Mormon Scholars Testify

[cinepro]

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

[kamenraider]

Oddly, I once had an anti-Mormon challenge me to the same thing with Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith.

Fortunately, I was able to explain to them that later (sometimes decades later) sources are sometimes more accurate as the participants have had time to ponder and digest their earlier experiences. And ultimately my faith doesn't rest on the History of the Church anyway, so no need to "reassess" anything on that account.

Yeah, anti-Mormons call attention to the lack of contemporary evidence to support claims of Joseph Smith such as the first vision or whatever. I've mentioned before that Fred Collier entitled his review of Max Anderson's book The Polygamy Story as "Tannering Fundamentalism" in order to emphasize the similarity in approach there.

The study guides that Nathan Taylor (from the AUB) has posted online usually begin with suggestions such as "Begin your study with prayer, praying for God to reveal the truth to you through His Spirit." However Brian Hales has said above that "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)." This also reminds me of how anti-Mormons minimize the importance of a witness from the Spirit. FAIR's page (HERE) gives examples of this and then offers these thoughts in reply:

Christ seems to place more value on having faith, without evidence. Doesn't that make sense? It doesn't take much to believe something that is proven. Why would one need a witness of the Spirit in such an instance? We wouldn't need to have faith. Another problem is that everyone has a different standard of evidence. Atheists say there is overwhelming evidence to prove the Bible untrue. And what may be sufficient evidence for some may not be enough for others.

edit to add:

This morning I finished reading a self-published book called A Mormon Chaplain by a guy from Huntington Beach, CA named Earl Beecher. It is an autobiographical account of his experiences as an LDS Chaplain in the U.S. Army during the Korean War and beyond. He tells a story in it that, I believe illustrates the value of simple prayer and revelation. Starting on page 117 he writes:

Our LDS Group Leader in Pusan was a dentist from Phoenix named Junius Gibbons. I had previously met him during President Robertson's tour. He'd had a friend of the Jewish persuasion with him named Irving Cohen who was also a dentist. Junius and Irving attended several testimony meetings where the Spirit was present.

After considerable coaxing Junius persuaded Irving to read the Book of Mormon. Irving said he'd enjoyed it but was not convinced of it's divine authenticity. Junius pointed out Moroni's promise in the 10th chapter and asked Irving to pray about it. Irving complied. No result.

"Did you pray in the name of Christ, the way it says?"

"Of course not. You can't expect me to pray in Christ's name. I'm Jewish!"

"Well, that's what it says you have to do. It won't hurt to try."

Again, considerable coaxing. Irving finally prayed and reluctantly asked in the name of Christ. His prayer was answered in a way he did not expect.

He reported that he was not asleep and definitely was not dreaming. His room began to fill with light. The Book of Mormon that lay on the table beside his bed was glowing. A personage of light descended into his room, pointed toward the Book and nodded "yes."

Irving was overwhelmed. It took him almost three days to recover. He had not expected such a literal answer to his prayer. When he told some of his friends about it, they thought he'd had a nervous breakdown.

The book goes on to describe how Irving was afraid to be baptized because his wife would leave him and his family would disown him, but after more prayers about being baptized and undeniable answers, he went ahead. The author meets him later in the book in a military hospital (where he was examined and then released as healthy) because his family was worried that he'd gone crazy.

[kamenraider]

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.

I don

[Olavarria]

John Taylor set the five mentioned apart and gave them authority to perform marriage ceremonies, and also to set others apart to do the same thing as long as they remained on the earth; and while doing so, the Prophet Joseph Smith stood by directing the proceedings. Two of us had not met the Prophet Joseph Smith in his mortal lifetime, and we--Charles H. Wilkins and myself--were introduced to him and shook hands with him.

(signed) Lorin C. Woolley

This supposedly happened in 1886. Listen to what Pres. Smith said in 1910.

This gospel revealed to the Prophet Joseph is already being preached to the spirits in prison, to those who have passed away from this stage of action into the spirit world without the knowledge of the gospel. Joseph Smith is preaching that gospel to them. So is Hyrum Smith. So is Brigham Young, and so are all the faithful apostles that lived in this dispensation under the administration of the Prophet Joseph. They are there, having carried with them from here the holy Priesthood that they received under authority, and which was conferred upon them in the flesh; they are preaching the gospel to the spirits in prison; for Christ, when his body lay in the tomb, went to proclaim liberty to the captives and opened the prison doors to them that were bound(Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p. 471.).

So,as late as 1910, Joseph and Hyrum are still following the example of Christ and working in the spirit world during the period between mortality and the resurrection. But it gets better. Lorin and Dan both tought that Joseph and Hyrum were ressurected and led the Saints during the pioneer exodus as resurrected beings.

John Taylor said at the Carlisle home to L. C. W. [Lorin C. Woolley], "Joseph Smith, as a resurrected being, guided Brigham Young across the plains and led him to Utah. His remains were not brought to Utah by wagon as many have supposed(Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 2).

Lorin C. Woolley told J. W. Musser:

"... Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and, of course, Joseph Smith, had been resurrected, and that Joseph Smith, in resurrected form, had led the people to these mountains in 1847"(Joseph Musser Journal, April 23, 1930).

Daniel R. Bateman related:"President John Taylor, told, in my presence, time and time again, that Joseph and Hyrum, in their resurrected bodies, had led the Saints to these valleys, going before the first Company of emigrants. Prest. Woodruff and Prest. Snow also made the same statement in my hearing"(Joseph Musser Journal, April 6, 1935).

So according to Lorin and Dan, Joseph was resurrected decades and physically, in resurrected bodies, led the Pioneers. But listen to Brigham Young:

Brother Heber did not say that Joseph was resurrected, though I was satisfied that many of the hearers would draw such a conclusion. As quick as Joseph finishes his mission in the spirit world he will be resurrected. I do not know that any news would come to my ears so sad and discouraging, so calculated to blight my faith and hope as to hear that Joseph is resurrected and has not made a visit to his brethren. I should know that something serious was the matter, far more than I now apprehend that there is. When his spirit again quickens his body, he will ascend to heaven, present his resurrected body to the Father and the Son, receive his commission as a resurrected being, and visit his brethren on this earth, as did Jesus after his resurrection. Mary met the Savior after his resurrection, and,

[Olavarria]

T[heodore] R[oosevelt] joined Church, received endowments shortly after ascending to Presidency after death of McKinley. (Book of Remembrance of Joseph Musser, p. 45.)

Hoover apparently leans to Catholicism, while Theodore Roosevelt was a member of the Council of the Kingdom of God, and entered the Patriarchal Order of Marriage (i.e. polygamy). (Items from a Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser p. 15; Reminiscences. 5:36.)

Ex-President Coolidge died suddenly today of heart failure. He was a member of the Grand Council -- an honorable man -- and did yeoman service. He held the Priesthood. (Items from a Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser p. 22. January 5, 1933.)

Franklin D. Roosevelt is much like his cousin Theodore. He believes in religious liberty and those who live the Patriarchal Order of Marriage as a religious rite he claims cannot be interfered with under the constitution. He has been consulted and promised to do the right thing if elected. Roosevelt split with Taft over matters pertaining to the Mormons and the Church and Kingdom of God. (Items from a Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 23.)

Face it Kamen, Lorin was either liar or lunatic.

[kamenraider]

Face it Kamen, Lorin was either liar or lunatic.

The idea didn't originate with Lorin Woolley (sort of like the moonmen idea didn't originate with Joseph Smith):

The Mormon appeal to his generosity was not confined to Washington. On

his travels he met President Smith more than once

[kolipoki09]

The idea didn't originate with Lorin Woolley (sort of like the moonmen idea didn't originate with Joseph Smith):

Nothing in any of these statements suggests that Roosevelt received the endowment. In fact, a proxy cannot act in his stead if he is still living. I also seem to remember Mormon fundamentalists claiming that Roosevelt received his "endowment" in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Things simply don't add up.

John W. Wooley claimed no special ordination during his excommunication in 1914. He continued to ask to be reinstated as a member of the Church and submit to the authority of the "one man" (who wasn't him) several times after his excommunication. Even when dedicating graves after his excommunication, John explicitly did so without priesthood authority. Lorin's claims rest entirely upon the authority of his father...authority that did not exist for him after his excommunication.

Did a 1886 ordination happen? D. Michael Quinn, a 'friendly' historian as far as polygamists are concerned, doesn't think so.

As a historian, I have no evidence that there was a setting apart or an ordination... in 1886. However, I do have as early as 1906 a reference by loyal Church members that there had been men who had been set apart to keep plural marriage alive no matter what. And that certainly is a support for the account of 1886, but it doesn't refer in any specific way to the 1886 ordination... I would be more than happy to find verification, and if I did find it, I certainly wouldn't conceal evidence of the ordination of men in 1886... to continue plural marriage. But aside from the one reference I gave to you, in 1906, I find no evidence of that event prior to Lorin Woolley's detailed statements on various occasions in the 1920s concerning the 1886 ordination. (Quinn,

[kamenraider]

Nothing in any of these statements suggests that Roosevelt received the endowment. In fact, a proxy cannot act in his stead if he is still living. I also seem to remember Mormon fundamentalists claiming that Roosevelt received his "endowment" in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Things simply don't add up.

I believe that Moroni Jessop said it was supposed to be in Wyoming rather than South Dakota. (FYI: Jane Manning James received a sealing ordinance by proxy while still alive, as Bathsheba Smith acted as proxy for her to be sealed as a servitor to Joseph Smith in 1894.) Who knows if such rumors about Roosevelt are accurate. I don't, but if you have any facts or evidence to present here that have a bearing on it, I'd be interested. It is beyond dispute though that Theodore Roosevelt was friendly towards Mormons and their values, as this political cartoon, which criticizes him for it, shows:

John W. Wooley claimed no special ordination during his excommunication in 1914. He continued to ask to be reinstated as a member of the Church and submit to the authority of the "one man" (who wasn't him) several times after his excommunication. Even when dedicating graves after his excommunication, John explicitly did so without priesthood authority.

He said that he believed that Matthias Cowley had been authorized by Joseph F. Smith to instruct him to perform sealings. He was being evasive in order to protect Joseph F. Smith. Price Johnson said that John Woolley told him this:

John Woolley said, "This is the room where the Savior and Joseph visited. The couch over there is where they sat. The Savior was here until midnight; Joseph Smith stayed until morning. We have kept this room as near as possible in the same condition as it was at that time."

Brother Woolley told me about the meeting the next morning; he told me the whole story which is written. It would take too long to tell it all now. That morning after Brother Woolley got through telling me his experiences, he bore witness to me that the Lord had prepared men to keep that principle alive when the Church would reject it.

--Reminiscences of John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley, ed. by Mark J. and Rhea A. Baird, Vol. 2, Draper, UT: n.p., n.d., pgs. 5-6.

Olive Woolley, Lorin's daughter who remained active LDS, said that her grandfather said this about his excommunication: "I feel I have done no wrong; and my Lord, I'm sure, agrees with me." (ibid. Vol. 1, pg. 8 ) She also said that John Woolley said this about the Church: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Church that Christ put on this earth through Joseph Smith, and it will be the only Church until Christ, Himself, comes to take it over and don't forget it. It may go astray, and we may have to think on our own and we may have to act on our own, but the Church of Jesus Christ is still the Church on this earth and don't forget it and I'm not starting a new Church." (ibid. Vol. 1, pg. 9)

Lorin's claims rest entirely upon the authority of his father...authority that did not exist for him after his excommunication.

Lorin Woolley claimed to be ordained by John Taylor, not by his father, therefore I'm not sure how you could view his claim as resting upon the authority of his father John Woolley.

Did a 1886 ordination happen? D. Michael Quinn, a 'friendly' historian as far as polygamists are concerned, doesn't think so.

Mike Quinn really is not "friendly" towards polygamist claims. He feels that he is neutral about it and can't go beyond the evidence. He told me recently that he feels that the claims of Lorin Woolley are demonstrably false, however he also showed, I felt, that he didn't have a good understanding of fundamentalist priesthood ideas because he said that the AUB view Joseph Musser as a direct successor to Lorin Woolley because he was chosen by him as a council member, which isn't right. His area of expertise and research regarding polygamy is mostly as it relates to LDS general authorities, rather than Mormon fundamentalists.

Lorin was a false prophet. Here are a few examples Brian Hales has compiled:

Look for the earth to be so wasted with calamities during next four years, the Lord will come and reorganize the government. [Recorded November 8, 1932.]

Anarchy may be manifested in streets of Salt Lake and other cities of 100,000 people, or less, before March 4, 1933.

Don

[kamenraider]

It's been two weeks now. Are you guys done discussing this?

I had hoped to have Bro. Hales help me figure out how he came up with the interpretation of the 1886 revelation, that it refers only to eternal sealings rather than to plural marriage. Were more people "negligent in the observance" of being sealed monogamously, rather than polygamously? Which interpretation fits better? Could the Prophet conceivably have asked the Lord how far monogamous eternal marriage was binding upon his people, and this a mere five months before the Edmunds-Tucker Act was passed, and while great concern was felt concerning the possible effects of such legislation? What sort of contemporaneous evidence would support this interpretation? I'd like to know specifically.

[Olavarria]

bring it haha

[kamenraider]

bring it haha

That's what I'm sayin'!

[kamenraider]

I just thought I'd mention a few things in some of the material that Brian Hales has written that bothered me. Here's one, chosen at random. "Mormon Fundamentalists believe that the more wives they marry in mortality, the greater their eternal reward." and "In contrast, Church leaders have never taught that a man gains an eternal advantage by acquiring as many wives as possible."--Setting the Record Straight: Mormon Fundamentalism, pg. 19. The statement that Fundamentalist Mormons believe that is a mischaracterization of their belief. Benjamin Johnson did write this in his autobiography: "The first command was to 'multiply' and the Prophet [i.e. Joseph Smith] taught us that dominion and power in the Great Future would be commensurate with the number of 'wives, children and friends' that we inherit here, and that our mission to the earth was to organize a nuclei of Heaven, to take with us, to the increase of which there would be no end." The quote produced by Bro. Hales in support of this assertion, however, says nothing about eternal reward. Here is the quote, from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, pg. 21 as quoted by Bro. Hales: "To be the head of a Dispensation, 7 wives [are] necessary. [To be the head of] the Patriarchal Order must have 5 wives. [To be] President of the Church - 3 wives [are necessary]." Here is a pic of the entry quoted from:

He left out "Keys of Kingdom" for some reason without an ellipsis. Anyway, this quote has to do with quorum numbers of wives and earthly priesthood offices, and doesn't mention eternal reward at all. Brigham Young said this:

Three High Priests form a Quorum; five form a Quorum; seven form a Quorum; twelve form a Quorum. Let a Quorum of High Priests go into an upper room, and there appear before the Lord in the garments of the holy Priesthood, and offer up before the Father, in the name of Jesus, the signs of the holy Priesthood, and then ask God to give a revelation concerning that doctrine, and they have a right to receive it. If you cannot get the information in any other way, suppose you were upon the islands of the sea, far away from the main body of the Church, you are entitled to the administration of angels who administer in the terrestrial kingdom; and they have a right to receive administrations from the celestial. In this capacity you could ask for revelations pertaining to doctrine.

--Brigham Young, May 7, 1861, JD 9:91

A guy named "S. Bennett" writing in Sidney Rigdon's newspaper in December of 1844 mischaracterized LDS belief in a similar way to Bro. Hales, saying that Church members in Nauvoo "...are teaching as a celestial law, that the highest degree of celestial glory is only to be obtained by marrying three, five, seven, ten, or more wives."

--The Latter Day Saint's Messenger and Advocate, Pittsburgh, December 2, 1844, Vol. 1, No. 3, pg.

Note the purpose mentioned in this quote:

The third wife of Adam Winthrop tells that though her husband had two wives, when he was called to colonize in Dixie, Brigham Young advised him to marry again. "You ought to take a third wife so you will have a family circle."

--Isn't One Wife Enough? by Kimball Young, NY: Henry Holt & Co. 1954, pg 109.

I'm not sure where Bro. Hales gets the idea that Fundamentalist Mormons believe that marrying more wives gets a man a greater eternal reward, beyond just the idea of increasing his posterity.

[kamenraider]

... If you disagree, then I would encourage you to get a copy of Joseph W. Musser's Book of Remembrance (not the edited version) and embrace ALL of Lorin's teachings, rather than treating his ideas like a doctrinal smorgasbord, which seems to be the standard approach.

...

God Bless,

Brian Hales

I wonder how many LDS apologists here embrace ALL of Joseph Smith's purported teachings. I've seen apologists here argue against the idea of there being an infinite ancestral hierarchy of gods in the eternities, against the idea that God the Father had a father, or that He was once a mortal man, or that Eden was in Missouri, or that Zelph was a white Lamanite, or that the moon is inhabited, that blacks should not be ordained to the priesthood, etc., etc. I think it would be hard enough to even find someone who embraces all the revelations given by the Lord through Joseph Smith, let alone the things he is reported to have said by his acquaintances.

The introduction to Hindsight Publications' 2010 version of Joseph W. Musser's Book of Remembrance, which I just finished reading, says that even for "those who accept Joseph W. Musser's Book of Remembrance as both credible and reliable, the final question as to whether or not various pages reflect (1) doctrinal declarations of Lorin C. Woolley or (2) private conjecture of Lorin C. Woolley or (3) hearsay reminisences of Lorin C. Woolley's formal or informal teachings remains. In short, although Joseph W. Musser's Book of Remembrance is highly significant as a resource for Lorin C. Woolley's teachings, the reader should not naively assume that all of these teachings are considered as accepted doctrinal statements within every branch of Mormon fundamentalism."

It's odd to me that any LDS apologist would suggest that someone should embrace ALL of Lorin Woolley's teachings in order to be consistent. How consistent is it to accept the 1886 revelation as genuine, which says that all commandments that the Lord gives must be obeyed unless revoked, and that the Lord would not revoke the law in question, and not live according to it?

[dougtheavenger]

Not sure what Brian's "testimony" was supposed to comprise, but if Brother Peterson requested a half hearted treatment of the reasons for Polygamy and a promotion of Brian's works then I understand. Otherwise, this is nothing like a testimony, IMO.

Brian C. Hales- pseudo testimony.

Big UP!

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.

edit to add: Sorry if this was harsh but I had just read the testimonies of Jeff Bradshaw, Davis Bitton, John Gee, and Kevin Barney. In comparison, Brother Hales seemed to satisfy the prerequisites for "spiritual twinkie" and mere "fleeting factoids".

I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. I have no problem with polygamy. The Church could reinstate it tomorrow and I would not bat an eye. However, I don't believe that Joseph Smith ever practiced polygamy or fathered any child with any woman other than Emma Smith. Genetic evidence provided by Ugo Perego supports this opinion. Perego's genetic research proved that Fanny Alger's first son was not fathered by Joseph Smith. Emma swore Joseph had no other wife than her.

Ihave read D&C132 many times. The main thrust of this revelation is eternal marriage. Plural marriage is a sidebar.

Hale's "testimony" does nothing to change my oinion. Documentation does not impress me. Putting a lie in writting does not make it true.

[cinepro]

I have read D&C132 many times. The main thrust of this revelation is eternal marriage. Plural marriage is a sidebar.

D&C 132 is 66 verses long. Of those 66 verses, how many are focused on the rules for polygamy (including Emma Smith's attitude and relationship to it)?

[kolipoki09]

I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. I have no problem with polygamy. The Church could reinstate it tomorrow and I would not bat an eye. However, I don't believe that Joseph Smith ever practiced polygamy or fathered any child with any woman other than Emma Smith. Genetic evidence provided by Ugo Perego supports this opinion. Perego's genetic research proved that Fanny Alger's first son was not fathered by Joseph Smith. Emma swore Joseph had no other wife than her.

Ihave read D&C132 many times. The main thrust of this revelation is eternal marriage. Plural marriage is a sidebar.

Hale's "testimony" does nothing to change my oinion. Documentation does not impress me. Putting a lie in writting does not make it true.

I am unaware of any credible historian to date that argues that Joseph Smith never practiced plural marriage. We don't just have the "testimony" of Brian Hales. It is in the History of the Church, it has been discussed by every prophet since Joseph Smith's death. DNA evidence suggests that Joseph Smith did not father any other children with other women, but that does not in any sense of the word, mean that he never practiced it.

Emma lied about Joseph Smith's other wives. Most of the statements coming from Emma denying Joseph's practice of plural marriage stem from a time period of vehement anti-polygamy legislation prevalent at the time period. It was easier for her to "blame it on Brigham" than it was to own up to the fact that her husband introduced the practice.

Perego isn't denying that Smith practiced plural marriage either. He was just interested in potential Smith descendants.