Calm

I was curious about Mark E Peterson’s very emphatic statement about the revelation and what he might have as opportunities to learn firsthand from apostles who were alive in 1933 when the revelation was given to the Church by Frank Taylor. Peterson became an apostle in 1944, more than a decade since the First Presidency statement and the likely discussion among church leaders of the reception of the original. There were 7 apostles from 1933 who were still alive in 1944, but none of them were alive by 1974 when Elder Peterson made his comment, so noe one who was there to advise him on the facts at that time (obviously could have earlier). There might have been other potential sources still alive, but unless he had asked about the revelation in his earlier years as an apostle, he may have missed out except for David O McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith, the only ones who lasted to the 70s (all the rest died prior to 1960). This is not intended to prove anything. Just filling in some timeline context gaps for myself I thought others might be interested in. Others have done a lot of the work collecting the names for 1886 to 1933, I will put that together tomorrow.

It is interesting that Frank Taylor had so little interest in the revelation, he didn’t even remember he had it apparently…or at least that was the impression he gave to Pres Grant it appears. https://bhroberts.org/records/fbkJxk-rD6Snk/memorandum_from_j_reuben_clark_explaining_how_the_first_presidency_acquired_the_1886_revelation my italics

According to Reed Durham it was apparently authenticated at least by 1974. Michael Quinn had a chance to study in in 1971. See one the earlier posts of mine and weebles for quote and links I would not be surprised to hear they authenticated it again given the better techniques, but perhaps not since the provenance seems well established and it is not inconsistent with previous statements, etc from Pres. Taylor. What I am reading suggest the revelation itself is what it claims to be itself; what it’s not is all the stuff that got dumped on it by the storytelling of Lorin C Woolley (the more exaggerated stuff, I can see a meeting the next day to discuss it, just not the over the top affair Woolley claims). It’s understandable imo that some leaders were skeptical considering the baggage LC Woolley attached to it in the late 20s. If he had kept his mouth shut and not attempted to use it and his father to turn himself into a hero, perhaps there wouldn’t have been such a negative reaction.

Because organic means not contaminated by unallowed chemicals, many of which might blow over on to property, a buffer is required. If she/you are arguing the chemical farmer shouldn’t be allowed to spray closer than 25 feet to their property line to make it more consistent with what’s required for the organic farmer, buffers for everyone, or divide the difference so it’s 15 feet buffer zone on for each when next to each other (25 for each when solo) that gets to be sold as nonorganic, that does sound sensible to meet the needs of both. The chemical farmer can use the ‘organic’ pesticides etc that are allowed for their 15 feet buffer zone if they want to use that area, though of course like the organic farmer, can’t label it organic (because of the likelihood of contamination from the nonorganic chemicals they use elsewhere). Since being labeled organic opens the organic market to them, it does seem appropriate for it to be regulated to make sure customers get what they pay for. But I personally believe chemical treated produce (organic does have pesticides, etc, just ones that are deemed “natural”) should have that info on it as well and fees would need to be paid to provide confirmation they don’t use chemicals that aren’t on their label. One might also add a pollution cleanup fee for farmers using the more polluting types of pesticides and fertilizers, but that’s more regulation again…so to solve the problems the writer points out, I am not seeing less regulation, but more. Because there is not enough regulation barring them from doing so Which they can only do with the appropriate information, which growers won’t typically provide on their own, so regulation is needed. Deaths from raw milk may be relatively rare, but unnecessary illness would be a lot higher if it was legal everywhere imo. Costs are not outweighed by benefits (I think raw milk tastes better—I love raw goat milk, but I don’t see the science supporting it’s actually healthier). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9987020/#:~:text=Data source,228 hospitalisations and three deaths. I would love to see in-depth nutrition and healthy meal preparation become part of required education standards country wide so people understand the problems with many ultra processed foods as well as develop skills that allows them to take advantage of local produce more so there is less dependence on unhealthy ultra processed foods (not all processing is unhealthy, especially for those with FODMAP sensitivities; canned beans will cause less issues than homemade from dried for example). This would likely require more regulation as well as minimum wage increases as it typically takes more time to prepare less processed foods. Which takes time. Therefore higher wages so less second or third jobs needed for low income workers so that they have the time to visit and evaluate the local sources.

I am not sure about that. We at least condemn slavery, even if many support it by benefitting from it or even actively participate in it. I do believe possessing other humans automatically places them on a lower, ‘not as valuable as I am’ relationship, which I believe is a sinful, prideful attitude. We also give verbal support to equality. I wonder about charity….we have massive humanitarian efforts that are global and lots of local ones, but helping someone who comes to your backdoor like my great grandmother used to do isn’t common in the US at least. We may be more accepting of chastity sins, but premarital sex was very common before as well as adultery for men, which in some places were formalized by the government even (in old China, the government ran brothels and might even get high class ladies to appeal to the elite from disgraced officials’ wives and daughters who were sold as slaves, including to brothels as punishment, even if they themselves were innocent of any wrongdoing….I am getting this from modern literature, some from early 1900’s and have confirmed the selling into slavery of females in more historical info, but not necessarily to brothels). Treatment of women and children was pretty bad in the past allowing beatings and rape even, also requiring child labor laws (still happening, but again it’s condemned generally). Then there is the gap between poor and the most wealthy, as that does seem more accepting in many areas, but that gets into politics, so I will just throw that out and label it as wrong when corruption is used to get that amount of wealth for one person and people can decide for themselves if corruption is inherent (I honestly don’t know if it has to be) or only a subset are corrupt. So worse sinning in some areas, better in others imo. But impossible to come up with a concrete, objective number telling us what era was more sinful because of too many unknowns, past and present (outside of the utopia periods in scripture).

It’s not there yet though I am afraid. A moderator likely came in and blocked all spammers so far and then cleaned out here. But new ones are appearing in Social and once they hit 25, we will again have them in here. It looks like there is some time between posting the spam so it will be a few hours I am guessing till we see them. Maybe more if the lovely moderator pops in again. It’s quite sufficient to give me my little serotonin hit I get when I visit the board though, lol Even just a few posts a day keep me from withdrawal

Maybe someone else can confirm this as I didn’t open the thread to see what was said, but the first night the spammers attacked, I noticed a new post in the pinned guidelines thread. Someone could have been trying to bring attention to the spam or it could have been spam, maybe lots of it. The latter is the only reason I can think of for the pinned threads to be missing. Seeing the spam triggered my “I am not supposed to be on my tech anyway” response, so I can’t remember if any other pinned threads had new posts, but if the pinned threads did get flooded that night it would explain why they disappeared and are completely gone, not just not accessible (my guess is you have to delete posts one by one while threads can be massed deleted on the topic page and there was no need to save the FAIR thread, it can just be redone with updated info once the Horde attack is over; the Guideline thread…Guidelines needed to be updated iirc, there are a few currently unwritten rules that can get you banned that need to be included, so not a bad idea to start fresh). I can only remember the FAIR conference thread as pinned, but maybe it wasn’t? It is gone now anyway. At least I am not finding it in my topics list (both “fair” and “conference” bring up a ton of threads, so I used my profile to see if I could track it down. I used Google for the Board Guidelines: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66539-board-guidelines-update-please-review-before-posting/ Can’t remember if anything else was pinned. All that to say pinning might not be a way to avoid posts getting lost and may make things worse. Otoh, they aren’t being flooded in In the News or Social Hall, so my logic now I registered that last fact is really flawed, lol

Just a FYI… For those wanting to continue conversations without have to search for threads either by eye, google, or board search (ugh), use the notification option to track threads (the bell in the right hand corner). If you “follow” threads (there is a follow topic button on the bottom left of the last post or post reply box), it should notify you if someone posts a response in it. You may have to go into your account to change notifications settings if you have turned them all off. I just use the rep points to track my conversations as someone is always nice enough to give me a rep sometime in a thread. Even if it’s not a new rep point, I can scan through the old ones to find the link. It won’t take me to the last unread post, but that’s easy to find once I am in the thread.

Do they accept the 1886 revelation?

There is one administrator (Nemesis) and he is apparently unavailable at the moment, at least for the time needed to upgrade the site for additional security. My guess (based on info over 20 years old) is he will need to decide how much of an upgrade he needs and then get out the pocketbook. May take a bit to go through the options. The moderator(s?) who is kind enough to trim the spam wouldn’t have the ability to change settings. This assumes Nemesis is using some sort of template. If not, it’s likely more complicated. I get why Nemesis has felt it reasonable to not attend the site on a daily basis and even leave it for a week or more on occasion as this board is remarkably well behaved imo and only really needs a moderator nowadays. We haven’t had a major ‘crisis’ that required the board being shutdown or whatever for a long, long time. Even spam at worst has been limited to a dozen threads or less iirc, which would take just a few minutes to delete.

Another page summarizing the lack of evidence John C Woolley was involved in anything but believing plural marriage should be allowed to continue within the Church. Makes sense that Lorin would use his father as a figurehead rather than take the initial spot himself given his father was very well connected, well known, and respected as far as I can tell. Lorin was a sometime mail carrier and body guard for church leaders, but besides being a missionary twice (total 16 months) and a Seventy for a Centerville quorum, wiki doesn’t list any church callings for him. Apparently he talked a lot as a kid when called as an elder at age 17 and was given the nickname “noisy”, so not a shy character it seems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorin_C._Woolley

Sounds pretty tame:

Of course. The “my people”. While Pres Taylor might have used that phrase to describe the community he led and cared for, it fits much better with the Lord saying it. My bad to not register that before. Thanks. Seeing the “John”, knowing his son’s name was also John and it being separated from the “Thus saith the Lord” made me think it was an afterwards added intro from Pres. Taylor.

This seems pretty damning. https://rsc.byu.edu/champion-liberty-john-taylor/administration-underground Did John W Woolley actually start a group or was it his son? Or did he more reactively take a lead after his son promoted his status through Lorin’s claims about ordination? While there were rogue sealings going on, it doesn’t apparently appear as if it was organized by anyone IOW John Woolley was excommunicated in 1914. Lorin Woolley gave an account of the revelation in 1912, but that doesn’t seem to have been used to justified creating a separate line of authority until 1922 when he added the story of 5 men being ordained. His father was alive until 1928 and as far as I know never contradicted Lorin, but didn’t confirm it either….it’s all rather odd unless John W. had dementia or something and nothing I am reading says anything like that except he was hard of hearing…but surely he could have read and written a response to questions if spoken communication was an issue for him. John W was allegedly a founding leader of a group called Council of Friends, but how active/organized/well known was it before 1928 when JW Woolley died? He was 82 when excommunicated 14 years earlier. Is there any evidence the Council (unnamed at the time if it existed at all) even existed until after everyone was dead who was part of the alleged leadership except Lorin Woolley? Hales says there was no mention of the Council till 1932, but if Lorin Woolley was ordaining men to be apostles in 1928, was there any evidence of an organization involved? And if not, it would seem the claim that John W Woolley was an actual founder is based on claims of his son unless I have missed some crucial details. I just read a little on John W Woolley, just curious if anyone knows more about him. I am wondering if Lorin was actually the sole prime mover with this. And Lorin Woolley seems to have gotten quite carried away with his extravagant claims rendering anyone he claims highly suspect imo. I am kind of shocked he was seen as a leader at all. https://mormonfundamentalism.com/history/post-1904-polygamy/

Thank you, I just haven’t been that interested in fundamentalism in terms of plural marriage due to the gap in actually establishing groups. If it was that crucial, surely we would have seen evidence of them being established at the same time as the first Manifesto appeared.

Questions popping up for me…. Why didn’t Pres John Taylor share the revelation with his son if it was in response to a question by him? John W stated he didn’t know about the revelation until after his father’s death, which would have been at least 7 months after receiving the revelation if it was received in 1886 as he died in July 87. Seems like plenty of time if Pres Taylor was confident in the revelation. Text introducing revelation: ——- I just realized that Woolley’s name was also John, even John W, but only the John is needed. Was Woolley taking advantage of that similarity to make himself the hero of his story or was it common for Pres. Taylor to call him his “son”. Are there those who believe the “My son John” referred to is him? Was that foundational to his claim? Of all the other men Woolley claimed to be involved that night, did any of them have ever say anything to support Woolley’s claims? Seems like something would have been said. Nuttall, the one who allegedly made copies that night, died in 1905. He was also secretary for Woodruff in 1890. He could have spoken up to support John W surely? Seems like Woodruff would have at least asked him if he knew something even if Nuttall was not at the 1890 meeting. George Q Cannon was claimed by Woolley to be entrusted with 5 copies. Cannon was Woodruff’s counsellor and as an apostle, was likely at the 1890 meeting. And yet he didn’t support John W.’s claims. Woolley was tight with high church leaders, best buds with Joseph F. Smith, respected by leaders (called as a patriarch in 1912 according to wiki). He was uncle to Pres Kimball and stepfather to BH Roberts, gave opening prayers for General Conference. I had not realized he was so socially connected within the Church even if he never held a calling above the stake level. So why did he go off the rails, I wonder. Found this pretty damning appraisal (if his details are accurate) of Woolley’s claims. Is there anyone here who sees any possibility of Woolley’s claims being true (which is completely separate from the discussion about John W. Taylor’s interaction with church leaders over this)? https://web.archive.org/web/20080610001852/https://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/questions_concerning_the_1887.htm There appear to be some who are making the assumption that if the revelation actually exists, then Woolley’s account is accurate. Doesn’t seem that logical to me, especially if Woolley’s story fundamentally changed after the revelation was made public. This details the events…first a report on the event in 1912 by Lorin C Woolley, though it’s written as there was discussion among the family before. Do we only have reports on these or are there journals in the family discussing such that have been authenticated to have been written before 1912? https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/1886-Revelation-article.pdf This has one comment from a half brother critical of LCW’s claims, but is it just critical of the new ones or all of them? —— I was wondering about the handwriting. It was apparently authenticated awhile ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1886_Revelation Bold: Is this accurate? Italics: I am wondering where these were kept within the CHO.

While that is possible, the man was 78 years old and had been through some very hard times in his life. Death at that age would not be unusual or the least unexpected. Or maybe his life was protected until he could receive and record that revelation and only then did the Lord allow his mission to end. If one starts using death as a sign that a prophet was making a misstep, why not assume Joseph had when the Lord had protected him before and since him every other president made it to their mid 70s and most late 80’s, early 90s, I believe? Just pointing out the problems with that line of reasoning. I do not actually believe Joseph was taken because he made a misstep and while I assume it is a possibility God did shorten some lives, but just saying it’s going to be our personal bias that will indicate who is most likely as age is an unlikely indicator given they lived longer than expected lives if one goes by typical stats for those who make it to their 20th birthday I am guessing…I have looked into it in the past but don’t have details at hand to demonstrate this, but AI puts a likely additional 35-40 years if one had made it to 20 up to 1950s.

I see that as a reasonable interpretation

AI’s response to my query of where were the church archives in 1933…it guessed, so hardly definitive. Wiki picks it up later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_History_Library We know stuff was lost for decades in the archives, so I wonder how organized or even if it was centralized. Did apostles and others keep treasured items in their own offices or did everything…or at least almost everything (cough….First Vision…..cough )get sent to designated rooms?

I use the report function with an apology for the misuse. They haven’t blocked me yet, but I wouldn’t make a habit of it. That was different than the FAIR conference thread, so hopefully it can reappear. I am impressed

Did they hear the whole text even if they didn’t receive that actual document (just filling in details for myself, not making a point)?

Revelation I think you mean I would write that as acknowledges its existence because given the previous and ongoing public discussion it was known before, though perhaps not yet authenticated as Pres Taylor’s handwriting though? Do we know when that was determined for certain?

Does anyone know if the issuing of the Manifesto corresponded to a drop or raise in first time/monogamous sealings at that time? Wondering if there was a ripple effect or not.

I agree it most likely was understood by those reading it as plural marriage. Whether that was what God wanted it understood as (whether initially or eventually) I don’t think we can be as secure.

Posted in other thread by mistake. Did Joseph Fielding originally go by Joseph F, Jr? From primary source on Mormonr And how did it end up at the UoU if it was originally in the Church Archives and not JFS or someone else’s personal possession? Anyone know? Why does Mormonr say it was for the Church Historian’s Office? (Added: Oops, forgot about the comment from the trial where he said he filed it in the CHO). Why couldn’t it have been a personal copy? There is nothing on the document indicating the purpose or destination of the copy? (This is asked out of curiosity and a desire to have the known facts accurately described without assumptions. I don’t want to misrepresent what happened or tilt it favorably towards the Church where it’s uncertain….well, maybe a little, but I try to overcome that inclination; but I want to know what I can and cannot rely on and what is assumption when I do construct in my head my ‘most likely scenario’. added: ignore the parts asking about why the CHO, can anyone say how it got from being filed with the CHO to the UoU library?