helix

Ya, almost certainly waiting until it's officially filed. News via rumors can get real ugly real fast. Also can put the news organization in ugly legal footing. If the alternative is to wait a day or two for the facts to get officially laid out by the government, then that's the professional course of action.

I wonder if that bolded part will be argued about in the trial. Yet the ruling states it "raises the question of whether the Church Defendants violated Church doctrine by not reporting Paul to the authorities" That should never, ever be stated in a ruling. Judges don't get to decide how correctly a church followed its own doctrine. Especially when the church's handbook has that glaring "there is not time to seek guidance", phrase the judges glossed over. Every fact in this case indicates the only thing confessed was a much earlier one time incident of abuse, and the bishops felt due to the confession the abuse had ended.

This whole thing screams unconstitutional. The implication is that all clergy need lawyers on standby for confessions: an expensive third party who parses details of a sacred confession to see if it meets legal standards. This becomes an entanglement of government into core religious beliefs and puts a negative burden on religions. The same thing was brought up in the James Huntsman case, that clergy should not have to run their sermons past lawyers and accountants to ensure it meets government legal clarity and muster. They were in a religious setting. He was confessing. Because he turned his head directed his confession to his wife shouldn't make the bishop liable for damages. If this stands then priest-penitent privilege is not allowed in the LDS church but is allowed for other faiths with different confession styles. We often require councils with a few more leaders and a clerk to record the meeting. We believe confession belongs in many situations to multiple people, not one. The US government here is defining who is clergy, which gives some religions government sponsored rights while others do not get those rights. That's grossly unconstitutional. This again reminds me of the James Huntsman case. Initially on an appeal two judges redefined what tithing meant for the church, and tried to use church texts to make their case. The later appeal ruled against that unanimously and viciously shot down that idea. Religions enjoy broad latitude to make these definition calls for themselves. Government can't redefine a religion's own words for them. This Arizona lawsuit has been appealed to their Supreme Court, and I do not expect this ruling to survive as is. It's got major First Amendment issues.

How about this for a timeline 1886: John Taylor pens the revelation 1887: John Taylor dies. His son John W Taylor finds the revelation but doesn't alert the church. He reads it and believes strongly that it means plural marriage can never end. 1890: Woodruff pens the manifesto ending plural marriage. John W Taylor is conflicted, he recalls the 1886 revelation. He starts trying to reconcile it. 1890: Grant hears of this Taylor revelation. But since John W Taylor never gave it to the FP and Twelve directly, he discounts it and goes with Woodruff's manifesto. After 1900: John W. Taylor creates a new internal doctrine for himself. Plural marriage is ok to enter into, but so long as it's the individuals choice, not the church's. He secretly engages in this. 1909: Grant never saw the document that Joseph Feilding Smith had. 1911: Grant hears about it again at John W Taylor's excommunication. Given that the original 1886 document still wasn't presented to the Twelve, and that John W Taylor is openly defiant towards the 1900 statement that plural marriage must no longer be entered into, Grant doubles down about the 1886 revelations authenticity. He doesn't trust the source. June 1933: Grant issues a statement that the revelation doesn't exist as something authentic, he's never seen it in church archives. July 1933: Grant tells Frank Y. Taylor that he's never seen it. But then Frank Y. Taylor has a persuasive conversation that the revelation existed after all. ... 2000s: The church slowly comes around to accepting the validity of it 2020: The church knows of its existence and referred to it in Saints 2025: The church publishes what is purported to be an original copy (though still no statement yet from the church directly confirming its authenticity) That timeline seems to harmonize with the evidence.

Let's look at that part of the 1890 journal entry. It discussed the new manifesto from Woodruff that discontinued plural marriage. >JOHN W TAYLOR, Said that when he had read the Manifesto he felt "damn it". He said that [he] rememberd the Revelation that Prest. Woodruff had had from the Lord which was read to us some time ago in which He told us that He would sustain us in carrying out the law of plural marriage. He also remembered finding among his father's papers the word of the Lord to him in which The Lord said that plural marriage was one of His eternal laws and that He had established it that man had no done so and that he would sutain [sic] and uphold his saints in carrying it out. He said that this was given to his father in answer to prayer in which he had asked the Lord if it would not be right under the circumstances to discontinue plural marriages. >I know that the Lord has given this manifesto to Prest. Woodruff and he can take it away when the time comes or he can give it again. I feel all right now and am glad that I do. Grant heard of its supposed existence. But it was not presented to them. Despite John W Taylor arguing it meant plural marriage should be eternal, Grant immediately wrote afterward that he believes the Lord gave Woodruff that 1890 manifesto. Grant heard John W Taylor's comment and immediately rejected it in the next paragraph. That's not Grant. Let's quote from that excommunication trial, where those in the room were quite skeptical of John W Taylor: >John W Taylor: Brother Lyman, what do you think of the revelation to my father? >President Francis M Lyman: If you ask me if I believe in the plurality of wives, I would say that I believe it is true and will always be so, but the Lord may suspend the practice of it and how much the responsibility remains with the people and the government, I don't know....In 1900 President Snow said there was no more authority to perform plural marriages. You were present when President Snow was sustained as President of the Church and he made the statement there should be no more plural marriages performed with the permission of the President of this Church, and a short time later published to the world through the Deseret News. Have you (to Brother Taylor) been authorized since President Snow's presidency to perform or authorize any plural marriages? >John W. Taylor: That I would prefer not to answer, as it would lead to something else. My view is that the Lord was anxious to put everybody upon his own responsibility and take the responsibility from the church. > President Francis M. Lyman: ...I believe the manifesto of President Woodruff was from the Lord. The law will stand forever, but the practice was discontinued.. . . . I believe the Lord expects us to keep our word with the government and with the people... >Charles W Penrose: Do you understand the free agency referred to in the revelation gives any one the privilege of taking a plural wife? >John W Taylor: I take it that it refers to the individual and relieved the Church of the responsibility and placed the responsibility of the individual >President Francis M Lyman: When did you find this revelation? > John W Taylor. I found [it] on his desk immediately after his death when I was appointed administrator of his estate. Doesn't sound like ringing endorsement that they believed it was a bona fide, authentic revelation. Especially with John W Taylor advocating that plural marriage is no longer for the church to control but for each individual member to make that decision, something that puts him directly in conflict with other church leaders' arguments at the meeting. They just plain didn't believe John W Taylor.

After the June 1933 statement: https://bhroberts.org/records/fbkJxk-rD6Snk/memorandum_from_j_reuben_clark_explaining_how_the_first_presidency_acquired_the_1886_revelation Sounds to me like they weren't lying in June. They genuinely didn't believe it existed.

Yes you did, that's why you placed a mocking emoji. These games are already getting old. Where in the historical record did President Grant know of the document? You're implying President Grant knew and deliberately lied. The church mentioned it in the 2020 Saints book.

This discussion is going downhill, fast.

Gotcha. The 1886 document has been considered authentic for years. Seems the big news is that we likely have the source of it. In 1933, the First Presidency apparently did not know it existed as someone searched the archives and couldn't find it:

Is everyone forgetting what the catalog is for? >The Church History Library collects materials by or about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members. These materials come from a wide spectrum of sources and represent numerous points of view. Users of the catalog should not assume that the Church or the Library endorses every item in the collection. It's a vast collection of media that may be of interest of researchers. For example, here is the link in the catalog to The Godmakers soundtrack: https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/e6b5262a-5abb-45c5-b4b1-d0be9ecf8d63/0?view=summary&lang=eng

Provo PD are demonstrating the lack of evidence and accuser credibility in this case. A rape kit was done, but Provo PD didn't find anything about it to be actionable (likely no DNA match, or any DNA at all). The lawsuit likely states a second phone call was made to Provo PD, but Provo PD has no record of it. The initial phone call didn't have much content either. On the other hand, this isn't some case of an accuser making things up two years later to get athlete money (as I've seen some in the X/Twitter universe allege). But beyond that, I don't know if the accuser has any other evidence. So I surmise the lawsuit is weak. Unfortunately, I haven't found the lawsuit's full text online. I've seen snippets from people who had paid access to see it.

Yes, I should have been clearer. Provo PD is saying the claimed second phone call (and police statement to drop the case) seems to not have happened. They have no record anywhere of such a phone call. Provo PD apparently have documented reports of many other things in this case. So if the phone call and statement did happen, then either A) Provo PD didn't document that one phone call while documenting everything else, or B) Provo PD documented the phone call but destroyed the evidence. Options A and B are already putting the accuser in a weak legal position.

KUTV has been the best resource on this story. In short: She completed a rape kit test a few days after the alleged incident. Provo police found nothing on that rape kit actionable. "Collected evidence was examined, and it revealed no actionable investigative leads." The lawsuit claims a cut lip, bruises around the neck, and bruises on the legs. So the hospital may have evidence of this. She made a phone call to Provo PD also a few days after the alleged incident. "The complainant in that case was given several opportunities to identify her abuser. She declined to do so" "Our victim advocates followed up several times to offer services but received no response" "We hope the plaintiff chooses to make a statement to further the criminal investigation if desired" The lawsuit alleges police told her in a follow up phone call that victims usually don't get justice. "We have no record of any other phone calls with the victim." Further "KUTV also reached out to the plaintiff's attorneys to see if they had evidence to back up the claim that police made that comment to their client. We did not hear back." Provo PD ultimately ends with this statement: "We can only conclude that what is drafted in the civil claim by the victim’s attorney, did not happen." Already this lawsuit is off to a shaky and weak start. I would be surprised if it case isn't dismissed before trial starts.

The worst for me was the audacity to blame the church not wanting to reject the mediated agreement out of so-called neighborly good will, and start mediated agreement #2 where the church just accepts all the restrictions on religious architecture that the council wanted. It was a mediated agreement for a reason. You don't spend tens of thousands of dollars to reach a solution only to reject it the next day.

I just I happened to hit the town council right at the vote, it was after midnight their time. I'm roughly paraphrasing. Not transcribing word for word. The mayor opened a vote for the mediated agreement of 120 foot steeple and downscaled building. Not the prior recommendations of a very small building limited to 68 feet and very restrictive lighting. Also said lighting can be 3000K on the temple but 4000K in the lots. Councilperson #1: I was involved in the mediated agreement. We heard citizens didn't like the height. We hoped the LDS church hearing that they would lower the size of the steeple and they did not. Voting against. Councilperson #2: Size of the building was the biggest issue, 174 foot steeple and 60 foot building. We would accept a 68 feet tall building with steeple. My expectations weren't great when they originally reduced the steeple by 15 feet. I didn't think discussion would be fruitful. Much to our surprise the overall height was dropped over 50 feet and the building itself was drastically reduced, that makes a difference to me. Top of the tower is 108 feet with 12 more of the top of a rod. Our chances of prevailing at a lawsuit, it was describing as uncertain at best. The reductions made, the risk of a lawsuit substantially greater. Our town has incurred costs into six figures for legal fees, and no circumstances we could recover legal costs even if we win. If we win a lawsuit, we pay our own legal costs. $500,000 is probably conservative. If we lose, we would be responsible for that $500,000 as well as the plaintiffs costs. Certainly more than ours. Another layer is defending against an appeal if we win the first round, so we could double numbers. We are elected to be good steward of resources. I believe the best interest of the town financially is to remove the height condition and accept the height as submitted and vote in favor. Councilperson #3: I'm disappointed at the church wouldn't talk to us anymore about the height. When we had the mediation, we were very surprised there was as much movement as there was. My concern was the building, not the spire. It was too big. After mediation it was downsized to something that we could live with. We still had the problem of the 120 foot height steeple. It's not a law the height has to be 68 feet, that was the precedent from their chapel. It's not in the ordinance, just the precedence. We would be setting a new precedence 120 feet. I doubt that will come to fruition in the next 3-10 years. It's been 11 years since it's come up. We relied on the council. None of us like it. I'm voting yes. Councilperson #4: I'm a financial guy. The risk is there, I don't know the numbers. We could lose a great deal of money even if we win. There are some plusses here, I think the lighting is a win. It stops 78 feet from the ground. The brightness I don't know. I think it will be acceptable. I don't think it be as bright. I've seen some pictures of bright temples and some not so bright. I struggle with the height. The precedence is 68 feet and I think it should have been met. It's not a law. A risk if we vote this down, just because we have reserves mean we can spend them, because we need to keep bond ratings up and money for a rainy day. Now that I'm a politician you've got to listen the people. The process is bad. We're constrained by Texas Law. We can't meet individually, the open access law. We can't meet with the folks on the other side to negotiate like we would in business. That's bad. You can't negotiate. I'm voting against. Councilperson #5: [Thanking staff.] There are things I'd like to say. As a Christian, I won't say them. I believe we're doing what's best for the town. God help us. I'll vote yes. Councilperson #6: Been a long process, I'm not happy with the outcome. I'm unhappy with the outcome, that's an understatement. I don't appreciate the initial approach with threats and lawsuits. That doesn't show neighborly attitude. That said, we did have mediation. I don't agree with the outcome. I do believe it is a good outcome for the town. If I was a politician I would vote for the popular vote. That's not why I'm voting. I'm voting because it's the best for the town. The lawsuit would happen. We would not have a chance of winning that. We would be left with a building that's 174 feet tall. Given the odds, I choose the 120 feet. A number came up and implied that we're against the church or against the temple, that's not true. It took this long because we wanted to make this work. We wanted a temple to happen. The neighborly approach just wasn't a good one. The issue is conforming the precedent as feet as a town. The church took advantage of that. I hope the town establishes maximum heights for churches so no other council has to face this decision again. I heard the church folks talk about importance of architectures and steeples, I still don't understand why it's important to have it here but not somewhere else. I'm saying limit it. I will vote yes. 4-2 in favor so far Mayor: Let's reflect what's happened. The LDS church asked for a massive variance to build a massive structure in a residential area. This has been in place for decades. I'm especially upset about LDS leaders in our community, they knew what this was going to do to our community. I don't know how I'm going to get over that. I'm really angry at you people. You know what was going to happen. All religious buildings went through the same process. One is the LDS meetinghouse. I was on the council with the chapel was approved, we were concerned about that building's lighting. This isn't about the LDS church, it's about a big building where it's not supposed to be. The issue was the initially was grossly too large. I took all the folks from SLC and said look and here was what the problem was, the building was too large, inexcusable. Since the proposal we downsized the building. It's still a really big building, but we'll accept. The issue is the tower still goes up to 120 feet. We offered to LDS church to find a location in the commercial area. People need to take this home with you. The church threatened the town with a lawsuit, they said if you didn't like it then move so church members can move in. Our only interaction was through attorneys. They were polite and professional. But someone in SLC made this decision. Why do they meet with attorneys. Why didn't they meet with me? I've been doing negotiations all my life. I want to know who decides these things. God? Some group in SLC decides. Zoning ordinances have been in place since the 1970s. All went through this process. Nobody had any problems. We've had dark sky ordinances for decades. The folks who live here know this. We are threatened, intimidated, the council, the town, residents. Because the world's wealthiest religion goes against our little town. David vs Goliath is a good analogy. I've never seen anything bring our town's 11000 residents in opposition to this building. None of you have been neighborly. You asked for an ordinance far exceeding what should be allowed, threatened to sue us if we don't agree. We don't like the way it's being handled. I do a thing in church, this past Sunday. The church isn't a building it's not a steeple. The church is the people. When we look at buildings where they shouldn't be. You should think about it, it's the people. The issue is zoning. I though we were reasonable by saying we could go to 70 feet. But the threat of the lawsuit, the financial loss to the town is huge. People won't be happy, I'm voting yes. The vote is 5-2. [Said sarcastically] Congratulations, you guys can start your temple now. We're going to other business. [Chatter from audience.] Supermajority isn't required. [Other chatter] We fought of all sorts of things. We had to do it. I don't like it. The meeting is adjourned. --- My thoughts. The church prevails on the mediated agreement, more or less. 120 feet, downsized building, dimmer lighting with lights off at night. But overall, the town still doesn't get it. They think the city council can be an HOA for religions. Governments flat out don't have that right. They are arguing against both a fundamental principle that would lose in court and the purpose behind the First Amendment. Towns don't get to dictate religious architecture. They approved Methodists to have a 154 foot tower. They all avoided mentioning that to imply the LDS chapel's steeple was the biggest thing approved. The church's temple was partially surrounded by commercial buildings while the Methodists was all residential, but they implied the LDS temple was all residential and never mentioned the Methodist's building. Further, churches can be built in residential areas, that has been part of case law for a long, long time. The zoning allows 4000K lighting but they want to restrict the temple to 3000K lighting. The town wanted it in commercial areas only, which governments can't require. The council can't accept a mediated solution, and then go back and tell townspeople that mediation agreement was still an initial step to more compromises they'll demand. The town is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The church is correct that you have to take a legal stand to these things. (See my prior post with Jews being targeted repeatedly and relentlessly with zoning restrictions to keep them out. The Jews won't sue so the restrictive zoning keeps getting more and more severe.) The church is correct that a portfolio of legal precedence is needed, to show up front to governments that so many of these requests are out of bounds. City councils are not religious HOAs. The church has a moral, religious, and legal right to do these things. They've got to stand up for themselves legally because otherwise towns won't let them have it.