The Lorin C. Whooly Story

[erichard]

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.

I see. However, he is not a first hand witness. He is just repeating what he heard Bateman and Woolley tell him. Right? We know Woolley and others were telling these things, so it means little that someone heard them and recorded it. Right?

What is the best new evidence that Taylor and Openshaw come up with?

Richard

[kamenraider]

I see. However, he is not a first hand witness. He is just repeating what he heard Bateman and Woolley tell him. Right? We know Woolley and others were telling these things, so it means little that someone heard them and recorded it. Right?

What is the best new evidence that Taylor and Openshaw come up with?

Richard

I'm heading out the door right now, but I would recommend that you read Silencing Mormon Polygamy by Drew Briney.

[alter idem]

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?"

Are you saying that Josiah Hickman was present at that event? Because he'd have to have been there to actually be an eyewitness. I don't see him listed as being there, so the statement I posted from Bistline's book stands.

Here's Daniel Bateman's 'testimony' of the event, yet how useful is it?

The proceedings of the meeting, as related by Brother Wooley are correct in every detail. I was not present when the five spoken of by Brother Woolley were set apart for the special work, but on different occasions heard the details of the same related by both Lorin C. Woolley and John W. Woolley, and from all the circumstances with which I am familiar, I firmly believe the testimony of these two Brethren to be true. The Polygamists pg 24

Note he wasn't 'present' yet he's testifying that it took place. Fundamentalists have blurred this and portrayed it as a testimony of the actual event when it is not. Bateman is testifying that he 'believes' what these others said. So, what he really is testifying to is that he 'believes' what they told him. His testimony is of these men, not the actual event in question.

[erichard]

I'm heading out the door right now, but I would recommend that you read Silencing Mormon Polygamy by Drew Briney.

I was not aware of it, but I'm tempted.

I am aware of Drew's book on Adam-God, but have never even seen it. His Hindsight Publications website says:

Many things can only be learned by introspective reflection upon our past.

Thus, hindsight can be a masterful teacher & Mormon teachings are no exception.

Hindsight Publications is committed to: uncovering exciting and thought provoking teachings from early Mormonism & providing you with the most complete and accurate information modern research can produce.

I am curioius to know if Drew is a member of the LDS church in good standing. It appears that his associated David Dye is in the Allred group.

Richard

[Calm]

I am curioius to know if Drew is a member of the LDS church in good standing. It appears that his associated David Dye is in the Allred group.

If he isn't, it's likely something recent:

http://www.deseretne...ing-a-ball.html

Drew's Background

Drew Briney is a licensed attorney practicing out of Spanish Fork, Utah.

He graduated from BYU in 1998 with degrees in history (major), philosophy (analytical thinking minor), and music (minor). He graduated as a member of the Phi Kappa Phi and Golden Key national honor societies. After entering law school on scholarship, he obtained his Juris Doctorate from J. Reuben Clark Law School in 2001. Drew is a published attorney and authored a weekly legal editorial in the award winning Spanish Fork newspaper in 2008.

Drew co-edited two volumes of ancient near eastern laws with John Welch, presented a lengthy paper on Deuteronomic Law in the Book of Mormon to a 2001 FARMS symposium, and authored Understanding Adam-God Teachings: A Comprehensive Resource of Adam-God Materials, Silencing Mormon Polygamy: Failed Persecutions, Divided Saints, & the Rise of Mormon Fundamentalism, and 1886 on Trial.

He is co-founder of Hindsight Publications, a company that specializes in printing rare and difficult to find historical and doctrinal materials that focus on early Mormonism.

Drew is happily married and has six children with his wonderful wife April Dawn.

Dave's Background

David Dye was born and raised in the beautiful Bitterroot Valley of western Montana. He was raised a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His love of the gospel began at an early age, and before graduating from high school, he had read the Standard Works, Jesus the Christ, & Mormon Doctrine, and many other scholarly and faith-promoting works. His parents held regular family home evenings, and it was at this time that David began to recognize in a significant way the tuggings of the Spirit.

He attended Ricks College in Rexburg, Idaho, for one year prior to serving a mission in Arkansas, Tennessee, & Mississippi. After his mission, he returned to Ricks College where he earned an Associates degree, and then transferred to Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. While there, he earned two Bachelor's degrees: one in social work and one in psychology.

While attending BYU, he met and married Christine Mackley from Blackfoot, Idaho. Together they moved to San Antonio, Texas, where David continued his studies in social work, being awarded a Master's degree a year later. Their family moved back to Utah, where David has worked as a clinical social worker in the fields of marriage & family counseling, mental health, hospice, substance abuse, and as a presenter at a number of professional conferences.

While it is the counseling field that helps David put food on the table, it is the gospel that feeds his soul. Hugh Nibley's description of a person who is "furiously active" in the gospel describes well the commitment of David & his family to the restored gospel. The quest for finding & living by truth is the driving force behind all that David now does. Sharing some of the truths that he is blessed with is something which David finds extremely rewarding. Though his accomplishments in this world will amount to little, his overwhelming desire is to please God, and qualify for that which the Father has promised to those who love and honor Him.

David has ten children, and lives in rural Utah.

http://hindsightpublications.com/index.html

What makes you think Dye is associated with Allred's group?

[Calm]

Briney is an attorney for the AUB: http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy934.html

Whether or not this means Dye and him are members is hard to tell since their bios are presented in such a way as to make them appear to be 'mainstream Mormon'.

[alter idem]

I was not aware of it, but I'm tempted.

I am aware of Drew's book on Adam-God, but have never even seen it. His Hindsight Publications website says:

I am curioius to know if Drew is a member of the LDS church in good standing. It appears that his associated David Dye is in the Allred group.

Richard

This is what I found in a footnote on Mormonfundamentalism.com regarding Drew Briney:

[15] W. W. Phelps, Letter from W. W. Phelps to President Brigham Young, Great Salt Lake City, 6 May 1867. LDS Church Archives. Typescript in my possession. Quoted in Drew Briney, Understanding Adam-God Teachings: A Comprehensive Resource of Adam-God Materials, (N.p. 2005), 16. Also quoted in part in Kraut, One Mighty and Strong, 85. [We need to add Briney to the bibliography - no publisher or location... He

[erichard]

If he isn't, it's likely something recent:

http://www.deseretne...ing-a-ball.html

http://hindsightpublications.com/index.html

What makes you think Dye is associated with Allred's group?

He could just be their lawyer, and not a member.

http://mormonfundamentalism.org/news/fundamentalist-mormon-is-the-correct-term/

Richard

[alter idem]

He could just be their lawyer, and not a member.

http://mormonfundamentalism.org/news/fundamentalist-mormon-is-the-correct-term/

Richard

Yes, but I doubt it.

What I mean is, yes, he may not be a member of AUB, but I doubt he's 'mainstream' LDS.

[kamenraider]

I've met Drew Briney before and he left me with the impression that he is a mainstream member. I asked if he had had any negative reaction to writing the book on Adam-God and he said that his bishop was upset about it at first but then bought a copy and thought it was alright, or something like that. Because of that, I assume that he's active in the Church, although I don't know for sure.

As far as David Dye goes, I'm not sure. The content of his books seems to be somewhat "fundamentalist" in nature but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. People have assumed before that I'm some kind of polygamist or apostate cult member because of my interest in such things, but I'm not.

There really are more mainstream members than you'd think that genuinely believe certain doctrines or commandments of yesteryear that are now considered rather extreme or "un-PC". (As an example, D&C 42:40 reads "And again, thou shalt not be proud in thy heart; let all thy garments be plain, and their beauty the beauty of the work of thine own hands," yet I'll bet that if a family moved into your ward that made their own plain-looking clothing, there'd be plenty of funny looks and whispering about it.)

[kamenraider]

Just thought I'd point out that Benjamin Bistline admits that "In all fairness, it must be acknowledged that John W. Woolley was aware of what his son Lorin was telling people. There is no written record that he ever contradicted Lorin's claims."(from Bistlines book The Polygamists, pg. 24)

If your son was telling outrageous lies about something that happened in your house while you were present, wouldn't you make an effort to correct or refute his claims?

I also found out recently that John W. Woolley sent Price Johnson to Joseph Musser to have a plural sealing performed, which shows that they knew of and recognized each other as authorized "insiders" before even beginning to organize as a group. I might also mention that Anthony Ivins, then a member of the Twelve, is said to have referred Warren Longhurst to John W. Woolley in 1909 for a plural sealing (see Solemn Covenant by B. Carmon Hardy, pg. 314, note 28).

[Ariarates]

I don't know much about polygamy but this I recognized instantly:

"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."

It sounds remarkably like the accusations hurled at Joseph Smith's first vision...

[kamenraider]

I don't know much about polygamy but this I recognized instantly:

"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."

It sounds remarkably like the accusations hurled at Joseph Smith's first vision...

Yeah it does, doesn't it?

[Glenn101]

Ariarates, on 18 February 2010 - 05:56 AM, said:

I don't know much about polygamy but this I recognized instantly:

"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."

It sounds remarkably like the accusations hurled at Joseph Smith's first vision...

Yeah it does, doesn't it?

Not hardly. The differences should be obvious. The nightshade plant (a.k.a. belladonna) and the tomato plant have some physical similarities and even a common genus, but the fruits are so very different. One would be wise to know that difference before partaking.

Glenn

[Olavarria]

As Ive studied fundamentalism, my favorite argument against that heresy is simply that the keys of the kingdom rest with the Quorum of the 12 apostles. That precedent is set in the Bible,D&C,BoM and Church history.

[erichard]

As Ive studied fundamentalism, my favorite argument against that heresy is simply that the keys of the kingdom rest with the Quorum of the 12 apostles. That precedent is set in the Bible,D&C,BoM and Church history.

Hi,

My own prayers and study of the scripturesled me to the scriptural truth that no one is above failing the church. Not even the President of the High Priesthood. Not even the 12 Apostles. Note particularly D&C 107:81-84 and JST Mark 9:40-48.

That fact, added to the scriptural truth that in the last days the Lord will bring the Gospel first to the Gentiles, but then later because the Gentiles reject the "fulness" of the Gospel, He will restore all their former blessings to His true Israel. The fulness of the Gospel clearly requires living Plural Marriage when necessary-- it simply cannot be thrown out permanently.

This latter day Shift leaves open the possiblity that serious problems will exist in the church leadership at some point. See 3 Nephi 16:7-13 and 1 Nephi 13:42.

If one's heart is ready and they read 2BC 24 they can also know the situation that exists today in the Lord's Gentile church.

Richard

[Olavarria]

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. (Wilfurd Woodruff,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.)

I respectfully disagree.

[erichard]

I respectfully disagree.

Hi again Pedro,

I wish President Woodruff was able to comment via an internet link from the other side. I would ask him if his statement proves that the scriptures I noted were now overruled. I feel very confident he would say no. Notice what President Joseph Fielding Smith says:

"It makes no difference what is written or about what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the LORD has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine." Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 3, Page 203

I am not saying that what President Woodruff said was "false". I am just saying that it cannot be used to overrule the two scriptures I quoted. If someone tries to use if for that purpose, then I believe they are not correct.

The Word of the Lord to the Latter-day Saints is clear: The President of the Church, and in fact no one in the church, is above the law, none are above controversy, none are above being brought to a trial and being removed from office.

So as long as quotes like you just gave are used to cast members from the church who claim the right of legitimate dissent over the President of the church, then something is wrong in the church.

But I honestly do appreciate your respectful reply. And in no way do I doubt your sincerity. But being sincere does not guarantee being correct.

Richard

[kamenraider]

As Ive studied fundamentalism, my favorite argument against that heresy is simply that the keys of the kingdom rest with the Quorum of the 12 apostles. That precedent is set in the Bible,D&C,BoM and Church history.

Benjamin F. Johnson said that when Joseph Smith gave them the keys, it was in a meeting of the Council of Fifty and that it was "in connection with this council." The official name of it is "The Kingdom of God and His laws with the keys and power thereof and judgement in the hands of His servants, Ahman Christ."

A question for you -- is it possible to ordain someone an apostle without the knowledge or consent of the Twelve?

[alter idem]

Benjamin F. Johnson said that when Joseph Smith gave them the keys, it was in a meeting of the Council of Fifty and that it was "in connection with this council." The official name of it is "The Kingdom of God and His laws with the keys and power thereof and judgement in the hands of His servants, Ahman Christ."

A question for you -- is it possible to ordain someone an apostle without the knowledge or consent of the Twelve?

Yes it is, but I suspect that you know that.

However, it seems clear they will at some time need to be accepted by the rest of the council. Joseph F. Smith's ordination was done again--with the knowledge and approval of the rest of the council, otherwise, I do not think it would have been recognized and he would not have been able to act as an apostle.

[Olavarria]

Benjamin F. Johnson said that when Joseph Smith gave them the keys, it was in a meeting of the Council of Fifty and that it was "in connection with this council." The official name of it is "The Kingdom of God and His laws with the keys and power thereof and judgement in the hands of His servants, Ahman Christ."

A question for you -- is it possible to ordain someone an apostle without the knowledge or consent of the Twelve?

It's kinda irrelavant.

When Christ was among the Nephites, and then left, who had the highest authority on the NW?

12 disciples

When Christ was among the Jews, and then left, who had the highest authority?

the 12

When Joseph died who had the keys?

the 12

When BY died who had the keys?

the 12

When JT died who had the keys?

the 12

When WW died who had the keys?

the 12

When LS died who had the keys?

the 12

When JFS died who had the keys?

Section 132 says that only one man at a time has the keys for sealing marriages. From Joseph down to JFS, that man has alaways been the President of the Church. And from BY down to JFS, that man has alaways come from the ranks of the Q of 12. So the pattern of succesion points to HJG.

I like this approach the best because its something a child can understand.

[erichard]

It's kinda irrelavant.

When Christ was among the Nephites, and then left, who had the highest authority on the NW?

12 disciples

...

I like this approach the best because its something a child can understand.

Hi,

I agree that God reveals truth that even a child can understand.

This is how I see it:

The keys restored and given to Joseph were given to the entire body of Melchizedek Priesthood holders. It is like I hand you a key and you take it with your hand. Your hand HOLDS the key as a servant for the body, but your entire body HAS the key. Any man ordained correctly to the MP HAS all the keys restored through Joseph. And BY REVELATION God can use any man who holds the MP to exercise these keys.

So the key to finding who has access to the keys restored through Joseph is to find who has the true priesthood, and who has true revelation. (A child can understand that the prophet to trust is the prophet who actually does have revelation from God.)

Since I am certain that the 2BC is just such revelation, and is on par with the D&C, then I simply cannot trust those who claim to the sole ones who hold the keys and yet deny the spirit of revelation.

The 2BC, by the way, has never set anyone apart to hold the D&C 132:7 keys. Marriages have been performed by authority of the Priesthood held by the Prophet, but the Lord has clarified that when the church and Temples are set in order, these marriages will be re-done in the Temples.

God is a God of order, but He never said he would force the heads of His church to always be in order. He will set it in order in His own good time, but in the meantime the Priesthood holders have the right to seek direct revelation.

Richard

[kamenraider]

The next Sunday after he wrote out the revelation that became D&C 132, Joseph Smith preached at the temple and said:

All Blessings that were ordained for man by the Council of Heaven were on conditions of obedience to the Law there of. No man can obtain an eternal Blessing unless the contract or covenant be made in view of Eternity All contracts in view of this Life only terminate with this Life. Case of the woman & 7 husbands Luke 20-29 &c Those who keep no eternal Law in this life or make no eternal contract are single & alone in the eternal world (Luke 20-35) and are only made Angels to minister to those who shall be heirs of Salvation never becoming Sons of God having never kept the Law of God ie eternal Law The earthly is the image of the Heavenly shows that is by the multiplication of Lives that the eternal worlds are created and occupied that which is born of the flesh is flesh that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit.(WJS pg. 232, from Franklin D. Richards "Scriptural Items" book -- emphasis in original)

During the same talk, he said that "Hyrum held the office of prophet to the church by birth-right" and proposed that Hyrum be the prophet and president of the Church. The next week he addressed some members negative reactions to this by saying:

Last Monday morning certain men came to me.--Bro Joseph Hyrum is no prophet he cant lead the church. you must lead the Church--if you resign I felt curious--& said--here we learn in a priesthood after the order of Melchisedeck--Prophet priest & king. & I will advance from prophet to priest & then to King not to the kingdoms of this earth but of the most high god.(WJS pg. 234)

I'll anticipate the "So what?" and say that I get the following out of the above remarks:

A. Eternal laws must be kept in this life in order to receive the promised blessings. The blessing of multiplication of lives that is mentioned here brings to mind the passage from D&C 132:63 that says that "they [wives] are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified."

B. A different type of succession to the office of Prophet and President of the Church than apostolic succesion is mentioned.

C. The Prophet and President of the Church need not necessarily be the one man who holds the sealing keys, and that there are higher orders of priesthood that one may "advance" to.

A couple more questions for you. Who said this? -- "You may appoint Seymour B. Young to fill up the vacancy in the presiding quorum of Seventies, if he will conform to My law: For it is not meet that men who will not abide My law shall preside over My Priesthood; ... For my Priesthood, whom I have called and whom I have sustained and honored, shall honor me and obey my laws, and the laws of my Holy Priesthood, or they shall not be considered worthy to hold my Priesthood...."

What does it mean?

Could Joseph Smith have proposed something to John Taylor in 1886 that was similar to what he proposed regarding Hyrum at the time that D&C 132 was written?

Wilford Woodruff wouldn't be leading the Church astray by OD 1 in any way shape or form if the Lord intended to end plural marriages by Church authority, which he clearly did.

[kamenraider]

Another quote (from an interview with Moroni Jessop) showing that John W. Woolley supported Lorin Woolley's priesthood claims:

"It was in the year of 1927, in the fall; I think it was, in a

conversation with Grandpa (John) Woolley about the Saints going back to

Jackson County it came up. He told me they had already started selecting

some of the men who would prepare the people to go back there. They

have been chosen but have not been notified. He said 'And you know who

some of them are.' He motioned with his hand towards John Y. (Barlow)

who was working over the fence. And he said, 'One was here last night.'

That one was Joseph Leslie Broadbent. 'But,' he said, putting a finger to

his lips, 'They have not been notified yet.'"

--The Life & Teachings of J. Leslie Broadbent, (accessed on scribd.com) pg. 6.

[kamenraider]

Anyone want to answer my questions in post #98 above?

Anyone?... anyone?... Pedro?