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 we