Mormon Scholars Testify

[Olavarria]

If you want to know the history of why you feel that way, you should definitely check out the Daymon M. Smith interview starting here.

Thanks Cinepro, I read it as they were posting the series.

You may be able to see my comments on part 5.

I for one, think correlation is a great thing.

[Olavarria]

Btw, let me just say that i hold no animosity toward the honest,responsible, and yes GOOD fundamentalists.

I honestly hope in God's great plan there is some kind of mercy provision for those who ignorantly enter fundamentalist polygamy with the right intentions.

I hope some kind of vicarious something can be done for them in the millenium, so that they can keep there families. But, that's God's call, not mine

Musser and Whoolly's teachings on the Council of 7 Friends is a satanic lie, whether they realized it or not. No such council existed in the history of the Church until Lorin dreamed it up. I can't judge those men, but all the sincerity in the world can't overthrow the truth.

The newest priest in my singles ward has more priesthood authority than any fundamentalist "prophet".

[mfbukowski]

Comments?

Brian Hales

Thank you for your excellent summary. Obviously your comments can be amplified and expanded but to me this is the definitive short statement. You are right. Game over!

[mfbukowski]

When I was sealed to my wife in the temple, the sealer talked about how he was given sealing authority by Spencer W. Kimball. Spencer W. Kimball was dead at that time. The Prophet at the time, Gordon B. Hinckley, knew nothing about me being sealed to my wife either. Yet the ordinance was valid because it was performed by one who was authorized by a Prophet and was approved of by men who had that authority delegated to them by a Prophet.

Soooo, is it impossible for John Taylor to have set men apart to continue plural marriage, and for them to have been given authorization to perform sealings, and for them to have properly used that authority even after the Prophet who so authorized them was dead, and the living Prophet at that time knowing nothing about it? IIRC J. Reuben Clark wanted to include a comment in his 1933 statement that any sealing authority given by a Prophet ended when that Prophet died. I assume that he was prevented from including that idea because it is wrong.

By this logic, we should still prohibit Black people from holding the priesthood because there are still leaders around who were alive when the prohibition was still policy.

A living prophet can reverse himself- and previous prophets with new revelation as President Kimball did in the 1978 revelation.

If you take that logic to the extreme, Catholic priests must still have Peter's authority, because they were ordained by one who was ordained.... etc.

Or on the other hand, if it is the death of a prophet which stops his authority, then Joseph's death must have ended rightful authority in the church.

It seems to me you are missing the concept of priesthood keys- the living Prophet is the one who holds the keys to the priesthood, (along with the First Presidency and Q of 12) and it is their authority, as directed by revelation, which directs policy and practice in the church- not dead prophets.

[HiJolly]

That may not be the testimony that you wanted, but it's the testimony that, on this particular occasion, he felt moved upon to offer -- and, coming from somebody who has devoted considerable effort (the results of which are yet to be fully published) to one particular issue that often impacts judgments of the Prophet's character and reliability, that's no small thing.

I spoke to Brian about his testimony on MST. He told me he had been asked to focus his testimony specifically on polygamy and Joseph. And he's not the only one I've talked to that has commented on being asked to specifically address one or another aspects of the Church/Gospel/etc. So this seems to be fairly common.

I do not prescribe what people write for "Mormon Scholars Testify," and do not substantially edit what they submit.

If I recall correctly, Brian said it was someone who belongs to FAIR that specified what Brian should write about for the MST website.

HiJolly

[BrianHales]

Hi Again,

I was real excited when I heard Drew had a book coming out because he indicated he had some new evidence concerning the reported 1886 meeting and ordinations. I was quite disappointed to learn he had nothing new. The earliest evidence of the 1886 meeting/ordinations is from the 1920s. Now, in contrast I believe the 1886 revelation and the vision of President Taylor are real.

See, Joseph Musser and Lorin Woolley were subtle as they piggy-backed their false claims upon the back of true historical events. No wonder their efforts have netted thousands of followers. The problem with the Mormon fundamentalists is that they read and pray, rather than read, STUDY, and pray. Without study, individuals may be influenced by whatever spirit is hanging around (see D&C 50:2).

John Taylor could have set apart men to perform sealings, but as soon as he died, the men's authority would have been subject to the new "one" man or senior apostle on the earth. Fundamentalists will disagree because it does not fit their needs. But theologically, there's no way to get authority to continue beyond Church President's tenure. At least that is our theology. Whether J Reuben Clark was not permitted to include such language is new to me. Sounds like some fundamentalist rumor but maybe it is true?

Getting back to Drew Briney's book, I'm non-plussed with the theories and historical reconstructions. I don't think he is accounting for all of the evidences and his ideas about the Council of Seven and the ad hoc committee of seven from the Council of 50 are not believable to me. Regarding his ability to "juggle," I was speaking literally. He is a very accomplished juggler! He told me he built the ceiling in his law office to be high enough to juggle seven balls. I asked if he could juggle running chain saws and he said, "Yeah probably." His wife said, "No." :-)

The issue of the "law" mentioned in D&C 132 and in the 1886 Revelation is interesting. The law is clearly eternal marriage (see D&C 132:19-20). Exaltation is promised to a monogamous couple who obeys the law. However, the Saints between 1852 and 1890 received a singular commandment that required polygamy. For them in that period, to obey the "law" required plural marriage so the terms were sometimes used synonymously. Ann Wilde has a nice booklet showing many of the times the words are used interchangeably. However no leader has taught that the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage requires plural marriage in every instance, irrespective of when and where the couple lived on earth. Fundamentalists try to justify their marriages by making these observations, but the issue (for me) still goes back to authority.

Have you visited my websites?

www.mormonfundamentalism.com

www.JosephSmithsPolygamy.com

Brian

[kamenraider]

Hi Bro. Hales,

I haven't had much uninterrupted time lately, but I did try to find where I read that J. Reuben Clark wanted to include that part about former authority. I couldn't find it, but will look some more. It was in a history book, not from a fundamentalist source.

Meanwhile, you may be interested in this thread, especially since it contains accounts of the 1886 events from both Lorin C. Woolley and Daniel Bateman that are apparently hitherto unnoticed, which I discovered in the journal of Josiah Hickman: LINK

Also, here is an image of the first page of the JFS letter to John W. Woolley (from the above linked-to thread) which seems to not be working when I access the thread now:

[Daniel Peterson]

I spoke to Brian about his testimony on MST. He told me he had been asked to focus his testimony specifically on polygamy and Joseph. And he's not the only one I've talked to that has commented on being asked to specifically address one or another aspects of the Church/Gospel/etc. So this seems to be fairly common.

I would like to hear more about this apparently common thing.

Since I'm the person -- the only person -- who invites people to contribute to "Mormon Scholars Testify," and the person -- the only person -- who edits and prepares submissions for posting on line, and since I don't specify what they write, I'm genuinely puzzled as to who does.

The most specific I've ever gotten -- and this has been only recently -- has been to tell Mormon historian friends of mine that I would enjoy having something from them that related, at least in part, to their work on Mormon history, and perhaps to the character of Joseph Smith. I suppose it's possible that I may have said something similar to Dr. Hales (unfortunately, I suffered a computer problem some months ago and no longer have the e-mail invitation that I sent to him), but nothing more than that. And, in the overwhelming majority of cases, nothing even remotely that specific. And then, in any event, contributors are entirely free to write what they want to.

Incidentally, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind people about "Mormon Scholars Testify," the ostensible subject of this thread, sort of, in a sense. There have been some very good entries recently, and there are a number of good ones in the pipeline, too.

[ttribe]

Incidentally, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind people about "Mormon Scholars Testify," the ostensible subject of this thread, sort of, in a sense. There have been some very good entries recently, and there are a number of good ones in the pipeline, too.

Apparently, the website continues to fail miserably.

[HiJolly]

I would like to hear more about this apparently common thing.

Me too! I acknowledge that my grand total of two (2) individuals does not provide a statistically significant sample size, therefore prompting my use of the wimpy word "seems". Nevertheless, it is a two out of two occurrence... FWIW.

I do read and enjoy the entries on your web site. I believe it is a good service to the public, and tangible evidence that you take your temple covenants seriously. Bravo.

HiJolly

[Calm]

Me too! I acknowledge that my grand total of two (2) individuals does not provide a statistically significant sample size, therefore prompting my use of the wimpy word "seems". Nevertheless, it is a two out of two occurrence... FWIW.

FWIW, I have been privy to several requests, none included any instructions and I know of at least one case he wishes there had been as that is sometimes easier.

Perhaps what happened is that someone who was aware that a participant was participating had a preference on what s/he would like to hear from the individual and s/he requested it?

[Daniel Peterson]

Apparently, the website continues to fail miserably.

Yes. My Malevolent Stalker has gone pretty silent on the matter of late, but he was detecting visible signs of a slowing down of the site clear back in February, when it was roaring along at the relatively rapid rate of a new entry every other day. Now that it's trailed off miserably to only seven entries every two weeks, though, his prophetic powers are clearly vindicated. And, when, as it very likely will, it reaches two hundred entries sometime in December -- a number he predicted it would never reach, and failure to reach which would somehow prove the project a failure -- he'll presumably mock my alleged "obsession with numbers." (That's a coping mechanism that he rolled out for a trial run a couple of months ago.) And his Toady will clap and dance about with ecstatic glee.

Zzzzzzzzz.

[kamenraider]

Exactly,that sealer was ordained by some one who has authority, and it was known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church. He wasn't some excommunicant who claims to have recieved the authority in a secret meeting when Pres. Kimball was at his house.

It was also known to the Church that John Taylor had authority and that he had been properly ordained. You seem to think that it would be completely impossible for him to have secretly given people authority to perform plural marriages and keep the principle alive, but I don't see why.

When Rudger Clawson was put on trial for having taken Lydia Spencer as a plural wife, John Taylor was subpoenaed to appear and testify. William Diickson, the prosecuting attorney questioned him regarding authority to perform secret plural marriages outside of the temples:

Q.--Did you say it would require a dispensation?

A.--Yes, sir. . . .

Q.--Who gives that authority?

A.--I give the authority. . . .

Q.--Is there any other persons authorized to grant the dispensation?

A.--There are persons I might appoint. . . .

Q.--Who?

A.--Sometimes Joseph F. Smith, sometimes George Q. Cannon. . . .

[319] Q.--Give me the names, if you can, of the parties or ministers--or whatever name they are known by in the Church--in this city, who were authorized to perform plural marriages within the past three years. . . .

A.--I could not give you those names.

Q.--Can you give me any of them?

A.--No, sir. . . . I will state in relation to these matters, that I have nothing to do with the details. . . .

Q.--But you are the person who confers the authority?

A.--Yes, sir.

Q.--Then you do know upon whom you do confer authority?

A.--There are hundreds of people who have authority. . . .

Q.--Do you keep any records of the appointments?

A.--No, sir.

--The John Taylor Papers Vol. 2 1877-1887: The President, Samuel and Raymond Taylor, Redwood City, CA: Taylor Trust 1985, pgs. 318-319.

You see, the very act of making such people known to the Church would defeat the whole purpose of their authorization, which was to keep the marriages secret, and thereby keep the families thus created intact, and the Church out of trouble with the law.

OK, let me ask you this: who do you think has a better claim for being the "one man" described in D&C 132, LCW or HJG?

Look at this statement:

John [W. Woolley]told me that within two months of President Smith's death [November 19, 1918] President Smith told him to go ahead in his mission of sealing plural marriages.

--Edwin D. Woolley Jr. Reminiscence dictated to Elizabeth Woolley Jensen, March 1920.

So according to John Woolley, Joseph F. Smith waited until immediately prior to Heber J. Grant becoming president to give Bro. Woolley permission to go ahead with his work, all the while being aware I'm sure, that it was the Lord's will that Heber J. Grant preside over the Church.

Price W. Johnson said that Nathan Clark "was called with Joseph Musser to be a missionary on the Temple Block. John W. Woolley and Joseph F. Smith laid their hands on him and ordained him to perform plural marriages. This was at the same time that they ordained Joseph Musser. Nathan told me that story. I

[Damien the Leper]

Daniel,

I am not sure if I missed him on the site or not but is it possible for Avraham Gileadi add to the site? I am fascinated by his Isaiah teachings.

[kamenraider]

...

The problem with the Mormon fundamentalists is that they read and pray, rather than read, STUDY, and pray. Without study, individuals may be influenced by whatever spirit is hanging around (see D&C 50:2).

...

Do you mean by this that only a false spirit would lead someone to believe, say, that "the law", that the 1886 revelation says will not be revoked, is plural marriage?

I also have a question regarding a chart (see image below) shown on pg. 40 of your book Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: the Generations After the Manifesto; it shows a column with a number of interpretations placed upon the 1886 revelation, and the column is labeled "Church Interpretation". Could you please provide some references to document that the Church interprets the revelation this way? I'm asking because the only official Church reference to the 1886 revelation that I know of, the June 1933 statement of the First Presidency, erroneously claims that the 1886 revelation does not exist.

[Lamanite]

Daniel,

I am not sure if I missed him on the site or not but is it possible for Avraham Gileadi add to the site? I am fascinated by his Isaiah teachings.

Ha. Now that is a stroke of brilliance. I second the motion!

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Olavarria]

It was also known to the Church that John Taylor had authority and that he had been properly ordained. You seem to think that it would be completely impossible for him to have secretly given people authority to perform plural marriages and keep the principle alive, but I don't see why.

When Rudger Clawson was put on trial for having taken Lydia Spencer as a plural wife, John Taylor was subpoenaed to appear and testify. William Diickson, the prosecuting attorney questioned him regarding authority to perform secret plural marriages outside of the temples:

You see, the very act of making such people known to the Church would defeat the whole purpose of their authorization, which was to keep the marriages secret, and thereby keep the families thus created intact, and the Church out of trouble with the law.

I'm not questianing anything John Taylor did or didn't do. I'm questianing anyone and any group that claims Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith....Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas S. Monson never werethe one man described in D&C 132. Niether John W. Whooly, Lorin Wooly....Owen Allred, J. Laoimine Jensen(nor anyone in the Kingstons, FLDS or Cenntenial Park) have ever met the criteria set in the D&C. No one doubts John W. Woolly was a sealer in the SLC temple. The contentious issue is whether or not he was the one man described in the D&C, whether or not he had authority post-excommunication.

D&C 42:11

11)Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.

Look at this statement:

So what? If Heber J. Grant was the one man, none of that matters.

Hey, my dad just told me President Hinckly secretly set him apart to keep the principle alive too, whoopdeedooo . Just because someone says something, that doesn't make it true.

So according to John Woolley, Joseph F. Smith waited until immediately prior to Heber J. Grant becoming president to give Bro. Woolley permission to go ahead with his work, all the while being aware I'm sure, that it was the Lord's will that Heber J. Grant preside over the Church.

Hey, at least your honest about your beliefs, all be it under a psuedo-name. Heber J. Grant was and is a true prophet of God. JWW wasn't.

Price W. Johnson said that Nathan Clark "was called with Joseph Musser to be a missionary on the Temple Block. John W. Woolley and Joseph F. Smith laid their hands on him and ordained him to perform plural marriages. This was at the same time that they ordained Joseph Musser. Nathan told me that story. I

[BrianHales]

These are interesting comments. It appears that outlining a few observations regarding John W. and Lorin C. Woolley might be useful. Mormon fundamentalist propaganda repeatedly promotes certain traditional views that are not complete.

I believe I

[Hyrum Page]

If anyone wants to defend John and Lorin as keyholders, the invitation is extended to do so here. But please check your sources and use contemporaneous evidence. Also, don

[kolipoki09]

I like this guy's standard of evidence. Thumbs up, Mr. Hales!

That's why he boosts his "reputation" by two or three points every time he says anything. Is it possible that the mods could bump Brian to 'Pundit' status any time soon?

[Hyrum Page]

That's why he boosts his "reputation" by two or three points every time he says anything. Is it possible that the mods could bump Brian to 'Pundit' status any time soon?

Sounds like a fantastic idea to me. A scholar of his accomplishments certainly belongs in Pundits.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Lamanite

P.S. I'm not saying he doesn't have a testimony, I'm just saying perhaps he should have mentioned Jesus once or twice.

Is there a limit or quota on how many times you have to say Jesus

[Daniel Peterson]

Dear Dr. Hales:

I'm told that Dan Peterson is thinking of expunging your entry from "Mormon Scholars Testify." (See here. You have since been put forward as the leading candidate for the purge.)

I'm totally opposed to any such idea.

Nonetheless, if Peterson does this, could you let me know? I have some influence on him. Even, to be frank, some leverage over him. (I know things about his sordid past that he wouldn't want me to reveal publicly, if you get my drift.)

Best,

Dan Peterson

daniel_peterson@byu.edu

[Greg Smith]

Dear Dr. Hales:

I'm told that Dan Peterson is thinking of expunging your entry from "Mormon Scholars Testify." (See here. You have since been put forward as the leading candidate for the purge.)

I'm totally opposed to any such idea.

Nonetheless, if Peterson does this, could you let me know? I have some influence on him. Even, to be frank, some leverage over him. (I know things about his sordid past that he wouldn't want me to reveal publicly, if you get my drift.)

Best,

Dan Peterson

daniel_peterson@byu.edu

Dear Dr. Peterson:

I'm told that you managed to dictate the contents of Dr. Hales' piece on Mormon Scholars Testify, and are now purging it.

I find this very offensive, since I was just told to "write something," for my entry and wasn't given a topic or instructions. It wasn't even edited.

Won't this make me even more liable to being purged, since you didn't write it first before turning around and purging it?

These riddles wrapped in enigmas make me dizzy.

Best,

GLS

[why me]

Dear Dr. Hales:

I'm told that Dan Peterson is thinking of expunging your entry from "Mormon Scholars Testify." (See here. You have since been put forward as the leading candidate for the purge.)

I'm totally opposed to any such idea.

Nonetheless, if Peterson does this, could you let me know? I have some influence on him. Even, to be frank, some leverage over him. (I know things about his sordid past that he wouldn't want me to reveal publicly, if you get my drift.)

Best,

Dan Peterson

daniel_peterson@byu.edu

Thanks, I needed that....