Is it lights out for the FLDS Church?

[smac97]

See here:

Quote

Utah’s largest polygamous church owes millions in court judgments
POSTED 12:20 PM, SEPTEMBER 24, 2017, BY BEN WINSLOW

SALT LAKE CITY — When he’s sentenced, polygamist leader Lyle Jeffs is expected to owe $1 million in restitution to taxpayers for food stamp fraud.

Add that to the back wages he and the Fundamentalist LDS Church owe for a 2012 child labor violation.

There’s also $16 million the FLDS Church and its leader, Warren Jeffs (a brother of Lyle Jeffs), owe now to ex-child bride Elissa Wall. And $30 million owed to his ex-bodyguard, Willie Jessop.

Warren Jeffs has consistently refused to answer many lawsuits filed against him and the FLDS Church, so default judgments have been entered against them. Now comes the hard part — collecting.

...

The FLDS Church lives under a “united order,” where members give all they have. But Brower said their money is scattered amongst companies owned by individual members or trusts set up in different states. The bulk of the FLDS Church’s assets is in land across many states.

...

{S}ome ex-FLDS members have worried that those who may ultimately pay for the sins of church leaders are poor members.

Lyle Jeffs, who struck a plea deal to food stamp fraud and fugitive from justice-related charges, will be required to pay $1 million restitution under the terms of his bargain. Jeffs and 11 others were convicted in a massive food stamp fraud scheme, where rank-and-file members were ordered to hand over Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to church leaders to do with as they wished.

The feds allege the scheme exceeded $12 million.

“On the one hand, it seems like a small amount in comparison to the harm done and the amount that was fraudulently used,” said ex-FLDS member Brenda Nicholson. “But, on the other hand, I’m concerned that the people who already had their food taken from them, through the exploitation of their faith, will now somehow end up being required to sacrifice again and donate to help cover this.”

...

There are numerous other litigation actions still pending against Warren Jeffs, Lyle Jeffs and the FLDS Church and related companies. Because of edicts handed down from Jeffs, who still runs the church from prison, the polygamous church has reportedly been losing a number of members.

“It was morally bankrupt,” said Jessop. “It’s financially bankrupt. How do you have life after Jeffs without revictimizing the people?”

I think the FLDS Church is on its way out of existence.  Its leaders are in prison or headed there.  Its assets are seized or frozen or so situated as to not be of much help or assistance to the members.  And the prisonyard edicts from Warren Jeffs are apparently driving even more members out than would have left on their own or drifted away.

What a tragedy for the innocent members of that sect, particularly the children whose lives have been turned upside down.  I hope they can find a way to sort out their lives and extricate themselves from this mess.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rpn]

He is the one being required to repay the restitution.   The court can't order it be paid out of flds money, just his money.   My guess is that he doesn't have much money in his individual name, though I've read that the prosecutors are already looking for assets.

And the religious expectations Jeffs puts on his followers will likely survive (with the women being completely destitute).   Which isn't something I'd wish for them.

[RevTestament]

My guess is the FLDS will continue to limp along, but will hemorrhage members at an increasing rate. Maybe some of these homes taking in lost boys and other groups could put up billboards outside of town. My guess is their church has enough assets spread around the country that they'll be able to pay off their judgment, but I don't know their financial situation at all. These types of groups have a way of turning "persecution" into last day apocalypse types of scenarios, so we need to watch for self-destructive attitudes as well. Featuring prior community members who have been able to happily pursue life outside of the community, I think would help them disband their church in a healthy way.

Edited September 24, 2017 by RevTestament

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

He is the one being required to repay the restitution.   The court can't order it be paid out of flds money, just his money.

But Lyle Jeffs can push others to give him money if it starts impeding his lifestyle and his brother might help.

When does Warren Jeffs get out of prison?  He is not likely to want to live frugally to pay off court judgments.  

They have made it a habit to get money in less than legal ways from Church membership.  They may have to change that to legal ways if kept a close eye on, but I doubt they will change much otherwise.

[rongo]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

See here:

I think the FLDS Church is on its way out of existence.  Its leaders are in prison or headed there.  Its assets are seized or frozen or so situated as to not be of much help or assistance to the members.  And the prisonyard edicts from Warren Jeffs are apparently driving even more members out than would have left on their own or drifted away.

What a tragedy for the innocent members of that sect, particularly the children whose lives have been turned upside down.  I hope they can find a way to sort out their lives and extricate themselves from this mess.

Thanks,

-Smac

We have a Jessop girl from Colorado City at our high school. She and her siblings are in the foster care system. I covered for her teacher two years ago on my free period, and she mentioned her background. I asked her about a lot of things. She believes in Joseph Smith and the Restoration, but her foster parents are understandably trying to keep her from Mormonism. She wears normal clothes, and has a modern hairstyle. 

Their goal is to be reunited as a family, once her mother can care for them. They were expelled by the FLDS.

[Kenngo1969]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

... When does Warren Jeffs get out of prison?  He is not likely to want to live frugally to pay off court judgments.  ...

He's in for, I think, life plus 20 years.  Even if "life" doesn't really mean life, I doubt he's ever going to be able to convince a parole board (especially not a Texas parole board ) that he's been rehabilitated.

[JLHPROF]

I think this is all a bit naive.
The FLDS as an approx 10,000 member group may be imploding, but there will always remain the "faithful few", those who follow Jeffs etc no matter what.

As for the finances?  The LDS Church was disincorporated, had its property confiscated, and mortgaged the temple and other holdings at various points between 1880 & 1930.
Some how it survived and membership held steady.
The FLDS Church is in much the same position the LDS Church was in the 1880s.  They are in the exact same position as early fundamentalists were in the 1930 & 50s with raids and imprisonment.
And that's probably how they see it.

Also, the collapse of another 2 fundamentalist groups has been predicted previously.  The Kingstons have had their leaders sent to jail, their business fined and shut down, and they are still operating.  Likewise the AUB was fined millions in a court case that would have cost them their properties.  Their members dug deep, donated money, took out lines of credit, and paid it off completely in a very short time period.  And they also continue to operate with a large number of members.

Don't be so quick to write off the FLDS.
 

Edited September 25, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I think this is all a bit naive.
The FLDS as an approx 10,000 member group may be imploding, but there will always remain the "faithful few", those who follow Jeffs etc no matter what.

As for the finances?  The LDS Church was disincorporated, had its property confiscated, and mortgaged the temple and other holdings at various points between 1880 & 1930.
Some how it survived and membership held steady.
The FLDS Church is in much the same position the LDS Church was in the 1880s.  They are in the exact same position as early fundamentalists were in the 1930 & 50s with raids and imprisonment.
And that's probably how they see it.

Also, the collapse of another 2 fundamentalist groups has been predicted previously.  The Kingstons have had their leaders sent to jail, their business fined and shut down, and they are still operating.  Likewise the AUB was fined millions in a court case that would have cost them their properties.  Their members dug deep, donated money, took out lines of credit, and paid it off completely in a very short time period.  And they also continue to operate with a large number of members.

Don't be so quick to write off the FLDS.
 

while I agree it's not time to write them off one can hope

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

He's in for, I think, life plus 20 years.  Even if "life" doesn't really mean life, I doubt he's ever going to be able to convince a parole board (especially not a Texas parole board ) that he's been rehabilitated.

My brain is semiasleep this week (change in meds is probably interfering with sleep), I was thinking the charges were just fraud, bigamy, and abetting sexual assault, spaced on being jailed for doing it himself...which is weird because it is the worse, maybe I just didn't want to think about it.  I agree he is not getting out.

I can still see him attempting to manipulate church members to get him and his brother out of the financial pit they are in just for the powertrip it would give him.  Plus he may be delusional and thinking he may get out.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I think this is all a bit naive.
The FLDS as an approx 10,000 member group may be imploding, but there will always remain the "faithful few", those who follow Jeffs etc no matter what.

As for the finances?  The LDS Church was disincorporated, had its property confiscated, and mortgaged the temple and other holdings at various points between 1880 & 1930.
Some how it survived and membership held steady.
The FLDS Church is in much the same position the LDS Church was in the 1880s.  They are in the exact same position as early fundamentalists were in the 1930 & 50s with raids and imprisonment.
And that's probably how they see it.

Also, the collapse of another 2 fundamentalist groups has been predicted previously.  The Kingstons have had their leaders sent to jail, their business fined and shut down, and they are still operating.  Likewise the AUB was fined millions in a court case that would have cost them their properties.  Their members dug deep, donated money, took out lines of credit, and paid it off completely in a very short time period.  And they also continue to operate with a large number of members.

Don't be so quick to write off the FLDS.
 

Did the other groups have a schism/rebellion going on at the time?

I think it was Jessop who was considered the third power after the Jeffs brothers before he left the church and he hasn't removed himself from the greater community.  From what I read a few years ago, he is actively trying to create a community that will make it much easier to transition out.  Iirc, he was doing stuff like getting the wall down that surrounded the elementary school.  There was quite an extensive article on what he was trying to do.  I need to go refresh my knowledge.  Haven't read much about the group lately.

[JLHPROF]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did the other groups have a schism/rebellion going on at the time?

I think it was Jessop who was considered the third power after the Jeffs brothers before he left the church and he hasn't removed himself from the greater community.  From what I read a few years ago, he is actively trying to create a community that will make it much easier to transition out.  Iirc, he was doing stuff like getting the wall down that surrounded the elementary school.  There was quite an extensive article on what he was trying to do.  I need to go refresh my knowledge.  Haven't read much about the group lately.

I am unaware of any schisms in the Kingston group.
The AUB is apparently undergoing a schism right now, although the financial issues don't seem to be the cause as much as doctrinal.
At least, that's what the interwebs say...

Edited September 25, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Avatar4321]

how do you guys keep track of all these schism of schism sects?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

how do you guys keep track of all these schism of schism sects?

Plenty out there.  Brian Hales has an entire website devoted to them, along with much of their doctrine, beliefs, and history.
Also, there are frequent newspaper articles here in SLC about most of them.  They are daily news.

And it's definitely NOT all of these sects.  There have been hundreds since the days of the Prophet Joseph.
Only the largest ones and the ones that endure in the "Restoration movement" get my attention.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Plenty out there.  Brian Hales has an entire website devoted to them, along with much of their doctrine, beliefs, and history.
Also, there are frequent newspaper articles here in SLC about most of them.  They are daily news.

And it's definitely NOT all of these sects.  There have been hundreds since the days of the Prophet Joseph.
Only the largest ones and the ones that endure in the "Restoration movement" get my attention.

I have a lady in my ward from Topeka, Kansas. Her mother and a sister were lured away by a 2nd counselor in the bishopric into polygamy (she was propositioned, too). While claiming religious grounds for it, he did not start a big movement, and would be under the radar as far as a discernible offshoot. He didn't claim to be a "true" offshoot or restoration of anything.

[CA Steve]

5 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

how do you guys keep track of all these schism of schism sects?

Here is a good start, if you are interested in reading more.

Scattering of the Saints" Schism within Mormonism

[cinepro]

On 9/24/2017 at 1:12 PM, smac97 said:

See here:

I think the FLDS Church is on its way out of existence.  Its leaders are in prison or headed there.  Its assets are seized or frozen or so situated as to not be of much help or assistance to the members.  And the prisonyard edicts from Warren Jeffs are apparently driving even more members out than would have left on their own or drifted away.

 

Maybe they just need to have an Official Declaration telling them to stop practicing polygamy.  I hear that works.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Maybe they just need to have an Official Declaration telling them to stop practicing polygamy.  I hear that works.

  - Ouch.  

 

 

Edited September 26, 2017 by JLHPROF

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Maybe they just need to have an Official Declaration telling them to stop practicing polygamy.  I hear that works.

It did indeed work.  I think Pres. Woodruff's remarks on this point merit attention (emphases added):

Quote

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question...

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

… I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. … All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it. (From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

I actually find it fascinating that God showed Pres. Woodruff not what was going to come to pass, but a hypothetical future where something would have come to pass had the Church not abandoned polygamy.

As a Latter-day Saint, I do not believe the FLDS folks are similarly situated to the pre-Manifesto LDS Church (that is, the latter was guided by prophets and apostles holding God's priesthood, whereas the former's leaders have never held such authority), but that is a point of faith, not established fact.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It did indeed work.  I think Pres. Woodruff's remarks on this point merit attention (emphases added):

I actually find it fascinating that God showed Pres. Woodruff not what was going to come to pass, but a hypothetical future where something would have come to pass had the Church not abandoned polygamy.

As a Latter-day Saint, I do not believe the FLDS folks are similarly situated to the pre-Manifesto LDS Church (that is, the latter was guided by prophets and apostles holding God's priesthood, whereas the former's leaders have never held such authority), but that is a point of faith, not established fact.

Thanks,

-Smac

So the Lord ended polygamy to save temple work.
But D&C 130, 132 and 58 still apply.  Some blessings were lost in the revocation of the law.

Still, it is important to note that while the Manifesto is not a revelation, it was given to President Woodruff by revelation.
Makes me wonder what the actual revelation was.  What did the Lord tell President Woodruff in connection with his writing the Manifesto?
I'm betting it was more than "let's end polygamy, here write this down."
 

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So the Lord ended polygamy to save temple work.
But D&C 130, 132 and 58 still apply.  Some blessings were lost in the revocation of the law.

I'm not sure I'd put it that way.  The Church obeyed God and ceased the practice of polygamy.  Whatever blessings ceased that point were, apparently, supposed to cease.  This was not an instance of blessings lost through rebellion/disobedience.

Quote

Still, it is important to note that while the Manifesto is not a revelation, it was given to President Woodruff by revelation.

I don't understand the distinction.

Quote

Makes me wonder what the actual revelation was.  What did the Lord tell President Woodruff in connection with his writing the Manifesto?
I'm betting it was more than "let's end polygamy, here write this down."

I think there are many forms of revelation, some of which are specifically worded, but I think most are not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I'd put it that way.  The Church obeyed God and ceased the practice of polygamy.  Whatever blessings ceased that point were, apparently, supposed to cease.  This was not an instance of blessings lost through rebellion/disobedience.

I agree completely that it could have been God's will for the blessings to cease.
I think it is entirely an assumption that this had nothing to do with disobedience.  We could very much be in the same position as the children of Israel who had laws revoked and were given lesser laws.
That is what the Church teaches concerning consecration and tithing after all.
And I think a lot of people have never looked at the blessings the Lord promised in connection with plural marriage.  If the Lord revoked that law those blessings went with it scripturally speaking.
So the Lord bans plural marriage in the Church.  What blessing is he no longer able to give to the Church as a result?
 

Quote

I don't understand the distinction.
I think there are many forms of revelation, some of which are specifically worded, but I think most are not.

I agree with this too.  But the distinction should be obvious.  The document of the Manifesto was a legal press release directed to be issued by the Lord, not a proclamation on doctrine by the Lord.
You may even see it as a distinction without a difference, but there is still a distinction there.  Those involved certainly saw the difference as evidenced by the majority of the same 15 apostles that issued the Manifesto continuing to practice, perform, and authorize plural marriages.

[clarkgoble]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree completely that it could have been God's will for the blessings to cease.
I think it is entirely an assumption that this had nothing to do with disobedience.  We could very much be in the same position as the children of Israel who had laws revoked and were given lesser laws.

Speaking as one who thinks the Church lived polygamy horribly I'm quite open to seeing it tied to disobedience. On both practical and spiritual levels a lot was left wanting even though I also think it's easy to say that with hindsight and the advantages of 100 years of social development and academic progress. i.e. I'm not sure we should judge them too harshly as I'm sure we'd have done little better in their shoes. That said that it seems fair to criticize the way the united orders and polygamy were implemented and lived in the early Utah period.

Despite all that, I'm rather loath to say the consequences were due to disobedience on the Mormons part. The main causes were non-Mormon dislike of Mormon actions during a period of strong sexual conservatism and domination of national politics by Protestantism. While scandals like the Mountain Meadows Massacre enflamed popular opinion, the reality was the federal government would never have left the Mormons alone. If Mormons had peace for a time it was only because the nation was distracted by the Civil War. The events of the 1890's were inevitable IMO just as the events of the Missouri War were.

Edited September 27, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Speaking as one who thinks the Church lived polygamy horribly I'm quite open to seeing it tied to disobedience. On both practical and spiritual levels a lot was left wanting even though I also think it's easy to say that with hindsight and the advantages of 100 years of social development and academic progress. i.e. I'm not sure we should judge them too harshly as I'm sure we'd have done little better in their shoes. That said that it seems fair to criticize the way the united orders and polygamy were implemented and lived in the early Utah period.

Despite all that, I'm rather loath to say the consequences were due to disobedience on the Mormons part. The main causes were non-Mormon dislike of Mormon actions during a period of strong sexual conservatism and domination of national politics by Protestantism. While scandals like the Mountain Meadows Massacre enflamed popular opinion, the reality was the federal government would never have left the Mormons alone. If Mormons had peace for a time it was only because the nation was distracted by the Civil War. The events of the 1890's were inevitable IMO just as the events of the Missouri War were.

I can mostly agree with this.  The Church while living polygamy was a target for the federal government.
There is much historical evidence that the persecution from the government caused many members to avoid plural marriage or seek for its revocation.
When the temples were threatened President Woodruff felt like something had to be done.

The often debated "1886 revelation" to John Taylor specified that disobedience was an issue among members.  If that revelation is authentic that would explain in part the issuing of the Manifesto and the Lord's revocation of plural marriage.

 

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The often debated "1886 revelation" to John Taylor specified that disobedience was an issue among members.  If that revelation is authentic that would explain in part the issuing of the Manifesto and the Lord's revocation of plural marriage.

Again I'm sympathetic to this. I buy completely Pres. Benson's point about the condemnation of the Church for not taking seriously the Book of Mormon. It's hard to read the history and talks prior to Pres. Benson and miss that the Book of Mormon just wasn't that important for members except as a vague sign of the restoration.

With the 1886 revelation though there are questions about authenticity. At minimum it has a rather odd providence (mysteriously found by Taylor's son years after the fact - not known about by anyone else). I know there have been attempts to authenticate it based upon handwriting from a photograph but as I recall those were themselves open to question. (There's no extant copy of the text - just his son's John W Taylor's handwritten copies) Even the text of the purported revelation is fairly question begging to my eyes. Mormons would say the covenant has never been revoked but that unequivocally commands about behavior are (just looking at Jacob 2 for instance). The assumption of course is that "works of Abraham" entails polygamy but it is interesting the "revelation" never explicitly says that to be exalted one must be sealed to more than one wife. Which in a certain ways is actually an argument for it's authenticity - were it forged by John W. Taylor or those sympathetic to him we'd expect a bit more explicit clarity on the point of dispute. After all even at the time of the controversy in the early 20th century Mormon apologists were already reading "works of Abraham" as entailing the sealing not the plurality part. 

More key to your comment while it says "great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments" it doesn't say that the consequences (meaning Federal persecution) were due to that. Quite the contrary it says, "it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters." So at best it's a statement on exaltation and what is required while arguably throwing no more light onto the subject than D&C 132:32 (which it is referring to). i.e. even as an authentic revelation I don't think it actually adds any information not already in the D&C despite how fundamentalists use it. If you don't read D&C 132:32 as entailing the necessity of polygamy you won't read Taylor's "revelation" as requiring it. So I've often been bemused at how people use the text.

I'd add again that while fundamentalists read the text about "keeping of my commandments" as encouraging large numbers of polygamous marriages it's also quite easy to read it as the commandments being the warnings of Jacob 2 and the abuse of the possibility of polygamy by how it was lived. Particularly for not caring enough about the feelings of the women and children and getting caught up in class distinctions. (The numbers of wives someone had in early Utah often was tied to economic or social success and there was explicit discourse that having more was a sign of being better) While I'm sure there are happy polygamous families, it's not hard to note how many unhappy ones there are with big social problems.

Edited September 27, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again I'm sympathetic to this. I buy completely Pres. Benson's point about the condemnation of the Church for not taking seriously the Book of Mormon. It's hard to read the history and talks prior to Pres. Benson and miss that the Book of Mormon just wasn't that important for members except as a vague sign of the restoration.

With the 1886 revelation though there are questions about authenticity. At minimum it has a rather odd providence (mysteriously found by Taylor's son years after the fact - not known about by anyone else). I know there have been attempts to authenticate it based upon handwriting from a photograph but as I recall those were themselves open to question. (There's no extant copy of the text - just John T Taylor's handwritten copies) Even the text of the purported revelation is fairly question begging to my eyes. Mormons would say the covenant has never been revoked but that unequivocally commands about behavior are (just looking at Jacob 2 for instance). The assumption of course is that "works of Abraham" entails polygamy but it is interesting the "revelation" never explicitly says that to be exalted one must be sealed to more than one wife. Which in a certain ways is actually an argument for it's authenticity - were it forged by John W. Taylor or those sympathetic to him we'd expect a bit more explicit clarity on the point of dispute.

More key to your comment while it says "great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments" it doesn't say that the consequences (meaning Federal persecution) were due to that. Quite the contrary it says, "it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters." So at best it's a statement on exaltation and what is required while arguably throwing no more light onto the subject than D&C 132:32 (which it is referring to). i.e. even as an authentic revelation I don't think it actually adds any information not already in the D&C despite how fundamentalists use it. If you don't read D&C 132:32 as entailing the necessity of polygamy you won't read Taylor's "revelation" as requiring it. So I've often been bemused at how people use the text.

I think the point some fundamentalists like to make in regards to our original topic of revocation of law and blessing is that "great numbers of my people have been negligent in the observance of my law".

And therefore when the Manifesto was given to President Woodruff with the instruction  to put it to a vote of common consent the Lord was following his own admonition that "it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters."

I think the question that is being raised by the 1886 revelation (if authentic) followed shortly after by the manifesto is whether it was God's intent to end polygamy (give the statements in the 1889 revelation to President Woodruff) or the peoples agency.  Interestingly in 1887 there was also a political vote as part of a constitutional convention which included a ban on polygamy.  Church members overwhelmingly supported it.  Perhaps we have a Samuel the king situation.

Perhaps it was not God's will for the blessings to cease and the law to be revoked after all.  Perhaps he gave us as members our agency to choose.