The Lorin C. Whooly Story

[kamenraider]

Another quote showing that John W. Woolley both supported the same story as his son Lorin, and associated with Joseph F. Smith, from a talk by John Y. Barlow given Sept. 13, 1942:

"When we used to go up to Uncle John Woolley's and Lorin Woolley's, they would tell us of things -- how the Savior and Joseph Smith came to their place and what he told them to do to keep this principle alive. I have heard those men testify to that many times. I have been called into their Council and told of these things -- tutored up. I used to live just a little way from Uncle Lorin Woolley, and I knew Uncle John Woolley; and I heard the neighbors say that Joseph F. Smith used to go up and visit with him. They said that Joseph F. thought a lot of him, that he went up and pled with him and pled with him. Yes, he did -- he counseled with him, but he wasn't pleading with him as they thought he was doing."

[kamenraider]

"You can make 7 more posts until A minute ago."

"You cannot start a new topic"

For some strange reason I now have these new limitations imposed upon me.

Care to explain this, mods?

I was suspended recently -- presumably for doing a poll about which general aspects of temple ordinances such as covenants, teachings, signs, etc., are the core elements that should not be changed. I did not post ANY temple content, but rather just intended to discuss the issue in a broad sense without getting into specific details, but I was immediately suspended for a week and the entire thread deleted. I've only made (prior to the above post) one post since coming back, which was in a thread about kabbalah. I'd like to know if I've broken any rules thereby or done anything else to deserve this.

[Olavarria]

Another quote showing that John W. Woolley both supported the same story as his son Lorin, and associated with Joseph F. Smith, from a talk by John Y. Barlow given Sept. 13, 1942:

"When we used to go up to Uncle John Woolley's and Lorin Woolley's, they would tell us of things -- how the Savior and Joseph Smith came to their place and what he told them to do to keep this principle alive. I have heard those men testify to that many times. I have been called into their Council and told of these things -- tutored up. I used to live just a little way from Uncle Lorin Woolley, and I knew Uncle John Woolley; and I heard the neighbors say that Joseph F. Smith used to go up and visit with him. They said that Joseph F. thought a lot of him, that he went up and pled with him and pled with him. Yes, he did -- he counseled with him, but he wasn't pleading with him as they thought he was doing."

Again, 2nd hand and more than 20 years later. We have no idea as to what JWW was actually saying. I wouldn't be shocked if he was actually saying something like LCW's 1921 account. But the 1929 account, given after JWW's death is more significant, and we have only LCW's word for that one.

Elder John A. Widstoe

"I will tell you of an experience I had some years ago. While in President Joseph F. Smith's office in Salt Lake City, John W. Woolley came into the President's office and asked if he could have a few weeks off from his work in the temple in order that he could visit with his Brother Sam who was then president of the mission in the South Sea Islands. I believe it was Samoa. Brother Woolley was a worker then in the Salt Lake Temple. President Smith gave him the time off that he wanted, and just as Brother Woolley was about to leave the President said, "John, it has been brought to my attention that you have been performing plural marriages in The Salt Lake Temple, is that correct?" Brother Woolley, he said, rather hung his head and answered, "Yes, President Smith, I have." President Smith then looked directly at Brother Woolley and said, "Did President Taylor ordain you and others to carry on plural marriage independent of the Church?" Brother Woolley answered, "President Smith I have lied to others about this, but I cannot lie to you as President of the Church. No he did not."

In all fairness, this quote is a "draw" in boxing terms. 1)it supports the idea that JWW claimed special authority from JT 2)it also claims he confessed to lying about it.

Joseph F. Smith

"Another thing, as we have announced in previous conferences, as it was announced by President Woodruff, as it was announced by President Snow, and as it was announced by me and my brethren, and confirmed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, plural marriages have ceased in the Church. There isn't a man today in this Church or anywhere else outside of it who has authority to solemnize a plural marriage, not one. There is no man or woman in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is authorized to contract a plural marriage. It is not permitted." (October General Conference in 1911)

FLDS people might claim that JFS is lying here to protect "the work". But, if we take this prophet at his word, one can't help but see this as final.

[kamenraider]

"Another thing, as we have announced in previous conferences, as it was announced by President Woodruff, as it was announced by President Snow, and as it was announced by me and my brethren, and confirmed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, plural marriages have ceased in the Church. There isn't a man today in this Church or anywhere else outside of it who has authority to solemnize a plural marriage, not one. There is no man or woman in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is authorized to contract a plural marriage. It is not permitted." (October General Conference in 1911)

So you think he's telling the truth?

edit: I'm down to three posts left now and it's a new day, so I suspect that I've been limited to seven posts a week or something. What do you think of that, Pedro? Someone around here must feel pretty insecure. How can I carry on actual discussions with limits like that placed on me?

[kamenraider]

An interesting letter from Joseph F. Smith to John W. Woolley:

[Olavarria]

An interesting letter from Joseph F. Smith to John W. Woolley:

Not trying to be sarcastic, but the point of this letter was what?

[Olavarria]

"Another thing, as we have announced in previous conferences, as it was announced by President Woodruff, as it was announced by President Snow, and as it was announced by me and my brethren, and confirmed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, plural marriages have ceased in the Church. There isn't a man today in this Church or anywhere else outside of it who has authority to solemnize a plural marriage, not one. There is no man or woman in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is authorized to contract a plural marriage. It is not permitted." (October General Conference in 1911)

This all begs the questian, how were the pos-manifesto marriages viewed by the leaders at this time? Certainly, they were binding. Certainly, post-manifesto marriages were concealed to the general public. Perhaps the Manifesto does mark the end of PM, even if the leadership underminded it's effectiveness by not living up to that purpose. Even today, 1890 is mentioned by Church leaders as the end of it all. They know about PMPM(especially pres. eyhring) which brings us to the questian, how does the leadership view PMPM today?

DH.Oaks:

Some have suggested that it is morally permissible to lie to promote a good cause. For example, some Mormons have taught or implied that lying is okay if you are lying for the Lord

[kamenraider]

... "There isn't a man today in this Church or anywhere else outside of it who has authority to solemnize a plural marriage, not one."That would include JFS himself. Sounds a little like HJG, if you ask me.

Since you've used AUB materials(study guides, Treasures of Knowledge), I might add that this statement would include JFS himself, who AUB recognize as the "one man"(D&C 132), until his death.

Do you think he is lying about that? If so, why?

And please don't tell me Joe Schmoe said in 1940 that he heard his sister say that JWW told her"(fill in the blank)".

He lied repeatedly regarding plural marriages, especially in statements intended for the public. According to Pres. Ivins, who was troubled by the statement, he said he "would lie any day to save [his]...brother." In Matthias Cowley's trial, he mentioned that a member of the First Presidency (sounds like JFS to me) told him he "would lie like hell to help the brethren."

While attending Gen. Conf. in 1903 Byron H. Allred Jr., the father of Rulon and Owen Allred, went to Joseph F. Smith to get permission to take a plural wife. Pres. Smith later sent Louis A. Kelsch (one of the Pres. of the Seventy) to him in Wyoming (with permission and instructions to move to Mexico, etc.), who travelled with Francis M. Lyman to their stake conference. Elder Kelsch was told not to let Elder Lyman know anything about it. Less than a year later Pres. Smith announced that "Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into, contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff of September 24, 1890, commonly called the manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff, and adopted by the Church at its general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative of the law of the land, I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

It's interesting to note that Louis A. Kelsch's daughter Rula married Leslie Broadbent, Lorin Woolley's successor, and his son, Louis Jr., was called as a member of Lorin Woolley's council. It's very interesting that Joseph F. Smith would trust Elder Kelsch as an insider. Very interesting indeed.

A guy named Wiley Nebeker who lived in Wyoming and heard about some of the continuing plural marriages there wrote to John Henry Smith, an apostle, to complain and demand an explanation, reporting rumors that "some were specially called by apostles to continue the practice." John Henry Smith wrote back and told him that no marriages had been authorized since the manifesto. Nevertheless, it was this same John Henry Smith who talked Bro. Hill into letting his daughter marry Joseph Musser in 1902.

[Olavarria]

He lied repeatedly regarding plural marriages, especially in statements intended for the public.

Not disputing that he or anyone b4 him tried to cover up post manifesto pm. That aint the issue.

The fact that he, the man many fndmntlsts see as the "one man" during that time period, said that NO ONE has the ability to seal pm, in or out of the Church, sounds alot more like HBJ than JWW. Unless, one belives JFS was "lying" about that too and HBJ was out of order. If that is the case, do you have any evidence to support it?

While attending Gen. Conf. in 1903 Byron H. Allred Jr., the father of Rulon and Owen Allred, went to Joseph F. Smith to get permission to take a plural wife. Pres. Smith later sent Louis A. Kelsch (one of the Pres. of the Seventy) to him in Wyoming (with permission and instructions to move to Mexico, etc.), who travelled with Francis M. Lyman to their stake conference. Elder Kelsch was told not to let Elder Lyman know anything about it. Less than a year later Pres. Smith announced that "Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into, contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff of September 24, 1890, commonly called the manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff, and adopted by the Church at its general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative of the law of the land, I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

It's interesting to note that Louis A. Kelsch's daughter Rula married Leslie Broadbent, Lorin Woolley's successor, and his son, Louis Jr., was called as a member of Lorin Woolley's council. It's very interesting that Joseph F. Smith would trust Elder Kelsch as an insider. Very interesting indeed.

Ok, so JFS sends Lousi Kelsch Sr. to seal PMPM in 1903(8 years before he made 1911 statement), Loius Kelsch Jr. and his sister become followers of LCW and some how this means what?

A guy named Wiley Nebeker who lived in Wyoming and heard about some of the continuing plural marriages there wrote to John Henry Smith, an apostle, to complain and demand an explanation, reporting rumors that "some were specially called by apostles to continue the practice." John Henry Smith wrote back and told him that no marriages had been authorized since the manifesto. Nevertheless, it was this same John Henry Smith who talked Bro. Hill into letting his daughter marry Joseph Musser in 1902.

So what? Church leadership was janus faced about PMPM, everyone knows that. What does that have to do with JFS's statment in 1911?

If your going to argue that: "There isn't a man today in this Church or anywhere else outside of it who has authority to solemnize a plural marriage, not one." is a lie then ur gonna have to back it up. Am I wrong?

[kamenraider]

Here's Rulon Allred's take on it from Q&A during a fireside held in SLC on August 1, 1970:

Q: Then how come President Joseph F. Smith said no one inside or outside the

Church had the authority to seal plural marriages?

RCA: I'm going to tell you how it came. The pressure in 1911 was so hard on

the Church again and was continuing, and the government was pressing them so

hard, that an official statement was demanded again from the authorities. So

President Smith called up the president of the temple at Logan where they were

performing sealings and had continued to perform them-and this will give you the

data to prove it-and he said, "I am going to have to make an official statement. I

am asking you and telling you, don't perform any more sealings until after I have

made this statement." He contacted every man who had that authority and said, "I

am withdrawing, for the time being, your right to perform any of these sealings in

plural marriages. No man in the Church or outside of the Church, until this

official statement is made, shall do anything about it." And then just the same as

he could have told them they could not, he could have told them afterward they

could. And he did. And it is the absolute truth.

Now, I know that this is true, because Joseph W. Musser, Nathan Clark and

Bishop A. K. [Mc]Kean were set apart in 1909, by President Joseph F. Smith, to

perform sealings and keep that principle alive, and that right was withdrawn from

them during that time.

--Treasures of Knowledge, Vol. 1, Hamilton, Montana: Bitterroot Publishing Co., 1982, pg. 52.

[All-Seeing Eye]

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:

And, thus far, it appears that the Lord has removed every single one of them, except for the most current one!

Of course, the above statement only counts if you believe that the utterer wasn't a fallen prophet himself.

[Olavarria]

Here's Rulon Allred's take on it from Q&A during a fireside held in SLC on August 1, 1970:

I'm sure Uncle Rulon believed what he was saying, but seriosly? Hear say, Hear say and more hear say. I seriously doubt the Lord's anointed would purposfully create a stumbling block for the Saints, especially his own descendants, to keep them from the path to exaltation.

[erichard]

I'm sure Uncle Rulon believed what he was saying, but seriosly? Hear say, Hear say and more hear say. I seriously doubt the Lord's anointed would purposfully create a stumbling block for the Saints, especially his own descendants, to keep them from the path to exaltation.

Hi Pedro,

Well, I do not trust the fundamentalist teachings, but I also do not trust the present LDS leadership teachings. It is clear to me that D&C 132 requires "plural marriage when necessary". To completely close the door and teach that it is a "done deal"-- there will never be any more plural marriages allowed by the Lord-- is simply a rejection of the Lord's right to give revelation to allow it.

So I can believe this first 2BC revelation:

Received February or March, 1961

At Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada

Thus saith the Lord God: Not until the church again lives the New and Everlasting Covenant as revealed to them in plainness by My servant the Prophet Joseph Smith, and verified from time to time by others of My holy prophets, will I instruct and guide this church with further enlightenment.

2 For if ye will not receive the word ye have, what profit will it be if I reveal more to you? For you will treat it as naught and trample it under your feet.

3 Repent therefore, both the sheep and the shepherd, and I will reveal more of the mysteries of My kingdom, for I will give here a little and there a little, line upon line, and precept upon precept, if ye will have it, until you have all truth and are able to stand in My presence.

In particular, D&C 132:44 cannot be consistently lived by the church without a certain amount of plural marriages. The 2BC Preface revelation squarely condemns the church for not living by D&C 132:44:

Received March 30, 1965

At Wellington, Utah

Behold I say unto you, all ye nations of the earth, yea all who come within the sound of My voice, for I perceive the thoughts and intents of all men, and they are surely known unto Me, for there is no prayer that is not considered, nor is their a curse that is hidden.

2 To these all, I say unto you repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is nigh at hand. To those who are members of My church, and particularly the leaders of My church, I also say unto you repent, for you now ignore and have ignored My servants whom I have sent.

3 You ignore the wailings of the widows and orphans who pray continually upon Me for deliverance, and you place upon them burdens that ye yourself would not be willing to bear, and then condemn them for their actions if they do err.

4 Behold I say unto you, that their sins shall be counted upon your heads, and when ye stand before Me, ye shall have no excuse, for My gospel is plainly written so that even a child can therein understand.

5 But by some device of mind ye excuse yourselves, saying that such things are done away with.

6 Behold I say unto you, I detract none of My law, and to those who know and understand and live not, they are under condemnation, and shall be made to answer before My judgment at that day appointed.

7 Behold, have I not said concerning those whose spouses have committed adultery and who have been true and faithful, that they shall be given to him that hath not committed adultery, but hath been faithful? [D&C 132:44] For thus it is decreed that the faithful be made ruler over many.

8 Behold I say unto you, do ye do this? I say unto you nay; and many other things ye do not that I have commanded, supposing that they are not now necessary.

9 But I say unto you, that this is My law so that the innocent may not suffer, for a man by nature will take care of his own, but hesitates to take care of that which to him does not belong.

10 Yea, ye use as your excuse that the law of the land forbids this. Behold, I say unto you, it is not the law that ye fear, but the persecution that follows those that keep all My commandments.

11 Behold My servant Joseph Smith, whom ye do now claim as a prophet, and do honor him in his rightful place, behold I say unto you, that he feared not men and continually petitioned the unrighteous judge to seek justice and redress for the wrongs done to My people and to those he loved.

12 And now I command that ye shall continually seek the rectification of the law of this land to the end that My saints can keep all My commandments according to the law, and if they hear not thy petition and allow them not to keep My commandments-- and ye do all in your power to bring this about-- then I shall fight your battles, and then shall this rebellious nation be destroyed as My will shall decree.

13 But if ye keep not My commandments, and seek not to bring about My will concerning this nation, behold it is because ye fear men, and esteem the world of greater worth than My kingdom, and to be carnally minded is death, for thus it is to be carnally minded.

Richard

[kamenraider]

Hi Richard, I don't mean to derail, but don't you believe in this passage?

D&C 43:2-7

2 For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand.

3 And this ye shall know assuredly

[alter idem]

Hi Richard, I don't mean to derail, but don't you believe in this passage?

As far as Joseph F. Smith's April 6, 1911 statement goes (it wasn't made in Oct, btw), the Salt Lake Tribune had earlier criticized Joseph F. Smith for being "anything but sincere" about ending plural marriage and quoted a remark made by him at a gathering at East Bountiful on March 20, 1909 in which he said: "We feel determined to do the will of God and keep His commandment to the best of our ability. The doctrine came from God. The matter of stopping it came from our government." Then, the same morning of General Conference in which Joseph F. Smith made that statement, the Tribune published this call for a disclaimer:

The Tribune was extremely critical of Joseph F. Smith. One reason they were critical of him was that he was still a practicing polygamist, in that while he did not enter additional polygamous marriages after the manifesto, he refused to abandon his polygamous families, still 'co-habiting' with them, which most critics of the the church considered a betrayal of the church's claim that they were not practicing polygamy anymore. His refusal to abandon his families was even against the law as he paid a fine for it. So, as I read this post, I see that their accusations probably have to do with his refusal to leave his families, even though it meant he was breaking the law.

At the next Gen. Conf., on October 4, 1911, Joseph F. Smith also had this to say:

I'll leave it to you folks to decide how sincere he was. Jospeh Musser said on November 7, 1942 that "President Smith did things as President of the Church which he would not do as a member of the priesthood council if he had to forfeit his life, because the people of the Church demanded it."

I believe he was sincere.

[alter idem]

Here's Rulon Allred's take on it from Q&A during a fireside held in SLC on August 1, 1970:

If we are to believe the claims of the Fundamentalists, then we have to assume that Joseph F. Smith thought polygamy was so vital to the church that he set these particular men apart to keep it alive, yet, he kept his own family out of the loop--as Pedro pointed out, none of his descendants were put under this charge--why do you suppose he would do that? Don't you think that he would have wanted his own descendants to be part of this privileged little group? Also, if you consider that if we believe Fundamentalist claims, the church was going to fall into apostasy, yet, Joseph F. Smith didn't seem to care that his own descendants would fall away from the 'true' church teachings.

If you ask me, this is one of the fatal flaws in their version of events. Joseph F. Smith was the Prophet--he had the power and IF it was soooo important that polygamy be kept alive, then surely he would have wanted his own family involved and he would have made sure that these selected few would have been protected and kept underground, their actions covered up and not exposed--and clearly, if he knew that it was God's will that polygamy MUST continue, then excommunicating and exposing them would mean he was acting against the Lord's will.

[alter idem]

An interesting letter from Joseph F. Smith to John W. Woolley:

As Pedro said, I'm not sure what you believe this letter proves. Note the date--it was written in 1887, three years before the manifesto and I don't think anyone denies that Joseph F. Smith thought very highly of John W. Woolley.

[The King's Servant]

Exaclty, LCW is just like James Strang and Jim Harmston. They are the only witnesses to their vision/ordination.

Exactly how many witnesses were there to the First Vision other than Smith? - and this is foundational to Mormonism.

[Olavarria]

Exactly how many witnesses were there to the First Vision other than Smith? - and this is foundational to Mormonism.

apples and oranges

The personal visitation of Heavenly Father and Christ in response to a personal prayer or a personal issue is not the same as the supposed creation of a secret parallel priesthood structure, with secret prophets that secretly carry on doctrines and ordinances that, although secret,are vital to exaltation.

[kamenraider]

Would this seem like an "apples and oranges" comparison to someone who is, say, Catholic?

Also, the Woolleys only kept this secret (in a public sense) for less than 25 years -- they claimed to have been given permission in 1909 to talk about it publicly.

[kamenraider]

I was reading Josiah Hickman's journals yesterday and found a couple of apparently hitherto unnoticed references to the 1886 meeting and revelation by Daniel Bateman and Lorin Woolley from 1920 and 1923 (remember that John W. Woolley died in 1928):

Concerning that revelation of John Taylor which God gave him &

was never given to the church, but written. (I have a copy of it) one

night when the Savior and the Prophet Joseph visited him nearly all

one night. The guards (two) heard him & the visitors talking as they

say. The next day he revealed to his trusted guards. Geo. Q. Can-

non & others. Bro. Daniel R. Bateman of West Jordan told me of the

circumstances. He was in the room the next day with the brethren (for he

was one of the guards) when Pres. John Taylor related to them the vision

of the night before. Bro. B. said that as Pres. Taylor related what

he had seen & heard. He arose from the floor nearly a ft. and re-

mained so suspended. All the brethren there saw the same as he (B) saw.

He said Pres. T's. countenance was so brilliant he (B) could scarcely

look at him. He said that Pres. T. said he would suffer his right arm

to be severed before he would recall or suspend that principle as some

of the brethren wanted him to. He also said that the time would come

when their brethren would excommunicate them for entering that principle.

Bro. Bateman said that Pres. T.. put Lorin Woolley and one or two others

under a covenant to see to it that as long as they lived that plural

marriage would be performed every yr. Lorin Woolley was one of the two

men on guard the night of the vision and heard the voices. I learn that

Lorin Woolley has performed a number of plural marriages of late and

that he was called before the twelve of what he had done. So far noth-

ing has been done with him.

I asked bro. B. if this had been written. If not why? He said a

brief was made. Prof. Evans & Bro. Barlow were present when Bro. B.

related this to me. These two brethren had heard it from Bro. Woolley

before as well as from Bro. B. It is all strange to me.

Apostle O. F. Whitney told me he was afraid other brethren would

be handled for Reed Smoot felt they would have to make a clean brest

of it & excommunicate every body who had gone in since 1890.

He also said that he feared that the brethren who had been cut

off might testify against them (the twelve) and the church and its

policies. He hardly knew what would come but he, with others, feared

something of trouble would develop.

--Josiah Edwin Hickman journal, Vol. "I", July 23, 1920, pgs. 90-91.

note: Lorin Woolley wasn't ex'ed until Jan. 1924. John W. Woolley had been ex'ed in 1914.

While in S.L. I sought the opportunity of having an interview

with Lorin C. Woolley. He is a man 67 yrs of age. He is the brother

who was on guard duty the night Pres. John Taylor received the fam-

ous revelation on plural marriage & God's will concerning it. It

was in Centerville at John W. Woolley's home. It was in Sept 1886.

At the time Pres. Taylor was in hiding from the marshals. There were

several who acted as his body guards. This special night Lorin C.

Woolley & Chas Barrell were on guard.

Chas Barrell was lying down on the cot asleep. All of a sudden

about 9:30 P.M. Pres. Taylor's room was wonderfully lit up & the light

streamed from under the door & other crevices into their (guards)

room. Bro. W. was at first startled to see the light & hear voices.

He knew Pres. Taylor was in that room alone & that the only door in

the room (Pres. T.) opened into the room Lorin was sitting in & he

knew that the door of the room in which he & Barrell were in was not

only locked but bolted. He said he was sitting near the door with his

two six shooters on his lap. He said: "I then unlocked & unbolted

the outside door & walked around the house where Pres. T's room was &

carefully & noiselessly examined the windows to see if they had been

opened but they were still closed with the heavy wirenetting undis-

turbed. All the time I held (I held) one six shooter in my hand. He

said that it was as tho a voice spoke to him & said why this, aren't

you calm & feel undesturbed? Then I returned & went into my room

which was next to Pres. T's. I sat down again after bolting the door.

"There were three men's voices. I could distinguish Pres. T's

voice but I didn't know the other two. I went over to the cot where

Bro. B. was sleeping & nudged him & at the same time I put my finger

on my lips to signal silence" & then they both listened. "It seemed

impossible" he said, "to get enough of the words to tell what the

conversation was about. At about 12 M. that night one voice became

silent, but the other two conversed all night until about 7 a.m.

"About 8 a.m. Pres. Taylor came out of his room and his face

fairly shown". He said: "Did you hear voices last night?" Bro. W.

said, "Yes, who were they?" Pres. T. replied that he had been in

conversation with the Prophet Jos. all night." Bro. W. then asked

Pres. Taylor who that other personage was? Pres. T. said: "Did

you hear anyone else?" "Yes," replied Bro. W. "Who was it?" " He

was your Lord & Master." said Pres. T. He was the one who left about

12 M.

By 9 A.M. Pres. Geo. Q. Cannon, Chas. Wilkins and 2 or 3 others

had arrived. Bro. W. said that there were 11 or 12 of us present,

including him self, his father (Jno. W. Woolley), Lorin's mother &

sister, Dan R. Bateman, Geo. Earl, Chas. Barrell, Geo. Q. Chas.

Wilkins & 2 or 3 others whom I just now can't recall tho Bro. W. told

me their names. Pres. Taylor then asked each of them what they

thought of pl. marriage & each bore his testimony of it. Then Pres.

Taylor began talking to this small group of brethren & sisters. He

talked for 5 hrs. without ceasing. "His face so shown that we could

hardly look upon him," said Lorin W. "We would look him in the face

& then cast our eyes down because of the extreme brilliancy of his

countenance. Some times he was suspended in the air several inches

from the floor. At times I beheld the Prophet JOseph Smith standing

by the side of Pres. Taylor. (Several times I beheld the Prophet Jos.

standing beside Pres. T) during the five hours he was talking."

Let me say here that Bro. Dan R. Bateman was in the room while

Bro. Lorin W. related this above incident and from time to time would

sanction what Bro. W. was telling & at other times would fill in in-

cidencies which Bro. W. ommitted.

Let me digress long enough to say that Bro. W. said that as early

as 1885 various men high up in the church as Pres. of stakes & others,

had asked that a manifesto be given recalling pl. marriage. It was

in the afternoon of the night above described when Pres Geo. Q. Frank-

lin S. Richards, Bp. Hy. B. Clawson, Jas. Jack and Jno. T. Cain had

been in consultation with Pres. T. and they had then a manifesto akin

to the woodruff manifesto and asked his advice concerning issuing such

an one. Before they parted that afternoon Pres. Geo. Q. turned to

Pres. T. and suggested that he ask the Lord His advice before decid-

ing any thing. Pres. Tay lor turned to Pres Geo. Q. & said: "Do

you suppose I would do any thing like that without first enquiring

of the Lord & getting his mind & will on it?" So it was on enquiry

that Jesus & the Prophet Jos. came to Pres. T. that night.

Now to return to Pres. T's address: Woolley said that he He had

laid this manifesto on the table by him. He said: "Would I sign

that manifesto? 'No' I would suffer my right hand to be cut off

first. Would I sanction such a manifesto? 'No,' I would permit my

tongue to be torn from my mouth first."

He said that the day would come when the leaders of the church

would harrass, suppress, & crowd you out of the church over this

principle. He also said that the day would come when one half of

this people would apostatize over this principle of Marriage, "yea,"

he said, "one half of the half will apostatize from this church.

While Pres. Taylor was talking he put Lorin C. Woolley & Bro. W.

Woolley under a covenant to see that never a year should pass ln which

pl. marriages were not performed. And he gave them the power to do

this. If I understand Bro. W. aright, there never has been a year

which they have not seen to this promise & covenant.

Bro. Lorin Woolley told me in great solemmity that Pres Smith

married him to one of his pl. wives in 1908. There were many other

things which he confided to me. He said Pres. Taylor said that dur-

ing the 7th President of the Church the one mighty & Strong should

be raised up & great events would transpire or take place during

that time. I have wondered if some of Bro. woolley's accounts have

not been changed with the lapse of time. Much which he (Pres. T.)

said would take place has been fulfilled if Bro W's account is cor-

rect. Only 4 of those present on that occasion are now living. They

are Jno W. Woolley (father of Lorin), Lorin woolley, Dan R. Bateman

& Geo. Earl.

In my journal before this one, I recorded in brief what Dan Bate~

man told me of that event which was the same as Woolley's account

only not so detailed.

Bro. Woolley said that Pres Taylor said that during the 7th Pres

ident's ruling the church would be in bondage temporally and spirit-

ually. Here is a copy of Pres. Taylor's revelation given Sept. 27,

1886:

"My son John, you have asked me concerning the new and

everlasting covenant, and 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 covenant cannot

be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever.

Have I not given my word in great plainness on this sub-

ject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negli-

gent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my com-

mandments? And yet have I borne with them these many years

and this because of their weakness, because of the perilous

times.

And furthermore it is now pleasing unto me that men

should use their free agency in regard to these matters.

Never-the-less, I, the Lord, do not change, and my word and

my law and my covenant do not. And as I have heretofore

said by my servant Joseph, 'All those who would enter into

my glory must and shall obey my law."

And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham's

seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works

of Abraham? I have not revoked this law nor will I for

it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory

must obey the conditions thereof. Even so. Amen."

I learn that Pres. Smith and others say it was given to Pres.

Taylor as written. Apostle Jos. F. Smith Jr said to the quorum of the

Twelve that his father had assured him that this revelation was given

to Pres. Taylor. It is still in Pres. Taylor's hand writing and is

had on record.

--Josiah Edwin Hickman journal, Vol. "K", Aug. 19, 1923, pgs. 37-44.

[erichard]

I was reading Josiah Hickman's journals yesterday and found a couple of apparently hitherto unnoticed references to the 1886 meeting and revelation by Daniel Bateman and Lorin Woolley from 1920 and 1923 (remember that John W. Woolley died in 1928):

...

Hi K,

I am sure there are many, many quotes by the fundamentalists themselves that support the Lorin Woolley story.

Do you, by chance, have a copy of this file:

1886 Priesthood Ordination

It is for sale hard bound, I noticed.

I would be surprised if this book really has anything new, but would be interested in looking thru it. I may just do at scribd.com sometime.

Richard

[kamenraider]

Hi K,

I am sure there are many, many quotes by the fundamentalists themselves that support the Lorin Woolley story.

...

Well, Josiah Hickman wasn't a follower of the Woolleys, in fact later in his journals, in like 1927 or so, he mentions how he went to Gen. Conf. and heard mention made of Leslie Broadbent's pamphlet and said he had doubts about Lorin Woolley's story.

Yeah I've seen that book by Nathan Taylor, btw.

[Olavarria]

I was reading Josiah Hickman's journals yesterday and found a couple of apparently hitherto unnoticed references to the 1886 meeting and revelation by Daniel Bateman and Lorin Woolley from 1920 and 1923 (remember that John W. Woolley died in 1928):

note: Lorin Woolley wasn't ex'ed until Jan. 1924. John W. Woolley had been ex'ed in 1914.

I'm not playing dumb but, what are you trying to show with this quote?

[kamenraider]

I'm not playing dumb but, what are you trying to show with this quote?

alter idem quoted Benjamin Bistline above, writing:

"There is no written testimony from anyone other than Lorin Woolley of these ordinations taking place, and the account of event was not written until forty-three years later in 1929, a year after his father, John W. Woolley had died."

I've simply been posting evidence that this is an incorrect assertion.

Do you have anything to say in response other than "So what?"