger Purpose
Just as Paul based his entire anti-circumcision/anti-Torah-Laws theology on the imminent End-Times, but was unfortunately mistaken about it's immediate arrival shortly; so too, Joseph Smith can be seen as basing his celestial marriage doctrine on a similar belief that that offering unto God would sactify the Mormons and make them more of a Zion People and thus inaugurate the Lord coming to the temple soon.
In response to the apostle Paul being mistaken regarding the time frame of the second coming/end times, biblical scholar Marcus Borg has encouraged Christians to simply get over it and not demand perfection from Paul. I would suggest that Mormons apply the same grace to Joseph Smith. After all, Paul reasoned that widows and virgins should reframe from marriage and encouraged celibacy as the higher ideal, due to belief in the end-times. So just as Paul was mistaken in his end-times timeframe and most Christians today ignore his ideal of celibacy, today's Mormon can see Joseph Smith's polygamy-offering as similar to Paul's offering of celibate Gentile martyrs. They can see it as serving a larger purpose in what I describe as the phases and strategies of God, but is no longer applicable nor necessary today (anymore than celibacy is the ideal and dying a martyr by a Caesarian Roman government is applicable today). In other words, just as Protestant Christians today do not take seriously Paul's recommendations for men to be a virginal celibate brides engaged to a male Messiah while welcoming martyrdom by the first century Roman government; Mormon Christians can similarly interpret plural marriage as a nineteenth century strategy to expiate Augustinian dogma from the consciousness of the Mormon People. But is no longer necessary and should not be practiced today: Because it was meant to be practiced only during the phase of the "last days" of restoring Old Testament principles which last days ended by 1891 when, as I see it, Christ had intervened through the American government forcing the Church to end the practice of plural marriage in 1890.
Whereas the apostle Paul interpreted the imminent End-Times as a call to separate the natural instincts from the platonic Ideal (as a temporary strategy for learning greater self-control and seeding the gospel), Joseph Smith instead prolonged the second coming in order to focus on integrating the natural instincts and the hebraic Ideal (as a temporary strategy for learning God's liberal views and seeding the restored gospel). In other words, while Paul was focused on celibacy and called on men to be virginal brides to a male messiah seeking martyrdom, Joseph Smith felt inspired to call men to "Arise from the dust, … and be men” (2 Nephi 1:21), to bravely speak up, to be inspired like “Nephi of old, who journeyed from Jerusalem in the wilderness” (D&C 33: 8), and not repress one's natural instincts but integrate one's natural proclivities into the ideals of Zion. While Paul sought to integrate Gentiles into Israel as living sacrifices engaged to the Messiah, Joseph Smith encouraged Mormons to focus their natural instincts on the sexual outlet of marriage or plural marriage, not avoid burning with desire but to obtain "everlasting burnings." While Paul used celibacy and Stoicism and the mystical concept of being brides of Messiah to integrate and unify his assemblies, Joseph unified Mormons by emphasizing that God the Father had a physical body and sought to restore true Masonry with the temple ritual; aimed at fully affirming the sensual body and the call the dominion. All of which I discuss in greater detail in my document The Secret Doctrine of God: Moving Toward A Theology of the Body. Also see The Book of Mormon on the Law of Moses "Avails Nothing."
So that is the skeletal outline of my thesis. I present more meat upon the bones of my theory in my blog series, Sex, Gods, & Zion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
> Introduction : The Four Main Godhead Theories > Why Bother Understanding the More Origional LDS Godhead theories? The Pratt-Hyde...
-
Nietzsche once said, “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” I tend ... -
> Introduction > "Spirit" as Nooma (A Fluid Filling Breathy Energy) & The Because-Then (Grace) Dynamic of Shining ...