webbles

There are several things done in the early days of the Church that would not be accepted today. For example, being given the priesthood before baptism, having the 3 witnesses ordain apostles, sealings outside of temples, baptism of the dead outside of temples. They were allowed because the Church wasn't fully setup. But by 1886, we had practices and teachings on how revelation is supposed to be ratified. The quorum and 1st presidency was following those practices by 1886. This revelation didn't follow any of the practices of that time.

That's called a captcha. Stands for "Completely Automated Public Turing Test". Many captchas are actually easy for computers to solve. Usually, the captchas also do other work to figure out of you are a human. Like how fast you solve it, the order you solve it, how the mouse moves and the typing speed, or if you've solved a captcha somewhere else and still look human. So you don't even need to see a picture for the captcha for it to make a determination.

Quinn says (page 55 here) The source is Abraham Cannon's diary on April 5 1894. I can't find that diary online so I can't link to it.

I don't think any prophet is in the habit of inventing revelations. But there is a process to make sure that it was an actual revelation. And others of his time followed that process. The revelation that Wilford brought to the quorum wasn't also binding to the body of the Church but he still had it validated by the quorum.

Claiming that it is an authentic revelation is going beyond what we have. It's an authentic document written by John Taylor and that has been known for decades. Even at that time, the apostles would present revelations they received to the quorum and have it voted on whether or not it was a revelation (for example, Wilford Woodruff did that with a revelation he received in Arizona about how polygamy can't be stopped). Taylor apparently didn't tell anyone in the quorum or 1st presidency other than maybe George Q Cannon who was there. And Cannon apparently didn't see it as important because he didn't tell anyone about it when Woodruff brought up the Manifesto. We know that Cannon talked about using concubinage to continue polygamy after the Manifesto but he doesn't mention anything related to the 1886 revelation.

In those years, polygamous groups weren't very organized. I have a family ancestor (brother of a direct ancestor) who entered polygamy around the 1920s and their story of finding someone willing to do the sealing was interesting. It was more or less whispered in the grape vine that there were people with authority and if you asked carefully, you could find a person. So, the council could have existed in those days with very little written evidence. But I don't think it could be considered an "organization". More like a loose affiliation of like minded individuals.

Don't they trace their authority through the "mighty and strong one"? Kind of like a restoration of keys given to one of the LeBaron's and then kept in the family?

It is Loren Woolley that makes the claims. There is very little evidence that John Woolley (his father) ever supported the claims that Loren made. And all the claims from Loren occurred after 1912, so most people who Loren claims to have been there are dead. Some who he claimed were there (like his sister) did not support his statements. Also, I've never heard that the revelation was given through John Taylor to John Woolley. I've only heard it reference John Taylor. John W Taylor, at his excommunication, also makes no references to anything that Loren Woolley and others later said happened. There is a much later story (I think it is from the 1920s or 1930s) that has John W Taylor being there at the meeting after the revelation and standing guard. I think what happened was that the fundamentalists knew the revelation existed and so if the church is lying about its existence, then they must be lying about the rest of what happened. I find it interesting is that Wilford Woodruff received a revelation in 1880 that included the statement "And I say again wo unto that Nation or House or people, who seek to hinder my People from obeying the Patriarchal Law of Abraham which leadeth to a celestial Glory which has been revealed unto my Saints through the mouth of my servant Joseph for whosoever doeth those things shall be damned saith the Lord of Hosts" (https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/documents/f9c4ddb9-e338-4942-840c-909d3d269391/page/3e5ee3d2-665c-4e77-a152-12512ef9fe2a). Plus there quite a few statements from apostles in the 1880s about how the church can't give up polygamy or else it would have to give up everything else. I've never seen those revelations, statements, etc used by fundamentalists to argue for the continuation of polygamy. I think the claims from Loren is what made the 1886 revelation the linchpin. Because if the church is lying about it, there must be more that they are hiding.

mormonr says Quinn viewed the original manuscript in 1971 in the archives. And says Elder Peterson stated "They concocted a false revelation, allegedly given to President John Taylor in 1886, in which pretended secret authority was given to continue plural marriages." in 1974. So by the time Elder Peterson made that statement, the Church Historian's office knew that they had the original manuscript. Though, Elder Peterson seems to be talking more about the story around the revelation (the one that Lorin Woolley describes after 1912) since the manuscript has nothing to do with "secret authority". I wonder how much of the denial is more around the story that Lorin Woolley told vs what the actual manuscript contains.

I missed that Saints talks about the revelation.

Pretty cool that we can now look at it.

Wisconsin has a law that exempts religious organizations from paying unemployment tax. See section 108.02(15)(h). Why Wisconsin exempts those? I don't know. But there is several other organizations that are also exempt. This case was whether or not a religiously affiliated group falls in that definition or not. So it isn't saying that religious groups are exempted from unemployment tax nationwide. Just that the Wisconsin law includes religiously affiliated groups.

But the Provo PD isn't a party of the lawsuit. So whether or not the victim made up that second phone call or the response, I don't see how it has an impact on the actual case.

I'm assuming that you are referencing this article https://kutv.com/news/local/provo-police-department-faces-scrutiny-in-civil-lawsuit-against-byus-jake-retzlaff That quote about "did not happen" seems like it is about the allegation the police told her to drop the case.

Assuming it was consensual, how does the Honor Code office deal with violations that are more than 2 years old? I know some players have been suspended but I believe those were all contemporary honor code violations.

We actually had a thread on this a while ago. There were several ideas put forth on whether or not it is really doctrinal, or how does it work with those with no record of baptism but probably are in Paradise.

Definitely agree that people react differently. I loved rules and awards as a kid. As a cub scout, I got every single arrow point possible as a wolf and as a bear (technically, bears can have infinite arrow points which I figured out and stressed about how I want them all but it was impossible). I got my eagle really early and got most of the merit badges. After that, though, there wasn't really anything left for me to do in YM. So going to Mutual became more of a chore than something I looked forward to. So for me, looking at the current program, it would be really bad for me.

I'm actually glad the church left scouting. I served a mission in Brazil and discovered that scouting is not part of the YM program there. Since most leaders of the church were (and still are) from the US, I felt like they were used to scouting being the YM program and didn't see what was happening to the countries that didn't have scouting. So, by leaving scouting, now the YM program is the same everywhere and I do think that is a good thing. I just wish that they had replaced it with something that had recognition.

Duty to God had a medallion. And YW had medallions as well. All of those recognition are gone.

I think the biggest problem is the rewards are pretty much non existent. With scouting, you would get recognized with merit badges, promotions, etc. But with the new program, I have yet to see any recognition. Nothing to show that a kid finished a goal. And each kid has their own set of goals so how do you plan out activities to help them in their goals when there is no commonality.

Bigler's essay does give a good amount of context on why the murders might have happened. It was during the Utah War. There was a lot of heightened worry. these men came from the California side and had raced to catch up with a Mormon group that was traveling from Carson City to Utah. They apparently did not get along well with the rest of the members of the group. Shortly before reaching Brigham City, the group sent a rider ahead to alert the settlement of the 6 men. The militia had been sent north from Brigham City to stop Col. Alexander from entering Utah through Bear River. That left Brigham City with a small group of defenders who would have been on high alert. The men were interviewed at Brigham City and the answers were evasive. Here's a quote from a letter the interviewer sent to Brigham: One of the men had a letter of recommendation to Col. Johnston (the leader of the US army) saying that he could be trusted to do what ever scheme was needed. (This comes from a journal by one of the participants in the first 4 murders.) In the heightened atmosphere, the way the party acted and the letter of recommendation probably triggered a lot of worry that they were spies. And spies usually don't have a good lifespan in the middle of a war. But, these men were captured around the beginning of November and then 4 (along with guards) were sent back to California using the south route (the one that has Mountain Meadows on it). They were murdered at the end of November just south of Nephi. That gives it a bit more calculated feel. It wasn't a rushed trial (or a series of stupid mistakes like Mountain Meadows Massacre). There was plenty of time to ask for direction from Brigham. It is possible those guarding the 4 men took initiative by themselves, but they also were able to convince the Nephi settlers to help them (4 settlers were involved with the murders). So it does feel like they had orders from someone.

You can create a free jstor account and read it. I went through the document and it mentions that there 5 murders in 3 different locations (2 south of Springville, 2 north of Springville a few days later, and 1 later on). The one that Hickman was involved with is the last one and all the sources come from Brigham's Destroying Angel. He doesn't definitely link the earlier 4 murders to Brigham Young. But the last part, he hints really strongly. One of the travelers (there were 6 original travelers) had written a letter to Brigham for leniency. It appears this person survived; Bigler indicates that there is nothing about this person after he arrives. So, if Brigham allowed 1 of the party to survive, that indicates that Brigham was involved in the murders of the other 5 (per Bigler). Bigler also compares the murders with the Mountain Meadow Massacre and feels that the Aiken murders show that Brigham had to have been involved with MMM. He feels it unlikely that the two were completely independent. Here's a few quotes from the end:

I kind of think time and distance is different after death. I'm also not sure there is a chain of command like you are talking about. If there is one, I would expect it to be more family oriented, not "General Authorities"/"Area Authorities"

The appeals court has issued an opinion for the case against the bishop in his capacity as a doctor. You can read the full opinion at https://www.appeals2.az.gov/Decisions/CV20240030Opinion.pdf The appeals court ruled in favor for the bishop. They ruled that the summary judgment at the Superior court level was correct; there was no factual dispute that would require a trial. It was a 2-1 opinion. The majority decision stated that there is no evidence brought by the Does that show that the bishop was informed of the abuse when he acted as a doctor. Specifically, the law about reporting states that doctors are supposed to report if they learn about the abuse “in the course of treating a patient." Since the bishop learned about the abuse in confessional situations and there is no evidence that he learned about it while caring for the wife and children, then he had no duty to report as a doctor. The dissent is interesting because it argues that the doctor had a common law duty to report, because it is what an ethical doctor would do. I think if the bishop was sued in a civil lawsuit for failing to protect the children, he might loose.

The owner first found it in a trunk that he inherited from his mother in 1992 and tried to open it. He thought it was a pocket watch but since its latch was broken, he didn't want to force it open. He didn't open it till 2020 when he was basically bored at home during covid.