The Polygamy Story:
	Fiction and Fact

	by J. Max Anderson





	Copyright (c) 1979 by J. Max Anderson

CONTENTS

Introduction

Chapter One - The Lorin Woolley Story

Chapter Two - Letter About Confiscation

Chapter Three - The Cannon Committee

Chapter Four - The 1886 (Manifesto(

Chapter Five - Nocturnal Events

Chapter Six - The Eight-Hour Meeting

Chapter Seven - Supernatural Events

Chapter Eight - The 1886 Revelation

Chapter Nine - The Woodruff Manifesto

Chapter Ten - Joseph Smith Resurrected?

Chapter Eleven - The Keys of Authority

Chapter Twelve - Five Remain (Faithful(

Chapter Thirteen - The Conclusion of the Whole Matter

INTRODUCTION

      Perhaps no other principle of "Mormonism" has engendered more criticism and controversy than the practice of plural marriage. When this principle was restored in the mid-1830s the Prophet Joseph Smith and his devout followers shrank from obeying it until they received a divine dictum to do so. It was a doctrine repugnant to a people raised in puritanical monogamy. The practice was necessarily secret in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois because of anti-bigamy laws banning its practice, but when the Latter-day Saints were driven west outside the confines of the United States it was declared a divine law from the pulpit and was commended to the Church as a necessary commandment.
      After Utah became a territory of the United States, this peculiarity of the Mormon faith aroused public sentiment and indignation. It was declared a "relic of barbarism," and opponents wanted it arrested as a cancer on society. In 1862 the federal government passed the first law outlawing the practice of polygamy. Church authorities contested the law on the grounds that their constitutional rights were being denied: the United States Constitution guaranteed freedom of religion, and marriage is a religious rite, so polygamy was held to be a sacred rite guaranteed under the Constitution. Whatever the claims, however, the Church was outside the mainstream of American life.
      Indignation and opposition continued to mount. Additional anti-polygamy legislation was enacted in 1882, and still more stringent measures followed in 1887. The Church was disfranchised, and Church-owned property in excess of $50,000 was confiscated by the United States government. Polygamists were proscribed and hunted by federal marshals; members of the First Presidency of the Church, along with polygamists everywhere, were forced to hide out on the "underground" to avoid capture and prosecution. By 1890 the situation had reached crisis proportions Congress was considering the Cullom-Struble Bill that stipulated the disfranchisement of all Latter-day Saints, the confiscation of all Church property (including the temples), and the proscription of all Church members, whether polygamous or not. The situation was desperate.
      The Church protested the illegality of the legislation enacted against it, but this legislation was declared legal and binding by the United States Supreme Court. Facing the virtual destruction of the Church in 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued his nowfamous "Manifesto" publicly declaring an end to the practice of polygamy in the Church.
      In the beginning the principle of plural marriage was declared to be "the most holy principle ever revealed to man." It was zealously proclaimed that the principle would never be given up, and that if it were the Church would be in an apostate condition. Because of such sentiments there were those who refused to concede when the practice of polygamy was terminated; they felt that President Woodruff had lost the Spirit and was leading the Church astray.
      For a while those desiring to continue practicing plural marriage went out of the country, putting themselves outside the jurisdiction of the law that had forced the termination of the practice. In 1904 when Utah Senator-elect Reed Smoot attempted to take his seat in Congress he was refused. A hearing of national proportions ensued at which it was contended that polygamy in Utah was continuing unabated. At this juncture President Joseph F. Smith issued what has since been called "The Second Manifesto," which formally proclaimed an end to polygamy throughout the whole world.
      
      It was admittedly a period of trial and tribulation for some. The Lord had released the Saints from the obligation to practice polygamy, and yet some Church members were skeptical and refused to give up the practice. After becoming entrenched in the principle and suffering greatly in its practice, it became as difficult to relinquish plural marriage as it had been to accept it in the beginning. Excommunication later severed such dissidents from the ranks of Church membership, but it did not terminate either their faith or their zeal in the rightfulness of their cause.
      There were still devout polygamists who felt plural marriage should continue on an individual and sub Rosa basis. This group included two members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley, who were dropped from their callings and later severed from Church fellowship. Other devout polygamists who insisted on the continuance of plural marriage were also tried and excommunicated. Many of these felt duty-bound to stand fast to principle and proudly bore the label of "Fundamentalist."
      With the death of John W. Taylor in 1916 and with the return to Church fellowship of Matthias F. Cowley, the main source of supposed authority for such sub-Rosa polygamist marriages was terminated. It was inevitable, therefore, that someone would arise with pretensions of divine direction and authority to continue the practice of plural marriage independent of the course of an "errant" church. Such a claim would of necessity tap into the recognized line of Latter-day Saint presidency during a time when plural marriage was practiced in the Church with divine sanction. Since the principles of priesthood succession were well established, that person must claim a special type of authority outside the recognized order as given in the revelations. This would require an allegation involving key figures in the priesthood Joseph Smith, the head of the last dispensation, and Jesus Christ, the foundation of all priesthood. This is the claim that we will review and analyze in this book.
      Our analysis into so-called "Fundamentalism" must be viewed almost exclusively through the eyes of Joseph W. Musser, one of the founders of the cult and perhaps the most impressive and important "convert to the cause." Having been trained by a dutiful father, he was the only early "Fundamentalist" who kept a journal of events and concepts as they developed. He was the only adherent who wrote extensively in defense of the "Fundamentalist" position. His books and his monthly publication of Truth Magazine (1935-1956) are the bases for our present knowledge of "Fundamentalist" doctrine. He, therefore, becomes the principal source in this study of that doctrine.
      Composed of mainly a group of dissenters from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "Fundamentalism" is a heterogeneous and fractured movement. By its very nature there is a wide divergence in beliefs among its followers. For sake of analysis, how ever, "Fundamentalism" can be segregated into three main divisions:

1.	A conservative group with headquarters in Colorado City (Short Creek, located on the Utah-Arizona border) who believe in the doctrines as expressed by the founders of the "Fundamentalist" movement and as clarified in their published works.
2.	A more liberal group with headquarters in Salt Lake City who have moderated some of the "old line" doctrines, especially in their concepts of priesthood and their attitude toward the parent church.
3.	A group of "Independents," both organized and unorganized, who believe the two main factions of "Fundamentalism" to have fictitious claims of succession. They claim that the keys of authority reside somewhere with the Indians, or, more particularly, with the descendants of the Nephites.

      All "Fundamentalists" claim to be custodian to the fulness of the gospel that was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith and legitimate heir to the keys of the priesthood that was restored by heavenly visitors. They admit that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church on the earth at the present time that is recognized by God, but they allege that the Church began to stumble in its divine mission when the practice of polygamy was suspended by Church edict in 1890. Numerous other criticisms have since been heaped on the Church, including the claim that it has seriously altered doctrines and practices of the early Church.
The objective of this book is to determine the validity of the foundational claims of "Fundamentalism." This book is therefore limited to an analysis of the basic story and the issues common to all "Fundamentalist" groups.
      Research of this subject has taken many years to accomplish. It has meant painstaking research into "Fundamentalist" sources as well as research into the archives of the Church and other repositories of early Church documents. The writer is deeply indebted to the staff at the Church Historical Department, through the years of research, for their help in making pertinent records available. Acknowledgment is also made to the Utah State Historical Society, the University of Utah Library, the Brigham Young University Library, and the Huntington Library Special Collections. The writer is indebted also to those who have given encouragement in this project and helpful criticism of the manuscript.
      Lastly, it should be understood that the author takes full responsibility for the contents of this book. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in no way responsible for the positions taken or the conclusions drawn.

	Chapter One

THE LORIN WOOLLEY STORY

      Mormon Fundamentalism (a term adopted to describe the beliefs of "Fundamentalists"1) has its basis in the pretensions of Lorin C. Woolley (1856-1934) of Centerville, Utah. Woolley claimed that in 1886, during the heat of anti-polygamy persecution, he and others were secretly commissioned by LDS Church President John Taylor to perpetuate the practice of plural marriage irrespective of the eventual course of the Church. In connection with this special commission, he also alleged that he and a select group were given irrevocable priesthood authority to administer this principle. All present-day Fundamentalists enter plural marriage under sanction and authority from this alleged source through various claims of succession. This alleged commission is the foundational claim on which Fundamentalism rests. All other claims are either derivatives of or accessory to this primary allegation. If this basic claim is untenable, then the entire doctrinal and functional superstructure of Fundamentalism stands without apparent foundation, it is of primary importance, therefore, to determine the historicity of this claim with its manifold ramifications. We will first review the basic Lorin Woolley story and then compare it with available contemporary records.
      The Lorin Woolley story comes in several heterogenous versions. We will review the principal ones in this chapter. Others will be noticed and pertinent elements reviewed in the detailed analysis that follows.
      The earliest account of record was given by Lorin Woolley in 1912. It follows verbatim:

	1912 Account

      In the latter part of September, 1886, the exact day being not now known to me, President John Taylor was staying at the home of my father, John W. Woolley, in Centerville, Davis County, Utah.
      At the particular time herein referred to, President Taylor was in hiding (on the under-ground). Charles H. Bearrell and I were the "guardsmen" on watch for the protection of the President. Two were usually selected each night, and they took turns standing guard to protect the President from trespass or approaching danger. Exceptional activity was exercised by the U. S. Federal Officers in their prosecutions of the Mormon people on ac count of their family relations in supposed violation of the Federal Laws.
      
      Soon after our watch began, Charles H. Bearrell reclined on a pallet and went to sleep. President Taylor had entered the south room to retire for the night. There was no door-way entrance to the room occupied by President Taylor, except the entrance from the room occupied by the guardsmen. Soon after 9 o(clock, I heard the voice of another man engaged in conversation with President Taylor, and I observed that a very brilliant light was illuminating the room occupied by the President. I wakened Bearrell and told him what I had heard and seen, and we both remained awake and on watch the balance of the night. The conversation was carried on all night between President Taylor and the visitor, and never discontinued until the day began to dawn(when it ceased and the light disappeared. We heard the voices in conversation while the conference continued and we saw the light.
      My father came into the room where we were on watch, and was there when President Taylor came into the room that morning. As the President entered the room he remarked, "I had a very pleasant conversation all night with the Prophet Joseph." At the time President Taylor entered the room his countenance was very bright and could be seen for several hours after. After observing that some one was in conversation with the President, I went out and examined all of the windows, and found them fastened as usual.
      The brethren were considerably agitated about this time over the agitation about Plural Marriage, and some were insisting that the Church issue some kind of edict to be used in Congress, concerning the surrendering of Plural Marriage, and that if some policy were not adopted to relieve the strain the government would force the Church to surrender. Much was said in their deliberations for and against some edict or manifesto that had been prepared, and at a meeting that afternoon, at which a number there were present and myself [2], I heard President Taylor say; "Brethren, I will suffer my right hand to be cut off before I will sign such a document."
      I, Lorin C. Woolley, of Centerville, Utah, do hereby certify, that I have carefully made and read the foregoing statement of facts and the same is true to the best of my knowledge. Dated this 6th day of October, 1912.

(signed)	 Lorin C. Woolley3

1929 Version


      The next recorded mention of Lorin Woolley(s claims comes from the journal of a contemporary, Joseph W. Musser. Musser reported attending several meetings in 1922 of "those in sympathy with plural marriage," where Lorin Woolley and a friend, Daniel Bateman, told with considerably expanded detail of President Taylor(s purported experience.4 Elements of the story were eventually edited and compiled by Joseph Musser into a single narrative, which Lorin Woolley then sanctioned and signed as his own statement.5 A eulogy to Joseph Musser at his death stated:

      He was instrumental in getting together many affidavits... . One of these affidavits is the Lorin C. Woolley statement which has many times before been printed in Truth.6

      This version edited and compiled by Musser was dated 1929 and has come to be accepted as the "standard version" of the story. It has been widely published in Fundamentalist literature as follows:

	1929 Standard Version

      While the brethren were at the Carlisle residence [in Murray] in May or June of 1886, letters began to come to President John Taylor from such men as John Sharp, Horace Eldredge, William Jennings, John T. Caine, Abraham Hatch, President Cluff and many other leading men from all over the Church, asking the leaders to do something, as the Gentiles were talking of confiscating their property in connection with the property of the Church.
      These letters not only came from those who were living in the Plural Marriage relation, but also from prominent men who were presiding in various offices of the Church who were not living in that relation. They all urged that something be done to satisfy the Gentiles so that their property would not be confiscated.
      George Q. Cannon on his own initiative selected a committee comprising himself, Hyrum B. Clawson, Franklin S. Richards,John T. Caine and JamesJack to get up a statement or Manifesto that would meet the objections urged by the brethren above named. They met from time to time to discuss the situation. From the White home, where President Taylor and companions stopped, after leaving the Carlisle home, they came out to father(s. George Q. Cannon would go and consult with the brethren of the committee, I taking him back and forth each day.
      On September 26, 1886, George Q. Cannon, Hyrum B. Clawson, Franklin S. Richards, and others, met with President John Taylor at my father(s residence at Centerville, Davis County, Utah, and presented a document for President Taylor(s consideration.
      
      I had just got back from a three days( trip, during most of which time I had been in the saddle, and being greatly fatigued, I had retired to rest. Between one and two o(clock P. M., Brother Bateman came and woke me up and asked me to be at my father(s home where a Manifesto was to be discussed. I went there and found there were congregated Samuel Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, L. John Nuttall, Charles Birrell, George Q. Cannon, Franklin S. Richards and Hyrum B. Clawson.
      We discussed the proposed Manifesto at length, but we were unable to become united in the discussion. Finally George Q. Cannon suggested that President Taylor take the matter up with the Lord and decide the same the next day.
      Brothers Clawson and Richards, were taken back to Salt Lake. That evening I was called to act as guard during the first part of the night, notwithstanding the fact that I was greatly fatigued on account of the three days( trip I had just completed.
      The brethren retired to bed soon after nine o(clock. The sleeping rooms were inspected by the guard as was the custom. President Taylor(s room had no outside door. The windows were heavily screened.
      Sometime after the brethren retired and while I was reading the Doctrine and Covenants, I was suddenly attracted to a light appearing under the door leading to President Taylor(s room, and was at once startled to hear the voices of men talking there. There were three distinct voices. I was bewildered because it was my duty to keep people out of that room and evidently someone had entered without my knowing it. I made a hasty examination and found the door leading to the room bolted as usual. I then examined the outside of the house and found all the window screens intact. While examining the last window, and feeling greatly agitated, a voice spoke to me, saying, "Can(t you feel the Spirit? Why should you worry?"
      At this I returned to my post and continued to hear the voices in the room. They were so audible that although I did not see the parties I could place their positions in the room from the sound of the voices. The three voices continued until about midnight, when one of them left, and the other two continued. One of them I recognized as President John Taylor(s voice. I called Charles Birrell[7 and we both sat up until eight o(clock the next morning.
      When President Taylor came out of his room about eight o(clock of the morning of September 27, 1886, we could scarcely look at him on account of the brightness of his personage.
      He stated, "Brethren, I have had a very pleasant conversation all night with Brother Joseph." (Joseph Smith) I said, "Boss, who is the man that was there until midnight?" He asked, "What do you know about it, Lorin?" I told him all about my experience. He said, "Brother Lorin, that was your Lord."
      We had no breakfast, but assembled ourselves in a meeting. I forget who opened the meeting. I was called to offer the benediction. I think my father, John W. Woolley, offered the opening prayer. There were present, at this meeting, in addition to President Taylor, George Q. Cannon, L. John Nuttall, John W. Woolley, Samuel Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, Charles Birrell, Daniel R. Bateman, Bishop Samuel Sedden, George Earl, my mother, Julia E. Woolley, my sister, Amy Woolley, and myself. The meeting was held from about nine o(clock in the morning until five in the afternoon without intermission, being about eight hours in all.
      President Taylor called the meeting to order. He had the Manifesto, that had been prepared under the direction of George Q. Cannon, read over again. He then put each person under covenant that he or she would defend the principle of Celestial or Plural Marriage, and that they would consecrate their lives, liberty and property to this end, and that they personally would sustain and uphold that principle.
      
      By that time we were all filled with the Holy Ghost. President Taylor and those present occupied about three hours up to this time. After placing us under covenant, he placed his finger on the document, his person rising from the floor about a foot or eighteen inches, and with countenance animated by the Spirit of the Lord, and raising his right hand to the square, he said, "Sign that document, -- never! I would suffer my right hand to be severed from my body first. Sanction it, -- never! I would suffer my tongue to be torn from its roots in my mouth before I would sanction it!"
      After that he talked for about an hour and then sat down and wrote the revelation which was given him by the Lord upon the question of Plural Marriage [the 1886 revelation to John Taylor].8 Then he talked to us for some time, and said, "Some of you will be handled and ostracized and cast out from the Church by your brethren because of your faithfulness and integrity to this principle, and some of you may have to surrender your lives because of the same, but woe, woe, unto those who shall bring these troubles upon you." (Three of us were handled and ostracized for supporting and sustaining this principle. There are only three left who were at the meeting mentioned(Daniel R. Bateman, George Earl and myself. So far as I know those of them who have passed away all stood firm to the covenants entered into from that day to the day of their deaths.)
      After the meeting referred to, President Taylor had L. John Nuttall write five copies of the revelation. He called five of us together: Samuel Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, George Q. Cannon, John W. Woolley, and my self.
      He then set us apart and placed us under covenant that while we lived we would see to it that no year passed by without children being born in the principle of plural marriage. We were given authority to ordain others if necessary to carry this work on, they in turn to be given authority to ordain others when necessary, under the direction of the worthy senior (by ordination), so that there should be no cessation in the work. He then gave each of us a copy of the Revelation.
      I am the only one of the five now living, and so far as I know all five of the brethren remained true and faithful to the covenants they entered into, and to the responsibilities placed upon them at that time.
      During the eight hours we were together, and while President Taylor was talking to us, he frequently arose and stood above the floor, and his countenance and being were so enveloped by light and glory that it was difficult for us to look upon him.
      He stated that the document, referring to the Manifesto, was from the lower regions. He stated that many of the things he had told us we would forget and they would be taken from us, but that they would return to us in due time as needed, and from this fact we would know that the same was from the Lord. This has been literally fulfilled. Many of the things I forgot, but they are coming to me gradually, and those things that come to me are as dear as on the day on which they were given.
      President Taylor said that the time would come when many of the Saints would apostatize because of this principle. he said "one-half of this people will apostatize over the principle for which we are now in hiding, yea, and possibly one-half of the other half" (rising off the floor while making the statement). He also said the day will come when a document similar to that (Manifesto) then under consideration would be adopted by the Church, following which "apostacy and whoredom would be rampant in the Church."
      
      He said that in the time of the seventh president of this Church, the Church would go into bondage both temporally and spiritually and in that day (the day of bondage) the One Mighty and Strong spoken of in the 85th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants would come.
      Among many other things stated by President Taylor on this occasion was this: "I would be surprised if ten per cent of those who claim to hold the Meichisedek Priesthood will remain true and faithful to the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, at the time of the seventh president, and that there would be thousands that think they hold the Priesthood at that time, but would not have it properly conferred upon them."
      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. Woolley9

	Other Accounts

      Other versions also of the Lorin Woolley story have appeared in print. They are merely mentioned here, and pertinent elements will be reviewed in the analysis that follows:

1931: Version of Charles W. Kingston and Jesse B. Stone published in a pamphlet, Laman Manasseh Victorious, pages 95-97. This is the earliest published version of the story, preceding publication of the 1929 Standard Version by about a year.

1933: Version of B. Harvey Allred in the book, A Leaf in Review, pages 183-187. This account was allegedly written in 1925, but was not published until 1933. (See Foreword, page 12.) For an interesting but conflicting story regarding this version, see Lynn L. Bishop and Steven L. Bishop, Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated, Review and Preview Publishers, Draper, Utah, 1971, pages 185-186.

1938: Version of Daniel R. Bateman, a typewritten statement in possession of the family. The version was edited and reproduced in Truth, volume 8, pages 44-46. A photostatic copy of the original is in possession of the author. Daniel Bateman also gave an additional version that was published in a book edited by J. Leslie Broadbent and Joseph Musser in 1934, Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, pages 26-27.

	Historical Analysis

      Many of the claims made in the Lorin Woolley statements may be subjected to historical and doctrinal evaluation. By alleging specific events and by giving names, dates, places, and issues, Lorin Woolley leaves his story open to examination by a comparison with contemporary records.
      
      A considerable amount of primary source material is available to bear on his contentions, including journals, diaries, letters, minutes, trials, histories, affidavits, discourses, and so on. It is the purpose of this book to compare the different versions of the Lorin Woolley story with one another and with available documents of the period. The story has been segmented into separate claims by chapter for easy comparison and review. Thus each chapter (except the last) begins with an extract from the 1929 Lorin Woolley story, which is printed in italics. Analysis and review then follows.
      
	Chapter Two

	LETTERS ABOUT CONFISCATION

      While the Brethren were at the Carlisle residence [in Murray] in May or June of 1886, letters began to come to President John Taylor from such men as John Sharp, Horace Eldredge, William Jennings, John T. Caine, Abraham Hatch, President Cluff and many other leading men from all over the Church, asking the leaders to do something, as the Gentiles were talking of confiscating their property in connection with the property of the Church.
      These letters not only came from those who were living in the Plural Marriage relation, but also from prominent men who were presiding in various offices of the Church who were not living in that relation. They all urged that something be done to satisfy the Gentiles so that their property would not be confiscated.

      It is reported that on August 6, 1922, in a meeting at the Bountiful, Utah, home of Nathan Clark, Lorin Woolley related the following:

      Other men who wrote letters urging the issuing of the Manifesto, were W. W. Riter, Ira Hinckley, W. W. Cluff, Abram Hatch and scores of other financial men. After the death of John Taylor, these men were hammering Pres. Woodruff to death, trying to get a Manifesto. They cried, "We want a Manifesto or we will lose our property. The Gentiles will take it. They will take our banks, etc." They finally succeeded to get Pres. Woodruff to surrender to them in 1890.1

	Confiscation of Private Property

      The political milieu represented in this statement is not authentic, as a study of contemporary records evidences. None of the legislation enacted against plural marriage stipulated the confiscation of individual members( private property. The legislation was aimed instead of destroying the Church as a political and economic power through the disfranchisement of its members. It prohibited the Church from owning more than $50,000 worth of property in excess of that used directly and exclusively for devotional purposes.2 In fact, the virtual reverse of Lorin Woolley(s claim was the case. In anticipation of passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Act, legislation being considered by Congress in 1886, the Church in a move of administrative strategy, placed its property in the hands of private members to hold in trust, thus attempting to circumvent the confiscation of its own real and personal property. An economic history of the Church explains:


      In anticipation of the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Act, therefore, President Taylor and other general church authorities secretly decided to place church properties in the hands of individuals and local congregations and thus help, Taylor said, "to protect us in our personal and proprietary rights so far as our legal status will entitle us to protection." Thus, he concluded, "any plans instituted against us," would be "against the people in their individual capacity. . . and in direct interference with their proprietary rights which this nation and all other civilized nations professed always to respect."3

      This move was not without precedent, for, following the initial antipolygamy legislation in 1862, Church properties were placed in the private ownership of Brigham Young for the same reason.4 Arrington further explains the plan:

      First, continue for the time being Brigham Young(s policy of asking certain members of the church to hold property on a secret trust in order to avoid possible forfeiture to the government..
      Second, church officials proceeded to organize separate nonprofit associations to hold real and personal property which belonged to the church.
Third, in the event of passage of enforceable confiscatory legislation such as the anticipated Edmunds-Tucker law, church authorities determined to transfer by outright sale or by trust assignments to individuals, real and personal property which was held in the name of the church trustee-in-trust and would otherwise be forfeited to the government.5

      Thus, with the transferral of Church property by trust assignment to private individuals to secure it against confiscation, it is fallacious to suggest that leading brethren in the Church were petitioning President Taylor to do something to protect their private property from confiscation.
      A possible source for Lorin Woolley(s claim of such letters came from a usurpative law passed against Mormon polygamists in Canada in 1909. John W. Taylor stated:

      I am not much interested in Canada now, but a law was passed there about two years ago which is very drastic against polygamy and those who have entered this relationship. It subjects the people to the confiscation of their property and banishment if proven guilty.6

	Letters from Leading Men

      Let us investigate those specifically alleged to have written concerned letters to President Taylor during the summer of 1886.
      
      John Sharp was a pioneer railroad builder serving as superintendent of the Utah Central Railway, as director of the Union Pacific Railroad, as director of the Deseret National Bank, and as first bishop of the Salt Lake Twentieth Ward. On September 18, 1885, he pleaded guilty to unlawful cohabitation as defined by the Edmunds Law, and he was fined three hundred dollars. For this action of bad faith he was requested by the stake high council and the First Presidency of the Church to resign as bishop, which he did on November 3, 1885. It is improbable that he would have further strained his relationship with the First Presidency by subsequently urging that plural marriage be terminated to prevent confiscation of his private property. There is no reference of any such urging in his extant correspondence with President Taylor during 1 886.7
      Horace Eldredge was a polygamist with four wives. He was vice-president of ZCMI, vice-president of the Deseret National Bank, a member of the territorial legislature, president of the Church(s European Mission, and a member of the First Council of Seventy. It is unlikely that as a General Authority he would suggest terminating the practice of plural marriage. An examination of all of his personal correspondence with the First Presidency in 1886 reveals no letter written by him suggesting such an action.8
      William Jennings was the mayor of Salt Lake City, superintendent of ZCMI, director of the Utah Central Railroad, and director of the Deseret National Bank. He died on January 15, 1886, and therefore could not have written any correspondence to President Taylor "in May or June of 1886," as contended by Woolley. Thus, any claims involving Jennings after his January 1886 death must be admitted false.9
      John T. Caine was a monogamist and served as Utah(s territorial delegate to Congress from 1882 to 1893. Voluminous amounts of his correspondence with the First Presidency are preserved. A careful search fails to reveal any letter to President Taylor of the nature alleged. On the contrary, his correspondence with the First Presidency indicates that he was laboring diligently in Washington to protect the Saints in their rights to live plural marriage without interference or restriction.10
      Abraham Hatch was president of the Wasatch Stake and a member of the territorial legislature. Like John T. Caine, he remained a monogamist throughout his life(which should have made him immune from threats of having personal property confiscated. His files, like those of Caine, contain no correspondence with President Taylor of the nature purported.11
      W. W. Cluff was president of the Summit Stake, president of the Provo Theater Company, and a member of the territorial legislature. In 1886 he wrote to President Taylor: "I do not wish in any way to be trying to carry out any policy that is not strictly in accord with the sentiments of the servants of God(, who are placed over me.12
      This statement concerned cooperative enterprises, but it reflects his general unquestioned obedience to his superiors, an obedience that would apply to all facets of gospel doctrine. His files contain no correspondence with President Taylor relating to the issue under consideration.
      
      W. W. Riter was a founder of the railroad system in Central Utah. He served several terms in the territorial legislature, serving as speaker of the house in 1886 and 1888. He was president of the Deseret Savings Bank, vice-president of the Deseret National Bank, vice-president of the First National Bank of Rexburg, vice-president of the Oregon Lumber Company, vice-president of the Utah Hotel Company, vice-president of the Utah Light and Railway Company, vice-president of the Utah Archeological Society, chairman of the Board of Regents of the University of Utah, and a member of the Salt Lake Stake high council. A careful search through his correspondence with the First Presidency during 1886 gives no indication that he was concerned over his property being confiscated because of gentile threats.13
      Ira Hinckley was president of the Millard Stake of Zion. A considerable amount of his correspondence with the First Presidency is preserved, and there is no mention in any of his correspondence about concern over confiscation of personal property or over the issue of plural marriage in general.14
      The 1886 correspondence files of "scores of other financial men" have been carefully checked, but they do not reveal a single letter to John Taylor evidencing any concern over private property being confiscated in connection with the property of the Church. This merely corroborates the above findings that individual members( property was in no danger of confiscation in 1886 either through actual or pending legislation. The claim, therefore, that such concerned letters came from "prominent men who were presiding in various offices in the Church" appears to be a misstatement of the facts. Speaking of events leading to the Woodruff Manifesto of 1890, George Q. Cannon stated:

      Appeal after appeal was made from friends outside of the Church as well as from members in the Church [but] there was not a leading man in the Church who dared take upon himself the responsibility of even suggesting, in view of all the Lord has said upon the subject, the cessation of this practice. They would have preferred death rather than violate the command of God.15

	State Constitution and the Council of Fifty

      The idea that prominent LDS men in finance and business in the Church urged cessation of plural marriage probably stems from the fact that several of these men were members of the constitutional convention of 1887, which sought statehood through a proposed constitution that banned polygamy. This committee included many of the men mentioned by Lorin Woolley, such as W. W. Riter, John T. Caine, and Abraham Hatch.16
      
      Interestingly, some of the brethren alleged by Woolley to have written letters requesting a manifesto to preserve their private property were members of John Taylor(s revived Council of Fifty. This Council was reorganized in April 1880 to protect the Latter-day Saints in their constitutional rights.17 The Council of Fifty of the 1880s included George Q. Cannon, John Sharp, Horace Eldredge, W. W. Cluff, William Jennings, and others.18 It is unlikely that men of such position and responsibility would be guilty of the acts alleged by Lorin Woolley in his 1929 statement.

	Paradoxes in Allegiance

      In connection with events leading to the Woodruff Manifesto of 1890, Fundamentalists have written:

      Shortly before the Manifesto was issued, Wilford Woodruff was shown of the Lord invision two courses:
      1st: Stand for the law and let the Gentiles and Government confiscate both Church and individual property, and leave the battle for the Lord to fight.
      2nd: Issue the Manifesto, hold on to the property, but open the way for whoredom and destruction among the people, the result of rejecting the perfect law of social conduct.
      He was prevailed upon to choose the first course by such men as George Q. Cannon, Peery of Ogden, Abraham Hatch of Heber, Henry Dinwoody, Joseph Murdock and the Sharp family.
      Opposition to this course was voiced by such wealthy men as: Horace Eldredge, William Jennings, George Romney and others.
      The opposition prevailed and whoredom is rampant throughout the land and the faith of the Saints has been greatly weakened.19

      There are several discrepancies in this statement. In the 1929 Lorin Woolley statement, Abraham Hatch, John Sharp, Horace Eldredge, and William Jennings are each named as having written letters in 1886 to President Taylor requesting him (to do something, as the Gentiles were talking of confiscating their property in connection with the property of the Church.( But according to the above report, four years later, at a time when the pressures were becoming even greater, John Sharp and Abraham Hatch were urging a diametrically opposite course. Peery of Ogden is also mentioned by Woolley as favoring a nonconciliatory course for the Church, yet three years before the Manifesto, in 1887, he was a member of the constitutional convention that sought statehood for Utah by perpetually banning polygamy through nonrevokable clauses. George Q. Cannon, according to Woolley(s 1929 story, headed a committee to draft a manifesto in 1886, but four years later he is alleged to be in the opposite camp. Woolley also claimed that William Jennings urged a conciliatory approach "shortly before the Manifesto [of 1890] was issued," but Jennings had been dead for over four years by that time.
      In view of these discrepancies and of the fact that contemporary records fail to produce any supportive evidence, Lorin Woolley(s claim of letters petitioning President Taylor appears to be false.
      
	Chapter Three

	THE CANNON COMMITTEE

      George Q. Cannon on his own initiative selected a committee comprising himself, Hyrum B. Clawson, Franklin S. Richards, John T. Caine and James Jack to get u a statement or Manifesto that would meet the objections urged by the brethren above named. They met from time to time to discuss the situation. From the White home, where President Taylor and companions stopped, after leaving the Carlisle home, they came out to father(s. George Q. Cannon would go and consult with the brethren of the committee, I taking him back and forth each day.

      Joseph Musser reports the following additional information:

      Aug. 6, 1922, at a meeting held at the home of Nathan Clark, Bountiful, Lorin C. Woolley said:
      "The outsiders were not responsible for the issuing of the Manifesto, but the responsibility rests upon the shoulders of such men as Geo. Q. Cannon, Bp. Hyrum Clawson, James Jack, Franklin S. Richards and John T. Cain, who worked incessantly with Pres. John Taylor, from June to Sept. of 1886, to get him to sign a Manifesto."1

	Cannon Committee Not Substantiated

      A careful examination of the daily journals and correspondence of the members of George Q. Cannon(s alleged committee reveals neither such meetings nor the existence of such a committee. President Cannon(s journals make no mention of his organizing and/or meeting with such a committee.2 Neither does President Taylor(s daily journal3 for that period mention the alleged committee.4 Woolley(s 1922 statement implies that a manifesto was already in existence in June of 1886, which the purported committee tried all summer to get President Taylor to sign. This is in conflict with the 1929 account, which states that the manifesto prepared by the committee mentioned was not presented to John Taylor until September 26th 1886.
      
      A question arises concerning the necessity for a committee like the one George Q. Cannon is alleged to have organized. Would it take five legally trained men three months of "incessant" labor to produce a manifesto "similar" to the one Wilford Woodruff later issued? President Woodruff, legally untrained and grammatically unsure, wrote the Manifesto of 1890 in only a short time "under the spirit of inspiration."

      When Pres. Woodruff prepared his manifesto it was without aid or suggestions of his counselors. He took a clerk and went to a room alone where under the spirit of inspiration he dictated the declaration he desired to make, and there was only one slight change made therein when it was read to Counselors Cannon and Smith.5

      As a delegate to Congress and as a man of great legal ability, President Cannon was certainly capable of writing such a document himself. As President Taylor(s counselor, nephew, and confidant, he could certainly present the views of the complaining Saints without the aid of such a committee. He could have confided with President Taylor at will during their close association.

	Sources for a Manifesto

      Although there is no authentic account of President Cannon urging the issuance of a manifesto, there is ample evidence to show there were some outside the Church who did urge such issuance, and ample evidence that President Cannon was opposed to it. L. John Nuttall, personal secretary to both President Taylor and President Woodruff, reported the following in his own journal on December 19, 1888:

      Bro. Jos. F. Smith went home this evening. Pres. Woodruff & myself spent the evening together. He handed me a communication which had been sent to him for action by friends in the East and which he proposes laying before the Apostles tomorrow night. It purports to be an epistle from the authorities to the Saints and reiterates the passage of antipolygamy laws, the rigid enforcement of the same, quotes from the Book of Doctrine & Covenants, and endeavors to show forth reasons why the Church should openly renounce the practice of polygamy in the future, and until the time comes when the Saints can again practice that principle of their religion unmolested. I did not see how such a thing could be done consistently with our covenants, did not think that would satisfy our enemies. These are the same ideas that were advanced by Dr. Miller of Omaha some three years ago & which President(s) Taylor and Cannon could not accept.6

      The Miller document referred to was presented to President Taylor and President Cannon during the time period covered by the Woolley story. It may be that the document was discussed while the brethren were at the home of John W. Woolley, and that Lorin Woolley later picked up the story and improvised upon it to his own ends. Fundamentalists have never identified the manifesto that President Cannon is alleged to have drawn up, and no such document has yet been found in the Church archives.


	Cannon Committee Meetings

      Let us now review those specifically mentioned by Woolley as comprising the Cannon Committee.

      Hyrum B. Clawson was a prominent bishop in the Church in the 1880s, and he presided over the Salt Lake Twelfth Ward. During the summer of 1886, he was in Prescott, Arizona, on legal business. He kept no journal that is extant, but during this period he wrote several letters from Arizona to James Jack, the financial clerk of the Church, which are on file in the Church Historical Department. He, there fore, could not have been meeting with President Cannon(s alleged committee during the summer of 1886.
      Franklin S. Richards was the legal counsel for the Church during this stormy period of Church history. He was laboring "incessantly" in the courts to defend the Saints in connection with unlawful cohabitation cases: polygamists were being arraigned almost daily during the summer of 1886.7 An examination of his correspondence with the First Presidency indicates his arduous labors and strong convictions. It is unlikely in view of his labors and his stated convictions that he would try to influence President Taylor to concede plural marriage. Neither does his correspondence contain any material that would suggest his involvement with a committee like the one alleged by Woolley.8
      John T. Caine was Utah(s delegate to Congress in the 1880s. He was in Washington, D. C., during June, July, and August of 1886, so he could not have been meeting with the alleged committee. Congress adjourned on August 5, 1886; Caine arrived in Salt Lake City on August 29, and he reported his arrival to President Taylor in a letter dated September 1, 1886.9 He also sent a letter to President Taylor dated September 18 asking for a personal interview, but it was actually President Cannon who met with him. A letter from John Taylor to James Jack dated September 20, 1886, reveals an interview between James Jack, George Q. Cannon, and Caine: "Will you please arrange for Hon. J. T. Caine and yourself to meet at 9 o(clock tuesday evening at the place where you and he, on different occasions, have met?"10
      Samuel Bateman recorded in his journal the consummation of this meeting: "Bro. G. Q. Cannon went with me. Went to Frank Armstrong(s. Met Abram Cannon, James Jack, and John T. Caine."11
      This reference is the only mention of Caine in extant journals prior to September 26.
      
      James Jack was the financial clerk of the Church and also served as territorial treasurer, so it is easy to understand why Lorin Woolley would include him on the purported committee. However, his loyalty to President Taylor and to the cause was unquestioned. On July 3, 1886, he wrote to L. John Nuttall concerning federal attempts to quash plural marriage: "One thing. .. . We do not propose they shall bury us until we are dead."12
      An examination of his letterbook for 1886 reveals no communication with any member of the alleged committee or with President Taylor on any matter that would suggest his participation on such a committee.
      Samuel Bateman was a guard and driver of President John Taylor(s party while President Taylor was on the "underground" during the summer of 1886. Bateman(s journal says nothing about Lorin Woolley taking George Q. Cannon back and forth to such purported meetings. Neither does George Q. Cannon(s journal make any mention of his being either chauffeured or guarded by Lorin Woolley during the entire summer of 1886. President Taylor(s daily journal, likewise, makes no reference to Woolley as either a guard or driver. This aspect of Lorin Woolley(s story is thus not confirmed by contemporary records.

	Underground Itinerary

      Let us review the Fundamentalist version of President Taylor(s itinerary while on the "underground" and compare it with the actual record:

      While the brethren were at the Carlisle residence (in Murray) in May or June of 1886, letters began to come to President John Taylor.13
John Taylor and company, including Geo. Q. Can non, clerk L. John Nuttall and others, stopped at the residence of Wm. H. Hill in Mill Creek for about three weeks, going there from the residence of Bro. White or Carlisle, and before he went to Centerville, John W. Woolleys house.14
From the White home, where President Taylor and companions stopped, after leaving the Carlisle home, they came out to father(s. George Q. Cannon would go and consult with the brethren of the committee, I taking him back and forth each day.15

      This suggests that President Taylor and party stayed at the Hill home until June or July of 1886, after which time they moved to the William White home. Their stay at the White home would have lasted from June or July to sometime in August or September of 1886, when the party supposedly proceeded to the John Woolley home during the latter part of September.
      
      The itinerary of President John Taylor and party while on the "underground" is preserved in President Taylor(s Letter File in the  Church Historical Department. It presents quite a different picture from the one claimed by Woolley as cited above. The brethren were not staying "at the Carlisle residence in May or June of 1886;( instead, the record shows that President Taylor and party stayed at the home of William White and sons in the Salt Lake Sixteenth Ward from March 16 to June 10, 1886. There was no stopover at William H. Hill(s residence in Mill Creek as Musser contends. The record shows that President Taylor(s party moved from the White home on June 10, 1886, to the Alfred Solomon residence in the Salt Lake City Nineteenth Ward.
      Musser claims that the party went directly from the White home to the John Woolley farm in Centerville, but the actual itinerary indicates otherwise. On June 30, 1886, President Taylor(s party moved from the Solomon residence to the home of Henry Day in Draper. They then made nine additional stops before arriving at the John Woolley farm on September 14, 1886.
      Once again we find Fundamentalist claims strikingly at variance with contemporary records. The credibility of Lorin Woolley(s recollections is thus rendered questionable when compared with the actual record during the period concerned.
      
	Chapter Four

	THE 1886 "MANIFESTO"

      On September 26, 1886, George Q. Cannon, Hyrum B. Clawson, Franklin S. Richards, and others, met with President John Taylor at my father(s residence at Centerville, Davis County, Utah, and presented a document for President Taylor(s consideration.
      I had just got back from a three days( trip, during most of which time! had been in the saddle, and being greatly fatigued, I had retired to rest.
      Between one and two o(clock P. M., Brother Bateman came and woke me up and asked me to be at my father(s home where a Manifesto was to be discussed. I went there and found there were congregated Samuel Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, L. John Nuttall, Charles Birrell, George Q. Cannon, Franklin S. Richards and Hyrum B. Clawson.
      We discussed the proposed Manifesto at length, but we were unable to become united in the discussion. Finally George Q. Cannon suggested that President Taylor take the matter up with the Lord and decide the same the next day.
      Brothers Clawson and Richards were taken back to Salt Lake.

      In his 1925 version of the Lorin Woolley story, B. Harvey Allred supplied the following additional, but somewhat conflicting, information:

      September 26, 1886, George Q. Cannon and two other apostles were visitors of President Taylor that and the previous day. Other trusted brethren were with them a portion of that time. George Q. Cannon and some of the visiting brethren called on President Taylor that day for the purpose of conveying to him some of these demands for cessation of the teaching and practice of plural marriage. George Q. Cannon had with him a document very similar to the manifesto presented and approved [four] years later. This instrument had been prepared by some of the most bitter opponents of this doctrine, members and nonmembers of the Church, with slight assistance from two of the faithful brethren. Some of these not only asked but demanded President Taylor(s signature to that paper.
      The contents of that document, and the requests and demands constantly coming in from other sources, were the subjects under almost constant consideration. George Q. Cannon and one of the other apostles present importuned President Taylor to obtain the will of the Lord on the matter. To this he consented, and preparation was made to that end.
      The day previous, or early that morning a man who had served his shift almost constantly for many months in guarding President Taylor, was sent to convey and guard Apostle Brigham Young [Jr.] to a place of concealment in the mountain valleys north and east of Salt Lake. In the late afternoon of September 26, he returned to his home and post of duty, tired and worn.1


      The Allred version does not agree with the 1929 Musser version on several important points. Musser lists by name those who were purportedly at the meeting, and it does not include the names of "two other apostles." The claim that the manifesto allegedly presented to President Taylor was "very similar" and "in similar form" to the Woodruff Manifesto of four years later is dubious. The Woodruff Manifesto is a rebuttal to the Utah Commission report of 1890: it denies the charges contained in that report. It mentions the Endowment House being taken down because of these charges. It refers to antipolygamy laws that had been passed and pronounced constitutional since 1886. It denies that polygamy was either being taught or contracted, and so on. None of these statements and claims would have been either true or pertinent in 1886.
      Musser lists George Q. Cannon, Hyrum B. Clawson, Franklin S. Richards, John T. Caine, and James Jack as members of the committee "to get up a statement or manifesto," whereas Allred claims that the purported document was "prepared by some of the most bitter opponents of this doctrine, members and nonmembers of the Church, with slight assistance from two of the faithful brethren." It would seem that Allred got this manifesto mixed up with the Woodruff Manifesto of 1890 and used that Fundamentalist argument here by mistake.
      There is no mention of such a manifesto in any of the journals of those supposedly involved, nor is the alleged manifesto filed in the Church Archives. Surely such an important document as this one, a document that supposedly elicited a revelation, would have been preserved in President John Taylor(s or President George Q. Cannon(s document files.
      The allegation that "the contents of that document, and the requests and demands constantly coming in from other sources, were the subjects under almost constant consideration" is open to question. There is not a single mention of this subject in the journals or correspondence of those said to have been involved. President Taylor(s daily journal makes no mention of such agitation. President Cannon(s journal is devoid of any mention of the alleged demands. President Taylor(s correspondence file for 1886 does not yield any such mention. The Journal History of the Church is likewise lacking in such a sentiment. Surely, if such a subject were "under almost constant consideration," it would have been mentioned somewhere in the voluminous records of the time.

	ThreeDay Trip

      According to the 1929 Musser account, Lorin Woolley "had just got back from a three days( trip" on September 26, 1886, whereas Allred reports it as being either a one or two-day junket. The Musser version does not state what the nature of this trip was, but Allred reported that its purpose was "to convey and guard Apostle Brigham Young [Jr.,] to a place of concealment in the mountain valleys north and east of Salt Lake." A recent pseudohistorical work on the life of John Taylor confirms this, claiming that 

      Deputies had surrounded the house of Brigham Young, Jr. . . . Lorin(s job was to get Young Briggie out of the house, past the deputies, and on the underground rail way to a safe retreat in the canyons. . . . Three days later he returned home, mission accomplished.2

      Brigham Young, Jr.(s daily journal does not report him being in Salt Lake City at this time, but rather shows that he was traveling in Arizona and New Mexico. Relevant journal entries are as follows:


      Taylor [Arizona], Friday Sept. 24th 1886. Have not been well for several days. Diarrhea and pain through my hips.
      Taylor [Arizona], Saturday Sept. 25th 1886. Remained quiet. Received a letter from A. S. McDonald directed to Sunset P.M., redirected to Taylor. How did he know?
Taylor [Arizona], Sept. 26, 1886. Still keep quiet. Many enemies among our people who would delight to give me Taylor [Arizona], Monday, Sept. 27th 1886. In company with Bishop Hunt, Bros. Freeman Minirly and Smith Rogers journied up beyond Ellsworth(s place three miles. 25 miles from Snowflake. Camped. Weather pleasant, grass good. Brother [indecipherable] called. I requested him to furnish a driver and team to take me to Ramah. Start next Monday, which he agreed to.3

      The distance from Salt Lake City to Taylor, Arizona, andback would have been far too great to travel on horseback in three days, even if Brigham Young, Jr., had returned with Lorin Woolley, which his journal does not report to be the case. This aspect of the Woolley story thus has no basis in fact.
      The 1925 Allred account reports Lorin Woolley returning from his trip "in the late afternoon of September 26," and going to bed "in the early evening, that he might be prepared for his watch as guard of President Taylor at midnight." The 1929 Musser account has Lorin Woolley back from his trip, asleep, wakened "between one and two o(clock p.m.," and attending a meeting where the purported manifesto was discussed before he took his position on the evening watch to guard President Taylor. It would seem that the meeting of Sunday, September 26, where an alleged manifesto was discussed, is a late addition to the story; hence the discrepancies between the two accounts.

	Presentation of Manifesto

      Of the alleged participants at this purported special meeting held in the early afternoon of Sunday, September 26, 1886, to present the claimed Cannon Committee manifesto, three kept jour nals are extant and can be compared with Lorin Woolley(s story. Samuel Bateman, one of the purported participants, recorded his activities of September 26 as follows:

      the 26 Sunday At Do, all day reading. Had meeting, Bishop H. B. Clawson presiding, 12 present and 3 children. I spoke. All the rest of the Brethren spoke. Had a good meeting. H. B. Clawson and J. E. Taylor went home at night.4

      President Taylor(s daily journal, kept by his personal secretary L. John Nuttall, contains the following entry for September 26, 1886:

      All well this morning.
      President Cannon being some better in his health. [He had become quite ill three days earlier.]
      
      This morning Presidents Taylor and Cannon and Elders Clawson and Nuttall met, and Bro. Clawson re ported his trip to Eureka, Tintic.
At 2:30 p.m. held our usual meeting. Brother Jos. E. Taylor who came out during the night [met with us], Bp. Clawson was also in meeting with us.
      Bp. Clawson was requested to take charge of the meeting. After singing Bro. Jos. E. Taylor prayed. Bp. Clawson made a few remarks and he and Bro. J. E. Taylor administered the sacrament. Bros. J. E. Taylor, C. H. Wilcken, S. Bateman, L. J. Nuttall, President Cannon, John Woolley [Jr.], H. C. Birrell and President Taylor each spoke. A very good meeting was enjoyed and President Cannon dismissed.5

      George Q. Cannon(s journal corroborates the above accounts and gives additional detail:

      I had greatly improved in health to day. We had sent for Bro. H. B. Clawson to come out on important business that required immediate attention. We spent the forenoon conversing with him upon it. Among other things was the political condition of affairs of our people in Arizona. At half past two o Clock we held our meeting. Bro. Jos. E. Taylor and wife joined us, she being on the underground and he having come out on a visit to her to day. There were nine Elders present and three Sisters: President Taylor and myself, Elder Jos. E. Taylor, Bp. H. B. Clawson, Elders Nuttall, Wilcken, Bateman, John Woolley, Jun. and Birrell, Sisters Woolley and daughter and Sister Taylor. Our meeting was a very interesting one.6

      It would seem, from all available evidence, that the meeting held on Sunday afternoon, September 26, 1886, was nothing more than the usual sacrament meeting that was held each Sunday, an assumption borne out by the journal entries for each Sunday during that period of time.
      According to the records reviewed, neither the fatherJohn Woolley nor his son Lorin Woolley were present at this meeting. John W. Woolley was a member of the Davis Stake high council and traditionally attended his ward and stake meetings. (Stake minutes show that he attended a high council trial on the evening of Saturday, September 25.) His son Lorin Woolley was married, and in 1886 he lived at his own home in Centerville with his wife, Sarah Ann, and two small children. Ward records show that he typically attended his meetings and took an active part. There are no ward records extant for the latter half of 1886, but we may safely assume that John and Lorin Woolley were engaged elsewhere since they were not listed as being present at the sacrament meeting held by President Taylor(s party on Sunday afternoon, September 26, 1886.

	Hyrum B. Clawson(s Visit


      Bishop Hyrum B. Clawson was visiting President Taylor on this particular weekend, but not for the reason alleged in the Lorin Woolley story. Bishop Clawson was managing the Beck, Bullion, and Champion Mine in Eureka: it seems that with his absence in Arizona during the summer, the mineworkers had not been paid for some time, and they demanded their back wages before continuing work. With the aid of attorneys from Provo, the men had attached liens against the mine.
      In view of the situation, Bishop Clawson made a partial payment of wages with available funds to those who agreed to withdraw their liens in return for a promise of the remainder. This proved unsatisfactory to some, who formed a grievance committee. With their lawyers, the dissatisfied mineworkers went to Salt Lake City and presented their full demands to James Jack, financial clerk of the Church. In order to satisfy the demands Jack was obliged to mortgage some Church securities and to take some other measures to raise money quickly.
      On September 27, 1886, Jack wrote a letter to President Taylor explaining what he had done, since he had not had time to consult with the First Presidency in the matter. In his letter he stated: "Brother Clawson will no doubt explain the situation to you fully." In this letter he also included the legal agreement he had entered into with the Beck Mine on behalf of President Taylor.
      Bishop Clawson apparently had returned to Salt Lake City and communicated his visit with President Taylor to James Jack before the letter was sent, and the following postscript was added: "Since the foregoing I have seen Brother Clawson, and he informs me that you approved of my action."7
      The next day James Jack received the following confirmation of his action from President Taylor:

      Your letter of the 27th explaining the course which you deemed proper to make in furnishing the amount necessary to make up the deficiency in the workmen(s wages of the B. B. & C. M Co.(s property, is quite satisfactory. We are glad that you obtained such good security for the amount.8

      Thus, Bishop Clawson had been requested "to come out on important business that required immediate attention" concerning the Beck Mine, not as part of a committee to induce President Taylor to relinquish plural marriage in the Church.
      In President Cannon(s journal he indicates that he, Bishop Clawson, and President Taylor discussed "the political condition of affairs of our people in Arizona." This reinforces the fact that Bishop Clawson had been in Arizona during the summer and was, therefore, not meeting with President Cannon(s purported committee, as reviewed earlier.

	Franklin S. Richards Role

      Franklin S. Richards, another of the alleged participants in the special meeting, was purportedly taken back to Salt Lake City that evening with Bishop Clawson. That he did not attend the above-noted meeting is indicated by the fact that he was not mentioned in any of the three journals cited above. This is corroborated on the basis that, as the attorney for the Church, he was busy in Salt Lake City de fending convicted polygamists in court, and generally communicated his activities to President Taylor by mail. He wrote a letter to President Taylor and President Cannon, dated Saturday, September 25, 1886:
      
      At the close of a very busy week in court, I deem it proper to report to you the result of our labors. ... Will write to you on the Luce matter next week. Am trying to get all the heirs to settle on the terms proposed. Hoping you are both well and secure from your enemies.9

      Again the following week, Franklin S. Richards wrote a letter to President Taylor dated October 4, 1886:

      We have finished the trial of cohabitation cases on Saturday [October 2], having succeeded during the week in securing one acquittal. . . .10

      Thus, of the purported committee consisting of George Q. Cannon, John T. Caine, James Jack, Hyrum B. Clawson, and Franklin S. Richards, only President Cannon and Bishop Clawson were at the John Woolley home at the time specified. Why weren(t Caine and Jack there as part of the alleged committee? Both were in Salt Lake City on that date, so certainly distance was not a problem. Caine was mentioned in the 1912 version as being present, but was omitted from the 1929 account. If they were the "others," why not mention them by name? After all, they had supposedly worked all summer to write the manifesto that was to be presented at the meeting. Why not have the entire committee there for reinforcement? If they were not the "others" referred to, who would Lorin Woolley claim the "others" were, and why not mention them by name?
      It is apparent that the committee allegedly formed to draft the "Cannon Manifesto" was in fact nonexistent, and the meeting Woolley claims was held to review the alleged documents is likewise without foundation in light of contemporary records.
      
	Chapter Five

	NOCTURNAL EVENTS

      That evening [September26, 1886] I was called to act as guard during the first part of the night, notwithstanding the fact that I was greatly fatigued on account of the three days' trip 1 had just completed.
      The brethren retired to bed after nine o'clock. The sleeping rooms were inspected by the guard as was the custom. President Taylor's room had no outside door. The windows were heavily screened.
      Sometime after the brethren retired and while I was reading the Doc trifle and Covenants, I was suddenly attracted to a light appearing under the door leading to President Taylor's room, and was at once startled to hear the voices of men talking there. There were three distinct voices. I was bewildered because it was my duty to keep people out of that room and evidently someone had entered without my knowing it. I made a hasty examination and found the door leading to the room bolted as usual. I then examined the outside of the house and found all the window screens intact. While examining the last window, and feeling greatly agitated, a voice spoke to me, saying, "Can't you feel the Spirit? Why should you worry?"
      At this I returned to my post and continued to hear the voices in the room. They were so audible that although I did not see the parties I could place their positions in the room from the sound of the voices. The three voices continued until about midnight, when one of them left, and the other two continued. One of them I recognized as President John Taylor's voice. I called Charles Birrell and we both sat up until eight o'clock the next morning.

	Presidential Bodyguards

      This account alleges that Lorin Woolley was called to act as President Taylor's personal bodyguard on September 26-27, 1886. He is further alleged to have been a regular guard for the sequestered President. The Allred version reported Lorin Woolley, in September 1886, as "a man who had served his shift almost constantly for many months in guarding President Taylor."1 Another Fundamentalist expanded Lorin Woolley's role as guard even further:

      Between the years 1882 and 1889, the period known to Church history as the underground days, John W. Woolley was a member of John Taylor's personal body guard. Lorin C. was captain of the guard.2

      Official Church history, contemporary journals of firsthand witnesses, and other available records show that when President Taylor went on the underground in 1885, Charles Wilcken went with him as his personal guard and driver. (Samuel Bateman later joined in a similar capacity.)


      President John Taylor delivered his last discourse in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City. In the evening, he and President George Q. Cannon secreted themselves, in order to avoid the Federal Officials, who were carrying on their high handed judicial proceedings in the Territory. Elder L. John Nuttall accompanied them as private secretary, Charles H. Wilcken as (guard and) driver, and Charles H. Barrell as general aid.3

      During the summer of 1886, President Taylor and party stayed intermittently at the home of Henry Day in Draper.

      During the summer of 1886... President Taylor and his party came to Draper and lived at the home of Henry Day. Included in his party were: President John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, L. John Nuttall, their scribe Charles Burrell, President Taylor's valets(Samuel Bateman and Charles Wilkins, and body guards(Andrew Burt jr., Daniel Bateman and a man named [Levi] Pratt.4

      It will be noticed that the guards mentioned were all members of the Salt Lake police force; Andrew Burt was the county sheriff. Neither John nor Lorin Woolley was included, nor was either on the police force.
      The claim that Lorin Woolley guarded President Taylor and party "almost constantly for many months" is questionable. The journals of Samuel Bateman and George Q. Cannon, and President Taylor's daily journal do not list Lorin Woolley among the regular guards. Samuel Bateman's journal mentions Lorin Woolley only twice during the time that President Taylor and party were at the John Woolley residence, namely, October 21 and November 19, 1886; and in those references Woolley was carrying the mail, not guarding. According to contemporary records it seems that Lorin Woolley had no connection with President Taylor's party until after they arrived at John Woolley's home, and then his connection was in a very limited way. The claim, therefore, that he guarded President Taylor "almost constantly for many months" prior to September 1886 is without substantiation.
      Guards for President Taylor's party were chosen for their physical qualifications as well as for their courage and faithfulness. Lorin Woolley had no qualifications of physical size or strength, nor did he have a reputation for courage and bravery(despite his personal claims. Woolley was actually a small, frail man, and perhaps many of his claims arose in compensation for his frailty. The following sketch gives expanded information on Charles Wilcken's and Samuel Bateman's backgrounds and qualifications:


      Wilcken was a veteran of the German army who had been decorated with the Iron Cross for bravery on the battlefield. He had come to Utah with General Albert Sidney Johnston's invading army in 1858 only to attach himself to Brigham Young as his devoted protector. Following Young's death, his allegiance shifted to George Q. Cannon, whom he was now pleased to serve, together with the President.. . . Samuel Bateman was a powerfully built man who had led the first platoon under Captain Lot Smith in the guerrilla action against the invading U.S. Army in 1857. Later he had accompanied Brigham Young on his tours throughout the territory and served on the Salt Lake City police force.5

      In view of the above it appears doubtful that Lorin Woolley would have qualified as a regular guard during this precarious time, and his claims in this regard are dubious, to say the least.

	Night Visitations

      The 1912 version speaks of only one visitor during the night(the Prophet Joseph Smith.

      Soon after 9 o'clock, I heard the voice of another man engaged in conversation with Pres. Taylor, and I observed that a very brilliant light was illuminating the room occupied by the President. I wakened Bearrell and told him what I had heard and seen, and we both remained awake and on watch the balance of the night. The conversation was carried on all night between Pres. Taylor and the visitor, and never discontinued until the day began to dawn....

      In order to meet the competitive claims of contemporaries, later versions all include the visit of the Savior as well.6 Daniel Bateman gave the following account in 1922:

      On the night of Sept. 26-2 7 1886 John Taylor received two visitations from the Prophet Joseph Smith and one from Jesus Christ.7 


      The 1925 B. Harvey Allred account claimed:

      Shortly before the hour of midnight the attending guard was startled by the sound of voices in John Taylor's room. . . . Finally a third voice was distinctly heard in the conversation with the two that had been heard for some time now past. . . . Before morning one of the voices ceased to be heard, but two remained.8

      The 1929 Musser version reported, however, that:


      Some time after the brethren retired... [Lorin Woolley] was at once startled to hear... three distinct voices. . . the three voices continued until about midnight when one of them left and the other continued.., until eight o'clock the next morning.9

      It is interesting to note that Lorin Woolley gave no report of the alleged discussion that extended all night. This would surely be the most important part of the whole story. If the voices "were so audible that although I did not see the parties I could place their positions in the room from the sound of their voices," surely he and Birrell overheard what was being said. Allred reported Lorin Woolley as stating that "he could distinctly hear the voices from within."
      It is not difficult to hear a normal voice through a wood- paneled door in the stillness of the night. It might well be supposed from the tenor of the story that President Taylor would be instructed not to sign the manifesto being urged by "Cannon's committee." If so, the question arises as to the need for a direct visitation to convey the required message to him. Would not a revelation suffice? One also wonders why both Joseph Smith and the Savior would need to appear on this occasion? One heavenly visitor would obviously suffice, if indeed a heavenly visitor was needed at all. The Savior has only infrequently appeared to man to bring in person a revelation for his Church, and when he has appeared it has been for a con summately more important reason than this. The same reasoning would also apply to the Prophet Joseph Smith; this would be the only recorded instance of his appearing as a resurrected being following his martyrdom. It would be a singular occurrence indeed; but more on this later.

	Other Witnesses

      The number of witnesses who are supposed to have heard the heavenly visitors in conversation with President Taylor varies in the different versions. The 1929 Musser account mentions only two witnesses: "I called Charles Birrell and we both sat up until eight o'clock the next morning." The 1925 Allred account, however, reported additional witnesses of the visitation:

      Members of the family, two, I think, were called to witness these things. At just what time or period of the occurrence I do not recall. . . . Just before dawn the sound of voices ceased entirely. By this time four or five men and one woman had reached the room and witnessed the bright light and sound of voices in conversation.10

      If such a singular event cannot be entirely disproved, neither can it be substantially vindicated. No account of this purported experience is given by Charles Birrell or any of the other men and women who are alleged to have witnessed the event. Why not? Surely such a singular event is worthy of preservation in written form by other eyewitnesses.
      
	Chapter Six

	THE EIGHT-HOUR MEETING


      When President Taylor came out of his room about eight o'clock of the morning of September 27, 1886, we could scarcely look at him on account of the brightness of his personage....
      We had no breakfast, but assembled ourselves in a meeting. Iforget who opened the meeting. I was called to offer the benediction. I think my father, John W. Woolley, offered the opening prayer. There were present, at this meeting, in addition to President Taylor, George Q. Cannon, L. John Nuttall, John W. Woolley, Samuel Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, Charles Birrell, Daniel R. Bateman, Bishop Samuel Sedden, George Earl, my mother, Julia E. Woolley, my sister, Amy Woolley, and myself. The meeting was held from about nine o'clock in the morning until five in the afternoon without intermission, being about eight hours in all.

	Contemporary Journal Accounts

      The account of this purported meeting of Monday, September 27, 1886, can be controlled by the same evidence as the meeting claimed to have been held on the day previous. Samuel Bateman, one of the alleged participants, reported his activities for the day in question as follows:

      The 27 All day at Do [John W. Woolley home in Centerville], reading, pitching quoits. Helped load two loads of barley. At night went with the mail. Called at Sister B's, met A. Burt, sheriff of Salt Lake County. Got back at two o'clock all right.1

      George Q. Cannon reported the day's activities in the following terse but matter-of-fact entry: "Attended to our usual business. I am not well, but improving."2
      The "business" of President Taylor and President Cannon is recorded by secretary L. John Nuttall as follows in President Taylor's daily journal for the same date:

      Monday, September 27, 1886. President Cannon still improving in his health. The rest of the party all well.
      President Taylor signed several recommends. A letter was received from Elder F. D. Richards, enclosing one from Bro. E. W. Davis of the 17th Ward, City, in regard to his call as a missionary and needing help. Also gave his views in regard to those of the brethren who are in jeopardy, being sought after and sent on missions, etc. This letter was answered.
      A letter was received from Bro. A. Miner dated Sept. 20th stating that he had perfected the re-incorporation of the Tooele Stake Corporation. . . . [Financial matters discussed]
      A letter was received from Bro. Wm. M. Palmer at Council Bluffs September 22, 1886, giving an account of his labors to that time.
      
      A letter was received from Ellen Norwood Billingsly of Orderville. [Personal matters discussed]....
      A letter was written to Elder Enoch Farr, President [of the] Sandwich Islands Mission in answer to his letter received September 7th.
      A letter was also sent to Bro. Thos. G. Webber of Z. C.M .I. [Financial matters discussed]....

      A letter was written to President W. Woodruff in reply to his letter received September 25th, etc.
      President Taylor pitched quoits a while this morning, also in the afternoon.
      President Cannon in the house most all day; he sat out of doors awhile in the after part of the day.
      Brother Bateman carried in our mail matter.3

	Corroboration of Journals

      The typical Fundamentalist reaction to these contemporary journals is to claim that the men involved in the Woolley account were purposefully instructed to write falsehoods in their journals in order to conceal the real situation from unworthy, if not hostile, ears. To complete the subterfuge, Fundamentalists claim, all present were required to coordinate the information in their journals so that it might be mutually consistent. In light of such claims let us carefully examine the recorded business of the day and see if there is sufficient external evidence to confirm that the accounts of the time are indeed truthful and reflect exactly what did take place.
      Nuttall reported: "A letter was received from Elder F. D. Richards, enclosing one from Bro. E. W. Davis." Franklin D. Richards's letter file contains this letter, and that file mentions the Davis letter as having been enclosed as stated. Nuttall reported: "A letter was received from Bro. Wm. M. Palmer at Council Bluffs." This letter is also preserved in William Palmer's letter file as stated. Nuttall reported: "A letter was written to Elder Enoch Farr... in answer to his letter received September 7th." Enoch Farr's letter file contains the letter, dated August 26, which President Taylor received on September 7. Nuttall reported: "A letter was also sent to Bro. Thos. G. Webber of Z.C.M.I." Thomas Webber's letter file contains a letter dated September 22, which also included a report to stockholders to be presented at their October 5 meeting. Nuttall reported: "A letter was written to President W. Woodruff in reply to his letter received September 25th." President Woodruff recorded in his journal for September 23: "I wrote to Presidents Taylor and Cannon."4 Thus, President Taylor's daily journal for the date of September 27, 1886, seems to be corroborated by sources too varied and remote to be considered collusive.
      
      If President Taylor was up all night conversing with heavenly visitors, emerged from his room and went promptly into a meeting which continued all day (eight hours) without intermission, passed directly from that meeting into another meeting lasting five more hours (meetings lasting thirteen hours in all) in which he gave additional instruction and performed special ordinances, when was all of this routine "business" supposedly accomplished? It is evident from the reports in all extant accounts that President Taylor spent the day taking care of Church business as usual.
      Quoits, a game similar to horseshoe pitching, was played almost every day, as all the journals testify, and September 27 appears to have been no exception. Samuel Bateman's account that he spent the day reading, pitching quoits, and loading barley; George Q. Can non's report that "[we] attended to our usual business"; and L. John Nuttall's entry that President Taylor spent the day attending to business matters and pitching quoits(this is strong evidence against the credibility of the Woolley account.

	Subterfuge and Code Words

      When confronted with these journal entries that were unavailable for many years, Fundamentalists try to explain them away by declaring that the brethren were instructed not to mention the secret events in their journals, so they used special code words so that only one with the key might understand that something important was being withheld. One Fundamentalist claimed:

      In Samuel Bateman's journal are many references to playing "quoits," "Fox and Geese, or Old Maid," or "checkers," etc. These entries are most probably coded messages.... Likely the brethren may at times have actually played checkers, etc., for relaxation, but when one considers the big job of running the Church and Kingdom, and the greater difficulty to do so from an "underground" position, then surely, to believe these brethren were really spending great amounts of their time playing checkers, quoits, "Fox and Geese, or Old Maid," is an insult to the priesthood.... The only reasonable explanation is that these terms were part of a code describing symbolically the efforts of the brethren in making and formulating plans and counter plans to de feat the enemy. .. .5

      This explanation might be considered to have merit if only the assumptions were correct. The quoted statement that President Taylor and his party played "checkers, quoits, fox and geese, and old maid" comes from a book, Little Gold Pieces, authored by Samuel Bateman's daughter, Juliaetta Bateman Jensen. Here she wrote of things that occurred in her childhood which she but hazily recollected; the above quotation infers from this reminiscence about checkers, quoits, and the other games that "great amounts" of time were reportedly consumed in such activity.
      A careful reading of the journals of George Q. Cannon, Samuel Bateman, and President Taylor's daily journal reveal that quoits was played almost daily by the brethren as a form of exercise and diversion. For example, one of the first things Samuel Bateman reported doing upon moving to the John Woolley farm was to clear and level a place to pitch quoits:

      The 15. All day at Bro. John W. Woolley's. Got our things put to right, fixed quoit ground, pitched in the afternoon, boss and I beat C. H. Wilkin. Carried the mail.6
      In the Samuel Bateman journal for this period, checkers was mentioned sporadically, fox and geese was mentioned but once; and old maid was not mentioned at all.
      
      That such games were code words indicating secret meetings concerning plural marriage is pure speculation, to say the least. By their very nature, the records do not support any such hazy and far-fetched interpretation as is alleged by some Fundamentalists.
      As to "the big job of running the Church and Kingdom, and the greater difficulty to do so from an underground position," it should be observed that a great share of the load was borne by the "visible" heads of the Church(Elder Franklin D. Richards, Secretary- Treasurer James Jack, and others. Those matters requiring action and decision by President Taylor were handled through the daily mail. Besides communicating by mail, President Cannon and L. John Nuttall frequently went to Salt Lake City at night, and some times stayed over several days to take care of business.

	Daniel Bateman's Role

      Following is an addendum to the story of the eight-hour meeting, an addendum that never found its way into the "standard versions" of the event:

      On the morning of September 27th Brother "Dan" [Daniel R. Bateman] left Salt Lake City, under a guard, with important documents for the President, arriving at the Woolley home as the widely talked of eight-hour meeting was about to commence. He attended the meeting.7

      It is interesting to note that Daniel Bateman's protracted 1938 account does not mention this bit of personal history. This additional "evidence" reinforces the conclusion that Daniel Bateman's accounts are a mere parroting of Lorin Woolley's claims and that he did not personally "remember" the story from his own perspective.
      Samuel Bateman's journal, as well as other journals and correspondence of the time, reveals that all traffic between the "under ground" hideout and Salt Lake City took place under the cover of darkness. Those going on trips to Salt Lake City regularly left and returned after dark. It would have been foolhardy to travel in daylight, yet the above-cited account claims that Daniel Bateman left Salt Lake City during daylight, arriving just prior to the start of the meeting at nine that morning. Such a course of action is highly questionable. Surely any "important documents" would have been carried by the regular driver the night before or the night following.
      There is no mention in any of the extant journals that Daniel Bateman arrived on Monday morning at the John Woolley home. He is not mentioned as being there in any of the available journals of the time. His father, Samuel Bateman, recorded in his journal that he and Charles Wilcken generally took turns in carrying the mail. It is evident that Daniel Bateman was not a regular driver at this time, but that he lived at his home, helping on request.
      Samuel Bateman usually mentioned in his journal when some one other than he or Charles Wilcken was involved in the mail run. For instance, on Saturday, September 25, Wilcken stayed over in Salt Lake City one day, so "Alfred Solomon came very early, brought the mail." On Tuesday, September 28, Samuel Bateman recorded: "1 wrote a letter to D. R. Bateman," evidently asking him to fill in the following night so that he could stop off to visit overnight with his family. On Wednesday Bateman reported:


      D. R. Bateman went out in my place. G. Q. Cannon went with me. . . . Left G. Q. C. in the city. I went on home, arrived at half past 11 o'clock. Found all well. . . . I staid all night.8

      The following day, Thursday, September 30, Bateman re ported stopping at his son Daniel's home and visiting. Samuel Bate- man's Journal during this whole period shows him writing letters to his son Daniel and stopping off at Daniel's home to visit him fre quently. Thus, it is evident that Daniel Bateman was not a regular driver at this time but lived at home helping on request.
      The journals of Samuel Bateman and George Q. Cannon and President Taylor's daily journal make no mention of "important documents" being delivered by Daniel Bateman on September 27, 1886, nor do their journals during the ensuing days reveal any "important documents" being considered or acted upon in their daily business. The assertion is of dubious authenticity, therefore, that Daniel Bateman "left S.L.C. under a guard with important documents for the President, arriving at the Woolley home" on Monday morning, September 27, 1886.

	Bateman's Guard

      Who did Joseph Musser claim comprised the guard that ac companied Daniel R. Bateman on the morning of September 27, 1886? Lorin Woolley and Charles Birrell were purportedly guard ing President Taylor in Centerville. Charles Wilcken and John Woolley were also alleged to be in Centerville. If the guards were others than those mentioned, were they invited to stay and take part in the eight-hour meeting? According to Woolley's claims, Samuel Seddon, bishop of the Salt Lake City Fifth Ward was the only one mentioned in Lorin Woolley's account who could possibly have attended Daniel Bateman as a guard. A late account states:

      Bishop Seddon... oftentimes secretly transported them [various leading brethren] back and forth. Likely this is the reason Bishop Seddon was there on the 27th of September, prepared to take some of the brethren back to Salt Lake with him when he returned.9

      Since Seddon is not mentioned in President Cannon's journal as attending the Sunday afternoon meeting, he would of necessity have arrived later on Sunday night. There is no mention in any of the contemporary accounts of Bishop Seddon being at John Wool ley's home on Monday, September 27, 1886. Nor is there any mention of any "leading brethren" returning to Salt Lake City on the night of Monday, September 27. Samuel Bateman reported in his journal that he went to Salt Lake City that night with the mail, but he makes no mention of Seddon either accompanying him or returning by himself.

	President Taylor Credited with Unlikely Stamina


      It is interesting to note the stamina attributed in the Lorin Woolley accounts to President Taylor, who was nearing his seventy- eighth birthday. The accounts say that, after spending all day Sunday discussing business and attending meetings, and after staying up all night conversing with the Savior and the Prophet Joseph Smith, President Taylor conducted another all-day meeting without recess or nourishment, in which he spoke fervently for eight hours, and then went directly into another meeting which lasted an additional five hours.10
      President Taylor was not in good health, and being on the "underground" for more than eighteen months had exacted its toll on his condition. Compare Woolley's account of the aged President Taylor with an account of a similar experience of the Prophet Joseph Smith as a vigorous young lad of seventeen. After receiving three visits from the angel Moroni which lasted all through the night of September 22-23, 1823, the Prophet recorded:

      I shortly after arose from my bed, and, as usual, went to the necessary labors of the day; but in attempting to work as at other times, I found my strength so exhausted as to render me entirely unable. My father, who was laboring along with me, discovered something to be wrong with me, and told me to go home. I started with the intention of going to the house; but, in attempting to cross the fence out of the field where we were, my strength entirely failed me, and I fell helpless on the ground, and for a time was quite unconscious of anything.11

      Consider also the case of Sidney Rigdon. After witnessing the vision of the three degrees of glory as recorded in Section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants(a vision that lasted less than two hours(he was reported by those present to be "limp and pale, apparently as limber as a rag."12
      If an all-night visitation affected the seventeen-year-old Prophet Joseph Smith and a two-hour vision affected the thirty- nine-year-old Sidney Rigdon in this manner, what would one expect of the seventy-seven-year-old John Taylor who would die ten months later of causes incident to a lingering illness from which he was already beginning to suffer? It is most difficult to imagine his undergoing the tremendous stresses he purportedly experienced during those long, physically and spiritually exhausting two days and one night, while he of necessity took care of the routine "busi ness" as well.

	Chapter Seven

	SUPERNATURAL EVENTS

      President Taylor called the meeting to order. He had the Manifesto that had been prepared under the direction of George Q. Cannon, read over again. He then put each person under covenant that he or she would... consecrate their lives, liberty and property to this end, and that they personnally would sustain and uphold that principle.
      By that time we were all filled with the Holy Ghost. President Taylor and those present occupied about three hours up to this time. After placing us under covenant, he placed his finger on the document, his person rising from the floor about afoot or eighteen inches, and with countenance animated by the Spirit of the Lord, and raising his right hand to the square, he said, (Sign that document, ( never! I would suffer my right hand to be severed from my body first. Sanction it, ( never! I would suffer my tongue to be torn from its roots in my mouth before I would sanction it!(. .
      During the eight hours we were together, and while President Taylor was talking to us, he frequently arose and stood above the floor, and his countenance and being were so enveloped by light and glory that it was difficult for us to look upon him.

      The 1922 Joseph Musser journal version adds emphasis to the account:

      August 7, 1922, at a meeting held at the Home of John Y. Barlow, East Mill Creek, Bro. Woolley related, that on the morning of Sept. 27, 1886, when Pres. Taylor came out of his room, (We could not look at him on account of the brightness of his person. It was a literal baptism. I could look at the noon-day sun easier than upon the person of Pres. Taylor.(1

	Transfiguration of John Taylor

      The dramatic detail with which the highlights of the story is told seems to have been borrowed from the fantasy of make-believe. So far as one can ascertain there is no historical record of any prophet, either in ancient or modern times, delivering a message in mortality while suspended in midair. Not Moses returning from the Mount with the tablets of the Law; not Joseph Smith giving his incomparable King Follett Discourse on the nature of God; not Jacob when, filled with the Spirit and with the responsibility of his commission from the Lord, he denounced the Nephites for illegally practicing plural marriage; not even the Savior himself in any of his profound teachings given during his earthly life. In none of such instances did the delivery of the inspired message require the physical elevation of the prophetic messenger. Yet we are asked to believe that a personal protestation from President Taylor, which in effect merely reaffirmed an existing principle, called for such a supernatural manifestation.
      
      It is a like case as regards the alleged noonday-sun brilliance of President Taylor(s person. Again, where is the mortal precedent? True, after Moses( sublime experience of forty days of fasting combined with the Lord(s presence on the Mount, (the skin of his face shone.( But apparently he donned a veil because the people were (afraid to come nigh him,( and not because they were physically unable to look at him. After the thunderings and lightnings of Mount Sinai, they had been afraid even to hear the voice of the Lord, let alone to experience visual manifestations of his power and glory.2

      It was likewise with the great modern prophet, Joseph Smith. There are instances on record of his countenance turning (so white he seemed perfectly transparent(; he looked as if (he had a search light within him.( (His whole person shone, and his face was lightened until it appeared as the whiteness of the driven snow.( But, says one of these writers, (I could not take my eyes away from him( while he was in this condition.3 There is nothing here to suggest a noonday-sun brilliance which dazzles the human eye beyond endur ance. All the evidence is that that kind of radiance is an attribute of celestial beings only.

	A Heavenly Choir

      It is claimed also that additional supernatural manifestations occurred during the protracted meeting.

      At the time of the meeting held by Pres. John Taylor, September 27, 1886, during the meeting, singing was first heard by only four or five of the thirteen present, the last song being heard by all present. A Quartette sang, (The Birth of Christ,( and a double quartette sang (The Birth of Joseph Smith( and (The Seer;( two or three other songs were sung. The singing was beautiful. President Taylor remarked after singing ceased, (That is the first time I have heard a heavenly choir.(4

      (The Seer, Joseph the Seer( is the title of a song written byJohn Taylor with music arranged by Ebenezer Beesley. It was adapted from an old English song, (The Sea,( with lyrics by Proctor and music by Neucomm.5
      There has never been an LDS hymn entitled (The Birth of Joseph Smith.( The same is also true of the alleged hymn, (The Birth of Christ.( Two songs in LDS hymnology refer to Jesus Christ(s birth: (Jesus, Once of Humble Birth( (Hymns, No. 88) and (When Christ was Born in Bethlehem( (Hymns, No. 295). Could either of these be the hymn to which Lorin Woolley refers?
      How did Lorin Woolley know the titles to the songs if he did not recognize them as familiar songs? Did the heavenly quartet leader announce the title of each song before it was sung?
      
      This leads to another significant question. How could Woolley remember the titles of a group of songs after forty-three years when he does not seem able to accurately recall the places where he is supposed to have been guarding President Taylor? One would assume that the continual traveling back and forth to underground locations would make a more lasting impression on Woolley(s memory than would the titles of songs that, at best, Woolley heard only once.
      It seems strange that this allegation of heavenly hymnology never found its way into any of Lorin Woolley(s standard versions. Perhaps it was (remembered( after all the standard versions were published. If so, why was it not included in Daniel Bateman(s version? This is another case that indicates Daniel Bateman did not experience such events as Lorin Woolley claimed.

George Earl Testimony

      In connection with this allegation of supernatural manifestations, we cite another portion of the Lorin Woolley story:

      There are only three left who were at the meeting mentioned Daniel R. Bateman, George Earl, and myself. So far as I know, those of them who have passed away all stood firm to the covenants entered into from that day to the day of their deaths.

      George Earl, who is purported to have been at the eight-hour meeting, later stated that he had never witnessed any such phenomena as Lorin Woolley described. His statement follows:

Centerville, Utah
August 2nd, 1949
To whom it may concern:

      I am making this statement of my own free will and choice, with: no duress nor pressure from any person. And it is truthful and I hope will have a good effect. As a young English convert I came to Utah nearly sixty five years ago, and in my middle teens I secured employment on the John W. Woolley farm in Centerville. I was as one of the family, taken into their confidence, and ate at the same table as they. 
      In the late eighties I saw come to the Woolley home, and remain there for perhaps eight months the following, although all of them did not remain constantly there, the following; President John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith, Angus Cannon, Joseph E. Taylor. I repeat, I ate with them, helped guard them, and knew all the routine that went on from day to day.
      I attended the meetings on Sundays, including Fast meetings. President Taylor presented me with a five dollar gold piece, with which I purchased a small trunk, and I ill have it in my possession. I at times carried their mail to the Church office in Salt Lake City on horseback. I remember Charley Wilkins and Sam Bateman well.
      
      I heard President Taylor sing "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief( at a night party. Now for the crux of the letter. I have been approached during the past many years, by scores of men endeavoring to secure my signature to a statement that I was at the meeting where President was purported to have stood in the air and delivered a powerful sermon upon a certain doctrine, and that heavenly messengers visited him, etc. Never d I see or hear any such things, and I doubt if anyone else did, but I hereby solemnly affirm that I saw nothing supernaturel like that, nor heard such a sermon, and firmly believe It could not have escaped my observation had it occurred.
      I am absolutely now the sole survivor who was present during those eight months, and feel it my duty to present these facts before the world, inasmuch as some aspersion has been cast upon my name by those seeking to subvert the truth. I always have had the feelings of the highest regard for all the Woolly family, and still do.
      <signed> George Earl6

      George Earl apparently was approached many times during his life by Fundamentalists seeking corroboration of the Lorin Woolley story. Each time he was approached he denied that he had been witness to any of the events described by Woolley, although he affirmed his respect for the Woolley family.
      Although Lorin Woolley originally claimed that George Earl was one of the thirteen present at the eight-hour meeting, Earl(s denials have caused Fundamentalists to later repudiate this claim and to pretend that he only occasionally entered the house between chores and therefore in truth would not remember the details. Joseph Musser later gave the following apology:

      Another man is yet living who is said to have been at the meeting referred to. He was at the time a young chore-boy, passing in and out of the house from time to time; and while he recollects such a gathering as having taken place his memory as to details is not such as to constitute him a reliable witness. This man is George Earl, now residing at Centerville, Utah. Elder Earl, in a recent interview, while disclaiming a recollection of the details of the meeting referred to, with emphasis stated that after a life-long acquaintance with John W. Woolley, Lorin C. Woolley, and Daniel R. Bateman, he considers them to be men of probity and strict honesty, and that their testimony on any question can be relied upon.7

      This statement baldly attempts to discredit George Earl(s reliability as a witness, while at the same time attempting to assert his personal endorsement of any story on any subject that the three above-mentioned persons wished to promote. This statement, of course, implies his tacit approval of the entire Lorin Woolley story. It was in answer to such false and presumptuous claims that George Earl issued his above-quoted statement denying witness to the supernatural phenomena that allegedly took place at the eight-hour meeting.

	Subterfuge and Innuendo
      
      
Some Fundamentalists have explained away George Earl(s statement as a public subterfuge, claiming that he privately vindicated the story. It is alleged that George Earl made his 1949 statement in order (to remain in the good graces of those who opposed the [1886] meeting.( To veil the truth (as Lorin Woolley contends), George Earl purportedly (signed a carefully worded statement which though true, has given a wrong impression.( His statement set up a (straw man( which he (carefully destroyed.  while the true coin remained.( Then, after all this pretended subterfuge, the authors frankly confess:

      We had rather that if a public statement were to have been made, that it had been a direct affirmation of the same testimony he had borne on previous occasions in stead of a (smokescreen( attack on a (straw man.(8

      The (previous occasion( referred to came from the allegations of a daughter of B. Harvey Allred. She wrote in 1968:

      .We attended the funeral of John W. Woolley [Dec. 15, 1928] in the stone Church in Centerville, Utah. My husband and I took Daniel R. Bateman there by automobile from his home in Midvale, Utah. We arrived shortly before commencing time. In fact, we were among the first to enter the building on that occasion. (Uncle( Dan, as we often lovingly addressed Brother Bateman, noted that Brother George Earl was up front placing song books in the choir seats.
      Brother Bateman motioned us to follow and went forward to greet him. They met with hearty hand shakes. (Uncle( Dan introduced my husband and me as well known and trusted friends, while placing one hand on Brother Earl(s shoulder and one on my husband(s. Brother Bateman then requested him, as one more wit ness, to tell us his testimony as a participant in the events of September 26 and 27, 1886.
      Brother Earl, having greeted us with brotherly cordiality, looked at his watch observing that it was less than twenty minutes until funeral time. He further stated that he had other preparations to make for the funeral and expressed regret that there would not be time. Then he brightened. Placing a hand on Uncle Dan(s shoulder he said in substance as follows:
      (Since there will not be time to relate it now I want to tell you young people this: Whatever Dan has told you about that meeting I will verify as the truth!(
      This manifestation of confidence he had in Dan Bateman was uplifting. We parted with expressions of gratitude as Brother Earl resumed his work.... I met George Earl only once. I believe that he was true to his testimony to the end.9

      It is interesting that during all the years George Earl lived after this purported event, neither Allred(s daughter nor anyone else was ever able to secure any direct testimony from him on this subject to support their allegations. Why not? Earl stated that he (had been approached during the past many years by scores of men( endeavoring to get him to confirm the Lorin Woolley story. The best Joseph Musser or any of his colleagues could obtain from Earl was denial of the whole affair, so Earl is reported as (too young at the time to remember,( (passing in and out of the house and not present,( (disclaiming a recollection of the details of the meeting referred to,( not a (reliable witness( to the events because (his memory as to details is not such as to constitute him( such, and so on. Allred(s daughter(s account is a vain attempt to explain away Earl(s public testimony, a vindication that even Fundamentalist priesthood leaders could not obtain.
      
      It seems the whole Lorin Woolley story must continually be vindicated by subterfuge and innuendo. With Earl(s testimony as an important control, and considering the journals of other alleged participants, the Lorin Woolley story rests on a shaky foundation.

	Chapter Eight

	THE 1886 MANIFESTO

      After that he [John Taylor] talked for about an hour and then sat down and wrote the revelation which was given him by the Lord upon the question of Plural Marriage (which revelation follows....)
      My son John, you have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant and how far it is binding upon my people; thus saith the Lord: All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name, unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, for I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever.
      Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years; and this because of their weakness--because of the perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham's seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; even so, Amen.
      After the meeting referred to, President Taylor had L. John Nuttall write five copies of the revelation. He called five of us together: Samuel Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, George Q. Cannon, John W. Woolley, and myself.... He then gave each of us a copy of the Revelation.

      There is no mention in President John Taylor's daily journal of him writing copies of the purported revelation1; nor is there any mention of the revelation being received. Copies of such a revelation would obviously be treasured heirlooms and strong evidence for the truth of the Lorin Woolley story. Fundamentalists, however, have never published any such copies, nor even referred to them in their subsequent writings. Where are those copies today, that they may be produced as evidence of the above claim?
      If the Lorin Woolley story is true, there should be two copies with the descendants of John and Lorin Woolley, one with the George Q. Cannon family, one with the Charles Wilcken family, and one with the Samuel Bateman family.
      One might well suppose that Daniel Bateman would have his father's copy. But the best Daniel Bateman could produce was a copy in his own handwriting. Joseph Musser reported:

      Elder Bateman frequently, and with a show of pardonable pride, exhibited his Journal bearing a copy of the 1886 Revelation which he claimed to have copied from the original in Prest. Taylor's own handwriting.2
      
      John W. Taylor is also purported to have had an additional copy, and yet at his trial in 1911 he entered as evidence a copy written in his own hand. Surely L. John Nuttall's copy would have been more convincing--if indeed it ever existed.

	Revelation and the Story

      There is no mention of this revelation in the 1912 version of the Lorin Woolley story. In fact, Lorin Woolley begins the 1912 account by stating that he does not remember the exact date of the meeting; yet the date of the 1886 revelation was then known as September 27, 1886, through copies that were being circulated among those advocating continued plural marriage. This revelation was apparently added to the story later, and it thus fixed the date of the purported events.
      With the incorporation of this revelation into the Lorin Woolley story, Fundamentalists have since assumed that vindication of the revelation would constitute vindication of the Lorin Woolley story. The two, however, are not mutually supportive. Even if the revelation could be proved authentic, the story that was later built up around it could be a complete hoax. However, because of the importance Fundamentalists attached to this revelation, let us examine the various claims in the light of available information on the subject.
      
	Origin of the Document

      When the Woodruff Manifesto of 1890 was being discussed by the Quorum of the Twelve following its issuance, Elder John W. Taylor was reported as saying:

      My father when President of the Church sought to find a way to evade the conflict between the Saints and government on the question of plural marriage, but the Lord said it was an eternal and unchangeable law and must stand.3

      Two years later, in a meeting of the Council of the Twelve, John W. Taylor said, in relation to the Woodruff Manifesto:

      I do not know that that thing was right, though I voted to sustain it, and will assist to maintain it; but among my father's papers I found a revelation given him of the Lord, and which is now in my possession, in which the Lord told him that the principle of plural marriage would never be overcome. President Taylor desired to have it suspended, but the Lord would not permit it to be done.4


      In 1905 John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley resigned their apostleship, and in 1911 both were tried for their fellowship in the Church because of their continued involvement with plural marriage. Elder Cowley was disfellowshiped; Elder Taylor was excommunicated. The revelation ofJohn Taylor in 1886 was referred to in Matthias F. Cowley's trial before the Council of the Twelve:

      C.W. Penrose: What do you think of the revelation to President Taylor in 1886?
      M.F. Cowley: This would not justify me. He referred to a revelation to President Woodruff [presumably the revelation of 1889], which he took to President Smith and read it to him and he said if it had not been for President Woodruff s strength in that principle we would have had worse than the Manifesto, and explained what certain diplomatic brethren thought was best to do. In view of this revelation [1889?] thought the brethren really felt that they were not justified in stopping it and that is all the effect it had on my mind and the Taylor revelation had very little effect. I thought I should receive my instructions from the living oracles.5

      The 1886 revelation to John Taylor was the main topic of discussion at John W. Taylor's trial before the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Excerpts follow:

      Taylor:	My father received a revelation which, however, was never presented to the Church, and I refer to this not because it was a revelation to my father; I don't think a revelation because it came through him was any greater than one received through any other President of the Church, but because it seems to pertain to this question. The revelation was read by Brother Penrose.
      President Lyman: When did you find the revelation?
      Taylor:	I found it on his desk immediately after his death when I was appointed administrator of his estate....
      A.	W. Ivins: Do you know how extensively this revelation has been circulated in times past and has guided people in their action in this regard?
      Taylor: Brother Joseph W. Robinson came to me and asked for a copy of it upon the suggestion of Brother Cowley and he got it from Brother Badger. Brother Joseph F. Smith, jr., also got a copy, but I don't know how many have got copies from these....
      J. F. Smith, jr: It is true I obtained a copy of this revelation from brother Rodney Badger. He let me take the original and I made a copy and filed it in the historian's office. This was but a short time ago.6

      The letter file of President John Taylor for 1886 contains a typewritten copy of the purported revelation with the following heading: Revelation given to John Taylor, September 27, 1886, copied from the original manuscript by Joseph F. Smith, Jr., August 3, 19O9.77

	Official Statement


      Since many of those unwilling to cease polygamous activity after the issuance of the Woodruff Manifesto based a defiant stand in opposition to the course of the Church on the strength of this revelation, President Heber J. Grant met the situation with the following statement:

      It is alleged that on September 26-27, 1886, President Taylor received a revelation from the Lord, the purported text of which is given in publications circulated apparently by or at the instance of this same organization (Fundamentalists).
      As to this pretended revelation it should be said that the archives of the Church contain no such revelation; nor any evidence justifying a belief that any such revelation was ever given. From the personal knowledge of some of us, from the uniform and common recollection of the presiding quorums of the Church, from the ab sence in the Church Archives of any evidence whatsoever justifying any belief that such a revelation was given, we are justified in affirming that no such revelation exists.
      Furthermore, so far as the authorities of the Church are concerned and so far as the members of the Church are concerned, since this pretended revelation, if ever given, was never presented to and adopted by the Church or by any Council of the Church, and since to the contrary, an inspired rule of action, the Manifesto, was (subsequently to the pretended revelation) presented to and adopted by the Church, which inspired rule in its terms, purport, and effect was directly opposite to the interpretation given to the pretended revelation, the said pretended revelation could have no validity and no binding effect and force upon Church members, and action under it would be unauthorized, illegal, and void.8
      Following the issuance of this official statement in 1933 deny ing that the archives contained the revelation, apparently a more thorough search was initiated. Anthony W. Ivins, counselor in the First Presidency, revealed the following in a letter to the wife of Rulon C. Alired, a leader of Fundamentalism, who with her husband was then investigating Woolley's claims:
      The latter purported revelation of John Taylor [the 1886 revelation] has no standing in the Church. I have searched carefully, and all that can be found is a piece of paper found among President Taylor's effects after his death. It was written in pencil and only a few paragraphs which had no signature at all. It was unknown to the Church until members of his own family claimed to have found it among his papers. It was never presented or discussed as a revelation by the presiding authorities of the Church.
      The fact is that neither of these pretended revelations [1880 and 1886] has any purport whatsoever so far as the Church is concerned. They were never published or presented to the body of the Church for approval, and consequently if such statements were made they have never been in force.9
      
      
	Status of Official Acceptance

      Fundamentalists recognized from the above comments that if the 1886 revelation were to enjoy status as a doctrinal revelation it would have had to be presented to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve and approved and accepted by them. Joseph Musser wrote:

      You also say the revelation was never submitted by President Taylor to his associates in the Presidency or to the Twelve. It is a matter of record that one of his counselors, George Q. Cannon, was present with President Taylor at the time and had a perfect knowledge of the revelation. The other counselor, Joseph F. Smith, was in the Hawaiian Islands at the time, but was sent for, and the revelation explained to him by President Taylor shortly before the latter's death. Later, I am reliably informed, the revelation was discussed in meetings of the Quorum of Twelve, but was neither accepted as a revelation to the Church nor rejected. I believe there are members in your own Quorum now that can inform you on this subject in accordance with my understanding.10
      But the only "record" that George Q. Cannon "had a perfect knowledge of the revelation" is, of course, Lorin Woolley's 1929 statement given some forty-three years after the alleged occurrence. To date, no "record" has been found that vindicates the incident reported by Woolley.
      Another account, written by Douglas M. Todd, Sr., pretends to supply additional information concerning acceptance of the 1886 document by the Council of Twelve:
      September 1, 1934. After reading some expressions in a letter ascribed to A. W. Ivins in which the foregoing revelation [1886 document] is referred to as an unsigned scrap of paper   a so-called revelation(the words of a man which were never submitted to the people of the Church and are not binding, etc., I went up and talked with my sister Nellie E. Taylor, plural wife of John W. Taylor, to learn what she knew about it. She says John W. referred to the circumstances on several occasions and told how his father was in hiding at the home of John Woolley at Centerville the night it was received. That Lorin Woolley was on guard in the next room and witnessed a strange light under Pres. Taylor's door. Next day [27th] a message was sent to those of the Apostles then at home to meet Pres. T[aylor] at Centerville. . . . George F. Gibbs secured a sheep wagon and took them up in the evening. John W. Taylor was asked to stand guard in the front room and was not with them, but understood that the purpose of the meeting was to receive the revelation. To have presented this revelation in open conference in times like those in 1886 would have been fatal.11
      Todd made his statement after reading Anthony W. Ivins's letter, cited above, which was published in a pamphlet authored by Joseph Musser and J. Leslie Broadbent in 1934. This pamphlet goes on, however, to preclude the claims made by Todd:


      When God revealed his word to President John Taylor, on the night of September 26-27, 1886, it doubt less did not occur to him that he should also visit other Church officials and reiterate his message to them, in order that it should not be denied by them in years to come!12

	Todd Claims Analyzed

      Let us examine the various claims made by Douglas Todd, which he attributed to John W. Taylor.
      The account alleges that a message was sent "to Salt Lake City asking those of the First Presidency and Twelve who were there to meet him at Centerville." The First Presidency at this time was composed ofJohn Taylor, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith. President Smith was in Hawaii presiding over the Sandwich Islands Mission, and President Taylor and President Cannon were staying at John Woolley's home in Centerville, so it would hardly have been necessary to send a messenger to Salt Lake City to ask the two men to meet with themselves at Centerville.
      The message was purportedly sent on Monday, September 27. It is not clear from the account, however, which day the apostles are supposed to have arrived(on September 27, or on the following day. The account simply states: "George F. Gibbs secured a sheep wagon and took them up in the evening."13 A check on members of the Quorum of the Twelve for those two days reveals their locations as follows:
      
      Lorenzo Snow: Penitentiary
      Erastus Snow: Mexico City
      Brigham Young, Jr.: Arizona
      Moses Thatcher: Mexico
      Francis M. Lyman: Idaho
      George Teasdale: Mexico14

      The five remaining apostles were locally available. Private journals supply the following information as to what these five were doing on the two days in question:
      Wilford Woodruff had been in hiding in St. George during this period, but had returned to Salt Lake City on a short visit. He arrived on September 21 and remained secreted at the home of a friend in the Farmer's Ward south of the city. On September 23 he wrote to President Taylor and President Cannon, announcing his arrival. On September 27 he recorded in his journal:

      I wrote 3 letters toJ. Jacques, Teasdale and Bulah. I received 6 letters from Jacques, Hall, Wilford, Beatie, J. D. T. McAllister & Lot Smith. I met Owen in the evening.

      On September 28 he reported:
      
      
      I wrote 2 letters to J. D. T. McAllister and Thomas Cottam.

      There is no mention in his journal of a visit with President Taylor at Centerville as claimed by Todd(merely a mention of letter communication between them.
      John Henry Smith, Heber J. Grant, and Franklin D. Richards were in Salt Lake City. On Monday evening, September 27, Elder Smith and Elder Grant attended a "meeting of the Home Insurance Company at the City Hall, where the articles of incorporation were read and after some few changes were passed."15 Franklin D. Richards spent Monday, September 27, at the office working. That evening he reported: "Jane and Charles came down [from Ogden] and with Manie and Pearl I attended  Pinafore' at [the] theater. We slept at the office."16 Tuesday evening, September 28, John Henry Smith "attended a director's meeting of the Co-op Furniture Co., at which it was decided to secure a place of business on Main St. if possible."17 On September 28, after attending to business and ordinance work with Elder Smith and Elder Grant, Elder Richards reported: "I took. . . the 5 p.m. freight [and] arrived [in Ogden] at 8 p.m. Brother Anson Call stayed all night with us(enroute for Logan."18

	John W. Taylor Involvement

      John W. Taylor kept no journal that is extant, and there is no account of his activities in the available journals of others, so we are reliant on other sources for a report of his activities. On the dates in question he apparently was at his home in Salt Lake City awaiting arraignment at Blackfoot, Idaho, on a charge of "inciting to acts of lawlessness." His letter file contains a letter written to John Taylor dated September 8, and another letter dated September 30. He reported to President Taylor and President Cannon: "I am spending most of my time in arranging my business affairs for while I hope for the best I am preparing for the worst."19
      John W. Taylor was reported in Todd's journal as being at the John Woolley home with the other apostles, but "was asked to stand guard in the front room and was not with them, but understood that the purpose of the meeting was to receive this revelation." One wonders why, after going to all the trouble of getting him there under such hazardous circumstances to be made aware of such a revelation, he would be asked to miss the whole important event by standing guard while the meeting was in progress. Available journals show that the regular guards were at the Woolley home at the time mentioned. Surely they would have been the obvious ones chosen to stand guard.
      
      Having John W. Taylor stand guard makes neither good sense nor plausible history. If John W. Taylor were "stand[ing] guard in the front room," where was the meeting purportedly taking place? Since John Taylor's private room opened off the "front room," and if the meeting were held there, might not the door have been left open so that John W. Taylor could listen to the meeting while standing at his post?
      The 1911 trial of John W. Taylor referred to above supplies even more cause for doubt. Elder Taylor's first line of defense would logically have been to point out the fact that his father had received the revelation, and that three of those present accompanied him to the John Woolley home, where they were personally informed of the revelation by President Taylor. How does one forget such a singular event?
      Elder Taylor's defense would logically have continued with a rehearsal of all the details of the Lorin Woolley story. Most pertinent to his case would have been a description of the setting apart of a select group of men to perpetuate plural marriage independent of the Church. After all, this perpetuation was the very thing he was accused of doing, and a reminder of others especially set apart to do the same thing (some of whom were his accusers) would have been a most important part of his defense. Yet we look in vain for such an argument at his trial. Could it be that he knew of no such action?
      If Joseph F. Smith had the whole episode rehearsed to him by President Taylor prior to his death, as is alleged, why did he permit the trial and investigation to take place at all? If the trial proceeded without his sanction, why did he not step forth and vindicate John W. Taylor? Surely, if Fundamentalist claims are true, President Smith would have suppressed the whole matter to protect the workings of a higher priesthood body of which he was allegedly a member.
      In comparing Todd's account with B. Harvey Allred's version (referred to in chapter 1), more questions present themselves. Allred claimed that two apostles were present On September 26 and 27 at the time the meetings were supposedly being held. He did not name these two apostles, and a question arises as to their identity. If they were present, why did they need to return shortly (as indicated in Todd's account) to have rehearsed to them the very things they supposedly witnessed firsthand a day or two previously? Clearly, details of the various versions are hopelessly at variance with each other.

	Terminating the Practice

      As to content, the 1886 revelation merely reiterates the instructions of the original revelation of 1843 (see D&C 132); it adds nothing new to its requirements. It is similar to other revelations on plural marriage received by John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff during this same period.20 The revelation indicates the Lord as saying: "How can I revoke an everlasting covenant, for I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever.... I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting." The Lord never does revoke an eternal principle or law, but he can and has revoked the practice of a principle when it has been imprudent for his Church to continue its practice.
      The Lord apparently did not authorize the practice of plural marriage among the Nephites, but declared that the principle would be valid for that people if he commanded it:

      Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.  Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
      
      For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.21

      Francis M. Lyman stated at John W. Taylor's trial:

      Up to the issuance of the Manifesto it was never taught that it [plural marriage] would be given up, I didn't think it would for a minute, still I believed the Manifesto of President Woodruff was from the Lord. The law will stand forever, but the practice was discontinued.22

In October 1891, Joseph F. Smith gave the following testimony before the Master in Chancery:

      Q: Do you believe that God has revoked it (the practice of polygamy)(changed it as a true principle?
      A: I believe that he has suffered it to be revoked, that is so far as the practice of it is concerned.
      Q: I am speaking of the principle of plural marriage?
      A: I do not think he has revoked the principle.23

      The Lord may declare the principle or law inviolate, and may also terminate its practice when circumstances militate against it.

	Authority Not Mentioned

      There is no language in the 1886 revelation that would have altered the doctrines on eternal marriage or the authority of the sealing power or the succession of that authority. In fact, the revelation does not even mention the authority required to perform plural marriages. This was clearly expressed by Orson F. Whitney at John W. Taylor's trial:

      There is no authority as far as I can see, in that revelation, no authority given to man to exercise such authority in marrying anyone, but the question of whether they should go into the relationship was left with the individual, as in President Young's time when men were commanded to go into it.24

      Is it not strange that a revelation allegedly designed to perpetuate the practice of plural marriage would fail to mention the means of perpetuation purportedly given at the same time(that is, the pretended organization of a super priesthood presidency? The analysis made in this book suggests that the story is a presumption built up around what is at best an obscure revelation. Even if the revelation were proved authentic, that fact would offer not one iota of proof of the validity of the story that Lorin Woolley built up around it.
      
	Chapter Nine

	THE WOODRUFF MANIFESTO

      President Taylor said that the time would come when many of the Saints would apostatize because of this principle. He said, "one-half of this people will apostatize over the principle for which we are now in hiding, yea, and possibly one-half of the other half" (rising off the floor while making the statement). He also said the day will come when a document similar to that (Manifesto) then under consideration would be adopted by the Church, following which "apostacy and whoredom would be rampant in the Church."

      The word apostatize means to forsake one's faith, religion, party, or principles. In order for apostasy to "be rampant in the Church," as indicated above, the whole Church would have to be converted to plural marriage and then most members would have to forsake their convictions. Even at the peak of plural marriage in the Church, not more than 2 percent of Latter-day Saint families were polygamous. President Taylor gave the following statistics in 1885, when polygamy was advocated most strenuously:

      The male members of our Church who practice plural marriage are estimated as not exceeding but little, if any, two per cent, of the entire membership of the Church.
      It has been estimated that out of a community of about 200,000 people, more or less, from 10,000 to 12,000 are identified with polygamy.1

      With not more than 2 percent of Latter-day Saint families polygamous in 1886 (or about 5 to 6 percent of the total Church membership), how would it be possible for 75 percent of the Church to apostatize over this principle following the Woodruff Manifesto of 1890? If this prediction of apostasy is supposed to refer to those who would support a manifesto terminating plural marriage in the Church, then it should have said that all of the Saints would apostatize, because virtually all Church members supported the Manifesto of 1890. According to the report of the general conference where the Manifesto was presented to the Church members, there were no hands raised in opposition to the announcement of the policy terminating the practice of polygamy.2
      The allegation that "whoredom would be rampant in the Church" following the Woodruff Manifesto is equally absurd. The cessation of plural marriage would have had no such effect on the 95 percent majority, and since the polygamous 5 percent were required to be of the highest moral character in order to be deemed worthy to enter the principle, Lorin Woolley must mean that these men would become immoral.
      
      Obviously the Woodruff Manifesto would not and did not have such dire results. If the continuance of plural marriage were the only way to control whoredom in the Church, then the principle would involve nothing better than physical gratification. This is poor tribute to pay devout Latter-day Saint families who have heeded the counsel of the Lord's prophet following President Taylor.

	A Political Expedient?

      Since plural marriage is the basic issue of Fundamentalist doctrine, one should not be surprised to find considerable speculation and misinformation on their part about the Woodruff Manifesto, the document that terminated plural marriage in the Church. Fundamentalists claim that the Manifesto was not a revelation from the Lord but was strictly a political expedient to enable Utah to gain statehood, so they excuse President Woodruff for issuing it.

      The issuance of the Manifesto came in response to the demands of the people; President Woodruff signed it under a permissive grant. That he did not subscribe to it in spirit was well known by his intimates at the time. He did what he said he "felt inspired" to do; he doubtless did the best he knew how under the circumstances. But all the childish babble and prattle about the Manifesto being a revelation from God and putting an end to the practice of the patriarchal order of marriage [polygamy] is pure buncombe.3

      In trying to absolve President Woodruff of responsibility in issuing the Manifesto, the Fundamentalists claim that he did not believe for one moment previous to the presentation of that manifesto that the people would vote for its approval... [and that] he made the statement before entering the conference session of that day, "the Saints will never approve of it." President Wilford Wood ruff is reported to have grieved and felt more distressed... than any other being not possessing the knowledge he had been given could have felt.4

      Fundamentalists claim the same thing about President Wood ruff's counselors. Joseph Musser reported that Lorin Woolley said on August 7, 1932:

      When the Manifesto was agreed to, Pres. Smith contended that the Saints would not accept it, and when they did at the succeeding conference, voting practically unanimously for it, it was a revelation and a shock to him as he had no idea that the Saints would sustain it. Bro. W.[oolley] refused to vote for it at conference.5

	Authorship Attributed to Unbelievers

      Fundamentalists claim that President Woodruff did not author the Manifesto, but that he merely signed a document that was authored by others in a spirit of desperation. They assign authorship to hostile nonmembers and dissident members, making the Saints appear stupid and blind in accepting it. Joseph Musser wrote:


      President Woodruff did not write the Manifesto. It was written by Charles W. Penrose, with the assistance of Frank J. Cannon and John White. After being prepared, it was submitted to a committee of non-Mormon federal officials, among them Judges Charles S. Zane, C. S. Varian, O. W. Powers, and others. A change in the alleged facts set forth was insisted upon by these parties, the document recopied by a Mr. Green, a non-Mormon federal clerk, when it was returned to President Woodruff and received his signature.6

      The original long version of the 1929 Lorin Woolley story (published in 1931) elaborated on the above statement:

      After this the agitation continued. The Twelve finally held a meeting and we [7] were discussing the situation when it was finally suggested that the editor of the Deseret News, Charles W. Penrose, be asked to write a suitable document, For, said George Q. Cannon, "He can write and say more and mean less than any man in the Church." Brother Penrose got up one which was not satisfactory. Frank J. Cannon was then appointed to assist him. They too, failed and asked to be assisted by John H. White, the butcher, which was granted by the First Presidency.
      After being prepared, a committee was appointed, consisting of George Q. Cannon, Francis M. Lyman, Erastus Snow [8] and Moses Thatcher, to present the manifesto to certain non-Mormon federal officials for their approval, among them Judge C. S. Zane and Judge Dixon, O. W. Powers and C. S. Varean, both groups being accompanied by body guards. (Daniel R. Bateman and Samuel Sedden being the guards of the brethren.) The meeting was in the office at the federal offices in the buildings now [1931] occupied by the Kenyon Hotel, Second South and Main. These men insisted upon a change in the text, adding to the statement, "I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages having during that time period been solemnized in our temples or in any other place, in the territory," the statement that "one case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, etc." as witnesses were then in the adjoining room who could testify to the fact. The docu ment was then rewritten by Mr. Green, a court clerk, and non-Mormon and was presented and accepted by the church in that form.9
      
      Joseph Musser and J. Leslie Broadbent wrote in 1934:

      Other men have testified that President Penrose told them that he wrote the Manifesto. It is certain that Pat Lannen, Bartch, Zane and others of the Gentile op position had something to do with making slight changes in the wording. Frank J. Cannon, who wanted to bind the Church to the Manifesto, called it a "triple plated revelation."10

One of the "other men" to whom Joseph Musser refers is Thomas J. Rosser. He gave the following statement, which has been referred to by numerous Fundamentalists:

      The following is a true and correct statement of an occurrence that transpired in Bristol, England,... [at] a conference, which was held Sunday, May 24, 1908. On Monday morning, the 25th, our Conference Priesthood Meeting was held, which lasted four hours and a half. After the preliminary exercises, President Charles W. Penrose asked if any of the brethren had any questions... . "President Penrose," I said, "I have heard much discussion on the Principle of Plural Marriage, some saying that it is withdrawn from the earth and that the Manifesto was a revelation from God. Dear President, what about this. . . ?"
      President Penrose then rose to his feet, scratched the side of his head with his right hand for a moment or so, then stretched out his right hand toward us and said: "Brethren, I will answer that question, if you will keep it under your hats. I, Charles W. Penrose, wrote the Manifesto with the assistance of Frank J. Cannon and John White. It's no revelation from God, for I wrote it. Wilford Woodruff signed it to beat the Devil at his own game. [11] Brethren, how can God withdraw an everlasting Principle from the earth? He has not, and can not, and I testify to you as a servant of God that this is true."12

	Issuance of the Manifesto

      Let us examine the record and compare these Fundamentalist traditions with the firsthand testimony of those directly involved. Describing what happened, President Woodruff testified:

      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.13

      In his journal for September 25, 1890, President Woodruff wrote:


      After praying to the Lord and feeling inspired I have issued the following declaration (the Manifesto) which is sustained by my counselors and the Twelve Apostles.14

      George Reynolds testified at the Smoot Hearings in Washington, D. C., in 1906 that he and two others (Charles Penrose and John R. Winder) edited the Woodruff Manifesto for publication after it was written:

      Mr. Worthington: You said something about helping to write the Manifesto. Will you explain that?
      Mr. Reynolds: President Woodruff wrote it in his own hand(and he was a very poor writer, worse, I believe, than Horace Greeley(and he gave it into the hands of three of the elders to prepare it for the press. I was one of those three.
      Mr. Worthington. Who were the three?
      Mr. Reynolds: C. W. Penrose, John R. Winder, and myself.
      Mr. Worthington: What did you do? You said you helped to write the manifesto, and I want to have an understanding of what you mean by that.
      Mr. Reynolds: The answer came from the fact of the question coming to me whether I had read it and under stood it, and I answered that I had assisted in writing it.
      Mr. Worthington: Did you three, then, transcribe these notes of President Woodruff, or did you rewrite it, or what?
      Mr. Reynolds: We transcribed the notes and changed the language slightly to adapt it for publication....
      The Chairman: And when it was handed to you it was an inspiration, as you understand, from on high, was it not?
      Mr. Reynolds: Yes.15

	Frank J. Cannon Rebuttal

      In a book which he published in 1911, Senator Frank J. Cannon made a public rejoinder to claims that he had written the Woodruff Manifesto, especially claims made by Lorin Woolley. Senator Can non wrote of being invited to confer with President Woodruff prior to the publication of the Manifesto:

      I hastened to Salt Lake City, to the offices of the Presidency. President Woodruff took me into a private room and read me his "Manifesto."
      It was the same that was issued on September 24, 1890, and ratified by a General Conference of the Mormon Church on October 6, following. ... Here, shaking in the hand of age, was a sheet of paper by which the future of a half million people was to be directed; and that simple old man was to speak through it, to them, with the awful authority of the voice of God.
      
      He told me he had written it himself, and it certainly appeared to me to be in his hand-writing. Its authorship has since been variously attributed. Some of the present-day polygamists say that it was I who wrote it. Chas. W. Penrose and George Reynolds have claimed that they edited it.
      I found it disappointingly mild. It denied that the Church had been solemnizing any plural marriages of late, and advised the faithful "to refrain from contracting any marriages forbidden by the law of the land."16

      Cannon then proceeded to give his views as to who he thought might have aided President Woodruff in preparing the Manifesto:

      I was convinced also by several of his remarks, that he had consulted with the Church's attorney, Mr. Franklin S. Richards.17

      Thus it is clear that, Lorin Woolley's claims notwithstanding, Frank J. Cannon had nothing to do with writing or editing the Manifesto shown to him, which was later published and approved by the general conference of the Church.

	Question of Joseph F. Smith Opposition

      Fundamentalists have claimed that Joseph F. Smith opposed the Manifesto and that he chided President Woodruff for his action. Joseph Musser wrote:

      "My God! what have I done," President Woodruff is reported to have said, after placing his signature to the Manifesto. And one of his counselors [Joseph F. Smith] answered, "You have signed a covenant with death and an agreement with hell, that's what you have done."18
In the councils of the Church President Smith was opposed to the issuance of the Manifesto of 1890 abolishing plural marriage. His signature was not attached to the Manifesto; and, as we are informed, he absented himself from the October Conference of 1890 to avoid voting on the document. Not favoring it he did not wish to embarrass his brethren by voting against it.19

      George Q. Cannon gave the reason why he and Joseph F. Smith did not sign the Manifesto:


      There is only one man at a time on the earth who holds the keys of sealing, and that man is the president of the church [D&C 132:7], now Wilford Woodruff. There fore, he signed that document himself. Some have wondered and said, "Why didn't his counselors sign? Why didn't others sign?" Well, I give you the reason(because he is the only man on earth that has this right, and he exercised it, and he did this with the approval of all of us to whom the matter was submitted.20

President Smith did approve of the Woodruff Manifesto, as noted by all authentic accounts. Frank J. Cannon, who attended the meeting where the Manifesto was presented in the presiding coun cils, later wrote:

      Joseph F. Smith was one of the last to speak. With a face like wax, his hands outstretched, in an intensity of passion that seemed as if it must sweep the assembly, he declared that he had covenanted, at the altar of God's house, in the presence of his Father, to cherish the wives and children whom the Lord had given him. They were more to him than life. They were dearer to him than happiness. He would rather choose to stand, with them, alone ( persecuted -- proscribed -- outlawed -- to wait until God in His anger should break the nation with His avenging stroke. But --
      He dropped his arms. He seemed to shrink in his commanding stature like a man stricken with a paralysis of despair. The tears came to the pained constriction of his eyelids.
      "I have never disobeyed a revelation from God," he said. "I cannot -- I dare not -- now."
      He announced with his head up, though his body swayed -- that he would accept and abide by the revela tion. When he sank in his chair and covered his face with his hands, there was a gasp of sympathy and relief, as if we had been hearing the pain of a man in agony.
      I saw it(and I looked at Smith and loved him for it. I knew then, as I know now, that he and those others were at this moment sincere. I knew that they had relinquished what was more dear to them than the breath of life. I knew the appalling significance, to them, of the promise which they were making to the nation.21

      To continue a statement of President Woodruff cited above:

      I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. I laid it before my brethren -- such strong men as Brother George Q. Cannon, Brother Joseph F. Smith, and the Twelve Apostles. I might as well undertake to turn an army with banners out of its course as to turn them out of a course that they considered to be right. These men agreed with me, and ten thousand Latter-day Saints also agreed with me. Why? Because they were moved upon by the Spirit of God and by the revelations of Jesus Christ to do it.22

      Later we find Joseph F. Smith himself issuing what has since been called "The Second Manifesto" at April General Conference in 1904.23 With such unequivocal evidence before us, does it seem likely that Joseph Musser's above-cited statements concerning the Woodruff Manifesto represent the truth?


	Later Fundamentalist "Manifesto"

      For all the scorn and ridicule Fundamentalists leaders have heaped upon Wilford Woodruff for allegedly giving in to gov ernmental pressure over the plural marriage issue, when they them selves were incarcerated for the same reason in 1945 they did not hesitate to repudiate their beliefs by submitting a written pledge to the government in order to escape further confinement. After serving only four months of their sentences, a group of Fundamentalists issued the following statement to qualify for parole:

      To whom it may concern:
      The undersigned officers and members of the so- called Fundamentalist religious group do hereby declare as follows:
      That we individually and severally pledge ourselves to refrain hereafter from advocating, teaching, or countenancing the practice of plural marriage or polygamy, in violation of the laws of the State of Utah and of the United States.
      The undersigned officers of the religious group above referred to further pledge ourselves to refrain from solemnizing plural marriages from and after this date contrary to the laws of the land.

(signed)

John Y. Barlow*	I. W. Barlow
J. W. Musser*	Albert E. Barlow
A. A. Timpson	R. C. Allred*
Edmund F. Barlow	Joseph Lyman Jessop
Oswald Brainich	David B. Darger24

      Dated at Salt Lake City, Utah, this 24th day of September, 1945. Subscribed and sworn by me the day and year above written. George H. Carman, Notary.25

      Joseph Musser then published the following clarification of this statement:
      The statement binds the signers to hereafter refrain from teaching the practice of plural marriage, or polygamy, entering into the principle themselves, or sol emnizing such marriages, contrary to the laws of the land. It is the sincere intention of the parties involved to adjust and conform their lives and marital conduct, to both the letter and spirit of this pledge. .. . the parolees involved must bide their time in patience until a public sentiment can be aroused to place legislation on the statute books allowing all men the privilege of worshipping Almighty God as their consciences shall dictate . . .26


      The subsequent course of the Fundamentalists involved indicates that they did not keep this pledge for long, if at all. Their later actions raise the real question as to whether or not they intended to keep it in the first place. Polygamous marriages have multiplied, and Fundamentalism has diversified and expanded on all fronts since this "manifesto." So the sin of "perjury" is added to the Fundamentalist record. Only five years prior to issuance of the Fundamentalist "manifesto" Joseph Musser had approvingly published the following statement:

Better the Penitentiary for faithfulness in this world, than the Prison-house for perjury in the next.27

	A Doctrinal Paradox

      The Fundamentalist manifesto of 1945 produces a doctrinal paradox. The five men claimed to have been set apart in 1886 are alleged to have formed the basis of a seven-man council that comprises the "Presidency of the Priesthood.(28 To the Fundamentalists, those who approved the Woodruff Manifesto in 1890 lost their priesthood office, and it fell upon the five who were especially set apart to keep the principle of plural marriage alive.

      Those who agreed to the Manifesto automatically forfeited their former seniority, as upon previous occasions others had done and those chosen by President Taylor at Centerville became Senior and the lawful administrators of the fulness of the ordinances, holding the keys to bind or loose on earth and in heaven.29

      In setting the five men apart and ordaining them to the Priesthood Presidency of Seven, John W. Woolley was first given that high calling, coming next to Wilford Woodruff in order of ordination; so that the keys to Priesthood passed in natural order from Wilford Wood ruff to John W. Woolley.30

      Thus the paradox becomes apparent. If President Woodruff forfeited the keys of the priesthood, as claimed, because he signed the Manifesto in 1890, what shall be said of the ten Fundamentalist leaders who issued a like manifesto in 1945? Following the rules of consistency, did they not also forfeit their supposed priesthood office and standing(or are they playing the game by a different set of rules?
      
      But the paradox goes even further. President Woodruff's Manifesto was issued under duress, not to save himself from personal confinement but to save the Church from utter ruin(to preserve and keep inviolate the temples, to provide for the continuance of the preaching of the gospel to the living and to preserve ordinance work for the dead, and to save thousands of men and women from the ordeal of prison walls. But what of this small group of Fundamentalist leaders? What did their "manifesto" accomplish? Why was it issued and under what conditions?
      Certainly there is no public claim by these men that they "wrote what the Lord told them to write." The Fundamentalist "manifesto" was voluntarily issued to spare the authors from personal confinement only, and it allowed them to return to their former circumstances, only to break every promise they had made. In fact, these later Fundamentalist leaders weren't nearly as devout as were the polygamists of the 1880-1890 period, because the late Fundamentalists were not threatened with confiscation of Church property and disfranchisement as were the polygamists of the earlier period.
      Fundamentalists have justified their "manifesto" by citing Joseph Musser's ill health while he was in prison:

      While in prison brother Joseph suffered an attack, which was perhaps the fore-runner to his final illness. Being completely exhausted from years of work among the people; also having been the leading figure in the long legal battle, plus discomforts of the State Penitentiary, all worked together against his health.31

      How does this justification compare with the alleged behavior of John Taylor(who was suffering the "discomforts" of being a fugitive on the underground(when he was asked about issuing a manifesto in 1886?

      Sign that document, --Never! I would suffer my right hand to be severed from my body first. Sanction it,--never! I would suffer my tongue to be torn from its roots in my mouth before I would sanction it!32

      For all their criticism of the Church, Fundamentalist leaders are guilty of more than the "sins" they ascribe to President Woodruff and the members of the Church. If the Woodruff Manifesto is a mark of apostasy of the Church, the 1945 Fundamentalist manifesto must be much the more a mark of apostasy of the Fundamentalist movement. In addition, all their misrepresentations of President Woodruff's Manifesto further condemn them and their followers.

	Chapter Ten

	JOSEPH SMITH RESURRECTED?

      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.

      Joseph Musser reported the following additional information relating to the Prophet's role in the proceedings:

      Instructions to the five: "You will have the weight of this world upon you and one of you will have to stand alone." Joseph Smith laid his hands upon their heads while John Taylor set them apart, or acted as mouth.1

      This physical contact implies that Joseph Smith was a resurrected being in 1886.2 There is some confusion in Fundamentalist circles, however, concerning exactly when the alleged resurrection took place.

	Joseph and Hyrum Brought to Utah?

      There seems to have been a rumor circulating among some of the early Saints that Brigham Young brought the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum Smith to the Salt Lake Valley by wagon and buried them on Temple Square. Fundamentalists have believed and circulated this rumor. Charles W. Kingston, a contemporary of Lorin Woolley, gave the following testimony on this subject:

      Lorin Woolley said that the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum Smith were dug up, put in new caskets, and brought to the Salt Lake Valley at a very early date. Lorin further stated that the bodies were buried in the Salt Lake temple grounds.3

The following account is taken from the journal of Fundamentalist Robert Shrewsberry:

      Patriarch Harrison Sperry (died abt. 1928 at age of almost 99) told Bro. Worth Kilgrow (told the story to him three times) that B[righam] Y[oung], H. C. Kimball and Bro. Wilcox (Amanda H. Wilcox's husband) went back to the Mansion House at Nauvoo (Joseph's home) in 1848 and dug up the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum and brought them to Salt Lake in a sealed wagon.
      
When they arrived late in the fall of 1848 they opened up the wagon. He, Bro. Sperry, saw the bodies, with a few other trusted ones, lying in their caskets, side by side. He said they looked very natural, almost as tho asleep. He was about fifteen yrs. old at the time. He told this story a year or two before he died. . . . Dictated to me by Bro. W. Kilgrow in Jan. l939.4

      Let us investigate the validity of this claim.

      Brigham Young's journal for 1848 does not report his making a trip back to Nauvoo. He spent the early summer of 1848 at Winter Quarters prior to returning to Salt Lake City. Further, the Prophet Joseph Smith instructed Brigham Young, and perhaps others, concerning where he wished to be buried and thus to rise from in the resurrection:

      While Joseph was alive he said, "If I am slain in battle or fall by the hands of my enemies I want my body brought to Nauvoo and laid in the tomb I have prepared."5
We are determined also to use every means in our power to do all that Joseph told us. And we will petition Sister Emma in the name of Israel's God, to let us deposit the remains of Joseph according as he commanded us. And if she will not consent to it, our garments are clear. Then when he awakes in the morning of the resurrection, he will talk with them, not with me; the sin shall be upon her head, not ours.6

      In a letter written in 1904 to Bishop David McKay of Huntsville, President Joseph F. Smith confirmed the fulfillment of the Prophet's request:

      The story about the bodies of the Prophets Joseph and Hyrum Smith having been brought to this country by the pioneers is a fallacy; they were buried in Nauvoo, and their resting place remains undisturbed.7

	Joseph Smith Resurrected by 1846-47?
	
      John Musser differs in belief with the rank and file of Fundamentalism. He reported:

      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.8


      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."9
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."10

      If Lorin Woolley had read the Journal of Discourses he would have found that Brigham Young repudiated the idea of Joseph and Hyrum being resurrected at the time the first pioneers crossed the plains. On March 15, 1857, some ten years after the Saints' arrival in the Salt Lake Valley, Brigham Young stated:

      Joseph is not resurrected; and if you will visit the graves you will find the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum yet in their resting place. Do not be mistaken about that; they will be resurrected in due time.
      Jesus had a work to do on the earth. He performed his mission, and then was slain for his testimony. So it has been with every man who has been fore-ordained to perform certain important missions. Joseph truly said, "No power can take away my life, until my work is done." All the powers of earth and hell could not take his life, until he had completed the work the Father gave him to do; until that was done, he had to live. When he died he had a mission in the spirit world, as much so as Jesus had... . there is an almighty work to perform in the spirit world,. . . he will be resurrected, but he has not yet done there.... As quick as Joseph finishes his mission in the spirit world, he will be resurrected....
When Jesus was resurrected they found the linen, but the body was not there. When Joseph is resurrected, you may find the linen that enshrouded his body, but you will not find his body in the grave, no more than the disciples found the body of Jesus when they looked where it was lain.11

      These remarks of Brigham Young should forever dispel the idea that Joseph Smith was a resurrected being when the Saints crossed the plains. In order to preserve his belief in Lorin Woolley and Daniel Bateman, however, Joseph Musser was forced to brand Brigham Young as a public deceiver because he gave the above-cited discourse negating the rumor of Joseph's resurrection.


      John Taylor left this testimony that the Prophet Joseph Smith guided Brigham Young across the plains as a resurrected being. His remains were not brought here in a wagon and buried under the tabernacle. Pres. Young's statement in 1854 (sic), stating that Joseph Smith was not yet resurrected, was apparently given to mislead the people.12

	Early Leaders' Testimony

      None of the presiding authorities of the Church have ever taught that the Prophet Joseph Smith has been resurrected. Wilford Woodruff stated in 1880 that Joseph Smith was then in the spirit world, but had advanced in station there from others who had since followed him:

      I have had many interviews with Brother Joseph until the last 15 or 20 years of my life; I have not seen him for that length of time. But during my travels in the southern country last winter I had many interviews with President Young, and with Heber C. Kimball, and Geo. A. Smith, and Jedediah M. Grant, and many others who are dead. . . . the thought came to me that Brother Joseph had left the work of watching over this church and kingdom to others, and that he had gone ahead, and that he had left this work to men who have lived and labored with us since he left us. This idea manifested itself to me, that such men advance in the spirit world.13

Erastus Snow taught in 1884 that neither Joseph, Hyrum, nor any other member of this dispensation had yet been resurrected(that it was an event then future:

      The Prophet Joseph Smith shall come unto us again. He has merely taken another mission in advance of us. He fulfilled the mission given unto him on earth. The Lord was satisfied with his labors here. He lived long enough to endow his brethren with full authority to carry on the work that he had begun on the earth. He took his departure behind the veil. . . . The time is drawing near (much nearer than scarcely any of us can now comprehend) when Joseph will be clothed upon with im mortality, when his brother Hyrum will be clothed upon with immortality, when the martyrs will be raised from the dead, together with their faithful brethren who have performed a good mission in the spirit world(they, too, will be called to assist in the work of the glorious resurrection.14

      President Joseph F. Smith taught in 1910 that the Prophet was not then resurrected. He concurs with the doctrine taught on this point by Brigham Young and Erastus Snow, teachings that are cited above.


      This gospel revealed to the Prophet Joseph is al ready 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.15

	Joseph and Hyrum Exhumed

That Joseph and Hyrum were not resurrected in 1886 may be further borne out by the fact that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints exhumed their bodies in 1928. Samuel O. Bennion, then President of the East Central States Mission, with three others, upon hearing about the exhumation, drove from In dependence to Nauvoo, and they arrived just after the bodies had been disinterred. He wrote in a report to President Heber J. Grant:

      Fred(rick) M. (Smith, President of the Reorganized Church) took me upstairs where they were photographing and taking measurements of the skulls of Joseph and Hyrum. I could hardly keep the tears back when I saw these men handling these skulls like they were just common ordinary skulls and I said to Fred M. Why don't you let the bodies of these men rest where they were, it seemed a terrible thing to disturb their graves. He answered me, by saying that he wanted to find out if the graves of these men were down by what was called the Spring House and rather evasively avoided my question, but told me that he did not know exactly where they were buried and he wanted to find out. It is my impression brethren that he had heard reports that Brigham Young took the bodies ofJoseph and Hyrum to Utah and that he wanted to prove it untrue. He did not mention that but in an indirect way he did. I said to him "Didn't your father tell you where these bodies were laid?" And he answered "Yes." I told him his father had told me where they were and that I was convinced that they were there close to the foot of Emma Smith's grave.
      The lowerjaw of Hyrum Smith isjust as near like the pictures of Hyrum as it could be. His jaw was very large and was quite square especially at the chin compared with Joseph's. Joseph's jaw was more pointed, but Hyrum's was a little more square all around than Joseph's. These men must have been big because their lower jaws were extra large and strong.
      The bullet that killed Hyrum entered into his face near the lower part of his nose on the right side and broke his upper jaw just above the teeth. The break shows very distinctly where the bullet entered the face, because the bone was broken and the bullet went in an upward direc tion right under the eye and came out on the other side of his head,just a little above his ear and toward the front.16


      If Joseph's and Hyrum's bodies were exhumed in 1928, we may logically assume that they had not previously been resurrected. We may confidently conclude with Brigham Young: "When Joseph is resurrected, you may find the linen that enshrouded his body, but you will not find his body in the grave.". .17
All the evidence points to the fact that the Prophet is still laboring in the spirit world. If Joseph Smith was laboring in the spirit world in 1910, and if his body was exhumed in 1928, he certainly was not a resurrected being in 1886; therefore, he could not possibly have appeared and participated in an ordinance by laying his hands on someone's head, and he could not have shaken hands with Lorin Woolley and Charles Wilcken at the conclusion. This is another facet of the Woolley account that does not ring true and that does not correspond with the facts of history.

	Chapter Eleven

	THE KEYS OF AUTHORITY

      After the meeting referred to, President Taylor. . . called five of us to get her: Samuel Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, George Q. Cannon, John W. Woolley, and myself. He then set us apart and placed us under covenant that while we lived we would see to it that no year passed by without children being born in the principle of plural marriage. We were given authority to ordain others if necessary. . . under the direction of the worthy senior (by ordination), so that there should be no cessation in the work.

	"One Man at a Time"

      The claim that President John Taylor irrevocably set five men apart to hold the keys of the sealing power is contrary to the revealed word of the Lord and to the principles of succession of the sealing power of the priesthood. The Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that only one man on the earth at a time, the President of the Church, holds the right to direct the exercise of the sealing power.

      Joseph Smith, in his day, held this office. Consider the following revelation given to the Prophet regarding this power:

      All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrec tion from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.
      Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion. Will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?1

      Marriages performed without the sanction of the one holding the sealing keys were not to be binding in eternity; "plural marriages" performed without this sanction were considered to be adultery. There were those in the Prophet Joseph Smith's day who took plural wives without his sanction and were excommunicated for their misdeeds. Oliver Cowdery, the Prophet's bosom friend and the co-holder of all the keys of the priesthood, including the keys of sealing restored by Elijah, was guilty of overstepping this restriction of authority.


      Oliver Cowdery was present when the original revelation on plural marriage was given on July 17, 1831.2 Desiring to enter the practice of polygamy about 1836, he "married" a plural wife without the Prophet's sanction. Later, in referring to this circumstance, Brigham Young, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith indicated that it was a transgression, even a grievous sin.3 Clearly, Joseph

      Smith viewed it in the same light.4 Yet there is evidence that during the same period Joseph Smith himself had married a plural wife.5

      Oliver Cowdery, like so many Fundamentalists, assumed that if the Lord had given a revelation authorizing men to marry more than one wife, then he could take additional wives without official sanction. But he, like the Fundamentalists, was wrong, and he was subsequently excommunicated after charging the Prophet with the same offense of which he himself was guilty: adultery.6

      Joseph Smith, speaking on the subject of plural marriage and the authority to perform plural sealings, said on October 5, 1843:

      Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plural ity of wives; for, according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise.7

      This right was carefully and zealously controlled by the one holding the keys. Once Joseph's brother Hyrum, the Patriarch to the Church, performed a sealing ordinance without the Prophet's direction or sanction. Brigham Young wrote of this to William Smith, Hyrum's successor as Patriarch:


      Hyrum held the Patriarchal office legitimately, so do you. Hyrum was counsellor, so are you. But the sealing power was not in Hyrum legitimately, neither did he act on the sealing principle only as he was dictated by Joseph in every case. This was proven for Hyrum did in one case undertake to seal without counsel and Joseph told him if he did not stop it he would go to Hell and all those he sealed with him.8

      Such is the declared fate of all who either perform or enter "plural marriages" not sanctioned by the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In fact, culpability did not rest alone with practicing plural marriage without the President's sanction, but extended to merely advocating it without such sanction. Note the fate of one elder so convicted, as found in the February 1, 1844, issue of the Times and Seasons:

      As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, State of Michigan.
      This is to notify him and the Church in general, that he has been cut off from the church, for his iniquity; and he is further notified to appear at the Special Conference, on the 6th of April next, to make answer to these charges.

      Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Presidents of said Church.9

	Sealing Keys and Succession

      Let us now review succession as it relates to the office that holds jurisdiction over the sealing prerogative. Brigham Young stated the following shortly after the Prophet's death:

      Joseph said that the sealing power is always vested in one man, and that there never was, nor never would be, but one man on the earth at a time to hold the keys of the sealing power in the Church. That all sealings must be performed by the man holding the keys, or by his dictation, and that man is the President of the Church.10

      Before Joseph Smith's martyrdom, this authority was given to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and Brigham Young, being the senior apostle, received the keys of the sealing power as successor to Joseph Smith. Parley P. Pratt wrote of this vesting of the keys of the sealing power shortly before the martyrdom:

      He [Joseph Smith] proceeded to confer on Elder Young, the President of the Twelve, the keys of the sealing power, as conferred in the last days by the Spirit and Power of Elijah, in order to seal the hearts of fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse.
      
      This last key of the Priesthood is the most sacred of all, and pertains exclusively to the First Presidency of the Church, without whose sanction and approval or authority, no sealing blessing shall be administered pertaining to things of the resurrection and the life to come.11

      Wilford Woodruff clarified the vesting of the keys of the priesthood with the Quorum of the Twelve in 1844, by explaining a statement made by Joseph Smith:

      ". . . Now the keys of the kingdom are planted on the earth to be taken away no more for ever." But until he [Joseph Smith] had done this, they remained with him; and had he been taken away they would have had to be restored by messengers out of heaven. But he lived until every key, power and principle of the holy Priesthood was sealed on the Twelve and on President Young, as their President.12

      John Taylor, speaking of this vesting of the keys, explained that once given they then became inherent in the apostleship:

      He [Joseph Smith] afterwards conferred them upon the Twelve Apostles and others, who when they were ordained received them as part of their ministry and priesthood, to prepare them for the work that was to be done.13

      Brigham Young exercised the sealing keys with universal presiding control as did Joseph Smith before him. Those who either attempted to perform or enter plural marriages without Brigham Young's sanction were disciplined. A member of the First Council of Seventy was dropped from his position by President Brigham Young because "he transcended the bounds of the Priesthood in the ordinance of sealing.14
      
The Lord stated that the powers of the priesthood must be exercised according to the principles of revelation.15 Thus the President of the Church has the right to withdraw sealing privileges(as well as to extend them -- as directed through revelation. Brigham Young began diminishing the practice of plural marriage toward the end of his presidency; in 1876 he closed the Endowment House, an act that tended to decrease the number of new plural marriages.16 Later President Young counseled Church leaders to have only one wife. John Henry Smith bore testimony to that fact in 1900, following the Woodruff Manifesto of September 24, 1890, when he said: "President Young once proposed that we marry but one wife."17 In addition, Brigham Young had indicated earlier that the practice of polygamy was not always essential to exaltation. At a public meeting in Grantsville, Utah, Wilford Woodruff reported:

      President Young spoke 58 minutes. He said a man may embrace the law of celestial marriage in his heart and not take the second wife and be justified before the Lord.18

      After the death of Brigham Young the keys of the sealing power passed to the next President of the Quorum of the Twelve, John Taylor. Elder George Q. Cannon said at that time:

      At Joseph's death, there was only one man who could exercise that authority and hold these keys, and that man was President Brigham Young, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve. . . Now that he has gone, one man only can hold this power and authority to which I refer, and that man is he whom you sustained yesterday [October 7, 1877], as President of the Quorum of the Twelve, as one of the Twelve Apostles and of the Presidency, John Taylor by name.19

      Thus, as pointed out, the keys of the sealing power devolved upon the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a matter of course. On this same occasion, Orson Pratt said:

      We have been taught, ever since the Twelve were chosen, that they held all the power of the Melchizedec Priesthood, all the power of the Apostleship that could be conferred upon mortal man.20

      Hence John Taylor stepped forward to exercise the keys of sealing authority as President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and later as President of the Church.

	Church and Priesthood

      Fundamentalists allege that their authority to continue the present practice of plural marriage stems from the presidency of John Taylor (1880-87). In order to claim the keys of sealing ordinances that would allow them to perform plural marriages outside the authority of the Church President, Fundamentalists, of necessity, had to separate the priesthood from the Church and claim the priesthood for themselves. They argue:

      Can the Priesthood function out of the Church? And is there a Priesthood organization possessing powers above those of the Church organization?
      The answer to both questions must be yes.
      
Let us ask by what authority the Church was organized? Did the Church set up the Priesthood, or did the Priesthood organize the Church? Certainly the organizing power is greater than that which is organized. The builder of a house is greater than the house. The Priest hood may organize and disorganize at the will of God, and the Church is one of its creatures.21

      Fundamentalists next postulate a presidency over each body -- a presidency of the priesthood and a presidency of the Church -- each being separate and distinct offices with separate jurisdictions of authority. They then claim that both offices were held conjointly in the early days of the Restoration, but that after the discontinuance of plural marriage by the Church in 1890 the keys of the priesthood were forfeited by succeeding Presidents of the Church. Those keys, Fundamentalists say, descended instead through Fundamentalist channels:

Unfortunately a strong tradition has grown up among the Saints, placing the Church as the highest organization -- the ultimate in power and authority in the earth. Under this tradition the President of the Church in all instances is presumed also to be the President of Priesthood, thus automatically becoming God's mouthpiece on earth. But this claim is unsound and in the light of facts and scripture cannot be maintained. The claim has doubtless resulted from the fact that Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff, who in their respective days each became the President of Priesthood by reason of his seniority in the higher order of the Priest hood with which he was endowed under the hands of Joseph Smith, also in his turn becoming President of the Church. It is true these brethren each held a dual position, but the one was ever subordinate to the other -- the priesthood ruled. Since the day of Wilford Woodruff the dual positions have not been held, the President of Priesthood being separate and apart from the President of the Church.22

      There is not a single "fact" or "scripture" that can be produced that specifies the existence of a priesthood presidency that rules and presides over the Presidency of the Church. The best evidence Musser could assemble is a series of inferences and assumptions. After trying his best to explain and clarify this doctrine with a mass of unrelated and misapplied quotations from the scriptures and from Church records Joseph Musser concludes with this statement:

      These incidents all tend to show that behind the scenes independent of the Church -- there was a power little understood then [during Joseph Smith's day], and perhaps by the masses who depend upon others to do their thinking, no better understood to this day, and which is the governing power of heaven, and from which the Church must receive its life and being -- the power of the Holy Priesthood.23

      In an earlier work clarifying this doctrine Musser is forced to confess his lack of "facts" and "scripture":


      It might be asked why the functions of this order of the Priesthood were not made clearer in the revelations recorded in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, in order that all Saints should understand them alike. And the answer might be made. . . that not all the revelations of God to His Priesthood are recorded in the book of Doc trine and Covenants. . . the reason why this Priesthood matter was not made clear to the Saints was that the Saints were not prepared to receive the truth.24

      Thus Musser admits that "facts" and "scriptures" do not exist. And little wonder: there is a different order and doctrine revealed in the revelations and history of the Church the doctrine that the President of the Church holds the keys of the priesthood by virtue of his office.
      The great revelations on priesthood recorded in Sections 2O, 68, 84, 107, and 124 of the Doctrine and Covenants all reveal this fact. After discussing the power and authority of the two main divisions of the priesthood, the Lord revealed:

      Of necessity there are presidents, or presiding officers growing out of. . . or from among those who are ordained to the several offices in these two priesthoods.
      Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.25

Speaking about the office of President of the Church, the Lord clarified:

      Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church;
Or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church....
And again, the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses -- Behold, here is wisdom; yea, to be a seer, a revelator,
a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church.26


      When the Church was organized in 1830, the only office of the priesthood that existed was that of elder, so Joseph Smith was designated as "the First Elder of this Church."27 "The First Elder of this Church," then, was the presiding office of the newly organized Church. After the office of high priest (referred to as the "office of the High Priesthood") was instituted in June 1831,28 the office of "First Elder of this Church" was superseded by the office of "President of the High Priesthood of the Church" or, more simply stated, "President of the Church."29 This office was an outgrowth of the priesthood which Joseph Smith received at the hands of Peter, James, and John in 1829.30 The great revelation on priesthood explained:

      The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things.31

      Orson Pratt, who was present when Joseph Smith received this office, wrote:

      At this conference [Amherst, Ohio, Jan. 25, 1832]

      the Prophet Joseph was acknowledged President of the High Priesthood, and hands were laid on him by Elder Sidney Rigdon who sealed upon his head the blessings which he had formerly received.32

      When the sealing keys were restored by the Prophet Elijah in April 1836,33 an event which expanded the use of the Meichizedek Priesthood, the office of Church Presidency (President of the High Priesthood of the Church, D&C 107:65) also included within it presidency over the sealing authority (D&C 132:7). This fulness of priesthood authority was then transmitted to the Quorum of the Twelve in 1844, as we reviewed earlier, and it became inherent within the office of apostle (D&C 107:23-24; 110:15, 30-33).
      Thus, as each President of the Quorum of the Twelve succeeded to the Presidency of the Church, he became invested with the position, and hence the authority, to exercise presidency over the sealing power, as did Joseph Smith. Brigham Young succeeded Joseph Smith as President of the Quorum of the Twelve, and John Taylor succeeded Brigham Young in a like capacity. In the same manner, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve has continued to succeed to the presidency of the priesthood to the present day.
Nowhere in the standard works or in the history of the Church is there another, or different order of priesthood presidency indicated. Thus Fundamentalism's double doctrine of priesthood presidency and Church presidency is a contrived doctrine with no basis in "fact" or "scripture."

	Early Moves Toward Termination

      Let us review the termination of plural marriage in the Church as it relates to the keys of the priesthood. The withdrawal of plural marriage began during the waning years of John Taylor's presidency. In March 1887 the Congress of the United States passed a measure commonly referred to as the Edmunds-Tucker Law. Among other things this law

  ( dissolved the Corporation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  ( made both husband and wife competent witnesses.

  ( caused forfeiture and escheatment to the federal government of all Church property, both real and personal, in excess of $50,000.
  ( disinherited polygamous issue.
  ( provided for the complete disfranchisement of polygamists by test oath.
  ( placed all law-enforcement, judicial, and militia power in the Utah Commission or in other federal appointees.
  ( required certification and registration of all marriages in the probate court.34

      Abraham H. Cannon recorded that while the Edmunds and Tucker bills were being debated and consolidated in Congress, President John Taylor received a revelation, "in the which it stated that God was satisfied with the sacrifice made by the people in this crusade and that he would now turn their wrath aside."35 With the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Law, PresidentJohn Taylor ceased issuing recommends for the contracting of new plural marriages in the Church. On October 20, 1889, Wilford Woodruff stated:

      I have refused to give any recommendations for the performance of plural marriages since I have been President. I know that President Taylor, my predecessor, also refused. Since the Edmunds-Tucker law we have refused to recommend plural marriages, and have instructed that they should not be solemnized.36

      Angus M. Cannon, President of the Salt Lake Stake, gave the following testimony before a United States Commissioner in 1888:

Q.	And the Church, through its officials, teaches the doctrine of plural or celestial marriage, but (through) the sanction of the Church its officers perform such marriages, do they not?
A.	No sir, it has been discontinued.
Q.	Since when?
A.	It must be a year I think, very near a year, not quite, since persons applying have been refused...
Q.	Has this refusal been since the death of President Taylor only?
A.	I have understood that it existed before his death, but I was not conscious of it. I had no occasion to sign any marriage recommends for some time.37

      President Taylor recognized that denial of recommends for plural marriages was a major shift in policy, and he feared it would try the faith of some Church members. He therefore made the following statement in an epistle read at April General Conference in 1887:


      The Church is now passing through a period of transition, or evolution, as some might be pleased to term it. Such periods appear to be necessary in the progress and perfecting of all created things, as much so in the history of peoples and communities as of individuals. These periods of transition have most generally their pains, perplexities and sufferings. The present is no exception to the rule.38

      Soon after this policy of denying recommends for plural marriages quietly went into effect, a constitutional convention was called to frame a state constitution so that Utah Territory might be granted statehood and be able to control its own political destiny. The constitution framed by this convention included the following provisions:

ARTICLE XV
      Section 12:  Bigamy and polygamy being considered incompatible with a republican form of government, each of them is hereby declared a misdemeanor. Any person who shall violate this section shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars and imprisoned for a term of not less than six months nor more than three years, in the discretion of the court. This section shall be construed as operative without the aid of legislation, and the offenses prohibited by this section shall not be barred by any statute of limitation within three years after the power of pardon extended thereto until such pardon shall be approved by the President of the United States.

ARTICLE XVI
      Section 1.  Provided, that section 12 of article XV shall not be amended, revised, or in any way changed, until any amendment, revision, or change as proposed therein, shall, in addi tion to the requirements of the provisions of this article, be reported to the Congress of the United States and shall be by Congress approved and ratified, and such approval and ratification be proclaimed by the President of the United States, and if so ratified and proclaimed said section shall remain perpetual.39

      President John Taylor and President George Q. Cannon endorsed the proposed constitution. At a meeting on July 7, 1887,

      President Cannon suggested that the Presidents of Stakes, their counselors, and Bishops and their counselors be seen and be told, that the First Presidency and Twelve see no reason why the Latter-day Saints who are eligible to vote, should not vote for this state constitution, and that in doing so they would not offend God nor violate his laws. He thought that the giving of reasons and the indulging in argument should be avoided, and that our public speakers should be exceedingly careful in their utterances, lest our enemies should take advantage of what might be said.40


      On July 27, 1887, President J. D. T. McAllister of St. George reports being instructed by one of the members of the Quorum of the Twelve:

      The first Presidency and the Twelve endorsed the constitution formulated and adopted by the convention in Salt Lake City on the 7th of July, 1887.41 

      Three years later, in response to a Utah Commission report to the government of the United States that over forty new plural marriages had been consummated in the Church during the pre ceding year, President Woodruff issued a public statement denying this allegation. This official declaration the Woodruff Manifesto of 1890 follows verbatim:

      To Whom it may Concern:
      Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely pub lished, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, en couraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy(
      I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.
One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.
Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.
There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.
Wilford Woodruff
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.42


      Unanimous approval of the Manifesto was secured at the following October General Conference, and in the public mind the Manifesto has since been viewed as the official termination of plural marriage in the Church. Thus, with this official declaration, President Woodruff at last made public a policy that had originated in March 1887 under President John Taylor.

	Manifesto and the Keys of Priesthood

      The Woodruff Manifesto of 1890 has been much misunderstood, and consequently misinterpreted, by Fundamentalists. They claim that Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto terminating plural marriage not as President of the priesthood, but as President of the Church:

      He [Wilford Woodruff] issued a Manifesto stopping plural marriage within the church -- doing so as President of the Church. . . 

      In contrast to this, the Fundamentalists claim that

      John Taylor, not as President of the Church, but as President of the Priesthood, took certain action Sept. 27, 1886. Had that action been taken as President of the Church, to render it legal, the Church would necessarily have had to approve it by vote as it later did the Manifesto of Wilford Woodruff... . [Wilford Woodruff] held a like position with that of his predecessor, but no authority came from Jesus Christ to him to cancel John Taylor's action.43

      Let us examine the record to see in what capacity President Woodruff issued the Manifesto, publicly declaring an end to plural marriage in the Church. When the Woodruff Manifesto was presented as an official declaration to Church members at October General Conference in 1890, President Lorenzo Snow offered the following motion:

      I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.44

      George Q. Cannon confirmed this principle when he stated:

      But, as is said in this action that has been made, President Woodruff is the only man upon the earth who holds the keys of the sealing power. These Apostles all around me have all the same authority that he has.
      
      We are all ordained with the same ordination. We all have had the same keys and the same powers bestowed upon us. But there is an order in the church of God, and that order is that there is only one man at a time on the earth who holds the keys of sealing, and that man is the president of the church, now Wilford Woodruff Therefore, he signed that document himself. Some have wondered and said, "Why didn't his counselors sign? Why didn't others sign?" Well, I give you the reason -- because he is the only man on the earth that has this right, and he exercised it, and he did this with the approval of all of us to whom the matter was submitted. . .45

      In further reviewing the position of President Woodruff that qualified him to issue the Manifesto, President Cannon stated:

      God gave the command, and it required the command of God to cause us to change our attitude. President Woodruff holds the same authority that the man did through whom the revelation came to the Church. It required the same authority to say to us, "It is enough." God has accepted of your sacrifice. He has looked down upon you and seen what you have passed through, and how determined you were to keep his commandments, and now he says "It is enough." It is the same authority that gave us the principle. It is not the word of man. Now, it is for us to obey the law.46

      Thus Wilford Woodruff publicly terminated the practice of  plural marriage by virtue of the office of President of the High Priesthood of the Church; he having received this office when he became the senior apostle following President Taylor's death.

	Keys Continue with the Church

      President Wilford Woodruff stated the following with reference to the keys of the priesthood and the succession of those keys:

      When the Lord gave the Keys of the Kingdom of God, the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood, of the Apostleship, and sealed them upon Joseph Smith, he sealed them upon his head to stay here upon the earth until the coming of the Son of Man. Well might Brigham Young say, "The keys of the Kingdom of God are here." They were with him to the day of his death. They then rested upon the head of another man -- President John Taylor. He then held those keys until the hour of his death. They then fell by turn, or in the providence of God, upon Wilford Woodruff.

      And to squelch any pretensions that nonbelievers might produce he continued:

      I say to the Latter-day Saints the keys of the Kingdom of God are here, and they are going to stay here, too, until the coming of the Son of Man. Let all Israel under stand that. They may not rest upon my head but for a short time, but they will then rest on the head of another Apostle, and another after him, and so continue until the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.47


      Fundamentalism claims that Wilford Woodruff lost the keys of the priesthood through his acts connected with the issuance of the Manifesto of September 24, 1890, and that these keys fell on the other five men allegedly set apart by John Taylor in 1886, with John W. Woolley receiving the keys as the "worthy senior" by ordination:

      President Wilford Woodruff was "inspired" to sign the Manifesto in the same manner that the Prophet Joseph Smith was "inspired" to give the 116 pages of the manuscript of the Book of Mormon to Martin Harris; and as Joseph Smith lost the gift of translation for a few months because of this act, likewise Wilford Woodruff lost the keys of the Priesthood through his acts connected with the Manifesto.48
In setting the five men apart and ordaining them to the Priesthood Presidency of Seven, John W. Woolley was first given that high calling, coming next to Wilford Woodruff in order of ordination; so that the keys to Priesthood passed in natural order from Wilford Wood ruff to John W. Woolley.49

      President Woodruff certainly did not recognize such a dire result, nor did his counselors. George Q. Cannon, one of the five allegedly set apart to the Presidency of priesthood, made the following statement six years after the issuance of the Manifesto:

      God has given him [Wilford Woodruff] the keys of authority. .. . We listen to him and are guided by his slightest wish. It is because we know that he is the servant of God, chosen by the Almighty to fill that place, and that he holds the keys of the priesthood to this generation on the earth at the present time.50

      Fundamentalism alleges that no President of the Church since President Woodruff has been a President of the priesthood, and thus none exercised presidency over the sealing keys, as did their predecessors. Joseph Musser explains:

      Since the day of Wilford Woodruff the dual positions have not been held, the President of Priesthood being separate and apart from the President of the Church.51
At the death of President Taylor, he [Wilford Woodruff] automatically advanced to the position of President of Priesthood. President Snow, it is under stood, had already been given the higher order of the Priesthood, though  not functioning in the Presidency of it.52


      Despite Fundamentalist claims to the contrary, President Snow exercised presidency over the sealing authority as God's mouth piece, as his predecessors did. Let us examine the record. When Lorenzo Snow was ordained an apostle in 1849, he received all the keys and powers of the priesthood. Speaking of the fulness of the keys of the priesthood, John Taylor said:

      He [Joseph Smith] afterwards [1844] conferred them upon the Twelve Apostles and others, who when they were ordained received them as part of their ministry and priesthood, to prepare them for the work that was to be done.53

      The Lord confirmed this by revelation. Speaking of the Quorum of the Twelve in 1880, which included Lorenzo Snow and his successor, Joseph F. Smith, the Lord stated:

      And while my servant John Taylor is your President, I wish to ask the rest of my servants of the Apostles the question, although you have one to preside over your Quorum, which is the order of God in all generations, do you not, all of you, hold the apostleship, which is the highest authority ever given to men on earth? You do.
      Therefore you hold in common the Keys of the Kingdom of God in all the world.54

      In Lorenzo Snow's setting apart to the presidency of the Church, the fulness of the priesthood was reconfirmed upon him with the right and authority to exercise presidency of the priest hood:

      We reconfirm upon thee all thy former blessings and all the authority and ordinations; and every power that pertains to the everlasting Priesthood and to the Presidency of the Church of Christ, we seal upon thee, and ask God our Father to confirm this sealing and this setting apart, that thou mayest be filled with new power, yea with increased power, to go forth and magnify thy calling in the midst of the Church of Christ and among thy fellowservants; and that the Lord will communicate with thee from time to time everything necessary for the perfect government of His Church; that thou mayest exercise all the keys and the authority that have been exercised heretofore by thy predecessors -- by Wilford Woodruff, by John Taylor, by Brigham Young, and by Joseph Smith, and which he (Joseph Smith) sealed upon his fellow Apostles.55

      When Lorenzo Snow was set apart as President of the Church, he announced that he would authorize no new plural marriages.56 In a private conversation with Elder Brigham Young, Jr., he af firmed his position as the "one man on the earth at a time" who holds the sealing keys of the priesthood, with the right to withhold that power through revelation:


      There cannot be a plural marriage solemnized in this Church without my consent and I have never given consent for this to be done since [I have been] President of the Church. God has removed this privilege from the people and until he restores it, I shall not consent to any man taking a plural wife. It is just as fair for one as it is for all to go without. The business is taken out from our hands and we cannot fight the United States. It is [for] them and God to settle this question. We are not in it. There is no such thing as men taking plural wives and keeping it secret. It cannot be done. Has any one of the Apostles a right to seal plural wives to men by reason of former concessions made to them by the Presidency? No, sir, such right must come from me and no man shall be authorized by me to break the law of the land.57

	Joseph Musser's Claim to Polygamy

      In spite of Lorenzo Snow's lucid and unequivocal affirmation of his position, Joseph Musser claims to have been authorized and commanded by Lorenzo Snow to enter plural marriage after the issuance of the Manifesto:

      In December 1899, after receiving my "Second Blessings," a messenger came to me from President Snow, stating I had been selected to enter plural marriage and to help keep the Principle alive.58

      After selecting as a wife Mary Hill, a daughter of William H. Hill of the Mill Creek Ward bishopric, Musser approached William Hill, who flatly refused to allow the marriage, and who said that the marriage could not be performed.

      I said, "Well, Brother Hill, it can be done, and now the responsibility is upon you. Your daughter is agreeable to the situation." The conversation took place in the office where I was employed, in town. He left and in about one half or three quarters of an hour he returned and assured me it was all right and that I might go ahead. Astonished and yet grateful, I asked what had happened to change his mind so quickly. He said after leaving me he "bumped into Apostles John Henry Smith and M. F. Cowley"; he put the question to them. They assured him it was all right and advised him to return to me and give his consent to the marriage. Thus Mary Hill entered into my family in the year 1901.59

      It is pertinent to note that Musser does not claim that President Snow approached him personally, but says he did so through a "messenger," whom Musser declined to name. It is important to note that William Hill gave his sanction only after talking with Matthias Cowley, an apostle who was later released from the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and then disfellowshipped from the Church for continuing to promote plural marriage ceremonies after the Church had terminated the practice.60 (John W. Woolley was excommunicated for alleged instruction from this same source.)
      
      This claim does not square with the doctrine of succession of the sealing keys that was developed later by the Fundamentalist priesthood hierarchy to continue plural marriage independent of the Church. This later doctrine claims that President Snow was not the president of the priesthood and did not hold the keys of sealing power, but that John W. Woolley occupied that position following issuance of the Manifesto. If this later doctrine is true, why did Musser not go to John W. Woolley for sanction in 1901? Something seems amiss here. It is clear that Lorenzo Snow received and exercised the keys of the priesthood during his Presidency despite later Fundamentalist claims to the contrary.
Joseph F. Smith received the right to exercise all the keys of the priesthood as God's mouthpiece on earth when he became President of the Church. Speaking of this office and authority, he stated:

      The Lord in the beginning of this work revealed that there should be three High Priests to preside over the High Priesthood of his Church and over the whole Church. (D. & C. 107:22, 64-67, 91-92.) He conferred upon them all the authority necessary to preside over all the affairs of the Church. They hold the keys of the House of God and of the ordinances of the Gospel and of every blessing which has been restored to the earth in this dispensation. This authority is vested in a presidency of three High Priests. They are three presidents. The Lord himself so calls them. (D. & C. 107:22). But there is one presiding President, and his counselors are Presidents also.61

      President Smith said in 1915:

      I hold the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood and of the office and power of patriarch. It is my right to bless; for all the keys and authority and power pertaining to the government of the Church and to the Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthood are centered in the presiding officer of the Church.62

      The following year, while speaking on the same subject, Presi dent Smith stated:

      I hold the Priesthood of the Apostleship, I hold the High Priesthood which is after the order of the Son of God, which is at the foundation of all Priesthood and is the greatest of all Priesthoods, because the Apostle and the High Priest and the Seventy derive their authority and their privileges from the Priesthood which is after the order of the Son of God. All authority comes out of that High Priesthood.63

Joseph F. Smith and Total Termination


      Since the President of the Church holds the keys of sealing, he also has the right and authority to withdraw delegated sealing authority. Following the issuance of the Manifesto the right to perform plural marriages was officially withdrawn. For a time plural marriages were performed in areas outside the confines of the United States where no laws existed against the practice, but by 1904 President Joseph F. Smith withdrew all authority to perform plural marriages throughout the whole world. At April General Conference in 1904 he issued the following statement, which has since been referred to as "The Second Manifesto":

      Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into contrary to the official declaration of President Wilford Woodruff of September 24th, 1890, commonly called the Manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff and adopted by the Church at its General Conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriage violative of the law of the land, I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
      And I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage he will be deemed in transgression against the Church, and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof, and excommunicated therefrom.64

      In connection with this statement, President Smith issued instruction to those who had been delegated sealing authority in Canada, Mexico, and elsewhere that all authority to perform plural marriages was now officially withdrawn. John W. Taylor and a number of other brethren were in Mexico in April 1904, and consequently did not hear President Joseph F. Smith's declaration prohibiting plural marriage ceremonies worldwide. Word was subsequently sent to inform these brethren of the announcement. Anthony W. Ivins stated:

      In April 1904, Brother Taylor was in Mexico and myself and wife, Owen Woodruff and his wife and brother Taylor and his wife were together at brother Woodruff's, and I delivered a message to brothers Woodruff and Taylor that plural marriages should stop; this message was from the President and brother Taylor seemed to endorse it and mentioned it at our meetings.65

      Later Francis M. Lyman, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, sent the following communication to John W. Taylor in Mexico:

      Acting under the advice and counsel of the First Presidency I take this means of calling your attention to the official declaration on the subject of plural marriages adopted by the late General Conference of the Church; and I bespeak your hearty cooperation in emphasizing the same in your private conversations and counsels as well as your public utterances, to the end that no misunderstanding may exist among our people concerning its scope and meaning; but to the contrary, that all may be given to distinctly understand that infractions of the law in regard to plural marriage are transgressions against the Church, punishable by excommunication.66


      There was to be no question about the complete cessation of polygamy in the Church. Permission to perform sealings outside the temples through a special delegation of authority was also withdrawn. Note the following letter sent to Elder John W. Taylor in Canada and Elder George Teasdale in Mexico:

      As you are aware, until within a few years ago, the custom prevailed in Canada, Arizona and Mexico for our young people residing in those countries to marry for time only on account of the inconvenience and expense of attending a journey to a temple, and that in order to save this great expense, and to encourage marriages, among our young people, President Woodruff and President Snow, each in his time, authorized some of the Apostles, and perhaps others, to perform sealings for time and eternity in behalf of young couples of those places, and that this authority has been exercised quite freely until the present time.[67]
      The council of First Presidency and Apostles have now deemed it expedient and wise to withdraw this authority from those brethren, leaving it solely in the hands of him who holds the keys thereof, and a resolution to this affect has been unanimously passed by the council.68

      There were those who continued performing and contracting plural marriages outside the country, and who were subsequently excommunicated.69 President Joseph F. Smith maintained his position that plural marriages were completely terminated in the Church. At October General Conference in 1919 he issued a letter addressed to each stake president in the Church. After quoting his statement of 1904, he added:

      After the Church had spoken thus plainly, we took it for granted that none of its members would be found disobeying its voice. But in the face of this action, emphasized repeatedly in private and public by us, and by the Apostles as well, we now find that some person or persons have assumed authority to solemnize plural marriages, and that men and women have entered into polygamous relations through having been married under such pretended authority.
      Some of the violators of this official action of the Church have been tried on their fellowship, and have been excommunicated. But there are rumors afloat (and some of these rumors appear to be well founded) that there are still others equally guilty, and it is to such cases that we desire to direct your attention. It is a matter of deep regret that men professing membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should disregard the commands of the Church, and by doing so value their standing in it so lightly as to lay themselves liable to be excommunicated. . . . No one has been authorized to solemnize plural marriages, and. . . he who advises, counsels or entices any person to contract a plural marriage renders himself liable to excommunication, as well as those who solemnize such marriages, or those who enter into such unlawful relations.70
      
      At October General Conference in 1911, President Joseph F. Smith made his position as emphatic as he possibly could. Speaking on this subject, he said:

      Another thing, as we have announced in previous conferences, as it was announced by President Woodruff, as it was announced by President Snow, and as it was announced by me and my brethren, and confirmed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, plural marriages have ceased in the Church. There isn't a man today in this Church or anywhere else outside of it who has authority to solemnize a plural marriage, not one. There is no man or woman in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints who is authorized to contract a plural marriage. It is not permitted.71

      These last two statements were issued primarily because of the activities of Judson Tolman, patriarch of the Davis Stake, who was secretly performing plural marriages under the guise of having such authority as a patriarch.

	Patriarchs and Sealing Authority

      The concept of a patriarch holding the authority to perform sealing ordinances undoubtedly rests on a mistaken interpretation of the revelations. In 1841, when Hyrum Smith was called to succeed his father, Joseph Smith, Sr., as Patriarch to the Church, the Lord stated:

      First, I give unto you Hyrum Smith to be a patriarch unto you, to hold the sealing blessings of my church, even the Holy Spirit of promise, whereby ye are sealed up unto the day of redemption, that ye may not fall not withstanding the hour of temptation that may come upon you.72

      Although the Lord clarified in the same revelation that this sealing power was in the nature of "keys of the patriarchal blessings upon the heads of all my people,"73 some have not interpreted it so. In fact, Hyrum Smith himself may have had a problem at first in understanding this concept. Brigham Young reports in a letter we have already cited:

      The sealing power was not in Hyrum legitimately, neither did he act on the sealing principle only as he was dictated by Joseph in every case. This was proven for Hyrum did in one case undertake to seal without counsel and Joseph told him if he did not stop it he would go to Hell and all those he sealed with him.74

      In connection with the covenant of eternal marriage including a plurality of wives, the Lord revealed that this power belonged exclusively to the President of the Church:


      I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred. .. .75

      It is wrong, therefore, to claim that a patriarch can hold this authority without a special delegation from the President of the Church. 
Judson Tolman was only one of several patriarchs who were excommunicated after the issuance of the Manifesto for performing plural marriages under this mistaken concept.76 Heber J. Grant referred to this at the April General Conference in 1921:

      We have excommunicated several patriarchs because they arrogated unto themselves, the right, or pretended right, to perform these [plural marriage] ceremonies, and after our having excommunicated several patriarchs, another one, so I am informed, has committed the same offense. I announce to all Israel that no living man has the right to perform plural marriages. I announce that no patriarch has the right to perform any marriages at all in the Church.77
At his trial in May 1911, Elder Matthias F. Cowley said that he did not know of anyone at that time other than Patriarch Tolman who had been performing plural marriages: "I believe no authority has been exercised, except in the Tolman case, which I know nothing about"; "I did not think Tolman had any authority"; and, "I don't know anyone who has been performing these marriages except Tolman and I don't know where he got his authority."78
John Woolley, newly released from the stake high council, was ordained to succeed Judson Tolman as patriarch of the Davis Stake. Within a few months rumors surfaced that Woolley was also guilty of secretly performing plural marriages. When he received this news, President Joseph F. Smith issued yet another statement to stake presidents, concerning all involved:

      Having reason to believe that some members of the Church are secretly engaged advising and encouraging others to enter into unauthorized and unlawful mar riages, we have deemed it advisable to call your attention to the communication we addressed to you on this subject on the 5th of October, 1910, a copy of which is herewith appended.
      And believing, as we do, that these people are at the bottom of all the violations referred to in our communication, we direct your special attention to them, with a request that any information received by you from time to time relating to cases of this character, be followed up and investigated with a view to having this class of offenders placed on trial for their fellowship in the Church, as we regard them equally culpable with actual offenders. Please make the same request of your Bishops.79


      John Woolley and others who were involved in this activity were subsequently summoned to trials and were excommunicated from the Church under President Joseph F. Smith's direction. (For details of John Woolley's excommunication, see chapter 12.)

	Origin of Fundamentalist Claims

      When Heber J. Grant assumed the Presidency in 1918, Church policy on plural marriage was firmly established. Early Fundamentalists, however, were still pursuing the practice of plural marriage in spite of the contrary direction of the President of the Church, who holds the keys of sealing power. During the early presidency of Joseph F. Smith, while plural marriages were being permitted outside the confines of the United States, there was no concern about priesthood authority to perform the sealing ordinances -- it was done through the sanction of the President of the Church. George Q. Cannon stated the following ten years after the Manifesto was issued:

      When the Manifesto was issued we did not pledge ourselves to abandon our plural wives, nor even to cease to perform plural marriages outside of the government; and when our people get the idea that we have bound ourselves to the whole world they manifest ignorance. A man may go to some countries and not violate their laws by taking a plural wife and living in plural marriage.80

      After 1904, when this authority was completely terminated in the Church, those seeking to enter the practice of plural marriage received pretended authorization either from Matthias F. Cowley, who had been disfellowshiped, or John W. Taylor, who had been excommunicated. It was during this period that the first version of the Lorin Woolley story appeared. That first version was dated October 6, 1912, and it does not contain a single statement about priesthood authority being conferred at the alleged meeting of September 1886. By 1922, however, this source of alleged priest hood authority had ended (John W. Taylor died in 1916, and Matthias F. Cowley was seeking full Church fellowship, which he later secured.) Consequently, Fundamentalists were required to produce their own source of priesthood authority. On August 7, 1922, Joseph Musser reported:

      Bro. W.[oolley] made a vow at the above meeting (Sept. 27, 1886) that there would never be a year pass that children would not be born in that principle, and he and his father, John W. Woolley, were ordained to this special work, with others, by John Taylor, the Prophet Joseph Smith being present and directing.81

      In the 1929 version under review, the story was expanded, and Lorin Woolley now gave the names of the five who were allegedly set apart with the authority to seal plural marriages.


      By 1934, this commission of five men that were supposedly set apart to continue plural marriage was expanded into a quorum or council of seven men, which is alleged to comprise the presidency of all priesthood on earth: "The Priesthood proper is presided over by a quorum of seven men holding the higher order of Priesthood, and forming the presidency.82
The five men of the Lorin Woolley story were expanded into this priesthood "Council of Seven," as follows:
      President Taylor, under the direction of Joseph Smith, who was present in the room in person, chose five men and set them apart to continue such marriages. . . . These five men were John W. Woolley, Lorin C. Woolley, George Q. Cannon, Charles H. Wilcken and Samuel Bateman. President Taylor's second counselor, Joseph F. Smith (George Q. Cannon being the first) was at the time in Hawaii performing a mission. He was sent for and received a like commission from John Taylor some weeks before the latter's death. These six, then, with Wilford Woodruff (who received his anointings under the hands of Joseph the Prophet) formed the Priesthood presidency at that time, with John Taylor the head thereof.83

	Official Statement

      These Fundamentalist claims to priesthood presidency were countered by President Heber J. Grant in an official public statement in 1933. Pertinent portions follow:

      It is alleged that on September 26-27, 1886, President John Taylor. . . ordained and set apart several men to perform marriage ceremonies (inferentially polygamous or plural marriage ceremonies), and gave to those so allegedly authorized the further power to set others apart to do the same thing.
      There is nothing in the records of the Church to show that any such ordination or setting apart was ever performed. There is no recollection or report among the officers of the Church to whom such an incident would of necessity be known, that any such action was ever taken.
Furthermore, any such action would have been illegal and void because the Lord has laid down without qualification the principle that "there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred." The Lord has never changed this rule.
      Moreover, four years.. . after the date of the alleged ordaining and setting apart of these men by President Taylor, to perform marriage ceremonies (presumably polygamous or plural), the Church in General Conference formally approved the solemn Declaration offered to the Conference by Lorenzo Snow, then President of the Council of the Twelve, that President Wilford Woodruff was "the only man on the earth at the present time (1890) who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances." This statement would have been an unmitigated falsehood if the allegation of the organization were true. President Lorenzo Snow did not falsify.
      
      Finally, without direct revelation from the Lord changing the principle that there is never but one man on the earth at one time who holds the keys of the sealing power -- and we solemnly affirm that there is not now and there has not been given any revelation making any change in that principle -- any such act of ordination by President Taylor as that seemingly alleged by the members of this organization would be completely null and void. No one better knew this principle regarding authority for this sealing power than President John Taylor and he would not have attempted to violate it. It is a sacrilege to his memory -- the memory of a great and true Latter-day Saint, a prophet of the Lord -- that these falsehoods should be broadcast by those who professed to be his friends while he lived.
      At President John Taylor's death, the keys of the sealing ordinances, with their powers and limitations, passed by regular devolution, in the way and manner prescribed by the Lord and in accordance with the custom of the Church, to President Wilford Woodruff. At the latter's death they similarly passed to President Lorenzo Snow; and upon his death, they similarly passed to President Joseph F. Smith; and at his death the same keys passed in the same way to President Heber J. Grant. There has been no change in the law of succession of the Priesthood and of the keys appertaining thereto, nor in the regular order of its descent.
      The keys of the sealing ordinances rest today solely in President Heber J. Grant, having so passed to him by the ordination prescribed by the Lord, at the hands of those having the authority to pass them, and whose authority has never been taken away by the Lord, nor suspended, nor interfered with by the Church. President Grant is the only man on the earth at this time who possesses these keys. He has never authorized any one to perform polygamous or plural marriages; he is not performing such marriages himself; he has not on his part violated nor is he violating the pledge he made to the Church, to the world, and to our government at the time of the Manifesto.
      Any one making statements contrary to the foregoing is innocently or maliciously telling that which is not true. Any one representing himself as authorized to perform such marriages is making a false representation. Any such ceremony performed by any person so making such representation is a false and mock ceremony. Those living as husband and wife under and pursuant to the ceremonies proscribed by President Smith or the ceremonies performed by any person whatsoever since that proscription, are living in adultery and are subject to the attaching penalties.84

      This entire statement is very significant and should be prayerfully read and studied by all who are troubled about these matters. Here President Grant confirmed and continued the doctrine that, as President of the Church, he held the keys of the priesthood and that all others who claim to hold those keys are pretenders.


	Chapter Twelve

	FIVE REMAIN (FAITHFUL(

      I am the only one of the five now living, and so far as I know all five of the brethren remained true and faithful to the covenants they entered into, and to the responsibilities placed upon them at that time....
      He [John Taylor] stated that many of the things he had told us we would forget and they would be taken from us, but that they would return to us in due time as needed, and from this fact we would know that the same was from the Lord. This has been literally fulfilled. Many of the things I forgot, but they are coming to me gradually, and those things that come to me are as clear as on the day on which they were given.

      The credibility of the Lorin Woolley story may be called into question on the basis that, of the five men purportedly involved in the above-claimed transferral of priesthood authority, he was the only one who recorded the event. Further, his widely publicized recounting did not occur until 1929, long after the rest of those supposedly involved were dead, and five years after Woolley himself had been excommunicated from the Church. Where is John Woolley's account of the alleged meeting and of his supposed reception of special priesthood authority? Likewise, where is there such an account from Samuel Bateman or from Charles Wilcken? What about George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith and John Taylor? Where are their records of these alleged proceedings? Why is there an account from only one participant, and why was that account not written until forty-three years after the "fact"? Where in all such pretensions is compliance with the divine law of witnesses?
      The Lord has never permitted the keys of priesthood authority to be transferred without requiring witnesses to bear record of that fact. The law of witnesses stipulates that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall all things be established.1 The Savior said of his own authority: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."2 The Prophet Joseph Smith likewise required witnesses. The special mission of Oliver Cowdery as "Second Elder" was to bear witness of priesthood restoration.3The investiture of priesthood keys by Joseph Smith upon the Twelve Apostles was made known at a meeting of the Council of Fifty and their wives in the spring of 1844. Many of them left written and published testimonies of this event.4 Several testified of it many times throughout their lives.

	Lorin Woolley and the Law of Witnesses

      What of Lorin Woolley's story of priesthood succession? Where are his witnesses, and where is their testimony? Without witnesses Woolley is without substantiation, and we are not obligated to believe his testimony(it is not in force.
      One logically wonders why the account was not published earlier, when it could have been corroborated by witnesses. Could it be that it was purposefully withheld until all those purportedly involved were dead, because the story is fictitious and could not be supported? The story apparently was not conceived until after plural marriage ceremonies were being strenuously suppressed during the presidencies of Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant. President Joseph Fielding Smith said of Lorin Woolley's claim:

      No such meeting ever took place.... I knew President George Q. Cannon, Samuel Bateman, and Charles H. Wilcken, and they were true men and they were true to President Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and to President Joseph F. Smith. Lorin Woolley's stories are afterthoughts uttered when all these men are dead and cannot speak for themselves.5

      The Woolley account may further be called into question on the basis that Lorin Woolley impeached his reliability as a witness by admitting that for a number of years he did not remember what had occurred, although he contended that by 1929 he was able to recall these events. This claim of forgetting and remembering was apparently a device used by Lorin Woolley to justify in his own mind, as well as the minds of others, a story that, as a comparison of the various versions shows, grew and changed with each telling.
      This forgetting and subsequent remembering was declared as a divine sign of the truth of the story and was used as an appeal to Daniel Bateman, who was persuaded to believe that he too had witnessed the events of 1886 but that they were promptly taken from him. Thus, when he corroborated Lorin Woolley's story in an account published in 1934, he reports being told that "much of the instruction he [John Taylor] was giving us we would forget, but that at the proper time it would come back to us."6 Another account says:

      He [Daniel Bateman] stated that the prediction of President Taylor that all things would be brought back to their memory in the proper time, had literally been fulfilled.7

On the strength of this alleged forgetting and remembering process, Bateman was induced to testify of "events" in which he was not personally involved, "events" that Lorin Woolley only told him about. Appended to Lorin Woolley's standard 1929 account is the following statement written by Daniel R. Bateman:


      I was not present when the five spoken of by Brother Woolley were set apart for special work, but have on different occasions heard the details of the same related by Brother 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.8

      Seven years later, Daniel Bateman admitted that his own father never told him about the meeting. Joseph Musser reported:

      [Daniel R. Bateman] Bore testimony that Mormonism is true. His father, being one of the five set apart, did not tell him so, but did testify to Bro. Finlayson of the fact, and the latter had written to him of the event. Others of the five had told him and from their testimony and through the Spirit he knew it was true.9

      With no second witness to the alleged five-hour meeting where the important act of conferring special priesthood authority is claimed, Lorin Woolley is left without witness and must of necessity say of his own authority: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.10-- And, according to the divine law of witnesses, we, as his critics, can rightly charge: "Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true."11

	Faithfulness to Covenants

Joseph Musser reported the following statement in his 1929 version:

      Then he (John Taylor) talked to us for some time, and said: "Some of you will be handled and ostracized and cast out from the Church by your brethren because of your faithfulness and integrity to this principle, and some of you may have to surrender your lives because of the same, but woe, woe, unto those who shall bring these troubles upon you." (Three of us were handled and ostracized for supporting and sustaining this principle.)

      None of the five alleged to be recipients of this special priest hood authority surrendered his life because of his faithfulness and integrity to the practice of plural marriage in defiance of the Church or the civil law; as admitted, though, three of the five(Lorin C. Woolley, John W. Woolley, and Daniel R. Bateman(were excommunicated from the Church for their actions in this regard. Let us review the "faithfulness" of these three men in supporting and sustaining this principle.
      Daniel R. Bateman's youngest sister gave the following testimony of her father and his reaction to the Manifesto as it was presented at October General Conference in 1890:

      There may have been a few in that audience who did not vote, and a few may have remained away in order that they might not commit themselves. But father and mother were at that conference and they voted to sustain the manifesto....
      
More than once I heard father say before other members of the family that when he went to that conference he and some of his friends who had suffered exile and imprisonment had determined to vote against the manifesto. "But," said father, "some power not my own raised my arm, and I voted to sustain President Woodruff in this matter. As soon as I had done it a sense of peace and contentment came over me."12

      As an illustration of her father's later abhorrence of those who defied the Manifesto, she told of a friend of her father who, after it was issued, approached her to become his plural wife:

      He said polygamy was not a dead issue and that there were ways and means of carrying it on. He said when he saw me that day on Main Street, God revealed it to him that I was to be his plural wife. . .
      When I went home and told my parents, father swore an oath. He had been betrayed by a friend. When occasion demanded, he could swear effectively, but rarely did he do it in the house. This time he did, and he said he would speak his mind to so and so when he saw him. Mother said nothing as usual, but she seemed to acquiesce in what father said....
Father's oath that day meant much more than his indignation over my affair. In conference assembled the people had taken a unanimous vote to sustain President Woodruff s wishes. Here was a trusted friend who had not only betrayed him, but the Church also. No matter what his feelings had been before, and no matter what previous pledges he had made either oral or written, that eventual pronouncement which he sustained in conference made all other promises regarding polygamy null and void. All father did and said in our presence bears this out.13

      Samuel Bateman seems to have had some longstanding problems that were resolved before his death on January 23, 1911. One of the apostles reported:

      By appointment met with Bro. Sam Bateman at Bro. O. T. Arnolds. He has been trying to pull away from his brethren for years. Now he confesses that one of the Twelve offended him twenty years ago. He has paid his tithing and kept on with his quorum, but failed to, or omitted to, partake of the sacrament. I talked to him as the spirit gave me utterance and he said "I will amend my ways." Bro. Bateman remarked, "My prayers have been answered. My labors have been successful."14

      And so, with some repentance, he returned to full harmony with the Church. Thus Samuel Bateman can hardly be alleged to have stood firm to a covenant to see to it that plural marriage continued after the Manifesto.
      After his father's death, Daniel Bateman began a close association with Lorin Woolley, his good friend, and began practicing polygamy, which resulted in his excommunication from the Church. His sister wrote:


      From the very wording of the Manifesto it was evident that some men and women could find in it a loop hole, an excuse to carry on the practice of polygamy. They were few in comparison with the many who had pledged themselves to live by President Woodruff s ad vice and kept their pledges. The few did in secret marry other women than the one they were legally entitled to.... For several years no punishment was placed on these men by the Church. Some years later new offenders were excommunicated, among them my brother, Daniel, who, during the days of the underground, had helped guard the lives of the Church authorities then in hiding. He had grown up in polygamy and believed in it sincerely, but he did not enter it until after the death of his wife Ellen. This was some twenty years or more after the Manifesto which he did not support.15

      Daniel Bateman's first wife, Ellen Malmstrom, died on October 16, 1920, at the age of fifty-seven, leaving a family of three children. Two years later, on August 1, 1922, he married Ida May Barlow, the eldest daughter of his friend John Y. Barlow. Daniel was sixty-five and Ida May was twenty-five, and they raised a family of four children.16 Joseph Musser intimated at Daniel Bateman's death that Bateman was also sealed to a polygamous wife, but that she had had no children.17
      If Daniel Bateman did indeed pledge in 1886 to "see to it that no year passed by without children being born in the principle of plural marriage," as alleged, he certainly failed its fulfillment in great measure. He would have been over sixty-five years old when he entered the practice of plural marriage. This means that for over thirty-five of his prime years he procrastinated fulfilling the purported pledge, namely,

      that he. . . would defend the principle of celestial or plural marriage, and that they would consecrate their lives, liberty and property to this end, and that they personally would sustain and uphold that principle.18

      The whole reason for plural marriage, according to the Lord, is to raise up a righteous generation more quickly than can be done through monogamy. "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things [monogamy]."19 If Daniel Bateman did indeed take a plural wife, apparently the act was fruitless so far as basic purpose is concerned, and even his two legitimate families combined fell short in number of children when compared to monogamous families of the time. Thus, he materially failed his pledge as far as his personal life was concerned.


      John W. Woolley, according to available evidence, was never involved in the Fundamentalist movement to the extent that is claimed. He was a faithful member of the Church during most of his life. He was, however, one who was unwilling to give up plural marriage after the Woodruff Manifesto was issued, and apparently he never received a testimony of the Manifesto. He lived in polygamy during his later years, but all of his families were reared before the Manifesto was issued. He married the widowed mother of B.H. Roberts in 1886, four years before the Manifesto, and he married Annie Fisher in 1910 when he was seventy-nine, a marriage from which no children resulted.20 The issue of his personal fulfill ment of the purpose is therefore moot.
      After being ordained a stake patriarch in 1912 by David 0. McKay, John Woolley performed some plural sealings in the Salt Lake Temple and elsewhere, and when this was discovered he was excommunicated from the Church.21 Joseph Fielding Smith, a member of the Council of the Twelve at the time, wrote of this action:

      I was well acquainted with John W. Woolley. He was a good man, but permitted himself to be drawn into the performing of a so-called "plural marriage." When this rumor first appeared, John W. Woolley was called into a session with the Council of the Twelve, President Francis M. Lyman, presiding. Before that body he denied that he had performed any plural ceremony and we accepted his word, for we believed him to be a man who would not deceive the Twelve. President Francis M. Lyman reported to President Joseph F. Smith the fact that Brother Woolley had been before the Twelve and that he had disclaimed any association with those who were engaged in this traffic. My father replied to President Lyman that he was very grateful to know that Brother Woolley was clear, for my father had the utmost confidence in John W. Woolley.
      Some time later John W. Woolley was in the presence of President Joseph F. Smith, and President Smith said to him, "John, I am happy to know that you have not been involved in any of those so-called 'plural marriages.' "John W. Woolley hesitated a moment and then replied: "President Smith, I cannot lie to you. I am guilty." Then he confessed his wrongdoing. Of course action had to be taken.22

      Another member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder John A. Widtsoe, was also present on this occasion. He related the following:


      I will tell you of an experience I had some years ago. While in President Joseph F. Smith's office in Salt Lake City, John W. Woolley came into the President's office and asked if he could have a few weeks off from his work in the temple in order that he could visit with his Brother Sam who was then president of the mission in the South Sea Islands. I believe it was Samoa. Brother Woolley was a worker then in the Salt Lake Temple. President Smith gave him the time off that he wanted, and just as Brother Woolley was about to leave the President said, "John, it has been brought to my attention that you have been performing plural marriages in The Salt Lake Temple, is that correct?" Brother Woolley, he said, rather hung his head and answered, "Yes, President Smith, I have." President Smith then looked directly at Brother Woolley and said, "Did President Taylor ordain you and others to carry on plural marriage independent of the Church?" Brother Woolley answered, "President Smith I have lied to others about this, but I cannot lie to you as President of the Church. No he did not."23

      Shortly after this confession, several of the polygamists for whom John W. Woolley had performed sealings were summoned before the Quorum of the Twelve. Anthon H. Lund recorded the following:

      The twelve met on the case of Joseph Silver who has married a plural wife. John Woolley having confessed to having done the sealing. Silver like the rest who have done like he has done lied about it and denied it. I told the door-keeper not to let John Woolley come to the Temple until the matter is settled. We were shocked to hear that a man working in the temple would dare to do such a thing. He is sick today so he could not appear before the Council.
      I spent the day in the office and in the evening attended S. S. Board Meeting. Peter C. Peterson came in from Ephraim and called God to witness that he spoke the truth! When he heard that John Woolley had confessed he had not so much to say. He promised to go with the brethren to see Brother Woolley, but instead of going with them he got into an automobile and rushed up to see Brother Woolley. Brothers Francis M. Lyman and An thony W. Ivins found him there. They got the evidence and Joseph Silver was cut off the Church by the Apostles.24

      Several days later,John W. Woolley wrote the following confession:

      At Centerville, Davis County, Utah on the 16th day of January, A. D., 1914, Prest. Francis M. Lyman and Anthony W. Ivins called at my home, and in answer to questions asked, I made the following statement:
      Some months [ago] I met Mathias F. Cowley on the street and he asked me if I was familiar with the sealing ceremony. I told him I was. He said, "If any good men come to you don't turn them down." I believed from that statement that it was still proper that plural marriages be solemnized, and that President Smith had so  authorized Cowley to instruct me.[25]
      Since that time I have married wives to Nathan G. Clark, Joseph A. Silver, Reuben G. Miller, and P. K. Lemmon, Jr. The ceremony in the case of Miller was performed in the S. E. part of Salt Lake, the woman being a widow whose name I do not know. The Lemmon ceremony was in Centerville, the name of the woman, I think, being Johnson.26

      Anthony W. Ivins recorded details of the Lemmon case as follows:
      
      March 1st, 1914. In the Evening P. K. Lemmon called at the hotel. I served notice on him to appear before the Council of Twelve and show cause why he should not be excommunicated for unlawfully taking a wife. He stated to me that Nathan G. Clark had written him that if he wished to take a plural wife to come to Centerville where he(Clark(would meet him at a house 2 blocks west. He followed directions and went to the house of a young man named Woolley and told him what he came for. The young man said there would be a man there soon to attend to the matter for him.
      Later an older man came to him and performed the ceremony. After concluding the man told him that he must say nothing about the marriage as they would both be excommunicated if they were found out. He told the girl, as soon as they were alone, that he did not believe it was a marriage at all, and it was all off.
      He had never lived with the girl as his wife and did not intend to do so until he had come to Salt Lake and satisfied himself that the ceremony was performed by proper authority. He had never talked with bro. Cowley on the subject. He would appear before the Council and make a full statement of the facts. He had met Bro. Musser at the Fisher [home] some time ago and he had told him that Woolley had given the whole thing away.27

      John W. Woolley was so anxious to prevent the Quorum of the Twelve from excommunicating him that he exposed men for whom he had performed plural marriages in 1913, thus making their excommunications certain. Why did he presume to perform plural marriages so long after the President of the Church had forbidden it? Not because he claimed to hold the keys of the priesthood, but because of a veiled comment allegedly uttered by the disfellowshiped Matthias F. Cowley, who in turn supposedly received his direction from the President of the Church. (This has interesting implications, in view of the Fundamentalist claim that John W. Woolley was Joseph F. Smith's superior in the priesthood and held the keys of the priesthood.)
      Lorin C. Woolley is the star performer in the drama under consideration. One would expect him to excel as an example of "faithfulness" and as a pillar of "truth." Let us examine his personal claims and compare them with the record:

      March 20, 1870, I was called by President Brigham Young to receive my endowments and was ordained an Apostle by Pres. Young. Among other things he stated, "You will yet be called to an important position in the Church," which promise I feel was fulfilled, at least in part, by the mission given me by Pres. John Taylor, in connection with four others, Sept. 27, 1886, to assist in perpetuating the practice of plural marriage.28

      Joseph Musser referred to this statement in a brief eulogy of Lorin Woolley:


      Lorin C. Woolley, the son of John W., was a "chip off the old block." At thirteen years of age, he was given his endowments and was ordained an Apostle by President Brigham Young; and while he was never numbered with the Quorum of Twelve, he maintained his Apostleship to the end.29

      A check into Church records shows Lorin Woolley's memory of his own personal statistics to be faulty, if not presumptuous. On March 20, 1870, Brigham Young was in St. George, where he had spent the winter as usual.30 He, therefore, could not have given Lorin Woolley his endowment nor ordained him an apostle in the Endowment House in Salt Lake City as alleged.
      Church records show that Lorin Woolley was born October 23, 1856, and was baptized by his father on October 18, 1868, at the age of twelve. He received his endowment and was ordained an elder on March 10, 1873, at the age of sixteen by John Lyon.31 As an elder he filled a mission to the Southern States Mission from October 31, 1887, to October 6, 1889.32 Later he was ordained a seventy in the Seventieth Quorum at Centerville, and he went on a short mission from December 23, 1896, to April 6, 1897.33 On July 6, 1919, he was ordained a high priest in Centerville. He was excommunicated from the Church on January 15, 1924, and he died on September 19, 1934, at the age of seventy-seven.
      Lorin Woolley made claims that he was an undercover agent for both the Church and the United States government. He told of a dream discussion with President Heber J. Grant:

      I asked him about his wives, telling him who they were and when and where they were married. At this Heber seemed greatly astonished and asked me how I knew these things. I stated I had been set apart in 1874, at the age of 18, by President Young, to learn of and keep track of such things for the protection of the brethren. Also answering Heber's question, I stated I had been ordained an Apostle by President Young at the age of 13. Heber said, "You are then the oldest apostle, in point of years of service, in this dispensation."34

      Joseph Musser reported further claims in this regard in 1922:

      Brother Woolley had been a Government official and as such had learned many things about the brethren who are now so pronounced against the principle of [plural marriage].35

      In a letter dated January 18, 1924, Elder James E. Talmage of the Quorum of the Twelve told a stake president about Lorin Woolley's claims as an undercover agent for the United States government:
      
      I think you should be informed of the fact that this Lorin C. Woolley has been brought to trial before the High Council of South Davis Stake, aided by the advisory assistance of the Twelve through myself, and that on Tuesday last he was excommunicated from the Church, having been found guilty of pernicious falsehood.
      As testified to by witnesses, he had repeatedly stated that in his capacity as an officer of the United States Government Secret Service, he had trailed certain of the leading authorities of the Church, and knew of their having been guilty of violating the Church rule and law against the practice of plural marriage. Last night I had conversation with the Chief of the United States Government Secret Service, and he positively denies that Lorin C. Woolley was connected with that service in any capacity whatsoever; and, moreover, he further intimated that he may have to proceed against Woolley for making any such claim.36

      Isn't that interesting! Lorin Woolley was excommunicated from the Church, not for advocating or living plural marriage, but for "pernicious falsehood." Even the verdict of his trial seems to have cropped up as an unpublished part of the Lorin Woolley story. Joseph Musser's journal reveals:

      Apostle John W. Taylor told Lorin, "You are the one spoken of by my father who will be handled and ostracized by the brethren. It will not be done because of your taking another wife, but for talking," which was fulfilled literally.37

      Apparently Lorin Woolley did not sustain the pledge he is supposed to have made at the alleged meeting in 1886, a pledge that he "personally would sustain and uphold that principle." According to available records he did not take a plural wife until 1932, over forty-six years later. He married a German immigrant(Goulda Kmetzsch(on November 25, 1932.38 No children ensued from this marriage, apparently due to Woolley's advanced age (seventy-five), so his entry into polygamy was fruitless as far as purpose is concerned. Thus, like Daniel Bateman, he totally failed his pledge to personally keep the principle alive. Here indeed we have a paradox. Lonn Woolley was the very founder of a movement which has as its basic tenet the continued practice of raising children, in polygamous families, yet he totally failed to measure up to the rules of his own making.
      
	Chapter Thirteen

	THE CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE MATTER


Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (Ecclesiastes 12:14.)


      After reviewing the discrepancies and fallacies of the Lorin Woolley statement, one is caused to wonder what would motivate him to make such claims under the guise of truth. What would cause him to claim that he was the especial recipient of the "mysteries of the kingdom" and the president of a priesthood elite without peer? Perhaps a look into his personality will provide us with a clue.
      A man's inner drives and ambitions are frequently expressed in his dreams. Consider the following dream Lorin Woolley had on February 26, 1933, as reported by Joseph Musser:

	Dreams of Grandeur

      He was on the west side of Main Street, between South Temple and First South, when he was met by Joseph F. Smith, (who had died some time before). President Smith said, "Lorin, aren't you going to the meeting?" (A solemn assembly being held in the Temple.) Lorin said, "No, I haven't been invited." President Smith said, "Oh yes, you must be there, you are expected to speak."
      President Smith then led Lorin into the Temple and to the door leading into the Priesthood Assembly room. He opened the door and told Lorin to go in and go to the stand. As Lorin advanced toward the stand he heard arguing between Brother Talmage and others, to the effect that he, Lorin, should not be there. He had been handled and was not entitled to admission. (This was before he had actually been handled.)
      The voice of Pres. Smith was heard from the door to the effect, "Oh yes he is entitled to be here, go ahead Lorin. Voices whispered, "That is President Smith speaking." Lorin walked to the pulpit and the voice of the Prophet Joseph Smith was heard, saying, "Lorin will now give the history of the Church from the underground days until the present." A voice in the assembly said, "That is the Prophet Joseph Smith talking;" and the brethren who had been arguing against Lorin's admission into the assembly shrunk and shriveled up.1

      A year earlier Joseph Musser reported another of Lonn Wool ley's dreams in his journal:

      Dream of Lorin C. Woolley: Officers were after him; called for him in a loud defiant tone. He ran in the midst and defied them and they shrank away.2


      On April 19, 1933, Lonn Woolley had another dream which even more vividly expresses his inner drives for recognition and greatness. He reported:
      I was in a large field in the open, probably larger than a ten acre square. The grass was beautifully green and a beautiful harmony in nature prevailed. I was dressed as usual except that I wore a high brimmed stove hat, which style of hat, however, I had never worn in life. I had no cane to walk with. Didn't need one.[3] Probably 50,000 people were in the field, grouped about and all in position to hear what was going on. I was accosted by President Heber J. Grant, Antone W. Ivins and J. Reuben Clark the First Presidency. I saw no others of the general authorities. Brother Grant did most of the talking. He suggested that he and I call each other by our boyhood names as we knew and used them, viz: "Hebe" for Heber J. and "Noisy" for Lorin.[4]
      Heber stated he had misunderstood Lorin and wanted to apologize for the injustice he had done him and also for the way he had rebuffed J. Leslie Broadbent who had sought an interview with him. I told him it was all right, that I had forgiven him for the fifth time, in accordance with the principle as outlined in the 98 Sec. of the Doc. & Cov., which section Heber stated he had just been studying with Brother Clark, and had never understood its meaning before.
      Speaking of the "seven" friends in the Priesthood, I explained they ruled the earth, the Kingdom and the Church; that they, when united and it was necessary, had authority and power to rebuke, to remove mountains, set the Church in order, etc. That none of them would act as officers in the Church, but would shortly proceed under the one "Mighty and Strong" to set it in order. I said these men held the authority of God on earth; that they would shortly take charge of the Temple and cleanse it. . . . These men were called up and introduced to the brethren. Heber said he was already acquainted with Bros. Broadbent and Musser, but had not met the others be fore.
      
      The question regarding our wives (Lorin's and Heber's) was broached, I stating in answer to Heber's question, that I had five wives living, and I had them come up and introduced them to the brethren.[5] He inquired about my sons and I had them introduced. Heber mentioned Earl and regretted having prevented Earl marrying the ______________ girl, stating that she had never been happy and now would get a divorce and marry Earl if she thought he would have her. Earl spoke up, stating he certainly would, but not as his First wife. Heber said she would be willing to come in as his twentieth if necessary.[6] I asked him about his wives, telling him who they were and when and where they were married. At this Heber seemed greatly astonished and asked me how I knew these things. I stated I had been set apart in 1874, at the age of 18, by President Young, to learn of and keep track of such things for the protection of the brethren. Also answering Heber's question, I stated I had been ordained an Apostle by President Young at the age of 13. Heber said, "You are then the oldest apostle, in point of years of service, in this dispensation."
      I said, you have taken five wives since the Manifesto and have sealed them to others, which you had no authority to do (to seal). Heber seemed startled and asked how he knew. I said a little bird, like a stone, etc., whispered it to me. "Have you that stone?" Heber asked. "I don't know that I have 'that' stone, but I have one." Heber claimed these sealings had been taken care of before he had become President of the Church, but I mentioned one as late as December 1918, after he became President, and offered to give names, which challenge was not accepted, during which conversation Reuben appeared greatly surprised.[7]
Antone asked about new plural marriages and I told him they were going on and that I understood he (Bro. Ivins) had the record of performing the most plural marriages in the Church while he was in Mexico, except my father, John W. Woolley, and that I hoped yet to eclipse that record. Antone smiled assent, but did not deny the statement. He did little talking in the dream, Heber and Reuben being the main spokesmen. Reuben mildly rebuked me, asking why I did not uncover my head in the presence of the Presidency, as they themselves had done. I replied, "A king never uncovers to his subjects." This statement greatly astonished Reuben, and the statement, in varied forms, was made several times during the conversation.8

      These dreams are taken from many that are recorded in Joseph W. Musser's Book of Remembrance. They all indicate a keen desire on Lorin Woolley's part to gain prominence among his associates almost to the point of veneration.9 In fact, Woolley's aspirations did not end with his superiority over the Presidency of the Church. Note the following claim:

      At the 1886 meeting John Taylor: "Kings and queens and the rulers of the earth will pay tribute to some of you and some of your associates. Those who take part in casting you out and are vicious, their names shall be blotted out from the Book of Life."10

      It should go without saying that no king or queen or ruler of the earth has ever noticed Lorin Woolley nor any of his associates, much less paid tribute to them. The latter part of the above-cited statement is obviously a rebuttal against the Church for severing them from fellowship with the Saints.
      
      With this insight into Woolley's ego, and recognizing his anxiety over plural marriage and the Manifesto, it becomes easy to understand why he might have come up with such a story as his 1886 commission to perpetuate plural marriage independent of the Church. It would seem probable that a dream such as the one cited above might be the source of this story. Then, as he continually contemplated it, he might have conceived additional details with the justification that they had been forgotten and gradually remembered. This in time would produce the full-blown account as it appeared in 1929.

	(Seducing Spirits(

      It seems strange that devout and intelligent Latter-day Saints have been, and are being, led astray by the specious and presumptuous claims of Lorin Woolley. His followers take the position that the Doctrine and Covenants and the history of the Church are incomplete, and that if all the facts were known Woolley's followers would be completely vindicated. Those followers claim that the higher order of things was withheld from the Saints, who were unable to accept them. Thus Fundamentalists hide behind a cloak of public subterfuge and innuendo. It is because of their misguided persistence in living the suspended laws of consecration and plural marriage that Fundamentalists seem willing to close their eyes to the plain statements of continued revelation and Church history. They have resorted to a retrenchment in the past, rejecting the present course of the Church. It seems they would rather believe a fabrication that appeals to their senses than investigate and accept the truth. The apostle Paul spoke of this blind rationalization in his day

      . . . .They [shall] heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
. . . Giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocnsy . . .11

      What spirit could be more "seducing" than one which pretends that the Lord sanctions illicit plural marriages under the guise of unverifiable secret authority, when the right to practice this principle has been divinely and publicly withdrawn.
      Through the Spirit, the apostle Paul forewarned us: "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."12
      Heresies are false doctrines which lead men from the truth and from salvation They are listed, again in Paul's language, among "the works of the flesh"; those false doctrines gain a foothold among men because they "fulfil the lust of the flesh," and those who adhere to such doctrines "shall not inherit the kingdom of God.(13

      The apostle Paul sounded the following timely warning:


       This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers [etc.].... from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.14 

      It is prophesied that in the last days dissidents will ply their evil wares and deceive many. We are told also that the situation is not going to get better, but worse:

      But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them.15

      The only safe course to pursue is that marked out by the Lord's servants, each in his own time. To reject the Lord's prophets is to reject the Lord himself, and such rejection will lead to apostasy and eternal damnation. Orson Pratt issued the following warning to some apostates in his day who used the same arguments as do the present-day Fundamentalists:

      "Oh," said they, "here is the difference between us and them [apostates of an earlier day]: we believe in plurality of wives; we believe in the order of the Church," and so on. Said I, "Don't you know that the devil would be very foolish, if he wished to lead astray men who had been in this Church, who had been taught for years to believe the principles you believe in, if he should undertake to lead them astray by telling them there was no truth in all these things? The devil can adapt himself to the belief of any person. If you believed in plurality he would make you think it was all right. If he could get you to swallow down one or two great lies that would effect your destruction, and which you would preach and destroy many others. He would not mind how many truths you might believe.(16

Heber C. Kimball spoke of the deadly effects of lies and criticism:

      I will give you a key which brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said, that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this Church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spint, you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy.17

      We conclude with this solemn injunction from the Prophet Joseph Smith.


      O ye Twelve! and all Saints! profit by this important Key that in all your trials, troubles, temptations, afflictions, bonds, imprisonments and death, see to it, that you do not betray heaven; that you do not betray Jesus Christ; that you do not betray the brethren; that you do not betray the revelations of God, whether in the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants, or any other that ever was or ever will be given and revealed unto man in this world or that which is to come. Yea, in all your kicking and flounderings, see to it that you do not this thing, lest innocent blood be found upon your skirts, and you go down to hell. All other sins are not to be compared to sinning against the Holy Ghost, and proving a traitor to the brethren.
      I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. The principle is as correct as the one that Jesus put forth in saying that he who seeketh a sign is an adulterous person; and that principle is eternal, undeviating, and firm as the pillars of heaven; for whenever you see a man seeking after a sign, you may set it down that he is an adulterous man.18

      Shall we follow men who have apostatized and been excommunicated from the Church for criticizing and defying its leaders, or shall we follow the Lord's mouthpiece in our day, the President of the Restored Church?
1 Throughout this book the term Fundamentalist will be applied in its conventional LDS usage--to designate those who claim the right to practice polygamy despite the opposition of contemporary Presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is recognized that among such people there are groups having opposing claims and that some current polygamists use the term Fundamentalist in a derogatory way to designate opposing groups of polygamists claiming divergent authority.
2 In the original statement, parts of this line were crossed out (presumably by Woolley himself) and the wording was altered. The above account reflects the modified version. The original (before alteration) read as follows: "Much was said in their deliberation for and against some edict or manifesto that had been prepared, and at a meeting that afternoon, at which there were present: George Q. Cannon, John T. Caine, Hiram B. Clawson, Charles H. Wilcken, John W. Woolley and myself, I heard President Taylor say ("Statement of Facts," statement on file in the Church Archives, Salt Lake City. Photostatic copy in possession of the author.)
3 Lorin C. Woolley, "Statement of Facts."
4 See Joseph W. Musser Journal, entries under dates of March 12, 1922; April 9, 1922; June 14, 1922; July 5, 1922; and August 6, 7, 10, and 13, 1922, Church Archives, Salt Lake City. See also Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, August 6 and 7, 1922.
5 Joseph Musser and J. Leslie Broadbent, Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage (n.p., 1934), pp. 55-61; Truth (a monthly magazine published by Joseph Musser from 1935 to 1951), vol. 2, no. 8 (January 1937), pp. 118-20. Lorin Woolley refused to write the story when he was asked to write it by those who were interested in preserving it for posterity. For example, Charles Kingston, an early Fundamentalist, related: "When I heard the story of the Eight-hour Meeting in Centerville, Utah, at the home of John W. Woolley, I knew that was one of the most wonderful things that had happened in the Church since the days of Joseph Smith. So I went to Brother Lorin Woolley and told him that we ought to have a record of that. I asked him if he would write it for me so that I could preserve it for future generations. He said, 'No, I won(t do that, but you write the story as you have heard it from me, then bring it to me and I(ll correct it for you.' That I did and got him to correct it for me." (Mark, J. and Rhea A. Baird, vol. 3, Reminiscences ofJohn W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley, n.p., n.d., p. 2.)
6 Truth, vol. 20, no. 1 (June 1954), p. 29. See also Joseph W. Musser Journal, September 22, 1929. It is possible that Joseph Musser may have had something to do with writing the original 1912 statement. A Fundamentalist wrote: "Joseph W. [Musser] met Lorin Woolley about 1907 at [the] Baldwin Radio Plant, who related the meeting of Sept. 27, 1886." (Joseph W. Musser Journal, cited on an undated mimeo graph sheet from the collection of a member of the Fundamentalist Priesthood hierarchy.)
7 Charles Birrell was also a bodyguard of the brethren and was to take the second shift in watching on the night of September 26, 1886.
8 See chapter 8.
9 Musser and Broadbent, Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage. pp. 56-61.
1 Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 4.
2 Morrill Antibigamy Act of 1862, section 3; the act, as amended by the 1882 Edmunds Act and the 1887 Edmunds-Tucker Law, also details the prohibitions imposed by law.
3 Leonard J. Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1958), p. 362.
4 Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, p. 356.
5 Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, pp. 362-63.
6 John W. Taylor File, February 22, 1911; Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
7 John Sharp Letter File, 1886, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
8 Horace Eldredge Letter File, 1886, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
9 See The Historical Record, January 15, 1q86.
10 John T. Caine Letter File, 1886, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
11 Abraham Hatch Letter File, 1886, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
12 W. W. Cluff Letter File, 1886, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
13 W. W. Riter Letter File, 1886, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
14 Ira Hinckley Letter File, 1886, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
15 Juvenile Instructor 26:670.
16 L. John Nuttall journal for July 7, 1887, Brigham Young University Library Special Collections, Provo, Utah.
17 See Klaus J. Hansen, Quest for Empire: The Political Kingdom of God and the Council of Fifty in Mormon History (Michigan State University Press, 1967), pp. 17 3-79.
18 For a complete list, see Brigham Young University Library File M1221.
19 Words of Lorin C. Woolley spoken in a Priesthood Council meeting and recorded by Joseph Musser, taken from an undated mimeographed sheet of Fundamentalist origin. Copy in possession of the author. See also Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 26.
1 Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 4.
2 From the nature of President Cannon(s journal entries there is every reason to believe that he would have recorded such important information had it occurred, because he recorded in his journal such confidential material as proceedings of the secret "Council of Fifty" that was revived during the 1880s.
3 President Taylor(s Office Journal refers to the official office journal of President John Taylor(s daily activities as recorded by his personal secretary, L. John Nuttall. The journal(along with those denoting activities of other Church presidents--is kept in the First Presidency vault at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City.
4 Information of such a committee would not be purposefully withheld from daily journals, since this is not the sort of thing one would worry about falling into enemy hands. In fact, such a discovery may have tended to ease the situation.
5 Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, vol. 13, September 30, 1890, Church Archives, Salt Lake City. In the journal this statement is attributed to Franklin D. Richards, who is reported to have said it when the Woodruff Manifesto was discussed by the Quorum of the Twelve in council.
6 Journal of L. John Nuttall, December 19, 1888.
7 See The Historical Record for 1886.
8 See Franklin S. Richards Correspondence File, Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City.
9 John T. Caine Letter File, September 1, 1886.
10 President John Taylor Letter File, September 18, 1886, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
11 Diary of Samuel Bateman, 1886-1909, September 22, 1886, Brigham Young University Library Special Collections, Provo, Utah.
12 James Jack Letter File, July 3, 1886, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
13 1886 Revelation: A Revelation of the Lord to John Taylor (hereafter called 1886 Revelation), p. 5.
14 Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 24.
15 1886 Revelation, p. 5.
1 B. Harvey Allred, A Leaf in Review, 2d ed. (Draper, Utah: Review and Preview Publishers, 1968), pp. 18384. This account was allegedly told by Lorin Woolley in 1925 and was written down by Allred at that time.
2 Samuel W. Taylor, The Kingdom or Nothing (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company/London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1976), p. 365.
3 Brigham Young, Jr., Journal, September 24, 1886, to September 27, 1886, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
4 Diary of Samuel Bateman, 1886-1909, p. 5. Do refers to the place where President Taylor(s party was staying. Rather than write out the name of the place in each day(s entry, Bateman mentions it each time a move was made, and then in succeeding entries he uses the "Do" as a contraction of ditto. In this entry, "Do" refers to the John W. Woolley home in Centerville.
5 The President(s Office Journal, September 26, 1886.
6 George Q. Cannon Journal, September 26, 1886, First Presidency Vault, Salt Lake City.
7 James Jack Letter File, September 27, 1886.
8 President John Taylor Letter File, September 27, 1886.
9 Franklin S. Richards Correspondence File.
10 Ibid.
1 Allred, A Leaf in Review, p. 184.
2 Jessee Burke Stone, unpublished paper, "Jewish Influence on the Mormon Church," p. 2.
3 Andrew Jenson, Church Chronology, February 1, 1885, Church Archives, Salt Lake City; see also Gustive 0. Larson, The "Americanization" of Utah for Statehood (San Marino, Calif: The Huntington Library, 1971), p. 155.
4 Review of Draper History, p. 22.
5 Larson, The "Americanization" of Utah for Statehood, pp. 155-56.
6 In 1922, John T. Clark, who claimed to be the "One Mighty and Strong," was making claims in many of the same meetings as was Lorin Woolley. On May 24, 1922, Joseph Musser wrote in his journal: "Bro. Clark claims to have seen the Savior several times, also Joseph Smith and his successors in office. He claims to be the Indian Prophet spoken of in the Book of Mormon and the most literal descendant of Jesus Christ upon the earth today... . I am deeply impressed with his claims and am seeking further light."
7 Joseph Musser Journal, March 12, 1922.
8 Allred, A Leaf in Review, p. 185.
9 1886 Revelation, p. 6.
10 Allred, A Leaf in Review, p. 185. Italics added.
1 Diary of Samuel Bateman, 1886-1909, September 27, 1886.
2 George Q. Cannon Journal, September 27, 1886.
3 The President's Office Journal, September 27, 1886.
4 Wilford Woodruff Journal, September 23, 1886, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
5 Lynn L. Bishop and Steven L. Bishop, The Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated (Draper, Utah: Review and Preview Publishers, 1971), pp. 173-74.
6 Diary of Samuel Bateman, 1886-1909, September 15, 1886.
7 Truth, vol. 8, no. I (June 1942), p. 14.
8 Diary of Samuel Bateman, 1886-1909, September 29, 1886.
9 Bishop and Bishop, The Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated, p. 170.
10 Baird and Baird, Reminiscences of John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley, vol. 2, p. 8; see also vol. 3, appendix E footnote; and vol. 4, p. 2.
11 B.H. Roberts, ed., History of the Church, vol. 1 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book. 1961), pp. 14-15 (hereafter referred to as Documentary History of the Church).
12 Juvenile Instructor 27:303.
1 Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 6. See also Allred,A Leaf in Review, p. 186, which describes President Taylor as (surrounded by a thin halo of light.(
2 See Exodus 34:29-35; 20: 18-19.
3 See the accounts of Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner and Lorenzo Snow in the book They Knew the Prophet, compiled by Hyrum L. and Helen Mae Andrus, published by Bookcraft.
4 Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 30. At a commemorative meeting held on December 20, 1936, Joseph Musser reported in his journal: (Charles H. Owen read the Seer,( a song composed by John Taylor. It was announced that this song was sung by a Heavenly Choir, during the meeting held at the home of John W. Woolley, Sept. 27, 1886.
5 Hymns, No. 296. Information from the Church Music Department.
6 Statement of George Earl, August 2, 1949, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
7 Truth, vol. 2, no. 8 (January 1937), p. 118.
8 Bishop and Bishop, The Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated, pp. 167-169.
9 Allred, A Leaf in Review, 2nd ed., appendix 2, pp. 237-38.
1 Although its authenticity has not been established, for convenience the document concerned is referred to in the text of this book as the 1886 revelation.
2 Truth, vol. 8, no. 1 (June 1942), p. 14.
3 Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, vol. 13, September 30, 1890.
4 Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, March 29, 1892. This document was later circulated among early Fundamentalists. In Truth Magazine of October, 1938, Joseph Musser reproduced "A Facsimile Copy of the Revelation" which was so poor, how ever, that it was difficult to read. Because of the poor quality of the photograph, later Fundamentalist writers have taken the liberty of tracing over the photograph to make it reproduce more legibly. In the pamphlet, 1886 Revelation, one can see the results of this endeavor. Still another pamphlet, The Four Hidden Revelations, shows an additional retracing effort.
5 Matthias F. Cowley File, May 10, 1911, Church Archives, Salt Lake City. Note that Elder Cowley laid more emphasis on President Woodruff's 1889 revelation than on President Taylor's 1886 document.
6 John W. Taylor File, February 22 and March 1, 1911. For additional quotations from the trial, see 1886 Revelation. Joseph Musser obtained a copy of the minutes from the Church Archives.
7 This agrees with the testimony cited in John W. Taylor(s File above.
8 Official Statement, Deseret News, Church Section, June 18, 1933. This statement reiterated the judgment of John W. Taylor at his trial in 1911: "His construction upon it [the 1886 revelation] is very mischievous and against the position and discipline of the Church by the living oracles."
9 Anthony W. Ivins Letter File, February 10, 1934, Church Archives, Salt Lake City. (Although emphasis is added here, it conforms to emphasis found in other sources: Musser and Broadbent, Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, p. 15.)
10 Joseph W. Musser, Marriage, 1934, pp. 44-45.
11 Excerpts From the Journal of Douglas M. Todd, Sr. (Salt Lake City, 1972), pp. 10-12.
12 Musser and Broadbent, Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, p. 70.
13 A Fundamentalist publication indicates that September 28, 1886, was the day that is meant in this passage. For further information, see The Most Holy Principle: A History Problem, vol. 3 (Murray, Utah: Gems Publishing Company, 1971), p. 231.
14 Information derived from private journals, the Journal History of the Church, and The Historical Record.
15 See journals of John Henry Smith and Abraham H. Cannon for September 27, 1886
16 Franklin D. Richards Journal, September 27, 1886, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
17 See journals of Abraham H. Cannon and Franklin D. Richards, September 28, 1886.
18 Franklin D. Richards Journal, September 28, 1886.
19 John W. Taylor Letter File, September 30, 1886.
20 See the Annie Taylor Hyde collection, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
21 Jacob 2:26-27, 30.
22 John W. Taylor File.
23 Deseret News Weekly, October 24, 1891, pp. 572-8 1.
24 John W. Taylor File.
1 James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, vol. 3 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc. 1966), pp. 11, 31.
2 See the minutes of conference in the Deseret News Weekly, October 11, 1890, p.526. For justification of this action, see the Deseret News Weekly, October 18, 1890, pp.550-52.
3 Joseph W. Musser, "Editorial," Truth, vol. 1, no. 2 (July 1935), p. 9.
4 Allred, A Leaf in Review, p. 196.
5 Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 6.
6 Truth, vol. 1, p. 8.
7 For all his later derision of the Woodruff Manifesto and those he claimed wrote it, Lorin Woolley once claimed that he was involved in its production. Joseph Musser reported being at a meeting in 1922; Lorin Woolley spoke, saying: "He said he knew the Manifesto, because he helped to make it, and cited reasons for knowing that it had not been kept by the leading authorities." (Joseph W. Musser Journal, April 9, 1922.)
8 Erastus Snow died on May 27, 1888, so he obviously was not a member of this alleged committee. Further, there is no evidence of the others functioning on the committee or that any such committee was ever organized.
9 Jessee Burke Stone, An Event of the Underground Days, pp. 6-7, a pamphlet reprinted from Baird and Baird, Reminiscences of John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley, vol. 3, appendix A. See also Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 7; Darter, Keys of the Kingdom-- Where?, pp. 5-6. This original version also contained a statement of confirmation by Daniel R. Bateman which has since been deleted from more recent published versions. Bateman's original 1929 statement included: "The proceedings of the meeting, as also the circumstances relating to the Woodruff Manifesto as related by Brother Woolley are correct in every detail." (An Event of the Underground Days, p. 7.)
10 Musser and Broadbent, Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, p. 31.
11 This statement is a parroting of a hostile Salt Lake Tribune headline of January 16, 1909. Elder John Henry Smith is alleged to have said in a secondhand report: Why Brother Wolfe, do you not understand that the Manifesto was only a trick devised to beat the devil at his own game?" Salt Lake Tribune, January 6, 1909.
12 Robert C. Newson, Is the Manifesto a Revelation? (n. p.' 1956), pp. 6-8.
13 Deseret News, November 7, 1891.
14 Wilford Woodruff Journal, September 25, 1890.
15 Proceedings Before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests Against the Right of Honorable Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah, to Hold His Seat (hereafter referred to as Smoot Hearings), vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1904), pp. 52-53.
16 Frank J. Cannon and Harvey J. O'Higgins, Under the Prophet in Utah (Boston, Mass.: The C. M. Clark Publishing Company, 1911), pp. 99-100.
17 Cannon and O'Higgins, Under the Prophet in Utah, p. 102.
18 Truth, vol. 4. no. 3 (August 1938), p. 42.
19 Truth, vol. 9, no. 4 (September 1943), p. 93.
20 Deseret News, November 3, 1890, cited in Smoot Hearings, vol. 1, p. 345.
21 Cannon and O'Higgins, Under the Prophet in Utah, pp. 110-11.
22 Deseret News Weekly, November 7, 1891.
23 Conference Reports, April 1904; Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, vol. 4, pp. 84-85.
24 Asterisks indicate those who have claimed to hold the keys of the sealing power that Wilford Woodruff held.
25 Truth, vol. 11, no. 8, (January, 1946), p. 218. Note that this "manifesto" was issued on September 24, 1945, fifty-five years to the day from the issuance of the Woodruff Manifesto. This "manifesto" even mimics the original language of the Woodruff Manifesto.
26 Truth, vol. 11, no. 8 (January 1946), pp. 218-19.
27 Truth, vol. 7, no. 4 (September 1941), p. 80.
28 Truth, vol. 5, no. 9 (February 1940), p. 202; vol.7, no. 3 (August 1941), p. 61; and vol. 14, no. 7 (December 1948), p. 176.
29 Joseph Musser, Truth, vol. 9, no. 10 (March 1944), p. 251. Italics added. 
30 Truth, vol. 9, no. 3 (August 1943), p. 74. See also Joseph Musser, A Priesthood Issue and the Law of Plural Marriage (Salt Lake City: Truth Publishing Company), and Musser and Broadbent, Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage.
31 Saint Joseph White Musser, In Memoriam," Truth, vol. 20, no. 1 (June1954), p. 34.
32 1929 version of the Lorin C. Woolley story as printed in Musser and Broadbent, Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, pp. 56-61. Joseph Musser also reported the following magnanimous claim: (Ex-Judge Charles S. Zane, one of our most rabid anti-Mormon officials, said to Lorin C. Woolley, If I believed in that principle as you and your father do, I would see the U. S. in hell before I would give it up. I would rot in jail before I would surrender it(.((Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 15.)
1 Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 23. Italics added.
2 See D&C 129:4-7, and Documentary History of the Church 3:392, 4:571-8 1.
3 Baird and Baird, Reminiscences of John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley, vol. 3, p.25
4 Baird and Baird, Reminiscences of John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley, vol. 3, pp. 26-27.
5 Documentary History of the Church 7:256.
6 Documentary History of the Church 7:473.
7 Joseph F. Smith Letter File, 1904. Church Archives, Salt Lake City; see also First Presidency Decisions, 2:28, Church Archives.
8 Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 2.
9 Joseph Musser Journal, April 23, 1930.
10 Joseph Musser Journal, April 6, 1935.
11 Journal of Discourses 4:285-86.
12 Cited in the minutes of a Fundamentalist meeting of June 29, 1952, p. 2. Copy in possession of the author. The above remarks of Brigham Young came as a result of a comment of Heber C. Kimball that President Young feared might be misinterpreted by the Saints, so he spoke to dispel any speculation or false doctrine. President Young logically would have left the subject untouched rather than purposely deceive.
13 Journal of Discourses 21:317-18.
14 Journal of Discourses 25:32-34.
15 Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p. 471.
16 Samuel O. Bennion to Heber J. Grant, January 21, 1928, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
17 Journal of Discourses 4:286.
1 D&C 132:7-8, 10.
2 See Journal of Discourses 13:193; see also William W. Phelps to Brigham Young, August 12, 1861, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
3 Charles L. Walker Diary, vol.8, p. 118 (typescript available at Brigham Young University Library Special Collections);Juvenile Instructor 16:206; Journal of Discourses 20:29.
4 Documentary History of the Church 2:509, 511.
5 Benjamin F. Johnson to George S. Gibbs, Church Archives, Salt Lake City, The Historical Record 6:219-34.
6 Documentary History of the Church 3: 16-17.
7 Documentary History of the Church 6:46.
8 Brigham Young to William Smith, August 10, 1845, in William Smith Papers (copy in Church Archives, Salt Lake City; original in Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Historian's Office).
9 Times and Seasons 5:423.
10 Letter of Brigham Young to William Smith (previously cited).
11 Millennial Star 5: 151.
12 Journal of Discourses 13:164; see also Millennial Star 5:12.
13 Journal of Discourses 19:239.
14 Andrew Jenson, LDS Biographical Encyclopedia 1:194.
15 Matthew 16:18.
16 Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, vol. 2, p. 279.
17 Anthon H. Lund Journal, January 10, 1900, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
18 Wilford Woodruff Journal, September 24, 1871.
19 Journal of Discourses 19:234.
20 Journal of Discourses 19:114.
21 Musser, A Priesthood Issue and the Law of Plural Marriage, p. 4.
22 Musser, A Priesthood Issue and the Law of Plural Marriage, p. 4. Italics added.
23 Musser, A Priesthood Issue and the Law of Plural Marriage, p. 27.
24 Truth, vol. 17, no. 6 (November 1951), p. 180.
25 D&C 107:21-22.
26 D&C 107:65-66, 91-92.
27 D&C 20:2; 107:22-23; Documentary History of the Church 1:40-4 1, 60-6 1, 65.
28 Documentary History of the Church 1:176.
29 Documentary History of the Church 1:242, 243, 267; D&C 82 superscript.
30 See D&C 27:12-23; D&C 128:20.
31 D&C 107:8.
32 Orson Pratt Journal, January 25, 1832, Church Archives, Salt Lake City; Deseret News Weekly, June 2, 1858.
33 D&C 110:13:16.
34 Edmunds-Tucker Law (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office).
35 Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, March 28, 1886.
36 Salt Lake Tribune, October 20, 1889.
37 Report of the Utah Commission, September 24, 1888, (Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office).
38 Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, vol. 3, p. 127.
39  Deseret Evening News, June 30, 1887.
40 L. John Nuttall Journal, July 7, 1887.
41 J. D. T. McAllister Journal, July 27, 1887, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
42 D&C, pp. 256-57.
43 Musser, A Priesthood Issue and the Law of Plural Marriage, p. 25. 
44 D&C, p. 257.
45 Smoot Hearings, vol. 1, p. 345.
46 Deseret News Weekly, November 21, 1891. Note at this point that the Church did not have anything to do with the action of President Woodruff in his issuance of the Woodruff Manifesto of September 24, 1890. That document was prepared and issued to the press and then was sustained by the Church membership at the next general conference.
47 Contributor 10:382.
48 Truth, vol. 6, no. 1 (June 1940), p. 21.
49 Truth, vol. 9, no. 3 (August 1943), p. 75.
50 Smoot Hearings, vol. 1, p. 4.
51 Musser, A Priesthood Issue and the Law of Plural Marriage, p. 4.
52 Truth, vol. 9, no. 3 (August 1943), p. 74.
53 Journal of Discourses 19:239.
54 1880 revelation to Wilford Woodruff, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
55 Journal History of the Church, October 10, 1898.
56 See New York World, December 10, 1898, and Deseret News, January 8, 1899. Lorenzo Snow's comments are also printed in the John W. Taylor File, February 22 1911, and in the Matthias Cowley File, May 10, 1911.
57 Brigham Young, Jr., Journal, pp. 36-37.
58 Truth, vol. 20, no. 1 (June 1954), p. 17.
59 Ibid.
60 During Matthias F. Cowley's trial he admitted performing the plural marriage for Joseph Musser.
61 Conference Reports, October 1901, p. 82.
62 Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p. 176.
63 Conference Reports, October 1916, p. 7.
64 Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, vol. 5, p. 325.
65 John W. Taylor File, March 1, 1911.
66 Francis M. Lyman Letterbook, May 5, 1904, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
67 For example, on September 21, 1891, on a trip through Arizona, Elder John Henry Smith was given authority to seal couples for eternity (see Wilford Woodruff Letterbook, vol. 9, no. 1352, p. 120, Church Archives, Salt Lake City).
68 Decisions of the First Presidency, 1887-19 14, vol. 2, p. 30.
69 See Joseph F. Smith Letterbook, vol. 2, pp. 34, 77-78, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
70 Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, vol. 4, pp. 2 17-18.
71 Conference Reports, October 1911.
72 D&C 124:124.
73 D&C 124:92.
74 Brigham Young to William Smith (previously cited).
75 D&C 132:7.
76 For example, J. S. Woolf, a patriarch in Canada, was also excommunicated for this same cause. His alleged source of authority is discussed in the John W. Taylor File, March 1, 1911.
77 Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, vol. 5, p. 196.
78 Matthias F. Cowley File, May 10, 1911.
79 Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, vol. 4, p. 301.
80 Journal History of the Church, August 16, 1900, pp. 1-2.
81 Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 6.
82 Musser, A Priesthood Issue and the Law of Plural Marriage, p. 12; see also Musser, Items on Priesthood, 1934.
83 Musser, A Priesthood Issue and the Law of Plural Marriage, p.  25.
84 Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, vol. 5, pp. 327-330.
1 See Deuteronomy 17:6; Matthew 18:15-16; John 8:12-19; and 2 Corinthians 13:1.
2 John 5:31. See also Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft Inc., 1954), PP. 203-28.
3 Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 210-13.
4 Reed C. Durham, Jr., and Steven H. Heath, Succession in the Church (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft Inc., 1970), pp. 50-54; B. H. Roberts, Succession in the Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2d. ed. (Salt Lake City: Geo. Q. Cannon & Sons Publishing Co., 1900), pp. 97ff.; Joseph Fielding Smith, Succession in the Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, pamphlet published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, pp. 20-23; letter from Johnson to Gibbs, Pp. 10-11.
5 Joseph Fielding Smith to Walter Whipple, April 24, 1956.
6 Musser and Broadbent, Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, pp. 26-27.
7 Truth, vol. 17, no. 3 (August 1951), p. 71.
8 1886 Revelation, p. 8.
9 Joseph W. Musser Journal, December 20, 1936. Italics added.
10 John 5:31.
11 John 8:13.
12 Juliaetta Bateman Jensen, Little Gold Pieces (Salt Lake City: Stanway Printing Company, 1948), pp. 129-30.
13 Ibid., pp. 136-38.
14 Brigham Young, Jr., Journal, February 1, 1901
15 Jensen, Little Gold Pieces, p. 134.
16 Family Group Sheet, Genealogical Society Library, Salt Lake City, Utah.
17 Truth, vol. 8, no. 1 (June 1942), pp. 12-15. (The article is a eulogy to Daniel Bateman.)
18 1886 Revelation, p. 6.
19 Jacob 2:30.
20 Family Group Sheet, Genealogical Society Library, Salt Lake City.
21 Salt Lake City, Utah, March 30, 1914. The Davis Stake High Council Record for April 25, 1914, lists: "Today by unanimous vote of the Council of the Twelve Apostles John W. Woolley was excommunicated... for insubordination to the discipline and government of the Church. Francis M. Lyman in behalf of the Council."
22 Joseph Fielding Smith to Dean Jessee, July 13, 1955.
23 Statement Concerning the Purported Ordination of John W. Woolley, statement deposited in the Brigham Young University Library Special Collections by Lloyd Rine.
24 Anthon H. Lund Journal, January 13, 1914. See also Anthony W. Ivins Diary, Utah State Historical Society, entry at the end of the 19 13-1914 book.
25 This allegation would have had no validity because Elder Cowley was stripped of his apostleship in the Quorum of the Twelve in 1906 and was disfellowshipped from the Church in 1911. Any authority from this source would be presumptuous.
26 Affidavit in Anthony W. Ivins's Papers, Utah State Historical Society.
27 Journal of Anthony W. Ivins, Huntington Library, San Manno, California, January 1911, pp. 199-200.
28 Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 10.
29 Truth, vol. 2, no. 8 (January 1937), p. 122.
30 See Manuscript History of Brigham Young, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
31 Church Membership Records, South Davis Stake.
32 Missionary Book B, p. 97, no. 236, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
33 Missionary Book C, p. 38, no. 741, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
34 Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 34.
35 Joseph W. Musser Journal, April 9, 1922.
36 James E. Talmage Correspondence File, January 18, 1924, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
37 Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 12.
38 See obituary in the Deseret News, April 28, 1975. Goulda's two sisters also married Fundamentalists: J. Leslie Broadbent and Joseph W. Musser.
1 Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 1.
2 Ibid., p. 21.
3 Lorin Woolley was small of stature, and as a result of an accident he walked with a cane in his later years.
4 Lorin Woolley seemed to have had an ego problem even in his early years. The Centerville Fifth Ward Elders Quorum minutes, for instance, reveal that Lonn was the first to speak at quorum meetings and frequently dominated discussion. His self-evaluation as "Noisy," a nickname he picked up in his childhood, confirms this.
5 As we have seen, Lorin had only one polygamous wife, whom he had acquired about five months previous to this dream. As the leader of a group whose main purpose was to perpetuate polygamy he, no doubt, had great desires in this regard, even if his deeds did not measure up to his desires.
6 Earl Woolley, Lorin's seventh child, was born in 1899, but did not marry until 1965, over thirty years after Lorin Woolley's death. This claim of Church interference and polygamy on the part of his bachelor son is not true. The dream discussion is probably self-justification for Lorin's embarrassment over the situation.
7 Such claims were part of the evidence submitted at Lorin Woolley's Church trial in 1924, which resulted in his excommunication on a charge of "pernicious falsehood."
8 Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, pp. 33-35.
9 See Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, pp. 10-11. See Truth, vol. 16, no. 11 (April 1951), pp. 319-20, for another fantastic account wherein the Savior, John Taylor, and Brigham Young spared Lorin Woolley's life so that he might accomplish his "mission" in mortality despite his grandfather's call from the spirit world.
10 Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 21.
11 2 Timothy 4:3-4, 1 Timothy 4 1 2.
12 1 Corinthians 11 19.
13 Galatians 5:16-26.
14 2 Timothy 3:1, 2, 5-7.
15 2 Timothy 3: 13-14.
16 Journal of Discourses, 13:73. Italics added.
17 Journal of Discourses, 3:270. Italics added.
18 Documentary History of the Church 3:385.
??

??

??

??