Tuesday, August 31, 2021

D&C 124:56-60, the Nauvoo House, and the Mansion House

In D&C 124:56-60, we read the following:

 

And now I say unto you, as pertaining to my boarding house which I have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, let it be built unto my name, and let my name be named upon it, and let my servant Joseph and his house have place therein, from generation to generation. For this anointing have I put upon his head, that his blessing shall also be put upon the head of his posterity after him. And as I said unto Abraham concerning the kindreds of the earth, even so I say unto my servant Joseph: In thee and in thy seed shall the kindred of the earth be blessed. Therefore, let my servant Joseph and his seed after him have place in that house, from generation to generation, forever and ever, saith the Lord. And let the name of that house be called Nauvoo House; and let it be a delightful habitation for man, and a resting-place for the weary traveler, that he may contemplate the glory of Zion, and the glory of this, the corner-stone thereof

 

Some have pointed to this text as a false prophecy. Answering the question, “Why didn't the Nauvoo House stand forever as prophesied in Doctrine & Covenants 124:56-60?” Jeff Lindsay noted that:

 

The original Nauvoo House still exists. I've been there recently. Some people confuse it with the Mansion House, which was Joseph Smith's residence, that was reconstructed.

 

The passage in the Doctrine and Covenants doesn't look like a prophecy to me, but a request from the Lord: "let my servant Joseph and his house have place therein, from generation to generation" (verse 56). Giving this request does not mean that the house will stand or be occupied forever. But it is still there.

 

One was reminded of this issue after reading Andrew Jenson’s October 6, 1888 journal entry and the then- dilapidated nature of the Mansion House before its later reconstruction:

 

The Mansion, Joseph’s old residence, is fast crumbling to pieces. The east wing, facing Water Street, has not been occupied for years; the west wing, facing Main Street, is inhabited by a Mr. Madison and family. The property belongs to David Smith, youngest son of the Prophet, who is still at Elgin, Illinois, being yet somewhat demented, but entirely harmless. Joseph’s old brick store, on Water Street, is yet in a pretty good state of preservation, but is not occupied. It belongs to Joseph Smith’s eldest son (“Young Joseph”), together with the whole block on which it stands, with other improvements on the east side, including the house where the Prophet lived previous to his moving into the Mansion. Near the center on the block, which is situated on the bank of the river, is the private burial ground of the Smith family, where rest the mortal remains of the senior Joseph Smith and his wife Lucy Mack, the Prophet’s parents. Here also rest the late Emma Smith Bidamon, Frederick Smith, one of the Prophet’s sons, the first wife of “Young Joseph,” and two of his children, and a number of others. According to the best information we could obtain, Robert B. Thompson, Samuel H. and Don Carlos Smith, the two latter brothers of the Prophet, were also interred here. (Reid L. Neilson and R. Mark Melville, eds., A Historian in Zion: The Autobiography of Andrew Jenson, Assistant Church Historian [rev ed.; Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2016], 174-75)

 

Joseph Smith III, in his reminiscences, wrote the following about the Nauvoo Mansion:

 

The Nauvoo Mansion

 

Father’s home in Nauvoo was generally overrun with visitors. There was scarcely a Sunday in ordinary weather that the house and yard were not crowded—the yard with teas and the house with callers. This made a great deal of bustle and confusion, and also a heavy burden of added toil for Mother and unnecessary expense for Father. About 1842, a new and larger house was built for us. After it was finished and we had moved into it, some friends suggested that it should be expanded into a hotel, large enough to accommodate the usual crowds of visitors and an adequate force of domestic helpers as well.

 

Deciding to do this, Father proceeded to build quite an extensive addition running out from the south wing toward the east. On the ground floor this included a large dining room and a suitable kitchen, with a basement below in which the cooking range was placed and a cellar for provisions. Over the dining room and a suitable kitchen, with a basement below in which the cooking range was placed and a cellar for provisions. Over the dining room and kitchen was a series of bedrooms, six single ones ranging along the north side and four double ones with connecting halls on the south side.

 

These rooms, with those already existing, made the house seem a very large one for that period and locality. In going back to it in after years, however, I found that it really was not large. The dining room, which was also used as a ballroom in those old days, was really quite small—barely large enough for four sets of dancers in the old-fashioned square dances—and the ceiling like those above stairs, was low as compared to those of more modern buildings.

 

At any rate, it seemed spacious then, and a sign was put on giving it the dignified name of “The Nauvoo Mansion,” a house destined to become quite famous and interesting in its day. Mother was to be installed as landlady and soon made a trip to Saint Louis for the purpose of securing such furniture, curtains, bed linen, table napery, dishes, and the utensils as were needed to properly equip and operate a hostelry of its kind. ("The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith (1932) Edited by his daughter Mary Audentia Smith Anderson,” The Saints' Herald 82, no. 4 [January 22, 1935]: 110)

 


Further Reading


Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

John Piper on God "Planning" and "Permitting" the Fall

Yesterday I read John Piper's book, Providence. The following struck me as unusual as Piper, who is a committed Five-Point Calvinist, seems to teach that God "considered" (even in a qualified sense) that would be part of his decree ("He considered everything (trillions of things) he would do with it and made it part of his ultimate plan") which is more at home at other non-Reformed traditions about the Fall and God's eternal plan, etc.


God’s Planned Permission of the Fall

 

God foresaw that Adam and Eve would sin and bring ruin on his creation. He took this reality into “the counsel of his will,” considered all its consequences and all his purposes, and choose to permit their fall into sin. He did this in accord with his perfect wisdom, justice, and goodness. Since he could have chosen not to permit this first sin, just as he chose not to permit Abimelech’s sin (“It was I who kept you from sinning against me,” Gen. 20:6), we know that God had wise and just and good purposes in permitting it.

 

If God had wise and just and good purposes in permitting the fall of Adam and Eve, we may speak of Gid’s plan in permitting it. That is, we may speak of God planning or ordaining the fall in this sense. By planning and ordaining, I simply mean that God could have chosen not to permit the fall, but, in choosing to permit it for wise purposes, he thus planned and ordained it. He considered everything (trillions of things) he would do with it and made it part of his ultimate plan.

 

This means that God plans and ordains that some things come to pass that he hates. God hates sin )Prov. 6:16-19). It dishonors him (Rom. 3:23) and destroys people (Rom. 6:23). Yet he planned to permit sin to come into his perfect creation. Therefore, in God’s infinite wisdom and holiness, it is not sinful for him to plan that sin come to pass. There are, no doubt, countless wise and holy reasons God plans to permit sin. But we have been drawn into these reflections by only one: namely, that God’s ultimate aim in creation and providence is to display the glory of his grace, especially in the suffering of Christ, echoing forever in the all-satisfying praises of the redeemed. That is the ultimate wise, just, and good purpose of God in planning to permit the fall. (John Piper, Providence [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2020], 176-77)

 

Further Reading

 

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

John Piper on God Being Responsible for All Events, Including Disasters and the Deaths of Thousands

Many Reformed apologists try to argue that God is not the author of sin as he decreed the end, but he is not responsible for evil actions as means/instruments bring them about. However, what they omit is that, in such a theology, God also foreordained/predestined the instrumental means by which all actions, sins included, by which they would come to pass.

 

John Piper “bites the bullet” on this issue in his 2020 book, Providence where he imputes the responsibility of all things to God and does not pull the "God uses means, so he is exempt from blame" dodge. Take the example of the flood:

 

All That Breathes Taken in the Flood

 

Next, let us remember and be appalled at the flood that God sent to bring death to the world of mankind. This too was a judgment because of the sinfulness of humanity.

 

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” (Gen. 6:5-7)

 

The point I am making there does not depend on the flood being global or local, through it seems to be that the Scriptures treat the flood as global (Gen. 6:13, 17; 8:21; Heb. 11:7; 2 Pet. 2:5). The point here is simply that God took the life of thousands, perhaps millions, of people—men, women, and children:

 

I will blot out man whom I have created. (Gen. 6:7)

 

I have determined to make an end of all flesh. (Gen. 6:13)

 

I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. (Gen. 6:17)

 

Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that as on the face of the ground, man and animals. . . . They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. (Ge. 7:22-23)

 

This was a judgment on the human race (or at least a huge portion of it). It was so fierce and through that it defies imagination. Even the greatest hurricanes and tsunamis we have witnessed are small by comparison. Few events in the history of the world show more clearly God’s rights over life and death. To underline the horror of it. God promises never to do it like this again:

 

I will never curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. (Gen. 8:21)

 

But even in the pledge never to repeat the flood, God takes direct accountability for its execution: “Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.” God himself, he says, struck down “every living creature.” This is not a mere matter of nature, nor is it an impersonal outworking of moral laws. It is God’s judgment. From one person (the Judge) to other persons (every human). God struck down every living creature, except for the eight he saved by grace (1 Pet. 3:20). (John Piper, Providence [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2020], 361-63)

 

Also consider the following examples:

 

The Exodus and the Death of the Firstborn:

 

So it came. “At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt” (12:29). This was remembered through all the history of Israel as the night when “the LORD makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel” (Ex. 11:7). The lessons were stunning. The point of the blood of a lamb was presumably to show that there was sin in these blood-covered houses as there was in all the Egyptian houses. But the sin of these houses is covered by the sacrifice of a lamb. This means that the passing over of the sentence of death was not because Israel deserved better treatment than the Egyptians, but because of God’s free grace . . . Israel sang in its poetry about this judgment on Egypt:

 

He struck down all the firstborn in their land,
the firstfruits of all their strength. (Ps. 105:36)

 

Whatever the LORD pleases, he does,
in heaven and on earth,
in the seas and all the deeps. . . .
He it was who struck down the firstborn of Egypt,
both of man and of beast. (Ps. 135:6, 8)

 

The point I am king here is that the LORD “struck down the firstborn.” Their death was not some natural outworking of the folly of sin (like smoking causing lung cancer or selfishness causing loneliness). It was God’s judgment And he was not only the Judge but also the executioner. “He struck down all the firstborn.” . . . God is free to perform graphic, symbolic judgments like this because the life of the firstborn belongs to him. He owns all life. The infants are not their own. They are God’s. He brought them into being (Isa. 42:5; Acts 17:25). He holds them freely in being (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3). They have no independent or autonomous existence. When God takes them, he does not steal or murder. He takes back what is his own (Luke 12:20). And if there is any suffering that God thinks should be set right with joy, it will be rectified in the resurrection (Matt. 19:29; Luke 6:20-21; 14:14; 16:25). (Ibid., 364, 365)

 

The Death of 185,000 Assyrians (2 Kgs 19;32, 34-35):

 

Later in Israel’s history, we are confronted with God’s taking life in defense of his people and in the punishing of his people. For example, when Jerusalem was besieged, God struck a blow of staggering proportions. He struck down 185,000 Assyrian soldiers—not in battle but while they slept:

 

“Thus says the LORD concerning the king of Assyria: . . . I will defend this city to save it, for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David.” And that night the angel of the LORD went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians. And when people arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies. (2 Kings 19;32, 34-35)

 

I saw this was staggering not only because the number was huge and the directness of the Lord’s dealings were dramatic, but also because we may surmise that in this one night God created perhaps one hundred thousand widows in Assyrian and hundreds and thousands of fatherless children. These were not just numbers. They were real people with real families. This calls for great trust in the wisdom and justice and goodness of God. The same sovereignty that can kill 185,000 soldiers in one night can work a million circumstances of widows and fatherless children for their eternal good if they look away from the false gods of Assyria and form themselves to the God of Israel and call on him for mercy.

 

If we think that killing fathers and husbands is not the most effective way of winning the hearts of Assyrian wives and mothers, we should be very careful not to presume to know what justice and mercy call for in countless cases of which we are almost totally ignorant. God has sent the world more mercy than anyone knows (Acts 14:17; Rom. 2:4), and his severe summonses to repentance, like those described in Revelation 9:20 and 16:9, are not foolish. Recall that Rahab was saved by hearing about the destruction of Egypt (Josh. 2:8-10; Heb. 11:31; James 2:25[.]) (Ibid. 367-68)

 

Further Reading

 

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

John Piper on Good Works in the Realm of Processional Sanctification vs. Naïve Misreadings of Isaiah 64:6

Commenting on works done within the realm of processional sanctification, John Piper refutes the popular but naïve misreading of Isa 64:6:

 

God Works in Us What Is Pleading to Him

 

One of the clearest statements in the New Testament that God causes the obedience of believers is Hebrews 13:20-21:

 

May the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

 

Five observations make this an amazing statement of blood-bough, new-covenant obedience in the lives of believers.

 

First, the writer draws our attention to “the blood of the eternal covenant.” It is the means by which God raised Jesus from the dead. “By the blood of the eternal covenant” modifies “brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus.” Through the perfection of the finished work on the cross, God glorifies Christ with resurrection (as Paul says in Phil. 2:9). Thus, all the triumphs of the resurrection and everything God achieves through the risen Christ is blood bought.

 

Second, having raised Jesus by his own covenant blood, God now equips believers “with everything good” to do his will. This everything good is like the all things in Romans 8:32, where God did not spare his own Son but gave him for us, and thus guaranteed all things that the elect need to endure trial, be conformed to Christ, and be glorified. The same reality is in the writer’s mind here in Hebrews 13:21. God will equip you with all you need to do his will.

 

Third, this equipping is so decisive and effective that the writer goes beyond the statement of God’s providing equipment to do God’s will, and says God actually does his will in us. May God “equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight.” The word for do (ποιησαι) is the phrase “do his will” is from the same verb as the word work (ποιων) in the phrase “working in us.” So it sounds even more striking: “May God equip you with everything good that you may do his will, doing in us that which is pleasing in his sight.” Just as we saw with Titus in 2 Corinthians 8:16-17, God’s doing his will in us is not a replacement for our dong it, but a gift of our doing it. We act the miracle. He causes it.

 

Fourth, God “[works] in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ.” This circles back to the first part of verse 20, where Jesus was raised by means of his blood and was installed as “the great shepherd of the sheep.” So whether we focus on the efficacy of his blood, the implications of his resurrection, or on the daily help and care of our great shepherd, the point is that God works his will in us “through Jesus Christ.” Without the blood, the resurrection, and the shepherding of Jesus, there would be no Christian obedience.

 

Fifth, the text ends with the ultimate purpose for why God does it this way: “[He works] in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.” God works his will in us through Jesus Christ so that Jesus will get the glory for our obedience and everything that led to it. This is another expression of the ultimate goal of providence—the glorification of Christ through the transformation of his people.

 

What is clear from Hebrews 13:20-21, and from Paul’s application of the new covenant of the life of believers in 2 Corinthians 3, is that the transformation that God demands from his people is not just predestined concerning them (Rom. 8:29), and promised to them (Ezek. 36:27), and purchased for them (Titus 2:14), but is also performed in them (Heb. 13:21). God’s providence prevails from predestined obedience to accomplished obedience. (John Piper, Providence [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2020], 641-43)

 

Further Reading


Are Good Works Always "Filthy/Menstrual Rags"? Not According to John Calvin


Alphonsus Liguori on the Absurdity of the Calvinist Interpretation of Isaiah 64:6



and

John Piper on the Fate of those who Die in Infancy

In an attempt to explain the fate of those who die in infancy, Reformed theologian John Piper ultimately ends up arguing that “everyone is Totally Depraved, but some are more Totally Depraved than others”:

 

Will Infants Who Die Inherit Eternal Joy?

 

How will the suffering and death of children be set right? When I consider the final display of God’s justice at the day of judgment, I see God exercising a standard of judgment that opens the door for infants who die in this world to be saved from condemnation. I do not deny the sinfulness of every human from the moment of conception. “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5). I believe that all humans are “appointed sinners” by Adam’s disobedience (Rom. 5:19, my translation). I believe God does no wrong when he takes the life of any child (Job 1:21-22). He owns it (Ps. 100:3) and may take it when he pleases (Dan. 5:23).

 

Nevertheless, there is a standard of judgment that Paul expresses that causes me to think that God has chosen, and will save, those who die in infancy. The standard is expressed in Romans 1:19-20:

 

What can be known about God is plain to them [all people], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

 

The words “so they are without excuse” show that God’s principle of judgment is that someone who does not have access to the knowledge Paul speaks of will indeed “have an excuse.” That access involves both the objective revelation in nature (which he says is fully adequate), and the natural ability in the observer to see and construe what God has revealed. The words “have been clearly perceived” in verse 20 imply that the natural ability involves a perception through mental reflection (νοουμενα καθαραται).

 

What I am arguing is that infants don’t have this perception through mental reflection, and therefore do not have access to the revelation of God, and therefore will be treated by God as having an excuse at the judgment day. Not in the sense of being guiltless (because of original sin), but in the sense that God has established a principle of judgment by which he will not condemn those who in this life lacked access to general revelation. How he will save these infants is a matter of speculation. But it will be in a way that glorifies Jesus’ blood and righteousness at the only grounds of acceptance with God (Rom. 3:24-25), and in a way that honors faith as the only means of enjoying this provision (Rom. 3:28; 5:1). (John Piper, Providence [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2020], 507-8)

 

Further Reading

 

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

John Piper (and Charles Spurgeon) Try to Counter the Charge of "Fatalism"

In an attempt to differentiate the Reformed understanding of the decree of God from fatalism, John Piper wrote the following in his 2020 book, Providence 


What Is the Difference between Providence and Fate?

 

Sometimes these strong statements of God’s directing, disposing, and governing of all creatures, actions, and things raise the question of how the biblical view of God’s providence differs from fate. The idea of fate has a long history—from Greek mythology to modern physics. What troubles people in general is that fate and providence imply a kind of fixedness to the future that seems to make life meaningless. Here is Charles Spurgeon’s (1834-1892) response to this concern.

 

First, he gives us his astonishing conviction about the minute pervasiveness of divine providence. This is from a sermon on God’s providence based on Ezekiel 1:15-19:

 

I believe that every particle of dust that dances in the sunbeam does not move an atom more or less than God wishes—that every particle of spray that dashes against the steamboat has its orbit, as well as the sun in the heavens—that the chaff from the hand of the winnower is steered as the stars in their courses. The creeping of an aphid over the rosebud is as much fixed as the march of the devastating pestilence—the fall of . . . leaves from a poplar is as fully ordained as the tumbling of an avalanche. (Charles Spurgeon, “God’s Providence,” sermon on Ezek. 1:15-19)

 

That’s astonishing. Every tiny. Popping bubble in the foam at the top of a newly poured can of Coke. Every floating dust mote which you can see only in the early-morning bedroom beam of light. Every tip of every stalk of grain stretching across the endless Nebraska plains. All of them, with all their slightest movements, specifically governed by God.

 

So Spurgeon foresees the objection and continues on in the same sermon:

 

You will say this morning, Our minister is a fatalist. Your minister is no such thing. Ah! he believes in fate. He does not believe in fate at all. What is fate? Fate is this—Whatever is, must be. But there is a difference between that and Providence. Providence says, Whatever Gods ordains must be; but the wisdom of God never ordains anything without a purpose. Everything in this world is working for some one great end. Fate does not say that. Fate simply says that the thin must be; Providence says, God moves the wheels along, and there they are.

 

If anything would go wrong, God puts it right; and if there is anything that would move awry, he puts his hand and alters it. It comes to the same thing; but there is a difference as to the object. There is all the difference between fate and Providence that there is between a man with good eyes and a blind man. Fate is a blind thing; it is the avalanche crushing the village down below and destroying thousands. Providence is not an avalanche; it is a rolling river, rippling at the first like a rill down the sides of the mountain followed by minor streams, till it rolls in the broad ocean of everlasting love, working for the good of the human race. The doctrine of Providence is not: what is, must be; but that what is works together for the good of our race, and especially for the good of the chosen people of God. The wheels are full of eyes; not blind wheels. (John Piper, Providence [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2020], 35-36)

 

I am sure Rick Sanchez would respond thusly:






Further Reading

 

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Monday, August 30, 2021

Possible Evidence Supporting 2 Nephi 2:22-23

Speaking of Adam and Eve not being able to have children prior to the Fall, Lehi, in his final sermon, was recorded as having said the following:

 

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. (2 Nephi 2:22-23)

 

While the Bible is not explicit about this, there are possible implicit hints that this was the case, such as:

 

(1) In Gen 3:7, after Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, they knew (‎ידע; LXX: γινωσκω) they were naked, perhaps suggesting that, for the first time, they became sexually aware.

 

(2) In Gen 4:1, the first reference in the Bible to sexual intercourse, the same word in Gen 3:7 (‎ידע; LXX: γινωσκω) is used.

 

(3) The fertile garden is considered to be suggestive of sexual fertility:

 

The scenery is a fertile garden and the forbidden power is deposited in a tree. Comparative anthropology suggests that in such cases one has to do with the idea of vegetation and agricultural fertility which, in ancient civilizations, was associated with human procreation. (Bo Reicke, “The Knowledge Hidden in the Tree of Paradise,” JSS 1 [1956]: 197)

 

Irenaeus of Lyons made a connection between the fertility of the garden and that of sexual fertility in his Against Heresies 3.21.10:

 

For as by one man's disobedience sin entered, and death obtained [a place] through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead. And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil ("for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground"), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for "all things were made by Him," and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin.

 

(4) A corroborating account is said to exist in the Epic of Gilgamesh, where Enkidu acquired wisdom and became like a god after a week of cohabitation with a harlot:

 

Then he, Enkidu, offspring of the mountains,

who eats grasses with the gazelles,

came to drink at the watering hole with the animals,

with the wild beasts he slaked his thirst with water.

Then Shamhat saw him--a primitive,

a savage fellow from the depths of the wilderness!

"That is he, Shamhat! Release your clenched arms,

expose your sex so he can take in your voluptuousness.

Do not be restrained--take his energy!

When he sees you he will draw near to you.

Spread out your robe so he can lie upon you,

and perform for this primitive the task of womankind!

His animals, who grew up in his wilderness, will become alien to him,

and his lust will groan over you."

Shamhat unclutched her bosom, exposed her sex, and he took in her voluptuousness.

She was not restrained, but took his energy.

She spread out her robe and he lay upon her,

she performed for the primitive the task of womankind.

His lust groaned over her;

for six days and seven nights Enkidu stayed aroused,

and had intercourse with the harlot

until he was sated with her charms.

But when he turned his attention to his animals,

the gazelles saw Enkidu and darted off,

the wild animals distanced themselves from his body.

Enkidu ... his utterly depleted(?) body,

his knees that wanted to go off with his animals went rigid;

Enkidu was diminished, his running was not as before.

But then he drew himself up, for his understanding had broadened.

Turning around, he sat down at the harlot's feet,

gazing into her face, his ears attentive as the harlot spoke.

The harlot said to Enkidu:

"You are beautiful," Enkidu, you are become like a god. (Tablet I)

 

Susa Young Gates (1856-1933) on her Father's (Brigham Young) Initial Reactions to Plural Marriage

  

Like other proud beings, we shrink from lifting the veil which enfolds the sanctity of our home life. However, when the motive prompting inquiry is one of deep interest, I can put aside the feelings of nature, and for the sake of truth and to vindicate the memory of my idolised father and mother, I am glad to set down here some facts and items. And let me speak as the daughter and not as the historian! For the things about which I am to write are the priceless memory of a carefree childhood, a happy joyous youth and a long life of deep satisfaction.

 

The principle of plural marriage was adopted by my father as it was taught him by the Prophet Joseph Smith, after great inner struggle and earnest prayer, as has been told in a former chapter. His strict puritanical training ill-fitted hm to accept such a doctrine. He foresaw—as who would not—the storm of abuse and opposition which such action would arouse. And it was as death to him.

 

He told my mother once that he brooded and sorrowed for months, unreconciled in reason, yet converted in his spirit to its truth. And when he saw a funeral procession pass his door, he cried out in the bitterness of his soul: “O, that I could exchange places with the one who lies in that quiet coffin!”

 

Finally converted to the principle, he did not doubt the future, himself, nor God. But the fact remains that the men and women who entered into that relationship in early days, did so from purely religious motives. It was a high and sacred undertaking with them, involving much suffering and sacrifice on the part of both men and women. We say this, we who ought to know; we who were born under its influence and who owe our lives to the parents who lived in practised this principle in righteousness. That all men in those days did not live it in righteousness does not alter its being held as a sacrament. Are all monogamous marriages rightly lived and wholly successful? The majority of the relatively few who practised this order of marriage did so with righteous motives. Of that fact I can bear witness.

 

Some of my father’s wives were married to him in Nauvoo, Illinois, by the Prophet himself, as I have heard him testify and as the Nauvoo records prove. After the Prophet’s death others were married to him in Winter Quarters, where the saints were resting after being driven from Nauvoo. On the arrival in the Valley, my father, after the necessary interval in log houses, built good homes for his loved wives. The “White House” sufficed for “Mother” Young and her large family. The Bee Hive House was used as his official residence from the first. There he had his private office, entertained callers, and carried on his public affairs that were not prosecuted in the Church offices which were built next to the Bee Hive House. (Susa Young Gates, The Life Story of Brigham Young [New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930], 321-22)

 

Andrew Jenson's Interaction with a Greek Orthodox Priest (1896)

In his journal for July 3, 1896, Andrew Jenson recorded the following exchange with a Greek Orthodox priest on baptism while touring the Holy Land:

 

My next visit was to the Church of Gabriel, or the Church of the Annunciation. Of the orthodox Greek, north of the church, which spring is the supply source of Mary’s well nearby. Greek pilgrims use the water drawn up by the priestly attendant from under the altar for bathing their eyes and heads; but being thirsty, I drank with great relish the cup offered me. One of the priests, after being told that I was from America, asked me if I was a Mormon. Receiving a reply in the affirmative, he held a consultation with several of his fellow priests, the substance of which I never learned. But he must have met some of our Elders before. Though he spoke Greek and I English, we managed to exchange views on different points, among which the mode of immersion, which the Greeks have always maintained as the proper mode. He seemed pleased when I made him understand that I also believed in that form and condemned sprinkling as being no baptism at all. A large and rather richly embellished baptismal font, which I examined with considerable interest, gave occasion for their remarks. (Reid L. Neilson and R. Mark Melville eds., A Historian in Zion: The Autobiography of Andrew Jenson, Assistant Church Historian [rev ed.; Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2016], 333)

 

Brigham Young on Calvinism, Foreknowledge, and God's Decrees (1864)

In a sermon dated July 31, 1864, Brigham Young was recorded as having said the following against Calvinism:

 

I will here say that it is a mistaken idea, as entertained by the Calvinists, that God has decreed all things whatsoever that come to pass, for the volition of the creature is as free as air. You may inquire whether we believe in foreordination; we do, as strongly as any people in the world. We believe that Jesus was foreordained before the foundations of the world were built, and his mission was appointed him in eternity to be the Savior of the world, yet when he came in the flesh he was left free to choose or refuse to obey his Father. Had he refused to obey his Father, he would have become a son of perdition. We also are free to choose or refuse the principles of eternal life. God has decreed and foreordained many things that have come to pass, and he will continue to do so; but when he decrees great blessings upon a nation or upon an individual they are decreed upon certain conditions. When he decrees great plagues and overwhelming destructions upon nations or people, those decrees come to pass because those nations and people will not forsake their wickedness and turn unto the Lord. It was decreed that Nineveh should be destroyed in forty days, but the decree was stayed on the repentance of the inhabitants of Nineveh. My time is too limited to enter into this subject at length; I will content myself by saying that God rules and reigns, and has made all his children as free as himself, to choose the right or the wrong, and we shall then be judged according to our works.

 

Man appoints, but God disappoints, man's ways are not like God's ways; men can search out and perform many things as individuals, as families, neighborhoods, cities and nations, but God holds the results of their doings and acts in his own hands. (JOD 10:324-25)

 

Notice a few things:

 

For Brigham, God’s decrees are contingent whether or not such is explicated when they are revealed by a prophet (cf. Jer 18:7-10 and the example of Jonah and the people of Nineveh).

 

God continues to decree new things, which is not consistent with God being in an “eternal now.”

 

In Brigham’s theology, Jesus had the free-will to accept or reject God the Father, showing that Jesus could have sinned (but never did).