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.