The Lorin C. Whooly Story

[Cold Steel]

My son John, you have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant how far it is binding upon my people.

Thus saith the Lord: All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, for I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever.

Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years; and this because of their weakness

[erichard]

I would just suggest that Max Anderson and his protege Brian Hales may not exactly be the best sources for information regarding fundamentalists. ...

You may be right. But this is a very controversial subject, and it is sometimes honestly hard to know who to believe.

I have read things by Samuel Taylor, and know he was sympathetic to the fundamentalist ideas, but he remained LDS. I wonder why? Did he ever say he believed the 8 hour meeting claims of Woolley?

The letter you presented confuses me. If you know the answers to my questions, I would be interested to know.

14 February 1980

Dear S ...,

I got the three boxes of material, and I've got to admit that this is the high-water mark in the literature of the Mormon apologist.

It does not sound like he is talking about Max's book. What 3 boxes of material is he talking about?

It is hard to believe that someone like Max Anderson would be so completely lacking in integrity in examining the evidence. But what really boggles me is how he could spend the time and effort on these manuscripts, which literally fit the definition of pornography, being utterly and completely devoid of any redeeming feature.

What was in these boxes that fit the definition of pornography?

Of course I realize that he thinks he is protecting the faith: but it is apparent at a glance that he is not a scholar at all. His thesis is that the official mythology is completely true to the last comma, and that any evidence to the contrary is nothing but apostate lies from the minions of Satan. ... etc

I could see him saying this about Max's book, but how does the three boxes of material fit in?

Without knowing exactly what Samuel was talking about, it is hard to evalute what he is saying.

Richard

[erichard]

Even if this revelation is true, it has not been formally accepted by the church, nor was it ever recorded in John Taylor's journal. ...There is no way the leadership of the church could be hijacked, as the FLDS (or any other group since the original schisms) has claimed. Yet this chart is their official chart of priesthood keys, ending in their latest prophet.

...

Hi coldsteel,

It kinda makes me laugh when people say what you said: "...even if this revelation is true..."

Well, if it is true, but has not been formally accepted by the church, it still is TRUE. Right? It kinda sounds like you are trying to pin your salvation on the sleeve of others. You might want to read JST Mark 9:40-48 some time.

And since when was Darth Vader chosen as the newest president of the FLDS? I honestly never heard about that... [it comes across as mocking, you know.]

Richard

[alter idem]

Hi coldsteel,

It kinda makes me laugh when people say what you said: "...even if this revelation is true..."

Well, if it is true, but has not been formally accepted by the church, it still is TRUE. Right? It kinda sounds like you are trying to pin your salvation on the sleeve of others. You might want to read JST Mark 9:40-48 some time.

The phrase does sound like a 'cop out', but I think I understand what he means. Regardless of whether or not it is 'true', it's not binding on the church. And if it was SOOOOO important to god and the church, surely then it would have been accepted and made binding on the saints. At least that's how I see it. And one reason why I dismiss it.

If Pres. John Taylor knew it was of vital importance to the world and the church, it is reasonable to assume his counselors and Quorum would have been apprised of it or at least acknowledged it? But we are expected to believe that it was kept from the leadership and this vital charge was given to a group outside the hierarchy of the Lord's church. And of course, 'by their fruits shall ye know them' gives us clear reason to condemn their claims of authority and a 'mission' as most definitely NOT from God.

And since when was Darth Vader chosen as the newest president of the FLDS? I honestly never heard about that... [it comes across as mocking, you know.]

Richard

Mocking, yes. However, I guess we are supposed to ignore it or we will be labeled 'Board Nannies' by the 'Nanny police' lurking on the board.

[kamenraider]

...

You seem to think that if you post something lengthy with tons of quotes you have won the debate--that only works if it addresses the problem.

I actually didn't think of this as a debate. I thought I was just providing you with information that you were unaware of.

The quotes you offer do nothing to change the FACT that the 1886 revelation is worthless with only one witness to corroborate it. That's what you've got...one single witness (Lorin Woolley who wasn't even the main recipient of the 'call') who wrote it down and signed his name to it--conveniently after all the others had died.

The September 27, 1886 revelation was written (but not signed by) John Taylor, not Lorin Woolley. Woolley's 1929 statement was prepared by Joseph Musser, not written by himself.

And you dismiss John Earp's denial of events because he said he had regard for the Woolley family? He did not support Woolley's story, he denied it. What he did with that last statement was try to 'soften' the damage he was doing to Woolley's reputation. Clearly he is denying Lorin's written statement.

John Earp? You mean George Earl? That's even more egregious than Pedro's "Whooly" misspelling. ;-)

November 3, 1936

...

On this day J.W. Musser, Daniel R. Bateman, Moroni Jessop and Louis A. Kelsch visited George Earl of Centerville, who was reported as being one of the thirteen at the special meeting held Sept. 27, 1886 at the home of John W. Woolley. We questioned Bro. Earl as to what he knew regarding the proceedings at the meeting in question. He could remember but little of the details. He was 15 years old at the time, was a chore boy, and was in and out, but he remembered such a meeting though he didn't remember, in detail, the instructions given. He was well acquainted with Prest. John Taylor, Geo. Q. Cannon, Jos. F. Smith, the Woolleys, L. John Nuttall, the Batemans, Sammie[sic] Burrell and others who met there, and was used, at times, as a messenger boy. He knew why the brethren were there, and all were sworn to the strictest secrecy. With emphasis he stated: "John W. Woolley, Lorin C. Woolley and Dan Bateman were all truthful men," and that he would stake his life on their word. He believes what they said about the meeting and the purpose of it, though much of the details he either did not hear, as he was in and out of the house during the meeting, or did not remember. Repeating one expression of George Q. Cannon, a very unusual expression from him, as he had always been very mild in language, speaking of a certain deputy marshall who had been a Mormon, Prest. Cannon exclaimed "He's a tithing-eating son-of-a-****."

--Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, pg. 86.

As long as you have no written statement by John W. Woolley (the one who was supposedly the main character), and one or two who were actually there to offer their witnesses, you only have the son's story to go by. We have no statement by John Woolley, we only have claims by others of what he was supposedly told to do. That's not good enough--no matter how many of those kinds of quotes you can dig up.

Yeah, John W. Woolley should've anticipated your excessive doubt and, though "sworn to the strictest secrecy", provided a written statement rather than just testifying to friends and at small fundamentalist gatherings (which he did, btw). LOL!

Your quotes also rely on the later players in the fundamentalist movement--some who claim authority from this 'revelation' and others who have their own claims...K, this isn't how we do things in the church--this is how break offs do things. Witnesses are important, following the order of the church is important. These guys defied the leadership of the church and they offer only one witness, themselves, to the events or the authority they claim to hold. Those who claimed to follow Woolley's authority completely veered from what he'd taught them, once they were in control--Warren Jeffs is latest 'prophet' of the main group that grew out of Woolley's claim--and look how far the FLDS are from Woolley's original inception. And we know the mess of some of the other groups, Lebarons, Harmstons etc. How can anyone think these people were given 'authority' from God to do what they've done.

The quotes you provided do nothing to bolster Lorin Woolley's claim to authority--it only provides evidence that he was influential in getting others to believe his claims and repeat them. Many of these people were good people who just could not let Polygamy go--they'd built it up in their mind to something much more than it was ever meant to be. They couldn't let it go, their 'calling' that set them apart from the average around them. They couldn't humble themselves and accept the authority of the living Prophets, they looked to dead ones and defied the living ones so that they be 'special', called to a higher calling than the rank and file masses of the church. This same line of thinking drives good, deluded people to the polygamy cults today.

Would you discount the testimonies of people such as Oliver Cowdery, Orson Pratt, Alexander Neibaur, etc., regarding what they heard Joseph Smith relate about the First Vision just because they were followers of Joseph Smith, or do you judge Joseph Smith by a different standard than Lorin Woolley?

edit: The Lebarons and Jim Harmston don't claim authority from Lorin Woolley. I don't know that they or Warren Jeffs (who has admitted that he is not a Prophet) can be put in the same catagory as John and Lorin Woolley, who were very careful not to exceed what they understood they were commissioned to do.

[alter idem]

I actually didn't think of this as a debate. I thought I was just providing you with information that you were unaware of.

This is a message board where I believe we engage in debate. Is there a problem with me suggesting it is a debate? If so, I'll use a different word. In 'discussing' with you in the past, I've noticed that you will provide lengthy quotes and I have to wade through them to try and figure out your point. Also, as in this instance, the quotes you gave were not relevant, so I have to wonder if you are trying to get me to withdraw with this tactic, rather than spend a lot of time trying to answer your post...but if you say it's not on purpose, then I'll believe you.

The September 27, 1886 revelation was written (but not signed by) John Taylor, not Lorin Woolley.

I know the purported revelation is attributed to John Taylor--did I give you the impression I didn't?

Woolley's 1929 statement was prepared by Joseph Musser, not written by himself.

And this is important why? Does it change anything?

John Earp? You mean George Earl? That's even more egregious than Pedro's "Whooly" misspelling. ;-)

My apologies. I'm surprised I didn't call him "Wyatt Earp". That would have been funnier. Kamenraider, some of us are not perfect..if you want to comb through others' posts for errors I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

Yeah, John W. Woolley should've anticipated your excessive doubt and, though "sworn to the strictest secrecy", provided a written statement rather than just testifying to friends and at small fundamentalist gatherings (which he did, btw). LOL!

IF John W. Woolley's claims are true, then it's the Lord who should have anticipated the doubts of his people and should have made sure this information came through the proper channels. But no. This was set up in secrecy, in defiance of the living Prophets, and what grew out of this movement is something that the original members would not have condoned and I doubt even associated themselves with.

Would you discount the testimonies of people such as Oliver Cowdery, Orson Pratt, Alexander Neibaur, etc., regarding what they heard Joseph Smith relate about the First Vision just because they were followers of Joseph Smith, or do you judge Joseph Smith by a different standard than Lorin Woolley?

I don't 'discount'; but I am careful. I take second, third and fourth hand accounts with skepticism, yes. I don't care if it's Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, or anyone else--I read their remarks in light of the fact that I'm getting information through the filter of another person. So, no--Lorin Woolley does not get special treatment from me.

[alter idem]

edit: The Lebarons and Jim Harmston don't claim authority from Lorin Woolley. I don't know that they or Warren Jeffs (who has admitted that he is not a Prophet) can be put in the same catagory as John and Lorin Woolley, who were very careful not to exceed what they understood they were commissioned to do.

I know this. If you will read my statement you'll see I did not say the Lebarons and Harmston took their authority from Woolley. You may correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the LeBaron's claim authority through Benjamin F. Johnson. James Harmston, I'm not sure of.

And though Warren Jeffs did admit he wasn't a Prophet while in jail, he later took it back.

What I did lump together was polygamist fundamentalists in general.

[Olavarria]

I would just suggest that Max Anderson and his protege Brian Hales may not exactly be the best sources for information regarding fundamentalists. Here's a letter from John W. Taylor's son Samuel, who was an active LDS member and a historian, novelist and scriptwriter:

And I see you have a copy of the AUB study guides;)

Look out, I'm on to you;)

[Olavarria]

Like I show above, there were multiple witnesses. As Drew Briney pointed out though, there's no contemporary documentation for the 1886 meeting, or the fall of Adam, the Atonement of Christ, or the first vision of Joseph Smith either. There actually might be for the 1886 meeting, however the First Presidency has the last months of 1886 of George Q. Cannon's journal, the 1886 volume of L. John Nuttall's journal, John Taylor's office journal, etc., locked in their vault and restricted from access.

You comparing apples and oranges here.

I personally don't have a problem with the "8 hour meeting", my problem is with JT's alledged creation of a parallel priesthood structure. That is the issue at hand, IMHO.

[Olavarria]

Would you discount the testimonies of people such as Oliver Cowdery, Orson Pratt, Alexander Neibaur, etc., regarding what they heard Joseph Smith relate about the First Vision just because they were followers of Joseph Smith, or do you judge Joseph Smith by a different standard than Lorin Woolley?

Again apples and oranges. The 1st vision is just that, the first vision. It isnt a conferral of priesthood authority. In Joseph's case, Oliver stands as a second witness.

Lorin has none. Again, people(JW,SB) may or may not have talked about an 8 hour meeting, that may or may not have happened; but what about the ordinations? And what about the dependance on repressed memories?

[Olavarria]

recovered memories*

[erichard]

...If Pres. John Taylor knew it was of vital importance to the world and the church, it is reasonable to assume his counselors and Quorum would have been apprised of it or at least acknowledged it? But we are expected to believe that it was kept from the leadership and this vital charge was given to a group outside the hierarchy of the Lord's church. And of course, 'by their fruits shall ye know them' gives us clear reason to condemn their claims of authority and a 'mission' as most definitely NOT from God.

...

John Taylor died July 25, 1887 while still hiding in the "underground". So the Sept 1886 revelation would have been less than a year before he died. Communications between him and other church leaders must have been very bad. It is easy for me to believe that this revelation was authentic, but logistically failed to be shown to others.

Earlier John Taylor revelations had been accepted by church leaders. Notice that two Taylor revelations were put in European editions of the D&C:

http://doctrineandcovenants.byu.edu/dodc.php

Here is another revelation, that was unmistakenly recorded in Wilford Woodruff's famous pioneer Journal. It has never been cannonized, but how can it not be authentic?

Revelation Received Sunday, November 24, 1889

By President Wilford Woodruff

(Journal of Wilford Woodruff)

(Also Messages of the First Presidency 3:175)

At Salt Lake City, Utah Territory

Thus saith the LORD to My servant Wilford, I the Lord have heard thy prayer and thy request, and will answer thee by the voice of My Spirit.

2 Thus saith the LORD, unto My servants, the Presidency of My Church, who hold the keys of the Kingdom of God on the earth.

3 I the Lord hold the destiny of the Courts in your midst, and the destiny of this nation, and all other nations of the earth in Mine own hands; all that I have revealed, and promised and decreed concerning the generation in which you live, shall come to pass, and no power shall stay My hand.

4 Let not My servants who are called to the Presidency of My Church, deny My word or My law, which concerns the salvation of the children of men.

5 Let them pray for the Holy Spirit, which shall be given them, to guide them in their acts.

6 Place not yourselves in jeopardy to your enemies by promise;

7 Your enemies seek your destruction and the destruction of My people.

8 If the Saints will hearken unto My voice, and the counsel of My servants, the wicked shall not prevail.

9 Let My servants, who officiate as your Counselors before the Courts, make their pleadings as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit, without any further pledges from the Priesthood, and they shall be justified.

10 I the LORD will hold the Courts, with the officers of government, and the nation responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion.

11 I, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, am in your midst. I am your Advocate with the Father.

12 Fear not little flock, it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom.

13 Fear not the wicked and ungodly.

14 Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me; also those revelations which I have given to My Servant Joseph, and to all My Servants since the world began, which are recorded in the records of divine truth.

15 Those revelations contain the judgments of God, which are to be poured out upon all nations under the heavens, which include great babylon.

16 These judgments are at the door, they will be fulfilled as God lives.

17 Leave judgment with Me, it is Mine saith the LORD.

18 Watch the signs of the times, and they will show the fulfillment of the words of the LORD.

19 Let my servants call upon the LORD in mighty prayer, retain the Holy Ghost as your constant companion, and act as you are moved upon by that spirit, and all will be well with you.

20 The wicked are fast ripening in iniquity, and they will be cut off by the judgments of God.

21 Great events await you and this generation, and are nigh at your doors.

22 Awake, O Israel, and have faith in God, and His promises, and He will not forsake you.

23 I, the Lord will deliver My Saints from the dominion of the wicked, in Mine own due time and way.

24 I cannot deny My word, neither in blessings nor judgments.

25 Therefore let Mine anointed gird up their loins, watch and be sober, and keep My commandments.

26 Pray always and faint not; exercise faith in the LORD and in the promises of God; be valiant in the testimony of Jesus Christ.

27 The eyes of the Lord and the Heavenly Hosts are watching over you and your acts.

28 Therefore be faithful until I come. I come quickly, to reward every man according with deeds done in the body.

Even so, Amen.

Richard

[erichard]

I... Here's a letter from John W. Taylor's son Samuel, who was an active LDS member and a historian, novelist and scriptwriter: ...

k,

With the help of google, I found this letter quoted in a book titled:

1886 Priesthood Succession

Nathan C Taylor

&

Robert Openshaw

(Polygamy Story -- a review)

copyright 2008

At this site: http://www.scribd.com/doc/23201016/1886-Priesthood-Succesion

The author has disabled downloads. But I did look through it. You must have seen it.

It mainly gives the same fundamentalists arguments I have heard before. I can accept their concern that The Polygamy Story has problems, but I still was not convinced by "their" arguments either. They also give no explanation for the above letter from Samuel Taylor, so I still do not understand it.

A main concern I continue to have with those claiming authority through Lorin Woolley claims is that there is no convincing evidence that the gift to receive the Word of the Lord has been among them all these years. They have nothing like the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants as an evidence of revelatory gifts from God. They have their arguments, based on what true prophets said before them, but so does everyone else.

Of course, I have the same issue with the LDS leadership since 1889.

Richard

[Cold Steel]

It kinda makes me laugh when people say what you said: "...even if this revelation is true..." Well, if it is true, but has not been formally accepted by the church, it still is TRUE. Right? It kinda sounds like you are trying to pin your salvation on the sleeve of others.

No, however with truth comes context. If the revelation is true, one would naturally wonder under what circumstances was it given? What is the revelation saying? Why didn't President Taylor record it in his formal journal or submit it to the Records Department? How would it relate to the plural marriage question? (The new and everlasting covenant is not plural marriage, but the sealing power of families. The Lord always had the authority to stop plural marriages, but would He negate covenants already taken, or entered into? If the revelation was in answer to a question by Taylor, what was the question?

So "truth" is defined by context. And context defines parameters. And since when was Darth Vader chosen as the newest president of the FLDS? I honestly never heard about that... (It comes across as mocking, you know.)

Yes, but in this particular case, I feel justified. The FLDS and other polygamist loonies are the old weird aunt locked up in the closet. In other words, they're not just another religion in the world, but they derive whatever legitimacy they claim from us. They are liars, murderers, thieves and social misfits, and these are their more endearing qualities. When I went on my mission, President Lee was under bodyguard because he was on one (or more) of their death lists. True Latter-day Saints don't generally feel that these people are deserving of anything a legitimate religion would be deserving of. Jeffs collected all the money, appointed and fired "apostles" and other church officers at will, handed women out one day and recollected them the next, so he could mete them out still again. As controller of the church funds, he owned everyone's land, their homes and their families, and he could expel anyone therein at will. He had a fleet of cars and vans, multiple cell phones and computers and many mp3 players. They are social parasites, criminals, corrupt to the core and they are horrible abusers of women. So yes, mocking them seems more than justified. However, if I offended Mr. Vader in any way, shape or form, I do offer heartfelt apologies.

.

[jozov]

I think its legit.

For decades the church teaches polygamy as the only way to heaven. They mock monogamy and say it is a perversion of the Romans. Along comes John Taylor and ratchets up the rhetoric even more and boldly makes a bunch of quotes on the divinity of polygamy. I think he even said the church would fall into apostasy or the priesthood taken from the earth if the practice is stopped (I need to dig up the quotes, but they are along those lines). Then, church leaders secretly start sending people to Mexico and Canada to keep polygamy alive and safe from the evil gentiles who are trying to destroy the Lord's Kingdom.

A few years later Woodruf comes along and says: "OK, God says no more plural marriage"

You know the fundies are gonna freak. Polygamy has been burned into their minds. Many of them lost everything and went to jail for polygamy. Many of them moved to foreign countries thinking it was the Lord's command. Is anyone surprised that after 50 years of rhetoric they don't all of sudden feel the church is being lead into apostasy?

Imagine if Monson came out and said the BOM is an allegory and not real. There would probably be members who would form "BOM non-fiction" sects. I imagine this is how the manifesto affected many members who then went off to start their own fundy LDS church.

Thank goodness that today's LDS leaders don't shoot their mouths off, and are not so opinionated. I believe that the FP and Qo12 all consult with one another and peer review their statements before going to the pulpit or publishing a book.

[alter idem]

I think its legit.

Really. You think it's a true revelation from God? Well then, I guess you need to go join the fundamentalists.

For decades the church teaches polygamy as the only way to heaven.

The church did not teach it was the only way to heaven, and don't offer up a quote from the JD as evidence, because it is clear that the members of the church did not believe this. If this was true, then ALL the LDS people would have been practicing polygamy during this time and fact is, the vast majority were not and people are misreading the quotes to make a claim that is obviously not true.

They mock monogamy and say it is a perversion of the Romans.

CFR. What have you got? One person saying this (where? A book or pamphlet? Orson Pratt maybe?) and you use that to claim 'they', LDS in general held disdain for monogamy. Early saints prove this is not true. Polygamists were the minority, monogamists, the majority. Monogamy was never considered a perversion or a mockery by the LDS people.

Along comes John Taylor and ratchets up the rhetoric even more and boldly makes a bunch of quotes on the divinity of polygamy. I think he even said the church would fall into apostasy or the priesthood taken from the earth if the practice is stopped (I need to dig up the quotes, but they are along those lines). Then, church leaders secretly start sending people to Mexico and Canada to keep polygamy alive and safe from the evil gentiles who are trying to destroy the Lord's Kingdom.

I take all this with a grain of salt too. If you want to make claims like these, you'll need to provide the actual references. I think you've got some myth mixed in with your 'facts'. For one thing, individuals chose to go to Canada and Mexico because they believed they would not be prosecuted--I have no idea why you think it was some kind of 'secret' to 'keep polygamy alive and safe'--unless you've swallowed the fundamentalists' version of events.

A few years later Woodruf comes along and says: "OK, God says no more plural marriage"

You know the fundies are gonna freak. Polygamy has been burned into their minds. Many of them lost everything and went to jail for polygamy. Many of them moved to foreign countries thinking it was the Lord's command. Is anyone surprised that after 50 years of rhetoric they don't all of sudden feel the church is being lead into apostasy?

Only a small minority 'freaked' as you perceive it and they became the fundamentalists. The rest--like all my ancestors, stopped the practice without batting an eye. Because it was not 'burned into their minds' and even though they went to jail and had suffered a lot of persecution for it, they had faith in the living Prophet and they followed him. Some went to Canada and Mexico because they did not want to abandon their polygamous families and believed that if they moved, they could live safely and openly with them and not have to pay fines etc. The fact is, the LDS majority were able to transition easily in dropping polygamy because it wasn't to them what the fundamentalists claimed it was. This is clear.

Imagine if Monson came out and said the BOM is an allegory and not real. There would probably be members who would form "BOM non-fiction" sects. I imagine this is how the manifesto affected many members who then went off to start their own fundy LDS church.

I may disagree with what fundamentalists did, but I'm not so dismissive of the struggle they faced when polygamy was prohibited. To use Pedro's phrase; "Apples and Oranges". It's a big leap to try to make some kind of comparison here.

Thank goodness that today's LDS leaders don't shoot their mouths off, and are not so opinionated. I believe that the FP and Qo12 all consult with one another and peer review their statements before going to the pulpit or publishing a book.

Leaders today have the benefit of hingsight early LDS leaders did not enjoy. They had no idea that the things they were saying would be dissected on the internet throughout the world. They could not see the future and they did not know how some would use their words to try and destroy the Lord's work. There is no reason for them to have seen what the future held and in their defense, if they had, they would have been more circumspect.

[alter idem]

John Taylor died July 25, 1887 while still hiding in the "underground". So the Sept 1886 revelation would have been less than a year before he died. Communications between him and other church leaders must have been very bad. It is easy for me to believe that this revelation was authentic, but logistically failed to be shown to others.

I know John Taylor was in hiding, but even so, I stand by my statement. Whether authentic or not, it certainly did not mean what the Fundamentalists claim it meant. Because that would have toppled the whole divinely revealed structure of the church to assume that the Lord would work outside the authorized, established workings of the hierarchy of the church. And so, logic tells me, it is either not authentic or if it is authentic, not what fundamentalists claim it was. If it was something for the whole church membership, in hiding or not, Pres. Taylor and the Lord would have made sure it was not ignored by his priesthood leaders who were authorized to lead the people and not left to implement by men outside the church hierarchy.

I don't expect you to agree, you belong to a break off church and your own prophet was outside the church hierarchy.

Earlier John Taylor revelations had been accepted by church leaders. Notice that two Taylor revelations were put in European editions of the D&C:

http://doctrineandcovenants.byu.edu/dodc.php

Here is another revelation, that was unmistakenly recorded in Wilford Woodruff's famous pioneer Journal. It has never been cannonized, but how can it not be authentic?

Richard

There is a process where revelations are accepted by the church and there are many that were never accepted. IMO, any revelation which has not been canonized should not be automatically considered authentic and should be recognized as not binding on the general population. There needs to be order, otherwise, we'll end up with chaos.

[jozov]

Really. You think it's a true revelation from God? Well then, I guess you need to go join the fundamentalists.

The church did not teach it was the only way to heaven, and don't offer up a quote from the JD as evidence, because it is clear that the members of the church did not believe this. If this was true, then ALL the LDS people would have been practicing polygamy during this time and fact is, the vast majority were not and people are misreading the quotes to make a claim that is obviously not true.

CFR. What have you got? One person saying this (where? A book or pamphlet? Orson Pratt maybe?) and you use that to claim 'they', LDS in general held disdain for monogamy. Early saints prove this is not true. Polygamists were the minority, monogamists, the majority. Monogamy was never considered a perversion or a mockery by the LDS people.

I take all this with a grain of salt too. If you want to make claims like these, you'll need to provide the actual references. I think you've got some myth mixed in with your 'facts'. For one thing, individuals chose to go to Canada and Mexico because they believed they would not be prosecuted--I have no idea why you think it was some kind of 'secret' to 'keep polygamy alive and safe'--unless you've swallowed the fundamentalists' version of events.

Only a small minority 'freaked' as you perceive it and they became the fundamentalists. The rest--like all my ancestors, stopped the practice without batting an eye. Because it was not 'burned into their minds' and even though they went to jail and had suffered a lot of persecution for it, they had faith in the living Prophet and they followed him. Some went to Canada and Mexico because they did not want to abandon their polygamous families and believed that if they moved, they could live safely and openly with them and not have to pay fines etc. The fact is, the LDS majority were able to transition easily in dropping polygamy because it wasn't to them what the fundamentalists claimed it was. This is clear.

I may disagree with what fundamentalists did, but I'm not so dismissive of the struggle they faced when polygamy was prohibited. To use Pedro's phrase; "Apples and Oranges". It's a big leap to try to make some kind of comparison here.

Leaders today have the benefit of hingsight early LDS leaders did not enjoy. They had no idea that the things they were saying would be dissected on the internet throughout the world. They could not see the future and they did not know how some would use their words to try and destroy the Lord's work. There is no reason for them to have seen what the future held and in their defense, if they had, they would have been more circumspect.

Below are a sample of quotes denouncing the horrors of monogamy Some of the quotes are from the JoD. Its silly to say one cannot use the JoD in arguing the past concerning Mormonism. It is true that the church disassociates itself from most of the JoD today, but this was not the case in the 19th century which is the context of of this thread.

[Olavarria]

Alter Diem, you bring up a very interesting points.

Having a parallel priesthood structure would undermine the dependability of prophets all together for how would you know where to turn to find the the "one man" per section 132? Is it Jensen? Kingston? Jeffs? Timpson?

And what if one of them goes "out of order" and splinters break off?

Here is what one famous polygamist had to say on that matter:

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.(Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

[erichard]

...

I don't expect you to agree, you belong to a break off church and your own prophet was outside the church hierarchy.

...

alter idem,

The Second Book of Commandments forbids setting up another church. I am convinced we have not set up another church. 2BC 24 predicts that the LDS church will be cleansed and set in order, and thus there is no need to set up another church.

We believe the Gentiles have polluted the Lord's church, as predicted in the Book of Mormon, and do not have the gift of written oracles among their leaders, as did Joseph, Brigham, John and Wilford. There is no evidence of this gift for over 120 years among the church leadership.

You do realize that I do not accept the Lorin Woolley claims. Right? I definitely do not believe, and never have, that the Sept 1886 John Taylor revelation supports the fundamentalist claims.

Do you feel you have to reject it or somehow it will give support to the fundamentalists? Can you not just look at it on its own merits and determine its truthfulness from that?

Years ago I did some work for a fellow who was in the Allred group, but was fed up with it. He grew up in Florida, eventually joined the LDS church, moved to SLC, and at some point joined the Allreds. He had a business in St George and I was working there. In his business he had a library of Mormon related books in one corner, and a big sign: "$10,000 Reward -- Prove Brigham Young did NOT teach Adam-God".

He lived at Motaqua, an Allred "place of refuge" out near the Nevada border. I did some work for him out at Motaqua. At one point he convinced me to use my truck and help him move some things up to Pinesdale, Montana-- another Allred enclave where his son lived, and he had lived earlier. I went up there and stayed in a house where a man had 9 wives and about 50 children. I went to one of their meetings and listened to them. I remember that Robert Openshaw was there.

The main thing I remember from listening to these fundamentalists was how much of what they said was based on speculation. I have a very scripture based faith, and anything that cannot be proven from scripture must be presented as only possibly true. But they went on and on saying incredible things I had never heard of before, all as if it was guaranteed to be true. I simply have no faith in the Allred group, or any group that accepts the Woolley claims.

The fellow did leave the Allred group, by the way.

Richard

[Olavarria]

alter idem,

The Second Book of Commandments forbids setting up another church. I am convinced we have not set up another church. 2BC 24 predicts that the LDS church will be cleansed and set in order, and thus there is no need to set up another church.

We believe the Gentiles have polluted the Lord's church, as predicted in the Book of Mormon, and do not have the gift of written oracles among their leaders, as did Joseph, Brigham, John and Wilford. There is no evidence of this gift for over 120 years among the church leadership.

You do realize that I do not accept the Lorin Woolley claims. Right? I definitely do not believe, and never have, that the Sept 1886 John Taylor revelation supports the fundamentalist claims.

Do you feel you have to reject it or somehow it will give support to the fundamentalists? Can you not just look at it on its own merits and determine its truthfulness from that?

Years ago I did some work for a fellow who was in the Allred group, but was fed up with it. He grew up in Florida, eventually joined the LDS church, moved to SLC, and at some point joined the Allreds. He had a business in St George and I was working there. In his business he had a library of Mormon related books in one corner, and a big sign: "$10,000 Reward -- Prove Brigham Young did NOT teach Adam-God".

He lived at Motaqua, an Allred "place of refuge" out near the Nevada border. I did some work for him out at Motaqua. At one point he convinced me to use my truck and help him move some things up to Pinesdale, Montana-- another Allred enclave where his son lived, and he had lived earlier. I went up there and stayed in a house where a man had 9 wives and about 50 children. I went to one of their meetings and listened to them. I remember that Robert Openshaw was there.

The main thing I remember from listening to these fundamentalists was how much of what they said was based on speculation. I have a very scripture based faith, and anything that cannot be proven from scripture must be presented as only possibly true. But they went on and on saying incredible things I had never heard of before, all as if it was guaranteed to be true. I simply have no faith in the Allred group, or any group that accepts the Woolley claims.

The fellow did leave the Allred group, by the way.

Richard

So we're all (except Kamen) pretty much in agreement that LCW has as much evidence for his claims as James Strang.

[alter idem]

alter idem,

The Second Book of Commandments forbids setting up another church. I am convinced we have not set up another church. 2BC 24 predicts that the LDS church will be cleansed and set in order, and thus there is no need to set up another church.

We believe the Gentiles have polluted the Lord's church, as predicted in the Book of Mormon, and do not have the gift of written oracles among their leaders, as did Joseph, Brigham, John and Wilford. There is no evidence of this gift for over 120 years among the church leadership.

I did not realize that your group had not set up their own church, sorry. You don't have to answer as this is personal, but I am curious if you are an LDS member in good standing? I assume you don't hold a temple recommend--as there is that one question about-- if you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual who's teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the church?

You do realize that I do not accept the Lorin Woolley claims. Right? I definitely do not believe, and never have, that the Sept 1886 John Taylor revelation supports the fundamentalist claims.

From your posts it seemed pretty clear that you also reject Lorin Woolley's claims, so yes, I did understand that.

Do you feel you have to reject it or somehow it will give support to the fundamentalists? Can you not just look at it on its own merits and determine its truthfulness from that?

No, I reject it because I think the claims surrounding it sound fanciful and exaggerated. As for the revelation--I don't know, it could be real or fake--I don't think we have enough evidence to prove either way. If real, though, I don't see in it the interpretation the fundamentalists have given it.

Years ago I did some work for a fellow who was in the Allred group, but was fed up with it. He grew up in Florida, eventually joined the LDS church, moved to SLC, and at some point joined the Allreds. He had a business in St George and I was working there. In his business he had a library of Mormon related books in one corner, and a big sign: "$10,000 Reward -- Prove Brigham Young did NOT teach Adam-God".

He lived at Motaqua, an Allred "place of refuge" out near the Nevada border. I did some work for him out at Motaqua. At one point he convinced me to use my truck and help him move some things up to Pinesdale, Montana-- another Allred enclave where his son lived, and he had lived earlier. I went up there and stayed in a house where a man had 9 wives and about 50 children. I went to one of their meetings and listened to them. I remember that Robert Openshaw was there.

The main thing I remember from listening to these fundamentalists was how much of what they said was based on speculation. I have a very scripture based faith, and anything that cannot be proven from scripture must be presented as only possibly true. But they went on and on saying incredible things I had never heard of before, all as if it was guaranteed to be true. I simply have no faith in the Allred group, or any group that accepts the Woolley claims.

The fellow did leave the Allred group, by the way.

Richard

I agree they base a lot of their claims on pure speculation--I have to wonder if they even crack their scriptures much. If they did, they might be surprised at what they'd find there.

[alter idem]

So we're all (except Kamen) pretty much in agreement that LCW has as much evidence for his claims as James Strang.

I believe you are correct, unless he's changed his mind after our discussion (I doubt it). Anyway, it's nice to find a topic that we can be in agreement with erichard on.

[erichard]

... You don't have to answer as this is personal, but I am curious if you are an LDS member in good standing? ...

alter idem,

I was excommunicated from the church. The only charge was "apostacy", yet I did not even claim to be right-- just to have the right to legitmately not sustain the President of the church and to seek for a trial to settle controversies over him. Oh, and the also the right to not reject the evidences for such a trial. The 2BC is just such an evidence, as I see it. I simply cannot read (or listen to on mp3s) the 2BC and deny it is true revelation.

You can read more about my convictions and church trial if you are interested:

http://www.2bc.info/pdf/Nsustain.pdf

Richard

[Olavarria]

BTW it looks like Daniel Bateman's testimony is also based on recovered "memories".

"He [Daniel Bateman] stated that the prediction of President Taylor that all things would be brought back to their memory in the proper time, had literally been fulfilled."Truth, vol. 17, no. 3 (August 1951), p. 71.

and

"much of the instruction he [John Taylor] was giving us we would forget, but that at the proper time it would come back to us."Musser and Broadbent, Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, pp. 26-27.

Of course I commited the cardinal sin of using Max Andersen in my study of this issue