TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. POLYGAMIST PRIESTHOOD AUTHORITY 1 2. THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS 15 3. THE FUNDAMENTALIST PRIESTHOOD AN INTRODUCTION 23 4. FUNDAMENTALIST LINE OF AUTHORITY: THE PROPOSED 1886 ORDINATIONS 40 5. FUNDAMENTALIST LINE OF AUTHORITY: 1886 TO 1949 75 6. THE FUNDAMENTALIST PRESIDING PRIESTHOOD OFFICE: THE HIGH PRIEST APOSTLE AND COUNCIL OF FRIENDS 89 7. THE FUNDAMENTALIST LEADERSHIP COUNCIL: MEMBERSHIP - 1829 to 1832 112 8. THE FUNDAMENTALIST LEADERSHIP COUNCIL: MEMBERSHIP - 1835 to 1837 132 9. THE FUNDAMENTALIST LEADERSHIP COUNCIL: MEMBERSHIP - 1842 to 1880 153 10. THE FUNDAMENTALIST "CHURCH" ORGANIZATION 173 11. THE FUNDAMENTALISTS AND THE 1890 MANIFESTO 203 12. THE SELF-APPOINTED 229 CHAPTER ONE POLYGAMIST PRIESTHOOD AUTHORITY MODERN PLURAL MARRIAGE Recently a variety of news events in the Inter-mountain Area have highlighted polygamous families. Infamous activities of the LeBarons, or Singer-Swapp group have cast a negative shadow on a people who are generally very tranquil and God-loving. The publicity given to individuals trying to live the Principle of Plural Marriage has exposed more Mormons and non-Mormons alike to their theology, their hopes, and their faith. One important aspect of their faith deals with sealing authority,1 however, relatively little has been written addressing this important topic Those practicing polygamy after the LDS Manifesto in 1890 are referred to as modern day polygamists. Many modern day polygamists follow a theology labeled as Fundamentalist. The term Fundamentalist2 is applied to individuals who claim to follow fundamental doctrines and practices which they allege were lost through unauthorized changes in the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Usually, they or their progenitors were members of the Church. The first application of the term Fundamentalist to modern believers in plural marriage appears to have occurred in the late 1930's. The decade of the 1930's represents the period when polygamists coalesced into identifiable groups. It was also a time for the crystallization of their theological tenets. Observing that thousands of contemporary polygamists consider themselves to be Fundamentalists should not imply a unity of beliefs or authority claims among them. The many varied groups have continued to grow and progress in numbers during the last few decades despite their illegal familial unions and estrangement from the main body of Latter-day Saints. Presently, one prolific Fundamentalist writer, Ogden Kraut,3 estimates that over 30,000 individuals are involved with the practice of modern plural marriage. That number probably represents more people than were practicing polygamy at the time of the 1890 Manifesto. POLYGAMY - A REVIEW Joseph Smith may have understood the law of celestial marriage including the plurality of wives as early as 1831. In 1831, Joseph labored with the inspired translation of the holy scriptures and asked the Lord how He was able to justify the practice of plural marriage among the Old Testament patriarchs.4 The Lord's answer to that question was a revelation recorded in 1843 that is now section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants.5 Section 132 includes a discussion on the eternity of the marriage covenant, including the plurality of wives.6 Plural marriage may have been practiced by Church leaders prior to the recording of section 132 in 1843, but the exact extent to which Joseph and others may have engaged in it is unknown.7 The prophet Joseph Smith's first recorded plural marriage in Nauvoo was to Louisa Beaman which was performed April 5, 1841.8 During the remainder of his life, Joseph took additional plural wives and assisted other worthy Church members to do the same. However, the practice was kept secret and was very limited. The principle of plural marriage was revealed to the Saints generally and to the world during a special conference held August 28-29, 1852 in the Old Tabernacle on Temple Square in Salt Lake City.9 For almost four decades afterwards, members of the Church would engage themselves in such sacred unions as directed by their priesthood leaders. That period also saw an intense effort by the United States Government to eliminate the practice by passing strict laws against it. The Latter-day Saints endured the persecution until 1890 when President Wilford Woodruff issued a Manifesto.10 The Manifesto announced to the Church membership and to the Gentiles that the Saints were to obey the law of the land. However, new plural marriages did not entirely cease in 1890. Recently, two noted authors observed: Earlier polygamous families continued to exist well into the twentieth century, causing further political problems for the Church, and new plural marriages did not entirely cease in 1890. After having lived the principle at some sacrifice for half a century, many devout Latter-day Saints found ending plural marriage a challenge almost as complex as was its beginning in the 1840s. Some new plural marriages were contracted in the 1890s in LDS settlements in Canada and northern Mexico, and a few elsewhere... President Joseph F. Smith issued his "Second manifesto" in 1904. Since that time, it has been uniform Church policy to excommunicate any member either practicing or openly advocating the practice of polygamy.11 PRIESTHOOD AUTHORITY RESTORED Today, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints testify that Joseph Smith was the Lord's prophet commissioned to bring about the "restitution of all things" as prophesied.12 They also assert that the "restitution" referred to included a restoration of the priesthood. The priesthood is the authority which allows man to act in God's name to effectuate His ordinances. The priesthood, with its authority, keys and powers, was restored over a span of several years to Joseph Smith. The lesser or Aaronic Priesthood was bestowed on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by John the Baptist on the banks of the Susquehanna River near Harmony, Pennsylvania, May 15, 1829.13 During the next month, the higher or Melchizedek Priesthood was restored: And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them;14 The restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood included Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery being ordained apostles by Peter, James, and John.15 Notwithstanding, the power and authority of the apostleship they received, additional priesthood keys needed to be re-established on earth. On April 3, 1836, Joseph Smith, with Oliver Cowdery, received a vision in the recently completed Kirtland Temple.16 The vision opened with the Lord Jehovah standing before them accepting His House and the sacrifice of the saints associated with its construction. After the Savior departed, three additional angelic messengers appeared in succession, each with keys to restore to Joseph Smith: After this vision closed, the heavens were again opened unto us; and Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north. After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed. After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us, and said: Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi -- testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come.17 Besides Moses, Elias and Elijah, additional keys and knowledge were apparently communicated to Joseph Smith on other occasions during his lifetime by prophets such as Michael,18 Gabriel,19 Raphael,20 the Apostle Paul,21 Nephite prophets22 and others. Exactly what transpired during the visits of these men to Joseph Smith is unknown, but undoubtedly instruction was given and possibly keys imparted.23 Prior to May of 1842 Joseph received divine understanding concerning the ceremony of the temple endowment and priesthood keys associated with it. During that month he instructed others in its sacred concepts, administering solemn covenants. We may not know all the heavenly messengers sent to Joseph Smith to restore God's priesthood authority to the earth. However, Latter-day Saints are secure that the restoration was complete before his martyrdom and that a mechanism was in place to allow a perpetuation of that important authority. SEALING AUTHORITY CONTINUES WITHIN THE CHURCH A basic tenet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that the same priesthood powers that were restored to Joseph Smith during his lifetime have been preserved through an orderly line of succession as shown in figure 1-1. Joseph Smith received keys and authority from several angelic visitors during his earthly sojourn and they have passed from one Church President to the next in calm succession to the present-day President, Ezra Taft Benson. The authority has always remained within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under the care of those priesthood leaders holding the apostleship. Joseph Smith taught: "If you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."24 Joseph knew the priesthood keys would continue within the Quorum of the Twelve. Upon the death of a president of the Church, the apostle with the most senior ordination in the Quorum of the Twelve becomes the senior apostle upon the earth. He has in every instance become the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.25 As the senior apostle, he holds all the priesthood keys including those of Elijah to seal on earth and in heaven. The Lord has specified that only one man on earth at a time holds those keys. The importance of performing a marriage utilizing the keys held by that one man cannot be overemphasized. THE "ONE" ANOINTED AND APPOINTED In July of 1843, the Lord referred to Joseph Smith as the one anointed and appointed to hold the keys of sealing power: And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead. (D&C 132:7.) [Underlining by the authors.] The Lord gave instructions concerning this "sealing power" in the verse quoted above. He repeated the need for proper authority later in the same section of the Doctrine and Covenants: And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, Saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God. (D&C 132:18.) [Underlining added.] The authority which God has given to man to seal men and women for time and all eternity is controlled by one individual who holds the keys to this power. The Lord refers to this man four different times in the first 19 verses of section 132. Such marriages must be: ...entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed... (Verse 7.) ...through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred); (Ibid.) ...sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, (Verse 18.) ...sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; (Verse 19.) [Underlining added.] In these references the Lord says that this ordinance must be performed "of him...," "by him..," or "through him..." (stated twice) or it is of "no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead" (verse 7). Latter-day Saints testify that the one man is and has always been the Senior Apostle and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. OTHER PURPORTED LINES OF AUTHORITY Figure 1-2 shows a general representation of the most popular schismatic priesthood lines of authority promoted today. Four main groups can be identified: 1. "Independent" Independents 2. Benjamin Johnson - LeBaron 3. Lorin C. Woolley to Joseph W. Musser (most popular) 4. "Woolley" Independents The priesthood doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well as that derived from the claims of a man named Lorin C. Woolley, will be discussed in greater detail in the following chapters. "INDEPENDENT" INDEPENDENTS Figure 1-2 shows a line of authority which is not a true claim to Sealing Keys, but rather the assertion that such is not necessary. Some modern "Independent" Independents teach that the spirit alone may justify a plural marriage in the eyes of the Lord. The need for the "one" anointed and appointed mentioned in D&C 132 as holding the keys of sealing26 is not addressed or is professed to not be an issue. Hence they are "independent" of all other polygamists. BENJAMIN JOHNSON - LEBARON LINE This purported line of authority gave birth to The Church of the First Born of the Fullness of Times which claims priesthood authority through Benjamin F. Johnson. They assert that Benjamin Johnson was an adopted son of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as well as being a business partner holding the power of attorney for the Prophet. This group believes that Benjamin F. Johnson was the head over the Kingdom of God on Earth or the House of Israel. In that capacity, they assert, he appointed A. Dayer LeBaron to be the Prophet's birthright heir holding the priesthood office of "The Right of the Firstborn"27 which is the right to stand as Adam (who is the Firstborn) or as God to the human race.28 There are three grand divisions in the Priesthood in the Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times, according to its proponents, which are subordinate to the office of the Right of the Firstborn: First, the Office of the Grand Patriarch, which "...presides over all the spiritual blessings of the Church in concert with the right of the Firstborn, and which has the authority to perform all the ordinances pertaining to the house of God." Second the office of the Presiding Bishop, which stands next in authority to the Right of the Firstborn, but presides over that business"... pertaining to the temporal concerns of the kingdom of God..." And third, the office of the President of the Kingdom, standing next to the Right of the Firstborn with authority to transact all business pertaining to civil government in the Kingdom of God.29 Prior to his death, members believe Dayer LeBaron conferred his Priesthood upon one of his sons. Disagreements ensued over which of his sons, Ross, Joel or the infamous Ervil LeBaron, received Dayer's authority. Confusion also surrounded the priesthoodoffices themselves which has been analyzed elsewhere.30 The activities of Joel and Ervil are known to many and served to diminish the number of believers in their priesthood line. CONTRASTING PRIESTHOOD CLAIMS Figure 1-2 also compares purported lines of priesthood authority of two other prominent modern polygamist sects. While much could be written about each line of authority on the chart, this book will primarily focus on those two priesthood lines which claim to derive their doctrine and priesthood keys through a man named Lorin C. Woolley. Lorin C. Woolley was born October 23, 1856, in Centerville, Utah. During part of the 1880's, he served as a mail carrier for the leading Church Authorities who sometimes stayed at the home of his father, John W. Woolley at Centerville, Utah, during the anti-polygamy crusades of the 1880's. Even though Lorin C. Woolley was a monogamist until two years before his death, he became a central figure in the formation of the modern polygamist movement because in the 1920's he recalled events from 1886 which became the basis for their line of priesthood authority and ordained leaders. Doctrines of a Church organization and a leadership council were later derived from his teachings. While several groups of his followers have split over various religious tenets, they share many theological precepts which we shall endeavor to study. THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK The remainder of this publication will focus on four basic aspects of the priesthood derived through the claims of Lorin C. Woolley. Specifically their: 1. Line of Authority - From 1886 to 1949 2. Presiding Priesthood Office - High Priest Apostle 3. Presiding Leadership Council - The COUNCIL OF FRIENDS 4. "Church" organization - called the PRIESTHOOD First we will contrast general concepts between those Fundamentalists who follow Woolley's teachings with those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Then we will look more closely at the details of the Fundamentalist priesthood theology by addressing these four areas in greater depth. CHAPTER TWO THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS Before examining the specific aspects of the priesthood of modern polygamy, let us review the beliefs of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints concerning their: 1. Priesthood Line of Authority 2. Presiding Priesthood Office 3. Presiding Leadership Council 4. Church organization PRIESTHOOD LINE OF AUTHORITY The line of priesthood succession which includes the Senior Apostle who, in every case became the Church president, was briefly discussed in chapter one. PRESIDING PRIESTHOOD OFFICE Latter-day Saints believe that the highest priesthood office is that of apostle.1 President John Taylor taught: This is embraced in the Apostleship, which has been given by the Almighty, and which embraces all the keys, powers and authorities ever conferred upon man. (JD 19:124.) While all apostles hold the same "keys, powers and authorities" by ordination, only the Senior Apostle controls the sealing keys as the "one" anointed and appointed. George Q. Cannon, a member of the First Presidency for many years, instructed: While it is the right of all the Twelve Apostles to receive revelation, and for each one to be a Prophet, to be a Seer, to be a Revelator, and to hold the keys in the fullness, it is only the right of one man at a time to exercise that power in relation to the whole people. (JD 19:233-234.) Concerning the period after the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Elder Cannon observed: We knew that there was only one man at a time upon the earth that could hold the keys of the kingdom of God, and that man was the presiding Apostle. (JD 23:363-364.) Prior to his death, Joseph Smith had given his priesthood keys to all of the Apostles, but Brigham Young, as President of the Quorum of the Twelve, received a special confirmation. Parley P. Pratt taught: [Joseph Smith] proceeded to confer on Elder Young, the President of the Twelve, the keys of sealing power, as conferred in the last days by the spirit and power of Elijah, in order to seal the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth should be smitten with a curse. This last key of the priesthood is the most sacred of all, and pertains exclusively to the First Presidency of the Church, without whose sanction and approval or authority, no sealing blessing shall be administered pertaining to things of the resurrection and the life to come. (Millennial Star, 5:150.) [Underlining by the authors.] Therefore, when the Prophet Joseph died, Brigham Young was the one man who held the sealing keys by virtue of his position as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Heber C. Kimball, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, advised the Saints at that time: As to the power and authority invested in brother Brigham, do I doubt it? Have I the least hesitation as to his calling as President of this Church? No, no more than I have that God sits upon His throne. He has the same authority that brother Joseph had. That authority was in the Twelve, and since brother Joseph stepped behind the veil, brother Brigham is his lawful successor. (JD 1:206.) [Underlining by the authors.] George Q. Cannon publicly identified the next Senior Apostle after the death of Brigham Young: Now that he [Brigham Young] has gone, one man only can hold this power and authority to which I refer, and that man is he whom you sustained yesterday, as President of the Quorum of the Twelve, as one of the Twelve Apostles and of the Presidency, John Taylor by name... and while the Twelve are associated with him, one in power, one in authority, they must respect him as their President, they must look to him as the man through whom the voice of God will come to them, and to this entire people. (JD 19:234-235.) [Underlining added.] And after John Taylor passed away: President Woodruff is the only man upon the earth who holds the keys of sealing power. These Apostles all around me have the same authority that he has. We are all ordained with the same ordination. We all have had the same keys and the same powers bestowed upon us. But there is an order in the Church of God, and that order is that there is only one man at a time on the earth who holds the keys of sealing, and that man is the President of the Church, now Wilford Woodruff. (Deseret New Weekly, 41:551.2) [Underlining added.] And so the apostleship holds all the keys, but the one who controls the keys of sealing is the Senior Apostle. The Senior Apostle rises to that position through seniority of ordination in the Quorum of the Twelve.3 Upon the death of the President of the Church, who has in every case been the Senior Apostle, the next senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve becomes the "one" anointed and appointed and presides over all the other apostles upon the earth. LEADERSHIP COUNCILS For Latter-day Saints, the presiding priesthood council upon the earth is the First Presidency.4 This belief is based on several scriptures: Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church. (D&C 107:22.) No priesthood quorum can exist which is superior to the First Presidency. The Lord instructed Frederick G. Williams, a counselor in the First Presidency in 1833 that the Presidency of the High Priesthood would always hold the "keys of the kingdom:" Verily, verily, I say unto you my servant Frederick G. Williams: Listen to the voice of him who speaketh, to the word of the Lord your God, and hearken to the calling wherewith you are called, even to be a high priest in my church, and a counselor unto my servant Joseph Smith, Jun.: Unto whom I have given the keys of the kingdom, which belong ALWAYS unto the Presidency of the High Priesthood. (D&C 81:1-2.) [Emphasis added.] Regarding the authority of the First Presidency, Brigham Young taught: In last week's [Deseret] News I published a portion of a revelation, showing the authority of the First Presidency of the Church, composed at first of Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. When this revelation was given, the two last-named brethren were Joseph's counselors, and this First Presidency possessed the power and authority of building up the kingdom of God upon all the earth, and of setting the Church in order in its perfection. (JD 9:87.) John Taylor instructed: ...Zion will continue to grow until the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our God and his Christ, and that as a matter of course means that is this is the kingdom of God and the Priesthood is the representation of that kingdom, the proper authorities of the holy Priesthood, wherever they go to represent the Priesthood, must be respected in their position; and as these brethren represent the First Presidency where they are going, they must be respected and their counsels adhered to as such. (JD 21:363.) Joseph F. Smith declared: It is the duty of him who holds the High Priesthood, which is after the order of the Son of God, to preside over all the officers of the Priesthood and over all the members of the Church, when he is chosen and set apart to preside. For instance, the Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is composed of three High Priests, who are chosen from the body of the High Priests, and who are sustained by all the Priesthood and members of the Church. (Collected Discourses, 3:95.) The First Presidency presides over all priesthood on the earth. Other offices are contained within the Melchizedek Priesthood which were specified by the Lord in 1841 and recorded in the D&C Section 124: Verily I say unto you, I now give unto you the officers belonging to my Priesthood, that ye may hold the keys thereof, even the Priesthood which is after the order of Melchizedek, which is after the order of mine Only Begotten Son. (Verse 123.) [Underlining added.] The Lord also identified the officers to His Priesthood which all function within the bounds of the Church as: Church Patriarch - verse 124 Presiding Church Elder and Prophet - verse 125 First Presidency with Counselors - verse 126 President of the Quorum of the Twelve - verse 127 Twelve Apostles - verses 128-30 High Council in Zion - verses 131-2 President of the High Priests - verse 133 Counselors to President of the High Priests - verse 136 Presidency of the Elders Quorum - verse 137 Presidency of the Seventies - verse 138 Bishopric - verse 141 etc. In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord taught that those ordained needed to be known to the Church, thus precluding the possibility of any person claiming to receive a "secret ordination" to a purportedly higher concealed priesthood council: Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church. (D&C 42:11.) [Underlining by the authors.] The Lord, through His prophets, has taught us concerning the presiding councils in His priesthood. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints feel confident that no priesthood council could exist outside the Church or superior to the First Presidency. "CHURCH" ORGANIZATION On April 6, 1830, the Church of Christ,5 later called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,6 was organized according to the laws of the State of New York. That entity has continued to exist and expand until today its membership includes several million people. The structure of the Church includes congregations called Wards which are grouped into Stakes. Several Stakes form a region and regions are combined to comprise an Area. The presiding officers in an "Area Presidency" are all General Authorities of the Church and answer to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency. The local Wards or congregations are presided over by a Bishop with two counselors. Priesthood Quorums of High Priests, Elders, Priests, Teachers and Deacons exist for male members over the age of 12. Other organizations exist for the women, youth and children. The arrangement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is consistent with the directives found in the Doctrine and Covenants and the guidance given to the Church from modern Prophets. THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS Besides possessing the correct "church" organization, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declares it will endure until the Lord comes to usher in the millennium as the kingdom the prophet Daniel foresaw. He prophesied of a kingdom that would be set up in the last days that would never be destroyed: And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. (Daniel 2:44.) Brigham Young explained the relationship between the kingdom Daniel saw and the restored Church: Out of this Church will grow the Kingdom which Daniel saw. This is the very people that Daniel saw would continue to grow and spread and prosper; and if we are not faithful, others will take our places, for this is the Church and people that will possess the Kingdom for ever and ever. (JD 8:143-144.) Therefore, the Latter-day Saints believe that the Church will continue on earth until the millennium. They also believe they will comprise the Saints which Nephi saw would be battling against the Church of the Devil in the last days. And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory. (1 Nephi 14:14.) Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are grateful for the efforts of Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets for establishing and perpetuating the Lord's Church upon the earth in these latter days. SUMMARY An examination of the Priesthood as professed by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reveals a claim to a continuous line of authority through the Senior Apostle of the Church down to their present leader, Ezra Taft Benson. Their presiding priesthood council is composed of the First Presidency and their religious organization is comprised of the Church formally established by Joseph Smith in 1830 and continued to the present day. CHAPTER THREE THE FUNDAMENTALIST PRIESTHOOD - AN INTRODUCTION - Now let us briefly acquaint ourselves with four important aspects of Fundamentalist priesthood: 1. Line of Authority: From 1886 to 1949 2. Presiding Priesthood Office: High Priest Apostle 3. Presiding Leadership Council: The COUNCIL OF FRIENDS 4. "Church" organization: the "PRIESTHOOD" Chapters four through ten in this book will look at these components in greater detail. FUNDAMENTALIST PRIESTHOOD: LINE OF AUTHORITY While many different beliefs exist, several prominent polygamist sects claim a line of authority which is shown in figure 3-1. Since Lorin C. Woolley was excommunicated in 1924,1 Broadbent in 1929,2 and Barlow3 and Musser prior to 1935, the Lorin C. Woolley line would represent a line of authority outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Many Fundamentalists believe that indeed the Keys of the Priesthood left the Church sometime prior to 1929. They also assert that their Priesthood organization, which exists external to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is now the guardian of those priesthood keys. Understanding the teachings of these last four proposed Fundamentalist prophets, especially Woolley and Musser, is important in order to comprehend the Fundamentalist Priesthood. Lorin C. Woolley was introduced in chapter one. J. Leslie Broadbent was excommunicated on July 18, 1929 for promoting and practicing plural marriage. Four months prior to his excommunication, Broadbent was supposedly ordained by Lorin C. Woolley and designated Woolley's Second Elder, meaning J. Leslie Broadbent would assume the position in the priesthood purportedly held by Lorin C. Woolley upon Woolley's death. Broadbent was only 44 when Woolley died. He served six-months as Fundamentalist prophet prior to his own unexpected death.4 He wrote one of the early polygamist tracts entitled Celestial Marriage? which has been widely read and quoted. John Y. Barlow was supposedly ordained by Lorin C. Woolley shortly after J. Leslie Broadbent in March of 1929. This ordination placed him next to J. Leslie Broadbent in seniority. Barlow was a staunch polygamist, but apparently possessed less of the natural leadership skill that Broadbent or Joseph W. Musser demonstrated. Musser, after the death of J. Leslie Broadbent, recorded in his journal that John Y. Barlow was clearly "at the head no matter where he is."5 However, that did not deter Musser from being critical of the leadership of John Y. Barlow6. Likewise, Barlow was at times critical of Musser.7 Joseph W. Musser is the most important Fundamentalist leader next to Lorin C. Woolley. He was excommunicated in March of 1921 for practicing plural marriage.8 He first heard the claims of Lorin Woolley in 1922,9 but didn't team up with him until 1929 when, in May, Woolley supposedly ordained him a "High Priest Apostle."10 Musser's contribution to the body of Fundamentalist doctrine is significant. In 1929 he wrote the official version of Lorin C. Woolley's claims to alleged 1886 priesthood ordinations which Woolley later signed.11 He published it several times. By the 1930's, he was no longer living with any of his three living wives12 (at their request) and was able to devote a majority of his time to the "work" which he did. In 1935 he began Truth, a monthly periodical, which served as the voice of the polygamist movement for many years. In its pages, Musser compiled historical evidences to support his belief that the Latter-day Saints were still required to practice polygamy. Musser exhibited great fortitude in promoting his ideas. His journal is complete with multiple references to his desire to be a martyr to that cause.13 Notwithstanding his claims that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was still God's Church, he was at times very critical of its leading authorities. Several times Musser, with other prominent polygamists, called down vengeance upon leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He recorded the events in his journal: (June 25, 1933) - Asked the Lord to visit his vengeance upon those of the Church leaders who have repudiated the revelations of Joseph Smith... (April 8, 1934) - Met with John Y. Israel, Edmund, and I.W. Barlow, J.L. Broadbent and Louis Kelsch, at home of Edmund and joined with the Barlow's in invoking the penalties contained in the 98th Sec. of D&C Verse 41 to 44. (November 22, 1934) - Witnessed to God the fourth trespass committed upon the Apostolic order of the Priesthood by church officials, as commanded to do D&C 98:41-48 in accordance with the law of retribution. The four offenses are: Dis-fellowshipment from the Church of John W. Woolley, Joseph L. Broadbent and Louis A. Kelsch, the latter action being taken last evening, for upholding the patriarchal order of marriage either in spirit or fact. It is now up to the Lord to act, we are relieved from all action, for the Lord said: "thou shalt not forgive him, but shalt bring these testimonies before the Lord, and they shall not be blotted out until he repents and reward thee four fold in all things wherewith he has trespassed against thee;" etc. The leaders of the Church have much to answer for. (April 11, 1935) - Learnt through Bro. Petty, that his wife in consultation with John M. Whittaker, learned that the Church had appointed Committees to get evidence on all the brethren so as to pounce upon them when the time comes, and rush them "Over the road." Let them come, -damn them -- and God will damn them to an eternal destruction, if they persist in their wicked designs. FUNDAMENTALIST PRIESTHOOD: PRESIDING PRIESTHOOD OFFICE Many modern polygamists believe that a priesthood office and council exist outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which is higher than anything found within it. The highest priesthood office, they believe, is that of "High Priest Apostle" which is higher than the Apostleship held by members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.14 All of the members of the proposed higher priesthood council that supposedly exists external to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are High Priest Apostles. A detailed analysis of the origin and purported authority of this proposed priesthood office will be found in chapters six and ten. FUNDAMENTALIST PRIESTHOOD: LEADERSHIP COUNCIL AND "CHURCH" Since modern polygamists have used the term priesthood to delineate both their leadership council and their church-like organization, both entities will be discussed together for better understanding. Likewise, a discussion of terminology is useful. Prior to the 1930's, a reference to "the priesthood" in a discourse or text would have carried one of two meanings. Bruce R. McConkie described the most common meaning of the word "priesthood:" As pertaining to eternity, priesthood is the eternal power and authority of Deity by which all things exist, by which they are created, governed, and controlled... As pertaining to man's existence on this earth, priesthood is the power and authority of God delegated to man on earth to act in all things for the salvation of men.15 Joseph F. Smith stated it more succinctly: "The Priesthood in general is the authority given to man to act for God."16 From this we learn that priesthood is power. This is the most frequent usage found in the scriptures and sermons of priesthood leaders. A second application of the term has been in reference to the group of men in the Church who held priesthood authority.17 For example, the apostle Peter wrote: But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people... (1 Peter 2:9.) Brigham Young commonly referred to the priesthood brethren as simply "the priesthood." For example: Some of the brightest spirits who dwell in the bosom of the Father are making their appearance among this people, of whom the Lord will make a Royal Priesthood, a peculiar nation that he can own and bless, talk with, and associate with.18 Joseph W. Musser, through his lectures and publications,19 supplied the Fundamentalist movement with many original ideas on the priesthood. Possibly the most important teaching he ever developed was the novel concept of an external Priesthood organization, thus, providing his followers with a third definition for the term Priesthood: There are three major organizations, set up in the following order: (a) Priesthood; the higher order of which being God's immediate authority, and to which all other organizations, priesthoods and callings are subordinate. (b) The Church; which is the vehicle used by the Priesthood in its spiritual work, both at home and abroad. (c) The Kingdom;20 having to do with the temporal or civil affairs of the peoples of earth.21 [Emphasis added.] He also taught: ...there is a Priesthood organization greater than that of the Church; and that Priesthood always has, can now and will continue to function aside from and independent of the Church.22 [Emphasis added.] Joseph Musser invented an external priesthood organization which included its own priesthood leadership councils and congregations.23 A diagram of this organization can be seen in figure 3-2. The presiding council in the Fundamentalist priesthood is called the Council of Friends.24 This council has several other names which include: The Council of Friends of God,25 the Quorum of High Priest Apostles,26 and the Council of the Presidency.27 Other less common titles have also been promoted by Musser.28 By definition, it is to have seven members, but the number has apparently varied between one29 and 14 or more.30 Figure 3-3 lists the men promoted by Joseph W. Musser as having been members of the Council of Friends during the times specified. A detailed analysis of these men will be included in chapters seven through nine. Chapter six discusses the office of High Priest Apostle and the Council of Friends directly. Musser taught that the Senior member of the Council of Friends presides over the Priesthood organization and is God's Prophet and mouthpiece upon the earth,31 though he never spoke of his source for these ideas.32 The Senior High Priest Apostle is also supposedly the presiding High Priest the Lord referred to in D&C 107:65-66 and 91:33 65. Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church; 66. Or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church. 91. And again, the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses.34 Despite the several references to the "Church" in these scriptures, Musser somehow believed that the presiding High Priest was not the President of the Church, but was actually a man serving as the head of an external Priesthood organization and Senior member of a Council of Friends. Musser's doctrine asserted that by virtue of his position as the head of the Priesthood, he would also preside over the subordinate Church by directing the First Presidency.35 This council of seven priesthood leaders supposedly presides over a larger group of seventy High Priest Apostles that compose the Sanhedrin (as Musser described it).36 Besides the Sanhedrin which functioned in both civil and ecclesiastical matters during the times of the New Testament,37 Musser also attempted to tie his Sanhedrin to the 70 elders in Moses' council: The body of chosen Priesthood was anciently known as the Sanhedrin, and comprised seventy-one Elders, -seventy in the Council proper - whom God had Moses call together.38 Notwithstanding Musser's assertion, it is doubtful that any connection between the New Testament Sanhedrin and Moses' Seventy Elders ever existed.39 Regardless, Fundamentalist prophets fail to suggest that any attempt was ever made to organize the Sanhedrin, with its complement of seventy members, in this dispensation.40 THE QUORUM OF HIGH PRIEST APOSTLESACCORDING TO JOSEPH W. MUSSER 15 Groups Proposed 1. Three Witnesses - June 1929 Joseph Smith, Jr., Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris 2. Six Elders in D&C 84 - Sep. 1832 Joseph Smith, Jr., Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball Edward Partridge, David Patten, Jos. Stockbridge 3. The Twelve Instructed - Feb. 1835 Joseph Smith, Jr., Frederick G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon Newell K. Whitney, (plus three unnamed elders) 4. Trial of Jared Carter - Sep. 1835 Joseph Smith, Jr., Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer Frederick G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon, W.W. Phelps 5. Trial of Gladden Bishop - Sep. 1835 Joseph Smith, Jr., Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer Hyrum Smith, Sidney Rigdon, W.W. Phelps, John Whitmer 6. Temple Anointings - Jan. 1836 Joseph Smith, Jr., David Whitmer, Hyrum Smith, Edward Partridge Sidney Rigdon, Newell K. Whitney, Joseph Smith, Sr., (plus four Bishops' counsellors) 7. Temple Washings - Mar. 1836 Joseph Smith, Jr., Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Hyrum Smith Edward Partridge, Frederick G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon W.W. Phelps, Joseph Smith, Sr., (plus four Bishops' counsellors) 8. Joseph Smith's Counselors - Sep. 1837 Joseph Smith, Jr., Oliver Cowdery, Hyrum Smith, John Smith Frederick G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, Sr. 9. Endowment Group I - May 1842 Joseph Smith, Jr., Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Hyrum Smith Newell K. Whitney, James Adams, George Miller, Willard Richards 10. Endowment Group II - May 1843 Joseph Smith, Jr., Oliver Cowdery, Heber C. Kimball, Hyrum Smith Newell K. Whitney, James Adams, Willard Richards, William Law 11. 1844 Twelve Apostles - July 1844 Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, Orson Hyde Parley P. Pratt, William Smith, Orson Pratt, John E. Page John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, George Albert Smith, Lyman Wight 12. First Presidency Reorganization - Oct. 1847 Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, Orson Hyde Wilford Woodruff, George A. Smith, Amasa Lyman, Ezra Taft Benson 13. Assistant Counselors - Apr. 1873 Brigham Young, George Albert Smith, Daniel H. Wells, Lorenzo Snow Brigham Young, Jr., Albert Carrington, John W. Young, George Q. Cannon 14. The Twelve Apostles - 1880 John Taylor, Orson Pratt, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow Brigham Young, Jr., Albert Carrington, George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith, Charles C. Rich, Erastus Snow Franklin D. Richards, Moses Thatcher 15. Purported 1886 Ordinations - Sep. 1886 John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith John W. Woolley, Lorin C. Woolley, Charles H. Wilkins, Samuel Bateman SOURCES: 1. A Priesthood Issue, pp. 8-9. 2. Joseph W. Musser, Items from a Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, N.p, N.d., p. 26. 3. Truth 17:171. 4. Supplement pp. 105-106. 5. Truth, 9:189-190. 6. Ibid. 7. A Priesthood Issue, pp. 13-14. 8. Truth 9:190. 9. A Priesthood Issue, p. 12. 10. Ibid., p. 13. 11. Ibid., p. 11. 12. Truth 9:169. 13. A Priesthood Issue, p. 15. 14. Ibid., p. 12. 15. Ibid., p. 25. Figure 3-3 THE PRIESTHOOD "CHURCH" Today, large numbers of individuals proclaim membership in several different Priesthood organizations which function like churches. In spite of the fact that these organizations hold Sunday services, proclaim the gospel and partake of the Sacrament in their meetings, none of these groups profess to be a formal "Church" in the sense that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Church.41 Modern polygamists believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only legitimate "church" on the face of the earth. Since most modern polygamists are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they unite for Sabbath services as congregations that are a part of their external Priesthood organization. The exact pattern that these congregations are to follow has not been specified by Fundamentalist prophets in their literature. Generally, they are presided over by their Priesthood leaders, but not necessarily as an LDS ward is directed by its Bishop. During their Sunday meetings, individuals from the congregation are often selected by a priesthood leader to conduct the meeting and to designate others from the audience to give a extemporaneous talk (as they feel they are guided by the spirit). Prepared sermons are not encouraged. Other aspects of the groups may resemble LDS services, but the congregations are careful not to consider themselves a part of the Church, for they are members of the Priesthood. Several Fundamentalist groups promote United Orders and the Law of Consecration. These too are overseen by a Council of Friends. SUMMARY Figure 3-4 compares some of the basic differences between the Fundamentalists and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The following chapters will examine these differences more closely. Comparison of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Fundamentalists: The Church Fundamentalists Line of Church Lorin Woolley & Authority Presidents 1886 Ordinations Leadership First Council of Friends Council Presidency Highest High Priest Priesthood Apostle Apostle Office Religious The Church The Priesthood Organization Figure 3-4 CHAPTER FOUR FUNDAMENTALIST LINE OF AUTHORITY: THE PURPORTED 1886 ORDINATIONS As reviewed in chapter three, many modern polygamists claim sealing authority through a man named Lorin C. Woolley and his alleged 1886 ordinations. However, polygamists in the twentieth century have also attempted to utilize other sources of sealing authority to solemnize their polygamous unions. Two of these include: 1. Unauthorized Church Leaders 2. "Patriarchal" Priesthood In 1905, two members of the Quorum of the Twelve, John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley, resigned from the Quorum because they were out of harmony with their fellow leaders regarding the scope and meaning of the Manifesto issued by Wilford Woodruff.1 It was widely known that they had performed more than a few plural marriages after the Manifesto was issued.2 John W. Taylor was excommunicated six years later for marrying another plural wife after his resignation. It appears that at least a few modern polygamists tried to access the sealing keys through these two men. One example is John W. Woolley, a sealer in the Salt Lake Temple and father of Lorin C. Woolley, claimed that sometime prior to 1914, Apostle Cowley instructed him to perform polygamous marriages which Woolley later did. John Woolley was a close friend of President Joseph F. Smith and confided in President Smith that he had performed polygamous sealings by directive of Matthias Cowley. Upon learning of this, President Joseph F. Smith notified Francis Lyman, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.3 A Church Court was held which resulted in Woolley's excommunication. In an attempt to retain his membership, John W. Woolley wrote the following: At Centerville, Davis County, Utah on the 16 day of January, A.D. 1914, Prest. Francis M. Lyman and Anthony W. Ivins called at my home, and in answer to questions asked I make the following statement: Some months ago I met Matthias F. Cowley on the street and he asked me if I was familiar with the sealing ceremony. I told him I was. He said, "If any good men come to you don't turn them down." I believed from that statement that it was still proper that plural marriages be solemnized, and that President Smith had so authorized Cowley to instruct me. Since that time I have married wives to Nathan G. Clark, Joseph A. Silver, Reuben G. Miller, and P.K. Lemmon, Jr. The ceremony in the case of Miller was performed in the S.E. part of Salt Lake, the woman being a widow whose names I do not know. The Lemmon ceremony was in Centerville, the name of the woman, I think being Johnson. (sig.) John W. Woolley4 Some modern polygamists have claimed that Matthias Cowley may have personally authorized others to perform polygamous marriages after the 1890 manifesto. There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support this and Cowley himself denied it. Another alleged source of sealing authority, improperly claimed by some modern polygamists, relies on D&C 124:92-93 and verse 124 where the Lord states: 92. That from henceforth [the Church Patriarch] shall hold the keys of the patriarchal blessings upon the heads of all my people, 93. That whoever he blesses shall be blessed, and whoever he curses shall be cursed; that whatsoever he shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 124. First I give unto you Hyrum Smith to be a patriarch unto you to hold the sealing blessings of my church, even the Holy Spirit of promise, whereby ye are sealed up unto the day of redemption, that ye may not fall notwithstanding the hour of temptation that may come upon you. [Underlining by the authors.] In these verses the Lord observes that the Church Patriarch holds "sealing blessings" so that "whatsoever he shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." If these three verses were all that the Lord had given on the subject of sealing authority or the duties of Patriarchs, confusion might exist concerning the scope of a patriarch's sealing authority. However, the Lord has been specific in scripture and through His anointed in defining the authority and calling of patriarchs to the Church.5 Church Patriarchs only hold "sealing authority" to seal patriarchal blessings upon the heads of Church members. Prior to the Twentieth Century, few, if any Church members, proposed that the Patriarchal Priesthood contained the authority to seal plural marriages or was any way related to the "one" anointed and appointed. In 1910 Judson Tolman, a stake patriarch, was excommunicated for performing plural marriages utilizing his "patriarchal priesthood."6 LORIN WOOLLEY REMEMBERS THE 1886 ORDINATIONS The claimed source of sealing authority for most Fundamentalists is derived from ordinations that purportedly occurred September 27, 1886. Sometime in the early 1920's, Lorin C. Woolley remembered that he and his father, John W. Woolley, along with three other men had been set apart by John Taylor in 1886. Woolley recalled that the authority purportedly given to him and the others at that time was to allow them to carry on plural marriage regardless of the path taken by the Church respecting polygamy. For over a decade prior to the 1920's, Lorin Woolley had been relating interesting recollections of his purported personal experiences with the priesthood leaders hiding from the law during the 1880's. Available evidence fails to support the notion that Lorin Woolley was significantly involved with the brethren during that period. The diary of Samuel Bateman, a bodyguard of the leading authorities during the late 1880's, reports Lorin C. Woolley was active in carrying the mail for the brethren, but Bateman's entries challenge Woolley's claims of any intimate association or participation in any extraordinary activities during that period.7 Nevertheless, Lorin C. Woolley was known for making many fascinating claims and his apocryphal stories and testimony were popular among the neophyte Fundamentalists. AN EVENT RECOUNTED IN 1912 In 1912 Lorin C. Woolley signed a statement that: 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 account 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, 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. [Underling by the authors.] (signed) Lorin C. Woolley8 This 1912 account, which gives no exact date for the 1886 occurrence, says nothing of any priesthood ordinations or the conferral of authority to continue plural marriage. It does describe two important incidents Woolley claimed occurred: 1. John Taylor received a vision of Joseph Smith lasting an entire night. 2. An afternoon meeting was held the next day where John Taylor exclaimed: "Brethren, I will suffer my right hand to be cut off before I will sign such a document" as a manifesto. THE 1920's - A TIME TO REMEMBER SIGNIFICANT DETAILS FROM 1886 Sometime after 1920, Lorin C. Woolley apparently recalled additional details that supposedly occurred in conjunction with the two listed above: 1. John Taylor's vision included a visitation from the Savior, not just Joseph Smith. 2. The meeting actually started in the morning (not the afternoon) of the 27th and lasted eight hours. 3. A revelation was given to John Taylor on the New and Everlasting Covenant during the meeting described. 4. Sometime after the meeting, five men: Lorin C. Woolley, John W. Woolley, Samuel Bateman, Charles Wilkins, and George Q. Cannon, were ordained with authority to continue plural marriage. During the 1920's, Lorin C. Woolley's memory supposedly improved allowing him to remember additional important details. Exactly when Woolley was able to recall the new particulars is difficult to determine. Rulon C. Allred, former leader of the United Apostolic Brethren Church centered in the Salt Lake Valley, indicated that Woolley came forth with his recollections of authority in about 1921.9 In 1922, Joseph W. Musser first mentioned Woolley's recollections concerning the priesthood ordinations in his journal.10 The many statements made by Woolley between 1921 and 1929 were eventually compiled by Joseph W. Musser in 1929 and then presented to Woolley for his signature. The 1929 account of the 1886 activities is the most complete.11 A copy of it is included in an appendix to this chapter. EXCOMMUNICATED POLYGAMISTS EAGERLY ACCEPT WOOLLEY'S STORY Implementing the newly-remembered details of the alleged 1886 activities, was relatively easy for Lorin C. Woolley. All he needed to do was simply elaborate on the story that he had already been sharing for over a decade with the believing polygamists. The evolution during the 1920's of Lorin C. Woolley's 1912 story into an account that today describes the source of priesthood authority for thousands of modern polygamous marriages involved both the story teller and the story listeners. The decade between 1920 and 1930 was a time of coalescence for men and women who continued to practice polygamy. During those years they sought each other out and shared their misguided testimonies. However, they realized the need for proper priesthood authority and as late as 1922 looked to the Church, not Lorin C. Woolley and his proclaimed authority, for priesthood leadership. This is demonstrated by the feelings of Joseph W. Musser who recorded the focus of leadership devotion and priesthood authority for a group of polygamists on March 19, 1922: At farm last evening. Beautiful weather today. Attended meeting with "fellow sufferers" in plural marriage, at Dr. Gamble's, Forest Dale. About 25 present. Excellent spirit. Everyone felt under obligation to sustain the present Authorities and patiently await the Lord's pleasure in all things.12 [Underlining added.] Either these "sufferers in plural marriage" had not yet heard Lorin C. Woolley's claims, or he had not yet began to expound them. Most likely it was sometime after that date that Lorin C. Woolley began to more fully develop13 the story of his alleged experiences with President John Taylor in September of 1886. Woolley's elaborations would include a claim to priesthood authority which was exactly what the groups of polygamists were searching for. His recollections also served to elevate his own stature within the movement. The "sufferers in plural marriage" believed Lorin Woolley because his unscrutinized story provided access to the sealing authority which they had been "patiently awaiting." The acceptance by the polygamists of Woolley's claims of authority and his lofty priesthood calling came slowly,14 but by 1929, Woolley, with the help of Joseph W. Musser, had formulated a story, acceptable to thousands of polygamists. That narrative would be quoted over and over for decades to come by Fundamentalists in their attempts to legitimize their sealing authority. FOUR IMPORTANT COMPONENTS OF THE 1929 ACCOUNT EXAMINED An examination of the 1929 account of the 1886 activities reveals four components worthy of special consideration: 1. John Taylor's vision which supposedly occurred throughout the night of September 26-27, 1886 2. The meeting of September 27, 1886 which started early in the morning and lasted eight hours 3. An alleged revelation to John Taylor purportedly given during the eight hour meeting (five copies were supposedly made) 4. After the proposed eight hour meeting, five men were allegedly ordained and commissioned to continue plural marriage JOHN TAYLOR'S VISION As noted above, Lorin Woolley's 1912 account did not include any visit of the Savior to John Taylor (with Joseph Smith) during the purported vision of September 26-27, 1886. It is puzzling to contemplate how such a detail could have been overlooked. Some may conclude that the discussion was too sacred to mention in 1912, however, Musser felt impressed to circulate it widely in 1929.15 Since John Taylor was a very spiritual man and priesthood leader, he could have received many visions during his lifetime. However, there is absolutely nothing to support the dates of September 26-27 for any remarkable vision, except for Lorin Woolley's recollections recorded decades later. In order to support Lorin Woolley's 1929 claims of John Taylor's divine visitation, Fundamentalists and others will sometimes recruit a statement by President Spencer W. Kimball in April conference of 1978 to support Woolley's assertion. President Kimball stated:16 "I know that God lives. I know that Jesus Christ lives," said John Taylor, my predecessor, "for I have seen him." I bear this testimony to you brethren in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.17 [Underlining added.] Shortly after that April, 1978, conference, President Kimball admitted that it was the lack of adequate time to finish his prepared discourse that had caused him to attribute a quote from George Q. Cannon to John Taylor.18 The authors do not wish to minimize President Kimball's testimony of that date, but he was in fact quoting George Q. Cannon who stated: I know that God lives. I know that Jesus lives; for I have seen Him. I know that this is the Church of God, and that it is founded on Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. I testify to you of these things as one that knows -- as one of the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ that can bear witness to you today in the presence of the Lord that He lives and that He will live, and will come to reign on the earth, to sway and undisputed scepter.19 [Underlining ours.] Therefore, utilizing President Kimball's quotation to support Lorin Woolley's claims is not warranted. Also, it should be noted that even if a vision did occur, it would not imply that men were ordained to continue plural marriage on September 27, 1886, as Woolley also affirmed. THE EIGHT HOUR MEETING An examination of the individuals who reportedly participated in an eight hour meeting on September 27, 1886, reveals five possible diaries that could confirm or refute Lorin Woolley's story about the meeting or ordinations which supposedly occurred after it. Those diaries include: Two of these five diaries are unavailable for study. L. John Nuttall's diaries for the 1885 through October, 1886 period while he was constantly moving about on the underground are apparently lost. John Taylor's diaries are reportedly located in the First Presidency's Office Vault and are not available for research.20 The entries in the other three diaries are listed below and show clearly that there were no meetings or ordinations of any kind held at the John W. Woolley home on September 27, 1886. Samuel Bateman recorded: The 27 All day at Do [John W. Woolley home in Centerville], reading, pitching quoits. Helped load two load 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.21 There is no hint of any meetings being held (or ordinations being performed) in the entry quoted above. "Pitching quoits" was a common pastime and in modern vernacular would be throwing horseshoes. The First Presidency's Office Journal for September 27th recorded: 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 quotes a while this morning, also this 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.22 George Q. Cannon recorded simply: Monday, Septem [sic] 27/86 Attended to our usual business. I was not well, but improving.23 These journal accounts are consistent with one another and fail to mention anything even remotely resembling the reception of a revelation, an all day meeting or ordinations on the date in question.24 THE ALLEGED 1886 REVELATION One significant detail discussed in the 1929 account, but not mentioned in Woolley's 1912 story was that of a revelation allegedly received by John Taylor, dated September 27, 1886. The reception of this revelation supposedly occurred in conjunction with the eight hour meeting purportedly held that day. For decades, Fundamentalists have been proclaiming that a revelation existed which fit Woolley's 1929 description. Photocopies of a piece of paper25 that purports to be a genuine revelation in John Taylor's handwriting have been circulated for years by Fundamentalists.26 John W. Taylor, a son of the prophet and member of the Quorum of the Twelve, reportedly discovered it among the his father's papers a few months after President Taylor passed away.27 Since it was promoted as genuine by polygamists in the 1920's and 1930's, Heber J. Grant issued the following statement concerning it in 1933: 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 [polygamists]. 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 absence 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... 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.28 While the authenticity of the purported 1886 revelation to John Taylor is still questioned, several important points should be made concerning it: 1. The alleged revelation contains the statement that God would "not revoke this Law." Fundamentalists interpret that to mean that the practice of plural marriage could never be suspended,29 the "Law" is not strictly plural marriage. Likewise, the Lord has commanded His people in times past to suspend the practice of plural marriage without "revoking" an eternal covenant.30 Additionally, the promises found in D&C 132:19-20 for those who marry in the New and Everlasting Covenant are given in a monogamous context: "if a man marry a wife by my word..." and apply to any marriage entered into according to the Lord's direction. 2. The alleged revelation does not talk about authorizing individuals to perform plural marriages outside of the Church then or at any time in the future. It does not mention any ordinations or priesthood callings. The five men Lorin C. Woolley claimed were set-apart with sealing authority and their purported ordinations were not discussed in any way. Matthias Cowley who was apparently familiar with the alleged revelation was questioned concerning it by Charles W. Penrose at Elder Cowley's membership trial. Cowley clearly acknowledged that the revelation "would not justify" him in continuing to perform plural marriages.31 John W. Taylor, an apostle and son of President John Taylor, was also aware of the alleged 1886 revelation but he identified no authorization for the perpetuation of concealed polygamist unions in its contents. He stated: There is no authority as far as I can see, in that [1886] revelation, no authority given to man to exercise such authority in marrying anyone...32 3. The date written on the top of the purported revelation was undoubtedly the source of the date for Lorin C. Woolley's 1929 version of the 1886 events. In 1912 Woolley recorded a "Statement of Facts;" no date was "remembered" but 17 years later, after gaining a knowledge of the alleged revelation, Woolley recalled the exact dates. 4. Even if the alleged revelation was genuine, Fundamentalists would have to admit it was only a personal revelation to John Taylor because it was never presented to the Church or the priesthood leadership for acceptance.33 John W. Taylor reported concerning it: 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....34 Likewise, it is noted that President Taylor did not circulate anything like it, though, if valid, he would have had it in his possession for almost nine months prior to his death on July 25, 1887. What justification could modern polygamists possibly have to distribute the purported revelation? In addition to Woolley's claim that John Taylor received the alleged revelation, Woolley taught: 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.35 Not a single one of these five copies has been located or even subsequently mentioned. If five additional copies of the alleged revelation were in circulation, it would have taken much less time for the Fundamentalists to discover its existence. If Woolley possessed a copy, or even had access to a copy, of the purported revelation in 1912, it is likely he would have been able to derive the date of the proposed eight-hour meeting from it. It is also probable that he would have referred to it in the 1912 account. Most individuals would have a high regard for a copy of such a revelation. Hence, we would expect at least one of the copies to be in existence to this day. Even a passing reference to them would be useful, but none exist. If John W. Woolley had even known about the revelation in 1914 when he was excommunicated from the Church, we might have expected him to have referred to it, but he made no such reference. THE 1886 ORDINATIONS The 1929 account refers to the priesthood ordinations twice. The narrative records: [John Taylor] called five of us together: Samuel Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, George Q. Cannon, John W. Woolley, and myself [Lorin C. Woolley]. 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... 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...36 From this report of the 1886 ordinations, Woolley taught that these five men were "set apart" and given priesthood power to do three things: 1. Perform marriage ceremonies. 2. Set apart others to perform marriage ceremonies. 3. Ordain individuals with the authority to ordain others to perform marriage ceremonies under the direction of a "worthy senior." Woolley's statement regarding the conferring of sealing keys is striking because of its simplicity. This simplicity conforms well with Fundamentalist doctrine in general because most Fundamentalists wish to believe that they have authority to seal polygamous unions, regardless of how that authority came into their possession. The Ordinations Examined The 1929 account of priesthood ordinations does not attempt to correlate the authority purportedly conferred with the numerous statements on the priesthood found in the Doctrine and Covenants.37 Specifically, it does not address three important questions: 1. What priesthood office and authority were given, if any? Musser stated they were ordained as High Priest Apostles,38 but some sources state Woolley declared he received the apostleship39 which is consistent with the ideas promoted by other Fundamentalists.40 2. What priesthood council was organized or reorganized? Was it a Council of Friends or a Quorum of High Priest Apostles (see chapter three)? Did that council preside over the Church and Kingdom41 as Musser later instructed, or did they receive the authority to just continue plural marriages?42 3. What was the calling and authority of the "worthy senior"? How does his authority relate to the "one anointed and appointed," the Senior Apostle, the President of the High Priesthood and the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Does he hold the keys of the gathering of Israel given to Joseph Smith in 183643 and promote missionary work?44 Does he hold all the sealing keys of Elijah45 and promote temple work for the living and the dead?46 None of these questions were addressed in the most expanded recollection of Lorin C. Woolley's ordination, the 1929 version. Secondary sources serve to enlighten us on a few of these points, but overall, we must look to subsequent Fundamentalist authors, like Joseph W. Musser, for the details.47 As one views the many teachings on the priesthood that the Lord has given through the scriptures, it is a striking contrast to suggest that He might allow John Taylor to confer on those five men an authority described in such general terms. Numerous prophetic pronouncements have been given to help believers understand the priesthood, its offices and authority. It is problematic to believe that the Lord would ignore those teachings and create a new priesthood office and authority on that date without specifically addressing it. Likewise, if the ordinations were similar to others already present in the priesthood, it is curious that Woolley (or the Lord if He were actually involved) didn't indicate so. Investigating The Five Men The 1929 account listed five men, George Q. Cannon, Samuel Bateman, Charles Wilkins, John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley, as having received three things on September 27, 1886: 1. Authority to continue plural marriage. 2. A commission to see that "no year passed without children being born in the principle of plural marriage." 3. A copy of the alleged 1886 revelation. An examination of the teachings and actions of the five men is useful to determine whether they actually received the authority or commission mentioned. It has already been noted that none of the five copies of the alleged 1886 revelation have ever been seen or even referred to. George Q. Cannon George Q. Cannon, First Counselor in the First Presidency to both John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, was a polygamist and received the sealing authority when ordained an apostle on August 26, 1860. As an apostle, he needed no ordination in 1886 to obtain the authority to seal for time and all eternity. Counselor Cannon continued to promote polygamy during the 1880's and 1890's, but he also was a staunch public supporter of the 1890 Manifesto. It would seem inconsistent for Cannon to support a manifesto in 1890 if he had witnessed President John Taylor forcefully declare in 1886 that he would rather have his hand cut off than sign a manifesto. The 1929 account states that Taylor was actually floating above the floor with an illuminated face when he said it. This would impress most individuals and probably convince them they too would do well to not advocate such a document. Next to Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon was the Manifesto's best public supporter. Samuel Bateman Samuel Bateman was a bodyguard of the brethren. He is an important potential participant because he kept a personal journal which is available for us today.48 This journal contains nothing to support the idea that he was given authority in 1886 to perform plural marriages or commissioned to "see that no year passed without children being born in the principle of plural marriage."49 The lack of evidence is so complete that some Fundamentalist writers have suggested that the polygamist activities are recorded in his text in code.50 No one has broken the proposed code and a simple reading of the record reveals a text consistent with other journals of the period, using a few abbreviations for commonly used words, but otherwise just describing his daily activities. The journal contains nothing to suggest that Bateman ever performed a plural marriage or authorized someone else to perform one. His journal does include references to sermons he made, prayers given at Church meetings and ordinances he participated in. One example from May 5, 1901: After meeting was over, Joshua Terry and I assisted in blessing one of Bro. Terry's grandchildren after dinner. Bishop Bergen of Union Ward was mouth, it being his grandchild.51 Despite these types of entries concerning priesthood ordinances, his journal contains no references to his performing marriage ceremonies of any kind. However, his journal does specifically mention that it was Joseph F. Smith who performed the sealing of Bateman's daughter.52 It is unlikely that he would not have recorded his own involvement with sealing ordinances if he had ever been associated with any. There is a complete lack of evidence in Samuel Bateman's journal concerning any participation in 1886 ordinations or the other alleged activities. In addition, the testimony of Samuel's son, Daniel Bateman, that he never heard his father teach of the ordinations is compelling. In 1936, Daniel Bateman bore his testimony concerning the source of his knowledge of his father's proposed ordination and Joseph Musser's recorded it in his journal: Being called upon, Daniel R. Bateman... bore testimony that Mormonism is true. His father, being one of the five set apart, did not tell him so, but did testify to Bro. Findlayson of the fact, and the latter had written to him of the event. (December 21, 1936.) Daniel Bateman admitted that he never heard his father tell him about his proposed ordination to the office of High Priest Apostle and to the Council of Friends. This is a curious concession. If Samuel Bateman had ever received such a calling, it would probably have been difficult to have hidden that knowledge from members of his family. Samuel Bateman had a close relationship with his son, Daniel. During the year after the proposed 1886 ordinations, Samuel Bateman recorded in his journal over 111 meetings with his son and having corresponded with him 27 times.53 During subsequent years, Samuel and Daniel continued to be close. Daniel Bateman claimed to have been present for the eight hour meeting purportedly held September 27, 1886, even though none of the available journals, including that of his father, place him at the Woolley home that day. Regardless, we are told that Daniel Bateman admitted he was unaware of the ordinations that supposedly occurred after the eight hour meeting he had attended. Likewise, we are expected to believe that Samuel Bateman never mentioned that ordination to his son during the next 25 years. During those 25 years, the two men had thousands of conversations. Since the two spent so much time together, it is equally difficult to believe that Samuel Bateman could have so effectively hidden his lofty calling and responsibilities from his devoted son. The actions of Samuel Bateman and the testimony of his son in 1936 cast serious doubt upon the possibility that Samuel Bateman received the proposed ordination in 1886. Charles Wilkins54 Charles Wilkins was a body guard to John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith. While less is known about him than the other four proposed witnesses, available evidence fails to suggest that he ever performed a plural marriage for anyone before or after 1886. Wilkins was a polygamist prior to the 1890 manifesto, but his marital relationships were always consistent with the counsel continually received from the Church Presidents he was guarding. This included obeying the Manifesto. Wilkins died in 1914 in full fellowship of the Church, apparently having failed to use the authority Lorin C. Woolley would later claim he received in 1886 and also in the charge to see that no year passed without children being born in plural marriage. John W. Woolley When Lorin C. Woolley began to make his authority claims in the 1920's, the only other living potential participant was his father John W. Woolley who was in his nineties at the time. Some secondary sources suggest that John W. Woolley supported his son's claims, while others submit that Lorin did all the teaching.55 There doesn't appear to be any primary source to support the notion that John Woolley believed his son's ideas. John Woolley did indeed perform plural marriages after the Manifesto and when Joseph F. Smith learned of it, he was excommunicated.56 However, during his excommunication proceedings, John W. Woolley did not attribute his authority to any 1886 ordination, but assumed authorization from the Church President through Apostle Matthias Cowley. Prior to his excommunication in 1914, John Woolley worked as a temple sealer and was familiar with the sealing ceremony. John W. Woolley claimed that Matthias Cowley directed him to continue to perform plural marriages so that if any good men came to him, he was not to "turn them down."57 Additionally, John W. Woolley did not have any children after 1885. These actions seem inconsistent with a man who might have received the authority and commission thrust upon him by his son Lorin. Lorin C. Woolley As a witness of the proposed 1886 ordinations to continue plural marriage, even Lorin C. Woolley has problems. The Lord has stated that "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."58 Lorin C. Woolley appears to be the only primary witness of these alleged priesthood conferrals. Daniel Bateman, the son of Samuel Bateman, has been promoted as a second witness, but he specifically admitted as discussed that he was not present for any ordinations.59 Daniel Bateman also admitted that he never heard his father, Samuel, discuss the ordination, but had to hear about it from a stranger. Secondary sources can be used to enlist John W. Woolley as the only second witness of the ordinations, but such an approach contrasts significantly with the emphasis placed on making first-hand statements of the Lord's witnesses available in the past.60 There is no record of John Woolley even knowing of any 1886 ordinations until the 1920's when his son Lorin recalled the event. A second concern of Lorin C. Woolley as a witness involves the many false statements he proclaimed were true. A few examples include his erroneous claim to have been a member of the U.S. Secret Service commissioned to follow polygamous leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.61 When Lorin Woolley was excommunicated in 1924, it wasn't for practicing polygamy,62 but for spreading "pernicious falsehoods" as this. Woolley also declared that he had taught Theodore Roosevelt the gospel and baptized him and that Roosevelt was also a practicing polygamist.63 Additionally he claimed that Calvin Coolidge was a member of the Church and, with Roosevelt, a member of the "Grand Council of the Kingdom."64 He advanced teachings that Kings would pay him tribute and had dreams which exalted him above all other priesthood authorities including the Church Presidents.65 He also made the impossible claim that, "He knew the Manifesto, because he helped to make it."66 On several occasions he declared that he had been transported to the Yucatan by one of the three Nephites and viewed a temple similar in size to the one at Salt Lake City, Utah and there gave his priesthood keys to an Indian Prophet.67 These are but a few of the fantastic teachings of Lorin C. Woolley. While it appears that Lorin C. Woolley promoted plural marriage in the 1920's, his own life is a testimony that he did not receive the authority or commission he claimed. Woolley himself did not take a plural wife until 1932 and had no children by a plural wife. His four children and his first wife all rejected his claims to divine authority and priesthood calling. In review, several problems exist for those who choose to believe Lorin C. Woolley's 1929 account of 1886 ordinations: 1. The priesthood conferred appears to greatly contrast the authority described by the Lord in the scriptures. 2. The lives and teachings of George Q. Cannon, Samuel Bateman, Charles Wilkins, and John W. Woolley fail to support the notion that they received authority and a commission to continue plural marriage in 1886. 3. Lorin C. Woolley's actions prior to the 1920's and his own personal participation suggest that he too had never received that authority or commission. 4. Lorin C. Woolley is the only primary witness of these important ordinations. 5. Lorin C. Woolley made other fantastic claims which were obviously untrue. SUMMARY Some modern polygamists may have attempted to perform their marriages with authority from unauthorized Church Leaders or utilizing the "Patriarchal Priesthood." However, the 1920's and 1930's represent the time during which a majority of polygamists united behind authority claims of Lorin C. Woolley. Woolley himself representing a case of "being in the right place, at the right time" with the right story. The right place was Utah; the right time was the 1920's; and the right story was one that included authority to perform polygamous marriages. To better understand the likelihood that ordinations were performed in 1886, one must also examine the associated activities and the possibility that they also transpired. This is important because Fundamentalists may mistakenly believe that if one of the incidents actually happened, then therefore they all must have occurred (see box). While Fundamentalists should not be overly criticized for believing Woolley's claims to authority, a more in-depth analysis reveals an abundance of evidence which strongly suggests that the alleged ordinations in 1886 never occurred. APPENDIX TO CHAPTER FOUR 1929 Standard Account While the brethren were at the Carlisle residency [in Murray, Utah] 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 James Jack 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 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 the room and evidently someone had entered without my knowing it. I made a hasty examining 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. 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 alleged 1886 revelation to John Taylor]. 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 place 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 clear 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 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 "apostasy 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 percent of those who claim to hold the Melchizedek 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. Woolley TESTIMONY OF DANIEL R. BATEMAN: I was privileged to be at the meeting of September 27, 1886, spoken of by Brother Woolley, I myself acting as one of the guards for the brethren during those exciting times. The proceedings of the meeting, as related by Brother Woolley, are correct in every detail. I was not present when the five spoken of by Brother Woolley were set apart for special work, but have on different occasions heard the details of the same related by both Lorin C. Woolley and John W. Woolley, and from all the circumstances with which I am familiar, I firmly believe the testimony of these two brethren to be true. (Signed) Daniel R. Bateman (Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, pp. 56-62. An examination of a few of the many historical problems with the above narrative can be found in Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact.) [Underlining by the authors.] CHAPTER FIVE FUNDAMENTALIST LINE OF AUTHORITY: 1886 TO 1949 WHEN DID THE KEYS OF SEALING SUPPOSEDLY LEAVE THE CHURCH? Most Fundamentalists assume that John W. Woolley's purported 1886 ordination allowed him to come into possession of the keys of sealing sometime before his death in December of 1928. After his demise, his son, Lorin C. Woolley, is supposed to have become the one1 anointed to hold the sealing authority. Since neither John, nor Lorin Woolley were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1928, questions naturally arise: When did the keys of sealing supposedly leave the Church and what, do modern polygamists believe, caused them to be forfeited? Much confusion exists among Fundamentalist authors concerning these two inquiries. Nevertheless, most are forced to conclude that by the 1920's at the latest, the keys of sealing authority mentioned in D&C 132 were held by men outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Below is a list of the purported incidents that Fundamentalists claim may have caused the keys to be lost from the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They believe that such must have occurred since they proclaim he is no longer the "one" anointed and appointed to hold the sealing Keys of Elijah. Possible events: 1. 1886 with the purported ordinations? 2. 1890 with the Manifesto? 3. 1898 with Pres. Woodruff's death? 4. 1914 with the excommunication of John W. Woolley? 5. 1918-1921 with the Presidency of Heber J. Grant? 1886 WITH THE PURPORTED ORDINATIONS? Few modern polygamists have suggested that the keys of sealing authority left The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the proposed 1886 ordinations.2 Since John Taylor was still alive and Wilford Woodruff had not yet issued the Manifesto of 1890, it appears the 1886 ordinations, if they ever occurred, were to priesthood positions that were to remain dormant, at least for a few years. 1890 - AND THE MANIFESTO? One of the most common events that Fundamentalists identify as the cause of the Church losing the keys of sealing is in conjunction with the issuing of the 1890 Manifesto by Wilford Woodruff.3 More will be said about the Manifesto in chapter eleven. However, several problems exist with believing that Wilford Woodruff sinned in 1890 by teaching that the commandment to live plural marriage had been lifted. Many modern polygamists believe he thereby lost the keys to sealing authority, but he and other priesthood leaders such as George Q. Cannon and Lorenzo Snow still believed in President Woodruff as the President of the High Priesthood.4 Likewise, an examination of the life of Wilford Woodruff after giving the 1890 Manifesto shows he was still in favor with the Lord. This is most obvious as one reads of the marvelous spiritual experiences he enjoyed in conjunction with the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple in 1893. During the dedicatory services, President Woodruff disclosed a portion of what the Lord had revealed to him: I feel at liberty to reveal to this assembly this morning what has been revealed to me since we were here yesterday morning. If the veil could be taken from our eyes and we could see into the spirit world, we would see that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor had gathered together every spirit that ever dwelt in the flesh in this Church since its organization. We would also see the faithful apostles and elders of the Nephites who dwelt in the flesh in the days of Jesus Christ. In that assembly we would also see Isaiah and every prophet and apostle that ever prophesied of the great work of God. In the midst of these spirits we would see the Son of God, the Savior, who presides and guides and controls the preparing of the Kingdom of God on the earth and in heaven.5 It seems inconsistent to claim that the Lord might have withdrawn priesthood keys from Wilford Woodruff in 1890 and yet three years later given him such grand revelations in conjunction with the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple. Any inquiry into the spirituality of President Woodruff would support the belief that his calling as Prophet and President of the High Priesthood6 was not compromised by issuing the Manifesto. 1898 WITH PRES. WOODRUFF'S DEATH? Some have written that Wilford Woodruff held priesthood keys that were not passed on to Lorenzo Snow after President Woodruff's death.7 This novel doctrine is difficult to defend in light of the marvelous vision Lorenzo Snow received after the death of President Woodruff as related by President Snow's granddaughter, Allie Young Pond: One evening when I was visiting Grandpa Snow in his room in the Salt Lake Temple, I remained until the doorkeepers had gone and the night-watchman had not yet come in, so grandpa said he would take me to the main front entrance and let me out that way. He got his bunch of keys from his dresser. After we left his room and while we were still in the large corridor, leading into the celestial room, I was walking several steps ahead of grandpa when he stopped me saying: "Wait a moment, Allie, I want to tell you something. It was right here that the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to me at the time of the death of President Woodruff. He instructed me to go right ahead and reorganize the First Presidency of the Church at once and not wait as had been done after the death of the previous presidents, and that I was to succeed President Woodruff." Then grandpa came a step nearer and held out his left hand and said: "He stood right here, about three feet above the floor. It looked as though He stood on a plate of solid gold."8 It is apparent from this vision that after the death of Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow was the Lord's Prophet upon the earth. It is interesting to note that at the time, several members of the proposed 1886 Council of Friends were living. However, the Lord did not recognize their purported priesthood positions and instead appeared to the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to deliver His message concerning the reorganization of the First Presidency. 1914 - JOHN W. WOOLLEY EXCOMMUNICATED In 1886, seven men were supposed to have been set apart as members of the proposed Council of Friends. They were: John Taylor Wilford Woodruff John W. Woolley Lorin C. Woolley George Q. Cannon Samuel Bateman Charles Wilkins It is suggested that just prior to John Taylor's death, Joseph F. Smith was summoned from Hawaii and ordained to the Council as well.9 A significant problem with the overall seniority exists, especially in light of the absence of Lorenzo Snow and the fact that Joseph F. Smith was the last man added.10 Nevertheless, most Fundamentalist authors believe John W. Woolley was somehow next in seniority to Wilford Woodruff and superior to all other members of the proposed council.11 In 1914 John W. Woolley was excommunicated from the Church. Joseph F. Smith personally started the excommunication process as he learned of John W. Woolley's unauthorized polygamist activities.12 The reader is reminded that at the time of his excommunication, John W. Woolley said nothing of any 1886 ordination or his proposed position in the Council of Friends.13 If we believe that Joseph F. Smith still held the keys of sealing in 1914 and they had not yet passed from the Church as many Fundamentalists believe, a somewhat complicated scenario must have then occurred (see figure 5-1). The authors have concluded that when Joseph F. Smith had excommunicated John W. Woolley, who was by Musser's definition "God's mouthpiece" on earth by virtue of his seniority in the Council of Friends,14 he would have been committing a very serious sin. Such a transgression (if it really were such) might have naturally caused the sealing keys to have passed out of the Church with the excommunication of the proposed senior priesthood officer (John W. Woolley). Nevertheless, few, if any, Fundamentalists believe that this occurred and many assert that Joseph F. Smith retained the keys until his death in 1918.15 The idea that Joseph F. Smith was still approved of the Lord up until his death is strongly supported by observing the wonderful vision given to him shortly before his demise which is now found as Section 138 in the Doctrine and Covenants. On October 3, 1918, President Smith recorded: ...the eyes of my understanding were opened, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon me, and I saw the host of the dead both small and great.16 The account proceeds to relate a most marvelous vision which has greatly enhanced our understanding of missionary work in the spirit world. It is unlikely that the Lord would have given such a wonderful manifestation to Joseph F. Smith if he had sinned in excommunicating John W. Woolley or was not the Lord's mouthpiece upon the earth in 1918. 1918-1921 HEBER J. GRANT LOSES THE KEYS ? Along with issuing the 1890 manifesto, the most popular event that Fundamentalists promote as causing the keys of sealing to leave The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in conjunction with the death of Joseph F. Smith in 1918.17 It is believed that President Smith retained his authority and favor with the Lord during his lifetime despite the following actions which he took: 1. Denying authorization for polygamous marriages during his presidency 2. Issuing the 1904 Manifesto 3. Excommunicating members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for continuing to practice plural marriage18 Heber J. Grant became president of the Church in 1918 which some identify as the time the keys left the Church. Others promote the idea that the keys did not leave until a few years later or in conjunction with the death of Anthon H. Lund in 1921.19 Regardless, by the time Lorin C. Woolley remembered his 1886 ordination in the early 1920's, Fundamentalists were united in the hope that the keys of sealing were controlled by individuals outside the Church. LORIN C. WOOLLEY TO JOSEPH W. MUSSER MORE PROBLEMS WITH THE LINE OF AUTHORITY Figure 1-2 shows several groups which claim priesthood authority through a line of succession from Lorin Woolley to Joseph W. Musser and beyond. An analysis of this authority line is also fraught with problems. The individuals in question include: LORIN C. WOOLLEY to (1934) J. LESLIE BROADBENT to (1935) JOHN Y. BARLOW to (1949) JOSEPH W. MUSSER Each of these three proposed transferrals of sealing authority deserves special attention. LORIN C. WOOLLEY TO J. LESLIE BROADBENT It appears relatively certain that J. Leslie Broadbent was called to be Lorin Woolley's Second Elder,20 and was therefore to succeed him as the senior member of the proposed Council of Friends. Nevertheless, Lorin C. Woolley taught that one night in the Spring of 1932 he was met by one of the three Nephite Apostles who had been translated.21 Supposedly he transported Lorin to the Yucatan, Mexico, and where Woolley conferred some or all of his purported priesthood keys to a Lamanite Prophet living there.22 One account of the visit written by a "Woolley" Independent: Concerning some possible times when Lorin C. Woolley ordained his successor among the Indians, the following experiences are well documented: Around the Church conference time, some of the believers in the "Fullness" generally gathered together at one of the homes of the saints in order to listen to the Conference. In the Spring of 1932, after some of the saints had gathered together for such an occasion, some of the saints stayed over night at the home where they had congregated. During the night, one of the saints awoke, as a conversation was taking place in the living room. One of the voices was recognized as Lorin C. Woolley's, who had been staying there during the night. The person, however, did not join those in the living room, thinking it was a private matter. The saint then heard those in the living room walk toward the front door, open it, and go out, closing the door after them. After they left, she went into the living room and while passing the room where Lorin Woolley had been sleeping, the voice of the Spirit spoke to her telling her to stop and to look toward the room, the door being open. A thing she would never do otherwise, she turned and noticed that only Lorin Woolley's bed was empty. John Y. Barlow was in a deep sleep next to where Lorin Woolley had been sleeping, and all others were in their bed. It was a puzzle then to think of whom Lorin Woolley could have been talking with. The next day, at the breakfast table, the conversation turned to instances when Lorin Woolley had on various occasions gone to perform important responsibilities of a highly spiritual nature. John Y. Barlow then said that the next time Lorin went, he would go with him and that Lorin would not be able to go without him, for he would stay right close to him. The woman who had witnessed the events of the night, then quickly answered to the effect, `O, I don't know about that.' Lorin Woolley then turned to her and said, `What do you know about it?' She then related her experience. Lorin Woolley then explained that he had been talking with one of the three Nephites. He said he knew someone else had awakened, whom he hoped would come out into the living room as a witness of the conversation, and that if she had done so, he would have introduced the visitor.... All were now anxious to learn where Brother Lorin had gone. He then explained that he had been taken by one of the three Nephites to the Yukatan. This was not the only time, but there were other occasions when he was miraculously taken to the Yucatan and other places... Lorin Woolley explained that he was taken to a city of white Nephites, secreted in a jungle area in the Yukatan peninsula. He explained that when he was first taken there, he found them living the Fullness of the Gospel, including Plural Marriage. They had a temple and were very industrious, delightsome and righteous people.23 Another account contains additional details: On April 7th, 1932, according to Lorin Woolley's testimony, he was visited in the night by an angel of the Lord, who conducted him to the southern end of Old Mexico, to a holy city of white indians, or nephites, well concealed on a high plateau of a great jungle vastness. He found them with their temple and a quorum of twelve, living the fullness of the gospel to perfection. Under the direction of this angel, Lorin C. Woolley conferred all the priesthood keys which he held upon the head of their senior chief apostle, -- the mighty and wise prophet, known better in holy writ as the Branch. Two years later, on Sept. 19, 1934, Lorin C. Woolley passed away, thereby making the transfer of seniority to this great Branch Prophet complete.24 The Lamanite prophet mentioned supposedly started preaching to the Lamanites in 1930.25 The question arises regarding the keys supposedly passed to J. Leslie Broadbent in 1934, if they had already been given to a Lamanite Prophet in 1932.26 This is the basis of the claims of the "Woolley" Independents. They believe that the keys were given to a prophet in the Yucatan and that all other alleged priesthood lines from Lorin C. Woolley are counterfeit.27 J. LESLIE BROADBENT TO JOHN Y. BARLOW The issue of whether or not John Y. Barlow held the keys after J. Leslie Broadbent supposedly held them is easy to address. In November of 1936, the matter was directly confronted by those following John Y. Barlow and the Council of Friends. For many months prior to November, 1936, John Y. Barlow had been managing the temporal affairs of the believers in Shortcreek, Arizona. Some dissatisfaction arose with his leadership, but the believers continued to follow him because they believed he held the keys and was the Lord's prophet. Musser wrote of the incident in his journal: Thursday Lewis [Kelsch] and I had a personal talk with Bro. John Y. Barlow. We pointed out our fears that under the present set-up the group could not prosper; that there seemed a disposition toward a one man rule; that the present arrangement was not in accordance with the spirit of the action of the Priesthood recently taken, whereby it was advised that Bro. Barlow resign from the Management of the affairs of the group and confine his labors more particularly to the spiritual field; that our work was especially along the line of keeping faith in patriarchal marriage alive, and not in the directing of colonizing. Bro. Barlow was asked if he claimed to hold the keys of Priesthood, which he answered in the negative, saying, however, that he had dreamed of a personage coming to him and handing him a bunch of keys, and leaving without explanation. He did not know that that had any special significance. (Journal of Joseph W. Musser November 8, 1936.) [Underlining added.] Here we have reliable record that Barlow admitted not having the keys of the priesthood in 1936. It is unlikely that a man could hold the keys of the priesthood and be unaware of it.28 Therefore, one would normally conclude that in 1936, John Y. Barlow, the senior member of the Council of Friends did not hold the priesthood keys. This frank admission by John Barlow has cause some Fundamentalist authors to assume that the keys passed from J. Leslie Broadbent to Joseph W. Musser.29 This idea contrasts with Joseph W. Musser's teachings in June, 1935 as recorded in his journal: [I] explained the proper order of leadership -- this at the request of President Barlow, and in response to a question from the brethren. That Bro. Barlow is at the head no matter where he is. That under his direction men may be appointed to take charge of certain work, as had been done, and that they will be respected in their positions, but always be subject to the head.30 (Journal of Joseph W. Musser, June 13, 1935.) Naturally the question arises as to how John Y. Barlow could have been "at the head" and obviously presiding over Joseph Musser, and yet have Musser somehow holding the priesthood keys? It becomes a bit confusing and certainly contrasts the more orderly priesthood leadership set up by Joseph Smith and perpetuated since his death through succession by the Senior Apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. JOHN Y. BARLOW TO JOSEPH W. MUSSER It is difficult to believe that Joseph Musser could have obtained priesthood keys that John Y. Barlow admitted he did not have. Additional problems with believing that Musser ever held those priesthood keys comes from the candid acknowledgment that Musser did not know where the keys were in 1936. In conjunction with the question of whether John Y. Barlow held priesthood keys, Musser recorded his teachings to the people: J. W. Musser explained his views on Priesthood matters: That the special mission and labors of the Priesthood group was [sic] to keep plural marriage alive... Stated the Lord had not revealed to him [Joseph Musser] who held the Keys to Priesthood, but that Bro. Barlow, by reason of his seniority in ordination presided over the group. (Journal of Joseph W. Musser, November 13, 1936.) [Underlining by the authors.] So in 1936 the senior member of the Council of Friends clearly states that he does not hold the priesthood keys and the second in seniority admits the Lord had not revealed to him who did possess them. It therefore becomes difficult to understand how Musser could have later held them. He never claimed a separate visitation from Elijah or any other prophet to have restored them to the earth a second time in this dispensation, nor would we expect such to be necessary. BEYOND JOSEPH W. MUSSER Figure 1-1 in chapter one shows a major division occurred after the death of Joseph W. Musser. Other divergent groups have also split away since that time.31 An analysis of the major division between the Allred group (or Church of the United Apostolic Brethren) and the Colorado City, Arizona polygamists will not be made. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that any priesthood authority Musser might have held could have persisted through the ugly disagreements that followed Musser's death.32 Even after Rulon Allred was murdered, questions arose concerning the priesthood keys and his successor.33 JOSEPH MUSSER: "DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE KEYS" It appears that, in the 1930's, even the polygamists following the Council of Friends were concerned who held the priesthood keys. This is probably what prompted Musser to teach his followers in 1938: It is the mission of the Priesthood group at the present time to teach the fullness. Stop quibbling about who holds the "keys" but each magnify his particular calling and see to it that no day passes that they are not engaged in advancing the cause of the Kingdom. (Journal of Joseph W. Musser, August 12, 1938.) It is likely that those men and women practicing plural marriage in 1938 were wondering how they might advance "the cause of the Kingdom" if their leaders did not hold the priesthood keys. SUMMARY An examination of the origin and the line of priesthood succession for those claiming sealing authority through Lorin C. Woolley discloses several important concerns. There is much in the historical record to suggest that the 1886 ordinations never occurred and little beyond Woolley's testimony to recommend them. Even if Woolley had received special authority, it appears unlikely that that authority could have persisted to the present day and be available for modern practitioners of plural marriage. CHAPTER SIX THE FUNDAMENTALIST PRESIDING PRIESTHOOD OFFICE: THE HIGH PRIEST APOSTLE AND COUNCIL OF FRIENDS FRIENDS AND HIGH PRIEST APOSTLES The past two chapters have dealt with the proposed line of priesthood ordinations defended by many modern polygamists. Relatively little attention has been given to the office that these men were purportedly ordained to. We will now look more closely at the purported office of the higher apostleship, referred to as High Priest Apostle.1 An investigation of the origin of the titles of "High Priest Apostles" and "Friends" suggests they were derived from D&C 84:63 where the Lord states:2 And as I said unto mine apostles, even so I say unto you, for you are mine apostles, even God's high priests; ye are they whom my Father hath given me; ye are my friends. [Underlining added.] In this verse the Lord refers to ten3 elders as "mine Apostles, even God's High Priests." By rearranging the words "Apostles" and "High Priests," Musser developed his title of "High Priest Apostle." Prior to 1934, the term "High Priest Apostle" was unknown among the speeches and writings of all priesthood leaders. The only exception is found in the Journal of Discourses where Wilford Woodruff used the term in conjunction with "seventy apostles" and "all other apostles:" Let the Twelve Apostles, and the Seventy Apostles, and High Priest Apostles, and all other Apostles rise up and keep pace with the work of the Lord God, for we have no time to sleep. (JD 4:147.) The next paragraph in the discourse shows that those "High Priest Apostles" were clearly subordinate to the Twelve Apostles for Elder Woodruff stated: As an individual I am determined to wake up and do my duty, God being my helper. I want to see brother Hyde, who is President of the Twelve, walk into all these Quorums and attend their meetings, and we will back him up.... (Ibid.) [Underlining added.] It is troublesome to believe that Elder Orson Hyde, as President of the Quorum of the Twelve, would have been told to enter into a powerful "Quorum of High Priest Apostles" (also called the Council of Friends), if they existed, to encourage them to "rise up and keep pace with the work of the Lord God." If the "High Priest Apostles" referred to were members of a external Priesthood organization that presided over the entire Church, they would naturally be the ones admonishing the members of the Quorum of the Twelve, not the other way around. The term "Apostle" can refer to an office within the priesthood, but the expression can also refer to a special witness of the name of Christ who is sent to teach the principles of salvation to others.4 "FRIENDS" - ANOTHER NAME HIGH PRIEST APOSTLES? The last statement in D&C 84:63 quoted above declares "ye are my friends" as it alludes to the ten elders then present. This appears to be the origin of the title "Council of Friends" or "the Council of the Friends of God" which Fundamentalists believe refers to the same group.5 Musser and others have used the term synonymous with "High Priest Apostles." The Lord refers to various Church members as "friends" at least fifteen times in the Doctrine and Covenants.6 As one reviews these verses, it is difficult to identify a specific group of men as the focus of the term "friends" when used by the Lord. There is no hint of a priesthood quorum entitled the Council of Friends in any scripture. THE CALLING OF "HIGH PRIEST APOSTLE" Musser appears to have been the first man to ever teach of two levels of apostleship. Lorin C. Woolley discussed "Great High Priests,"7 but it was Joseph W. Musser who expounded the doctrine in his 1934 publications: Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage and Priesthood Items. Additional instruction was also given through the pages of the periodical Truth. Nothing appears to have been taught of this important office by any monogamist or polygamist prior to the 1930's.8 Joseph Musser's High Priest Apostles were supposedly apostles of a higher order than members of the Quorum of the Twelve. Musser taught that to be one of the Twelve Apostles was to be an apostle "of the Church"9 and not necessarily an Apostle "of Jesus Christ." He also asserted that the Apostles in the Quorum of the Twelve receive only an "appendage"10 or "delegated"11 priesthood calling whereas apostles in the Council of Friends purportedly have "authority coming direct from God."12 These definitions conflict with the description of the Twelve given by the Lord in the Doctrine and Covenants: The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world... (D&C 107:23.) The Lord stated that the Twelve Apostles were to be "special witnesses of the name of Christ."13 In light of this, it takes some creativity to claim they were not Apostles of Jesus Christ, but held some imaginary "appendage calling." The most common references to this council in the seven volume History of the Church and other early publications were "the Twelve" or "the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles," but they are also referred to as the "Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ"14 or "Twelve Apostles of the Lamb"15 many times. Oliver Cowdery recalled the ordination that he gave in 1835 to the original Twelve Apostles when he reunited with the Saints in 1848: I laid my hands upon that man -- yes, I laid my right hand upon his head (pointing to Brother [Orson] Hyde), and I conferred upon him this Priesthood, and he holds that Priesthood now. He was also called through me, by the prayer of faith, an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Deseret New Weekly, 42:353-360. Quoted in Collected Discourses, 2:165.) The language of Oliver Cowdery was clear to show that the members of the Twelve in 1835 were "Apostles of Jesus Christ" and not apostles of the Church as Musser suggested. HIGH PRIEST APOSTLES: ORDAINED BY GOD OR BY MAN? Musser referred to his High Priest Apostles as "full-fledged" apostles.16 Exactly how a man supposedly obtained the "full-fledged" apostleship is confusing. Musser plainly taught that the ordination must come from God, yet there are numerous accounts of men being directly given the alleged higher apostleship (i.e. being made High Priest Apostles) by other purported High Priest Apostles. Concerning the need for divine participation, Musser taught: To be such an Apostle one must be personally anointed by Jesus Christ, thereby being in a position to testify from direct and personal knowledge that Jesus lives. (Supplement, p. 100.) To be a full-fledged Apostle, a "Special Witness of Jesus Christ," one MUST [sic] see the Savior, have His hands laid upon him, and hear His voice. Without this experience one may possess the ordination but not the qualification. (Truth 4:132.) [Underlining added.] The proposed need for a divine confirmation of an apostolic ordination may be derived from the charge given to the first Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in this dispensation by Oliver Cowdery. Even though the Church was formally organized in 1830 and the First Presidency in 1833, members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were not called and ordained until 1835. The Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon were commissioned to select them and set them apart.17 After their ordinations, Cowdery admonished the new apostles: Never cease striving until you have seen God face to face. Strengthen your faith; cast off your doubts, your sins, and all your unbelief; and nothing can prevent you from coming to God. Your ordination is not full and complete till God has laid His hand upon you. We require as much to qualify us as did those who have gone before us; God is the same. If the Savior in former days laid His hands upon His disciples, why not in latter days? (HC 2:195-196.) Oliver Cowdery admonished the original Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to "never cease striving" until "God has laid His hand upon you." Musser then implemented this counsel into his doctrine concerning a "High Priest Apostleship." Supposedly, High Priest Apostles have all received a divine confirmation to that office. However, if such ideas were correct, separating the apostleship into two levels is something only God could do, not man. The earthly ordination would have to be to one single office. Therefore, according to Fundamentalist doctrine, God withholds His personal ordination from members of the Quorum of the Twelve, thus preventing them from becoming "full-fledged" apostles.18 However, supposedly all of the members of the Council of Friends have received this important ordination. The issue becomes more confused as we observe several accounts where men were supposedly ordained to the purported office of High Priest Apostles as an earthly ordinance. The Prophet Joseph Smith supposedly ordained the members of Quorum of the Twelve as High Priest Apostles just prior to his death in 1844.19 Likewise, the five men allegedly ordained in 1886 were purportedly given that same authority.20 One account of Joseph Musser's own 1929 "blessing" states that he was set apart as a High Priest Apostle directly.21 Many other examples exist. WOOLLEY, BROADBENT, BARLOW AND MUSSER - DID THEY RECEIVE THEIR HIGHER APOSTLESHIP? According to the teachings examined above, Fundamentalist High Priest Apostles and Senior members of the Council of Friends should all have received an ordination directly from the Savior or they would not have been "full-fledged" apostles. It does not appear that Lorin C. Woolley claimed an ordination as an apostle from Jesus Christ,22 but he did declare his personal knowledge of our Savior. On one occasion he taught: L.C.W. said to some friends that the remark about Jesus never laughing was not true, "For, I have seen him laugh."23 A man who could make the claim listed above could easily recall an ordination from the Savior. The cases of J. Leslie Broadbent, John Y. Barlow and Joseph W. Musser are more complicated. On June 15, 1934 all three of these men left the city to camp in the mountains. From Musser's journal: Preparing to leave for God's Temple in morning with John Y. Barlow and Pres. Broadbent - the Mountains to make inquiry of the Lord regarding his will concerning us. (June 15, 1934.) The camp lasted over a week. On June 23, Musser recorded: This morning at our altar, the sacred spot among the quaken asps [sic] on the ridge above our tent which we have dedicated for the purpose, we having observed our fast since Thursday evening, we were blessed with the spirit of prayer and prophecy. Bro. Barlow first prophesied that the prediction made by Brigham Young to the effect that men of the order of the Priesthood we hold would be walking along and be met by strangers from beyond who would commence with their teaching them... Bro. Broadbent, being clothed upon by the Holy Ghost, prophesied that the purpose of our mission to this spot would be realized soon - that is the confirmation of our calling. I was moved to prophecy with reference to the leadership of Bro. Broadbent that the channel of revelation would be opened up; that the gift of leadership would be upon him , and the powers of his priesthood would be so manifest that the earth would tremble at his word; he would rebuke the nations with boldness and power from afar. The present Church authorities would be made to tremble at his word. He would have the power of Enoch. [Underlining added.] Despite the beauty of their prophesies, their predictions were not fulfilled,24 nor did they receive the "confirmation" they sought. The next day Musser recorded: Last night the powers of darkness sought to overcome us. We could not sleep, but very little. It affected all three of us. Bro. Barlow said that evil spirits had bothered him. Sunday opened up by a heavy rain storm. It continued until nearly noon, when we decided it unwise to try and hold a meeting in the grove, and having to go to the city anyway, we adjourned.... It is interesting to note Musser's interpretation that the storm represented "the powers of darkness." Undoubtedly, good weather would have been interpreted as evidence that the Lord approved of their activities. Regardless, it does not appear that the elements or the Lord cooperated with the desires of these three men. Fundamentalists will be quick to point out that something as sacred as a visitation from the Savior might not be recorded in a private journal. However, it should be remembered that John Y. Barlow plainly stated over two years later, in November of 1936, that he did not have the priesthood keys. It is likely that he had not received a divine ordination either, for how could a man be confused about such an issue if the Savior himself had ordained him? Recall also that at that time Musser did not know where the priesthood keys were either.25 Could Musser have received his much desired divine ordination if he was unaware of the location of the priesthood keys in 1936? Additionally, on December 19, 1938, Musser wrote the following concerning a meeting with the Council of Friends: This morning the Priesthood group met and enjoyed a spiritual get-to-gether, Bro. Barlow, however, being away. There is a sweet spirit among the brethren and a desire to wrestle with the Lord for a confirmation of our calling in the Priesthood.26 [Underlining added.] In 1932, while ordaining Charles F. Zitting, a new member, to the Council of Friends, J. Leslie Broadbent clearly defined the meaning of "confirmation" of their priesthood calling. A "confirmation" required a personal meeting with the Savior and receiving an ordination under His hands.27 At least as late as 1938, members of the Council of Friends were supposedly presiding over the Priesthood, the Church and the Kingdom of God without having received the ordinations they believed were necessary to administer their proposed callings. JOSEPH SMITH AND THE FIRST (1835) QUORUM OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES The idea that two levels of apostleship could possibly exist may come as a surprise to many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The doctrine may be based in the fact that Joseph Smith, shortly before his death in 1844, conferred upon the Twelve additional keys that had been shared with him by heavenly messengers after 1835 (the year the original Twelve Apostles were set apart). This occurred so that in 1844, there would be no question that the members of the Quorum of the Twelve held all the authority that Joseph himself held. We remember that Joseph was ordained to the apostleship by Peter, James, and John when he received the Melchizedek priesthood in June of 182928. He also received keys and knowledge from Moses, Elias and Elijah in April of 183629 as well as those associated with the temple endowment prior to May of 1842.30 Those keys were needed for the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, the gathering of Israel, to seal families together for eternity and to perform sacred temple ordinances. Joseph F. Smith taught that one does not receive additional priesthood when given keys,31 rather the keys convey the right to exercise priesthood powers. Concerning Joseph Smith's reception of priesthood authority, Brigham Young observed: When Brother Joseph received the Priesthood, he did not receive all at once, but he was a prophet, seer, and revelator before he received the fullness of the Priesthood and keys of the kingdom. He first received the Aaronic Priesthood and keys from under the hands of John the Baptist. He then had not power to lay on hands to confirm the Church, but afterwards he received the Patriarchal or Melchizedek Priesthood from under the hands of Peter, James and John who were of the Twelve Apostles and were the Presidency when the other Apostles were absent. From those Apostles, Joseph Smith received every key, power, blessing, and privilege of the highest authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood ever committed to man on the earth which they held. Some have had fears that we had not power to get revelations since the death of Joseph. But I want this subject from this time forth to be forever set at rest and I want this Church to understand from this day henceforth and forever that an apostle is the highest office and authority that there is in the Church and Kingdom of God on the earth. From whom did Joseph receive his authority? From just such men as sit around me here (pointing to the Twelve Apostles that sat with him). Peter, James and John were Apostles and there was no noise about their being seers and revelators, though those gifts were among them. Joseph Smith gave unto me and my brethren the Twelve all the Priesthood keys, power and authority which he had and those are powers which belong to the Apostleship. (Wilford Woodruff Journal, August 15, 1847.) [Underlining added.] Based on the teachings of President Young and Oliver Cowdery above, it would be inaccurate to suggest, as many Fundamentalists have done, that the 1835 ordinations of the Twelve Apostles were to something less than the full apostleship (i.e. "Apostles of the Church"). The Twelve apostles received the same authority in 1835 that Joseph held in 1829. Prior to his death in 1844, the Prophet Joseph Smith conferred on the Twelve Apostles the additional keys he had received since his original ordination as an apostle. It is pure fantasy to teach that Joseph had a higher apostleship in 1829, but gave a lower apostleship to the Twelve in 1835 and then conferred a higher apostleship on the Twelve in 1844. Additionally, the keys given to the Twelve Apostles by Joseph Smith prior to his death did not, by Joseph's own statement, come from seeing the Savior and having "His hand laid upon them" but were imparted to the Twelve by Joseph Smith himself. Concerning the apostleship, Brigham Young also taught: The keys of the eternal Priesthood, which is after the order of the Son of God, are comprehended by being an Apostle. All the Priesthood, all the keys, all the gifts, all the endowments, and everything preparatory to entering into the presence of the Father and of the Son, are in, composed of, circumscribed by, or I might say incorporated within the circumference of, the Apostleship. (JD 1:134-135.) An examination of references to the apostleship by early priesthood leaders reveals that all who received it, received one ordination which contained the fullness of it and all authorities available to mortal man. Many Fundamentalists believe otherwise and have utilized a variety of strategies to authenticate their doctrine of two different levels of apostolic authority. CONDEMNATION OF THE QUORUM OF THE TWELVE IN 1951 To help Fundamentalists understand the authority of the Higher Apostleship, the author of Truth in 1951 quoted Brigham Young who said: What ordination should a man receive to possess all the keys and powers of the Holy Priesthood that were delivered to the sons of Adam? He should be ordained an Apostle of Jesus Christ. That office puts him in possession of every key, every power, every authority, communication, benefit, blessing, glory and kingdom that was ever revealed to man. (JD 9:87-8.) After citing the discourse above the author elaborated: Certainly the members of the Quorum of Twelve in this day [November, 1951] do not pretend to possess "all the keys and powers of the Holy Priesthood that were delivered to the sons of Adam," etc. Their authority as Apostles is limited - it being an appendage calling - while Joseph, Oliver and David received that Apostleship spoken of by Brigham Young - in very deed Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, with all the keys, powers and blessings pertaining thereto. (Truth 17:169.) The assertion that the Apostles in 1951 (or 1992) did not "pretend to possess all the keys and powers of the Holy Priesthood" is simply untrue. All the keys of the priesthood held by the Apostles were being utilized in the LDS temples to seal living men and women for time and eternity, as well as to perform other necessary ordinances for the living and the dead, in 1951 as well as today. THE "FULLNESS" OF THE APOSTLESHIP Another approach to dividing the apostleship proposes that there is (1) an apostleship and (2) the "fullness" of the apostleship. The latter supposedly contains the authority to seal marriages for eternity.32 It is true that two speeches recorded in the Journal of Discourses refer to a "fullness" of the apostleship,33 but these references do not teach that anyone has ever been ordained to anything less than the fullness. There are no records suggesting that an individual was set apart as an apostle, and then later was given the "fullness" of that apostleship to become a High Priest Apostle. All men ordained to the apostleship on this earth since the restoration began have received the "fullness" of that office. An additional concern involves the keys of Elijah which allow "valid" eternal marriages to be performed on this earth.34 Fundamentalists have implied that those keys are held by those receiving the "higher apostleship."35 However, if that "higher apostleship" must be conferred by the Savior Himself, why was Elijah sent in the first place? Do we believe the Lord has personally restored the keys of Elijah to every High Priest Apostle Musser has supposedly identified? Despite energetic attempts by Fundamentalist apologists to prove its validity, the idea of two levels of apostleship is probably best relegated to a more fictional realm. TEACHINGS ON THE APOSTLESHIP An examination of other quotations from various priesthood leaders enlighten us regarding the impossibility of two apostleships. Notice the multiple references to a single apostleship. Underlining is by the authors. Brigham Young: The High Priesthood, and the Lesser Priesthood, and all the Priesthood there is, are combined, centered in, composed of, and circumscribed by, the Apostleship. (JD 1:134.) Now, brethren, the calling of an Apostle is to build up the kingdom of God in all the world: it is the Apostle that holds the keys of this power, and nobody else. (JD 6:282.) What ordination should a man receive to possess all the keys and powers of the Holy Priesthood that were delivered to the sons of Adam? He should be ordained an Apostle of Jesus Christ. That office puts him in possession of every key, every power, every authority, communication, benefit, blessing, glory, and kingdom that was ever revealed to man. That pertains to the office of an Apostle of Jesus Christ. (JD 9:87-88.) Wilford Woodruff: If you will lead the Twelve, brother Hyde, in the spirit and power of your calling as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, you will see your brethren by your side. (JD 4:147.) What more responsible position can a man occupy than to be an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ? (JD 13:319-320.) The office of an Apostle entitles him to hold the keys of the kingdom of God; and what he binds on earth is bound in heaven, and what he looses on earth is loosed in heaven. (Ibid.) I say to the Latter-day Saints that the visions of our minds are open, the revelations of God rest upon us, and the voice of God to us is that the day has come when we, as shepherds in Israel, holding the Apostleship and keys of the kingdom of God, should stand in the midst of this people and call them to repentance... (Quoted in Collected Discourses 1:263.) I have been associated with the Apostleship for over fifty years... When the Prophet Joseph organized the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, he taught this principle of union to them. (Quoted in Collected Discourses 2:83-84.) I feel also to bless my brethren who bear the Apostleship. Now, you talk about union. Can Apostles dwell with this work upon their shoulders without being united? They cannot do it. (Quoted in Collected Discourses 3:160.) Orson Pratt: Jesus chose twelve disciples on the American continent. They are not called apostles in the Book of Mormon, but disciples. I have no doubt, however, in my own mind, that they held the office of the apostleship, for they exercised all the functions of apostles. They had power not only to baptize with water, but to lay on hands for the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which latter was one of the functions granted, in ancient days, unto the office of an apostle. (JD 14:329330.) We have been taught, ever since the Twelve were chosen, that they held all the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood, all the power of the Apostleship that could be conferred upon mortal man.. (JD 19:114.) I would state that this change made a vacancy of three in the Quorum of the Apostles, and persons have been selected to fill this vacancy thus made; or, rather, two persons have been selected from among the High Priesthood to partially fill that vacancy in the Council of Apostles. The third one has not yet been chosen to completely fill the vacancy in the Apostles' Quorum.36 (JD 22:38.) George Q. Cannon: Every man who is ordained to the fullness of the Apostleship, has the power and authority to lead and guide the people of God whenever he is called upon to it. (JD 19:233-234.) The Church is not governed like Zion's Cooperative Institution by a Board of Directors; this is not God's design. It is governed by men who hold the keys of the Apostleship, who have the right and authority.37 (Ibid.) In relation to ordination, a great many people have imagined that it was necessary to ordain a man to succeed another, that it would impart a particular efficacy or endow him with some additional power. Ordination is always good and acceptable; blessings and setting apart are always desirable to those who have to go forth to prepare them for God's service; but it is not necessary that an Apostle should be ordained to stand at the head of the people. When the exigency arises, he has already got the fullness of authority, and the power of it. (JD 19:235.) There are some members of the Church who have appeared to think that there has been some power lacking, and have manifested a feeling of restlessness, anticipating the rising of some one who should have greater authority than at present exists. While I would not wish to detract from the reasonable expectations of my brethren and sisters upon this or any other point, my view is that the apostleship, now held in this Church, embodies all the authority bestowed by the Lord upon man in the flesh. (JD 21:268269270.) The fact remains that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, as it is organized in these mountains, has had the apostleship; that the men who have stood at our head, President Young and the Twelve Apostles, whose President at the death of the Prophet Joseph he was, actually received under the hands of the Prophet Joseph, every key, and power, and authority that he himself possessed. (Ibid.) The same spirit of revelation that Moses had, concerning which God speaks through the Prophet Joseph Smith, has rested upon men that have held the keys of this kingdom, whether it was during President Young's life or at the present time (( that same spirit of revelation rests upon him who holds the presidency as senior apostle in the midst of the people of God. The apostles of this Church have all the authority, they have all the keys, and it is within the purview of their office and calling to have all the spirit of revelation necessary to lead this people into the presence of the Lamb in the celestial kingdom of our God. (Ibid.) All the authority, all the power, all the keys, and all the blessings that were necessary for the guidance of this people he [Brigham Young] held. He held them as his fellow servants, the Apostles, held them; only he, being the senior, had the right to preside. (JD 23:363-364.) Joseph Smith ordained other men to hold this authority, or caused them to be ordained. In this way the authority that he had received was given to others. The same keys, the same power, the same Apostleship, the same Priesthood that he held, were bestowed upon other men. (Quoted in Collected Discourses, 1: 210.) The Apostleship has been placed in this Church to lead men to the unity of the faith. That is what Paul said in ancient days concerning the Apostleship... If you have followed the teaching of the Apostles, you have not been carried about by every wind of doctrine; nor have you been deceived by the cunning craftiness of men. None of you have been misled in this way. But you have been guarded against this. God has placed Apostles in the Church for this express purpose. They are not self-chosen. God know, and you know, that those who bear the Apostleship have not sought this... (Quoted in Collected Discourses 3:416.) Virtually every reference to "the apostleship" by early priesthood leaders supports one indivisible office and calling.38 While a few citations may be taken out of context and molded by surrounding Fundamentalist narration to bolster the two-apostleship theory,39 there are no teachings prior to the 1930's by anyone to support the doctrine. A PRIESTHOOD QUORUM ABOVE THE FIRST PRESIDENCY? The concept of two levels of apostleship also includes the existence of a priesthood quorum that presides over the Church, because its members supposedly have higher authority than the apostles in the Church. This doctrine will appear unique to most members the Church and deserves special consideration in light of its importance and singularity. Also, the idea that such a significant priesthood council could have existed from 1829 without the awareness of the Latter-day Saints appears unlikely. Regarding this council, Musser observed: That there was a Priesthood council operating wholly separate and apart from the Church and, generally speaking, unknown to the Church, must be conceded for the evidence of the fact is conclusive... (A Priesthood Issue p. 13.) Chapter three briefly discussed the proposed relationship between the purported Council of Friends and the First Presidency of the Church. Musser spent a great deal of time searching through Church historical documents attempting to prove the existence of his higher priesthood council.40 Notwithstanding his great efforts, a true picture of the position of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is found in the public teachings of previous priesthood leaders on the subject. Notice the complete absence of any priesthood council outside of or superior to the presiding quorums within the Church: (Underlining added.) Brigham Young: Joseph conferred upon our heads all the keys and powers belonging to the Apostleship which he himself held before he was taken away, and no man or set of men can get between Joseph and the Twelve in this world or in the world to come. How often has Joseph said to the Twelve, "I have laid the foundation and you must build thereon, for upon your shoulders the kingdom rests." (HC 7:230.) There never has a man stood between Joseph and the Twelve, and unless we apostatize there never will... If Hyrum had lived he would have acted for Joseph, and then when we had gone up, the Twelve would have sat down at Joseph's right hand, and Hyrum on the left hand... If the Twelve do not apostatize they carry the keys of this kingdom wherever they go. (HC 7:288.) In last week's [Deseret] News I published a portion of a revelation, showing the authority of the First Presidency of the Church, composed at first of Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. When this revelation was given, the two last-named brethren were Joseph's counselors, and this First Presidency possessed the power and authority of building up the kingdom of God upon all the earth, and of setting the Church in order in its perfection. You read in the revelation alluded to that when the Twelve were called and ordained, they possessed the same power and authority as the three First Presidents. (JD 9:87-88.) Suppose that Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams had been taken away or had apostatized, as one of them did soon after the revelation I have referred to was given, and there had been only Joseph Smith left of the First Presidency, would he alone have had authority to set in order the kingdom of God on the earth? Yes. Again: Suppose that eleven of the Twelve had been taken away by the power of the Adversary, that one Apostle has the same power that Joseph had, and could preach, baptize, and set in order the whole kingdom of God upon the earth, as much so as the Twelve, were they all together... And we ask, Could Joseph Smith or the First Presidency do this without revelation? No; not one of them could do such a work without revelation direct from God. (Ibid.) John Taylor: You heard too that although the Priesthood held certain powers and privileges, the manifestations and powers thereof were only conferred according to the exigencies of the case and the necessities and requirements thereof. God has conferred upon us these blessings, but here are certain manifestations and powers that must come directly from him, and it is the duty of the Twelve to hunt up, search after, pray for and obtain them... (JD 19:124.) Because the Twelve cannot go everywhere as a body, and the interests of the Church are being extended, and we are growing larger all the time; and Zion will continue to grow until the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our God and His Christ, and that as a matter of course means that this is the kingdom of God and the Priesthood is the representation of that kingdom, the proper authorities of the holy Priesthood, wherever they go to represent the Priesthood, must be respected in their position; and as their brethren represent the First Presidency where they are going, they must be respected and their counsels adhered to as such. (JD 21:362-363.) Thus Christ is at the head, His Apostles and disciples seem to take the next prominent part; then comes the action of the Saints, or other branches of the Priesthood.41 Wilford Woodruff: Let the Twelve Apostles, and the Seventy Apostles, and High Priest Apostles, and all other Apostles rise up and keep pace with the work of the Lord God, for we have no time to sleep... I want to see brother Hyde, who is the President of the Twelve, walk into all these Quorums and attend their meetings, and we will back him up.42 (JD 4:147-178.) [Joseph Smith] lived until every key, power, and principle of the holy Priesthood was sealed on the Twelve and on President Young, as their President. (JD 13:164.) The Almighty will never permit me, nor any other President who holds the keys of the Kingdom of God, to lead you astray. (Quoted in Collected Discourses, 1:240.) Parley P. Pratt: In the year 1835, in Kirtland, Ohio, they ordained our President, Brigham Young, also Heber C. Kimball, your servant that is now addressing you, and many others, by the word of the Lord. Thus our President and others received the keys of the Apostleship, and we magnified it until Joseph's death, when two of his Quorum of Three went behind the veil, and the third, Sidney Rigdon, who had got in the background, became an apostate. The First Presidency was reorganized, under the authority proceeding from the Almighty through Joseph Smith, in the persons of Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Willard Richards; and they, by virtue of the keys lawfully in their possession, filled up the vacancies occasioned in the Quorum of the Twelve, and also the vacancy made in their Quorum by the death of our beloved brother, Willard Richards. (JD 5:200.) Orson Pratt: In those days, some persons, ignorant of the authority of an Apostle, questioned the right of the Twelve to preside, but I would ask, what authority ever existed in the Church that the Twelve do not hold? I would further enquire, had the First Presidency any office that the Twelve had not? If they have, where did they get it? Do you know? Another First Presidency of the Church were organized, three years and a half, after the death of Joseph. If they held any higher authority, then they must have received it by direct communication from the heavens. But it is known that they received it by the voice of the Council of the Twelve, with all the authorities of the kingdom of God to back them up. We have been taught, ever since the Twelve were chosen, that they held all the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood; all the power of the Apostleship that could be conferred upon mortal man... (JD 19:114.) George Q. Cannon: At Joseph's death, there was only one man who could exercise that authority and hold these keys, and that man was President Brigham Young, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve whom God had singled out. (JD 19:233-234.) Therefore, as I have said, when President Young died there was no doubt in the minds of those who understood the principles as to who was the man -- it was the then senior Apostle. He was the man who had the right to preside, he holding the keys by virtue of his seniority, by virtue of his position in the Quorum; and he became the President of the Twelve Apostles; and became President of the Church. (JD 23:365.) Though there may be many Apostles, there is only one man at a time on the earth who can hold the keys, and who can exercise this authority, as the President of the Church, in giving voice to the mind and will go God in written revelations to the Church. (Quoted in Collected Discourses, 1:212-212.) Orson Hyde: [Joseph Smith] said, "My work is about done; I am going to step aside awhile. I am going to rest from my labors; for I have borne the burthen [sic] and heat of the day and now I am going to step aside and rest a little. And I roll the burthen [sic] off my shoulders on the shoulders of the Twelve Apostles." (JD 13:180.) SUMMARY An examination of the concepts of two levels of apostleship or a priesthood council higher than the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve reveals a doctrine that in internally inconsistent and contrasts greatly with the teachings of our priesthood leaders on the topic. Difficulties also appear in believing that Fundamentalist leaders qualified as members of the priesthood quorums they developed. CHAPTER SEVEN THE FUNDAMENTALIST LEADERSHIP COUNCIL: MEMBERSHIP - 1829 to 1832 Throughout the publications of Joseph W. Musser, he provides his readers with lists of Church members who he declared retrospectively were High Priest Apostles and members of a Council of Friends. By reviewing Musser's works, a total of fifteen groups are supposedly identified. The last group has already been discussed: 1. 3 Witnesses June 1829 2. 6 Elders - D&C 84 Sep. 1832 3. 12 Instructed Feb. 1835 4. Trial - Jared Carter Sep. 1835 5. Trial - G. Bishop Sep. 1835 6. Temple Anointings Jan. 1836 7. Temple Washings Mar. 1836 8. JS Counselors Sep. 1837 9. Endowments I May 1842 10. Endowments II May 1843 11. Quorum of the 12 July 1844 12. First Presidency Oct. 1847 13. Assist. Counselors Apr. 1873 14. Quorum of the 12 Jan. 1880 15. JT/5-hour meeting Sep. 1886 Other Fundamentalist authors, Stephen L. and Lynn L. Bishop, have also formed a list of members of a Council of Friends1 which contrasts Musser's list and will be briefly discussed in chapter nine. JUNE 1929 - THE THREE WITNESSES The first apostles in this dispensation were Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery who were ordained by Peter, James, and John in June of 1829.2 While nothing is mentioned by either of these brethren to support the idea that they were actually ordained "High Priest Apostles," Musser claimed that their higher order of Priesthood was indeed conferred on that date by Peter, James and John (not the Savior): Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received, not only the Priesthood of Melchizedek, but the order of Priesthood that comprehends all power as previously explained --- the priesthood that embraces the Apostolic calling. (A Priesthood Issue, p. 8.) Brigham Young discussed the priesthood that Joseph and Oliver received: I say unto you Latter-day Saints, that the Seventies follow the Twelve Apostles, and the Twelve Apostles follow in the wake of the First Presidency, and the First Presidency follow in the wake of Peter, James and John... The Priesthood which Peter, James and John held while in the flesh was the highest ever bestowed upon the children of men, and it was conferred upon Joseph and Oliver, and without it they never could have built up the kingdom. (Deseret News Weekly, June 6, 1877 as quoted in A Priesthood Issue, p. 19) In addition to Joseph and Oliver, David Whitmer and Martin Harris were also referred to as "apostles" before the Church was formally organized or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was filled. Several references to these men as apostles are found in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Journal of Discourses. (See figure 7-1.) Since these men received the apostleship prior to the formal organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on April 6, 1830 and also before the calling and the setting apart of the Twelve Apostles in 1835, Musser and other Fundamentalists conclude that: 1. By virtue of their membership in a supreme priesthood council, a Council of Friends, they were instructed to organize a subordinate organization: The Church of Christ on April 6, 1830. 2. Joseph, Oliver, David, and Martin held a "higher Apostleship" since the latter three were commissioned to choose and ordain the allegedly inferior Twelve Apostles. Since Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer were instructed to "search out the Twelve,"3 apparently with the assistance of Martin Harris since Martin helped to set them apart to the calling in 1835,4 Joseph Musser concluded that they must have held a higher order of apostleship: In course of time, these three men [Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer], with Martin Harris added, were commanded to choose a quorum of twelve Apostles, which they did. And here it will be noted that neither Joseph, Oliver, David, or Martin, under whose selection the Twelve were chosen, became members of that group, the choosers holding a higher order of Apostleship. (A Priesthood Issue, p. 9.) Evidently there is a difference in the Apostolic calling of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, before the organization of the Church, and the apostolic calling of the "Twelve Apostles"... the former being an ordination in the Priesthood proper, while the latter is an appendage office. (Truth 17:168 and Supplement p. 99.) Musser also asserted that it was not by virtue of their being the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon that they were assigned to choose the Twelve: To suppose that these men [Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris] did the choosing (as indicated in some of the writings of the brethren, because of having been witnesses of the Book of Mormon), is an error - a supposition that is without rhyme, rhythm, or reason. (Truth 17:168; Supplement p. 99.) However, a reading of the events surrounding the February 14, 1835 ordinations of the Quorum of Twelve indicates that Oliver, David, and Martin were commissioned to select and ordain the Twelve Special Witnesses because they were the Three Book of Mormon Witnesses. In other words, Apostles, who were Book of Mormon witnesses selected Apostles, who were Special Witnesses. Indeed, notes from the meeting specifically refer to these men as "the Three Witnesses" four times and as "the Witnesses" once. There is no reference to them as high priest apostles or as members of a Council of Friends: President Joseph Smith, Jun., said that the first business of the meeting was, for the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, to pray, each one, and then proceed to choose twelve men from the Church, as Apostles, to go to all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people. The Three Witnesses, viz., Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, united in prayer. These Three Witnesses were then blessed by the laying on of the hands of the Presidency. The Witnesses then, according to a former commandment, proceeded to make choice of the Twelve. Their names are as follows: [12 names listed]. Lyman E. Johnson, Brigham Young, and Heber C. Kimball came forward; and the Three Witnesses laid their hands upon each one's head and prayed separately. (HC 2:186-187.) [Underlining by the authors.] There is no suggestion from these minutes that callings to a higher apostleship enabled Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris to select the members of the Quorum of the Twelve. Rather, their status as Book of Mormon Witnesses was acknowledged several times and appears to have been the source of their commission to choose the Quorum of Twelve Special Witnesses. Fundamentalists bolster their claims to the superiority of the apostleship of Joseph, Oliver, and David by showing that in addition to selecting them, they also ordained them. However, priesthood holders can ordain others to the same priesthood they hold. They need not hold a higher priesthood office. For example, Elders can ordain other elders and priests can ordain other priests etc.5 Brigham Young observed the authority of the Apostleship the Twelve received from the Three Witnesses in 1835: In our early career in this Church, on one occasion, in one of our Councils, we were telling about some of the Twelve wanting to ordain us High Priests... It was William E. McLellin who told Joseph, that I and Heber were not ordained High Priests, and wanted to know if it should not be done. Said Joseph, "Will you insult the Priesthood? Is that all the knowledge you have of the office of an Apostle? Do you not know that the man who receives the Apostleship, receives all the keys that ever were, or that can be, conferred upon mortal man? What are you talking about? I am astonished!" Nothing more was said about it.6 (JD 1:136-137.) Since Joseph stated that the apostleship originally given to the Twelve contained "all the keys that ever were, or that can be, conferred upon mortal man," it is difficult to believe that the apostleship of David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery was somehow greater as Musser taught. The whole idea taught by Fundamentalists that the Three Witnesses held a higher level of apostleship in February, 1835, when they ordained the Twelve is complicated by the terms used by the Prophet Joseph Smith during the sustaining of priesthood leaders at the General Conference held March, 1836: I then called upon the quorums and congregation of Saints to acknowledge the Twelve Apostles, who were present, as Prophets, Seers, Revelators, and special witnesses to all the nations of the earth, holding the keys of the kingdom, to unlock it, or cause it to be done, among them, and uphold them by their prayers, which they assented to by rising. (HC 2:417.) If indeed the Twelve Apostles were subordinate to a Council of Friends, it wouldn't make much sense to sustain them as "Prophets, Seers, and Revelators." The Prophets, according to Joseph Musser, are the members of the Council of Friends who direct the Church via the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. Joseph Smith also noted that the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles held the "keys of the kingdom," "not the keys of the church." Fundamentalist doctrine is adamant about separating the Church and Kingdom with the so-called Priesthood organization presiding over both. Another problem for those who wish to believe that the Three Witnesses held authority higher than the First Presidency of the Church comes as we observe that, prior to ordaining the Twelve "These Three Witnesses were then blessed by the laying on of the hands of the Presidency."7 This is referring to the First Presidency of the Church (Joseph Smith with counsellors Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams) which Musser taught was subordinate to the higher Council of Friends. Fundamentalists would expect the former to bless the latter and not the other way around. An additional concern revolves around the question why only three of the proposed Council of Friends were involved in the selection. A brief examination of Figure 3-3 shows that in February of 1835, when the Twelve Apostles were chosen, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Hyrum Smith, Edward Partridge, David Patten, and Joseph Stockbridge were also supposedly High Priest Apostles, but were not included in the selection process. Even the senior member, Joseph Smith, did not assist. It makes little sense to arbitrarily isolate only three members of this alleged dominant priesthood quorum and require them to choose the Quorum of the Twelve when other qualified leaders were available to help, but that is what many Fundamentalists believe. THE WITNESSES SPEAK An analysis of Musser's theories regarding the High Priest Apostles may appear plausible on initial inspection. However, since the men involved often left us their own record, a truer picture is gained by consulting their personal statements to see if High Priest Apostles or a Council of Friends existed as Musser claimed. Without considering these personal testimonies, a theologian might be able to manipulate selected historical statements, like pawns in a game of chess, and make them comply with a 20th century ideology . DAVID WHITMER Both David and Oliver were excommunicated from the church in 1838. Even if the Council of Friends did exist secretly, excommunicated and disillusioned members would no longer feel obligated to abide by a covenant of secrecy. The estranged and somewhat confused Whitmer was especially critical and wrote a pamphlet in 1887 entitled An Address to All Believers in Christ.8 In that book, David didn't refer to any group of "High Priest Apostles" or anything higher than the First Presidency. Even a negative reference to the group described by Musser would be very useful in believing that Whitmer was ever a member. In any of his writings and teachings, there is no hint of a group above the First Presidency or a higher apostleship. Even more telling is to note his actions after he was excommunicated. In 1847 he was appointed "President" of the "Church of Christ" by William E. McLellin (a former member of the Quorum of the Twelve). If David Whitmer had been a member of a Council of Friends, it is likely that he would have established the highest priesthood council he was aware of upon starting his own religion. However, after being excommunicated from the Church, he did not form a Council of Friends, instead, a "church" was created with him as president. Throughout his associations with schismatic religious activities, Whitmer never claimed priesthood authority from any ordination as a High Priest Apostle or as a member of a Council of Friends. The actions of David Whitmer suggest quite strongly that he was never a member of a Council of Friends or a dominant external priesthood quorum as Fundamentalists claim. OLIVER COWDERY In the spring of 1838, Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated for a variety of reasons. According to John Whitmer, he was even abused by certain church members at that time: But to our great astonishment, when we were on our way home from Liberty, Clay County, we met the families of Oliver Cowdery and L. E. Johnson, whom they had driven from their homes, and robbed them of all their goods, save clothing, bedding, etc.9 Later he, along with David Whitmer and others received a letter signed by eighty-four Church members ordering them to leave the country or "face a more fatal calamity." If either of these men had presided over the Church as members of a Council of Friends, they might have used that position or referred to it in their defense against the charges made by church members. They might have also claimed continued priesthood authority from that priesthood line after their excommunication from the church (as many modern Fundamentalists have done). Still, there is no mention of any such ordination by these men during their time of disenchantment with the authorities and the Church. In 1848, when Oliver Cowdery visited the saints in Kainesville, Iowa, he discussed many things about his early days in the church, but there is no mention of his being a High Priest Apostle. When David Whitmer organized his "Church of Christ" in 1847, Oliver wrote him a letter suggesting that because they had been commissioned to choose the original Twelve Apostles, they still held those priesthood keys.10 However, when Oliver applied to be rebaptized in the Church in May, 1848, he explained that he wrote the letter prior to understanding D&C 124:91-95 where the Lord says the Oliver's priesthood and gifts of the priesthood were put upon Hyrum Smith. Since the Lord did not say that David Whitmer's priesthood had been taken and he had only been excommunicated from the Church, one might have expected David to claim authority as a High Priest Apostle, even if Oliver did not. Neither of these men ever made reference to such an office. MARTIN HARRIS Martin Harris became discontented with Joseph Smith and the church over the collapse of the Kirtland Anti-banking Society in 1837. He and his family remained in Kirtland when most Saints emigrated to Missouri or Nauvoo. In 1870 he moved to Utah where he lived until his death in 1875. Upon arriving in Utah, he had many things to tell about his early years with the saints. He died in full fellowship, but without significant leadership position. In spite of this, he never mentioned his having been a High Priest Apostle or member of a Council of Friends though he talked with vigor of his experience as one of the Three Witnesses. Eliminating Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris as potential High Priest Apostles shows that Musser's superimposed theology completely missed when applied to the first "Quorum of High Priest Apostles" (Council of Friends) he proposed. D&C 84 - THE SIX ELDERS The second gathering of men identified by Joseph Musser (see figure 3-3) as an assembly of the Council of Friends occurred on September 22 and 23, 1832. On that date the Lord gave a revelation through Joseph Smith at Kirtland, Ohio that is now section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Prophet Joseph Smith designated this section as "a revelation on priesthood."11 Verse one reads: A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and six elders, as they united their hearts and lifted their voices on high. (D&C 84:1.) The revelation contains 120 verses, many of which deal with priesthood topics. Verses 33-42 have been referred to as the "oath and covenant of the priesthood:"12 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God. And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord; For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father's kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him... And wo unto all those who come not unto this priesthood which ye have received, which I now confirm upon you who are present this day, by mine own voice out of the heavens, and even I have given the heavenly hosts and mine angels charge concerning you. (D&C 84:33-38, 42.) In Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, Musser recorded the above verses, then, with the addition of some commentary placed in brackets and emphasis, quoted verses 60, 61, 63 and 77. Verily, verily, I say unto you WHO NOW HEAR MY WORDS [the seven elders] which are my voice, blessed are ye inasmuch as you receive these things; For I will forgive you of your sins with this commandment, that you remain steadfast in your minds in solemnity and the spirit of prayer, in bearing testimony to all the world of those things which are communicated unto you. And as I said unto mine apostles, even so I say unto you, for YOU ARE MINE APOSTLES, even GOD'S HIGH PRIESTS; ye are they whom my Father hath given me; ye are my friends. And again I say unto you, MY FRIENDS (for from henceforth I shall call you FRIENDS), it is expedient that I give unto you this commandment, that ye become even as my FRIENDS in days when I was with them, traveling to preach the gospel in my power. (D&C 84:60-61, 63, 77 as quoted in Supplement p. 100 and Truth 17:170.) [Bold and brackets Musser's.] MUSSER'S CONCLUSIONS After citing the above scriptures, Musser contended five things were learned: 1st. That God confirmed a Priesthood upon Joseph Smith and six other Elders (whose names are not given), which was the same Priesthood and authority that Moses had previously received, and only by which man can see the face of God even the Father, and live. 2nd. They are to have their sins forgiven. 3rd. That through faithfulness in obtaining this Priesthood and functioning in it men become "sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies." They also "become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God;" and they receive Christ and the Father and are received by them, and are given all that the Father hath. 4th. They are "MINE APOSTLES EVEN GOD'S HIGH PRIESTS; ye are they whom God hath given me; YE ARE MY FRIENDS", and from henceforth they are to be called FRIENDS. (This revelation was given in 1832 while the quorum of twelve disciples was not selected until 1835, three years later. "Mine Apostles" doubtless had reference to the same apostolic calling that Joseph, Oliver and David previously received. It will be noted that there were seven men, at least, in this order of the Priesthood.) 5th. Upon them rested the responsibility of bearing the Gospel message to the world - their testimony being immediately in force upon all the world - with power to rend the kingdom of the world, which power pertains only to this order of the Priesthood, and not primarily to appendage callings.13 [Underlining by the authors.] There are significant problems with the first, fourth and fifth conclusions. First, Musser contended that Joseph Smith with "the six other Elders (whose names are not given), received the same Priesthood and authority that Moses had previously received." This would, in his mind, make them High Priest Apostles which is without historical or scriptural support. It is true that the Lord stated, "wo unto all those who come not unto this priesthood which ye have received, which I now confirm upon you who are present this day,"14 but the two priesthoods mentioned in these verses (see verse 33) are the Aaronic and Melchizedek as indicated by verses 14, 18, 25, 26, 29, and 30. Exactly why Joseph Musser believed that a calling of High Priest Apostle is discussed in any way is unclear. THE SIX ELDERS IDENTIFIED Musser presumed that only six elders were present to receive the entire revelation and observed that their names were not given. No historian has been able to identify who the original six elders were. However, Musser listed six elders he claims to have comprised that group in Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser.15 They were: Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Edward Partridge, David Patten, Joseph Stockbridge and Hyrum Smith.16 An analysis of these six men is useful to determine if they might have been included in the group of "six elders" referred to in the first verse of section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Brigham Young A simple inquiry into the timing of Brigham Young's arrival in Kirtland, Ohio in 1832 assists us in understanding whether he could have been one of the Musser's six Elders: Brigham Young was baptized April 14, 1832, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and ordained an Elder immediately after confirmation, Eleazar Miller officiating in each instance. Three weeks after, his wife was also baptized. During the following summer he preached the gospel in the regions adjacent to Mendon, (New York), baptizing many and organizing branches. His wife died September 8, 1832, leaving him two little girls, one two years old and the other seven years of age. In the Fall of 1832 he visited Kirtland, Ohio, in company with Heber C. Kimball and Joseph Young, and made the acquaintances of the Prophet Joseph Smith.17 A more exact date is given by the Prophet Joseph Smith in his history: About the 8th of November I received a visit from Elders Joseph Young, Brigham Young, and Heber C. Kimball of Mendon, Monroe County, New York. They spent four or five days at Kirtland, during which time we had many interesting moments. (HC 1:295-6.) It is thus evident that Brigham Young was not one of the six Elders present in Kirtland on September 22 and 23, 1832, he first arriving in Kirtland some 6 weeks later according to the Prophet's account. Heber C. Kimball An investigation of Heber C. Kimball's movements during the Fall of 1832 reveals the following: Heber C. Kimball was baptized in April 1832 by Alpheus Gifford. About two weeks later his wife Vilate was baptized by Joseph Young. Kimball was ordained an Elder by Joseph Young, and in company with him and Brigham Young he preached in Genesse, Avon and Lyonstorn, where they baptized many and built up branches. In November, 1832, with Brigham Young and Joseph Young, he went to Kirtland, Ohio and visited the Prophet Joseph Smith. (Historical Record, p. 34.) It is also evident that Heber C. Kimball was not one of the six Elders present in Kirtland on September 22 and 23, 1832, he also first arriving in Kirtland some six weeks later. Edward Partridge Edward Partridge went to Missouri with the Prophet and others in June, 1831. While there he was appointed to remain and stand as the first Bishop in the Church.18 Partridge remained in Missouri until the Saints were driven out in November, 1832 to the surrounding counties,19 and eventually out of the State in 1838. It thus becomes obvious that he also was not one of the six Elders present in Kirtland on September 22 and 23, 1832. David Patten David Patten was also out of the state on the day the revelation was given: David Patten was baptized by his brother John Patten, in Green County, Indiana, June 15, 1832. He was ordained an Elder on the 17th by Elisha Groves and appointed with a Brother Wood to preach in the Territory of Michigan... In October he went to Kirtland, where he spent two or three weeks, after which he started out on his second mission, this time going East into Pennsylvania.. from this mission he returned to Kirtland Feb. 25, 1833. (Historical Record, p. 19.) It thus becomes doubtful that David Patten was one of the six Elders present in Kirtland on September 22 and 23, 1832. Joseph Stockbridge There is no mention of a Joseph Stockbridge in the early history of the Church. Andrew Jenson's four volume L.D.S. Biographical Encyclopedia20 containing over 5500 names of people important to the restoration does not list a Joseph Stockbridge. Likewise, computerized searches of the seven volume History of the Church and 26 volume Journal of Discourses, and many other early historical works fails to discover anyone by that name. It appears that Joseph Stockbridge is a pure fabrication. If a Stockbridge were a member of the Council of Friends in 1832, one would expect his name to appear somewhere in early Church history. Hyrum Smith Hyrum Smith could have been in Kirtland on the day D&C 84 was given. However, the supposition that he was ever a "High Priest Apostle" must be evaluated. Hyrum Smith was called to be Second Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church in 1837. He replaced his father as Patriarch to the Church and was called as Associate President of the Church on January 24, 1841.21 If Hyrum was a High Priest Apostle in 1832 and thus presiding over the Church by virtue of that calling in the Priesthood, his subsequent advancements within the Church are curious. Hyrum Smith was designated the successor to President Joseph Smith through the calling Hyrum received as Associate Church President. Musser taught that each Church President is supposedly chosen by the alleged Council of Friends. It appears that Joseph had desires to completely bypass the purported Council of Friends and their authority to choose the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In reality, there was no such council presiding anywhere. There is nothing to suggest that Hyrum Smith was ever a High Priest Apostle as described by Musser. SEVEN OR ELEVEN MEN? Musser's fourth assertion involves the popular Fundamentalist scripture (D&C 84:63) where the Lord refers to the members present as "mine Apostles, even God's High Priests." This appears to be the origin of the idea of "High Priest Apostles" or Friends. Musser contended that the Lord was specifying those six elders as High Priest Apostles in that verse. Respecting the number of individuals present and the dates involved when Section 84 was received, Lyndon W. Cook has observed: It is difficult to determine which verses were received on which day, but some evidence suggest that verses 1-41 constitute parts of the revelation received on 22 September. Whereas verse 1 indicates that the revelation was received in the presence of six elders (undoubtedly high priests), an unpublished note (dated 23 September 1832) that appears in the "Kirtland Revelation Book" after verse 42 affirms that that verse (42) was specifically intended for ten high priests, then present. It is also worthy of note that there is a change of tense in verse 42 from the third to the first person. (The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 176) Therefore it is more likely that verses after 42 (including verse 63 where the Lord refers to his "Apostles, even God's High Priests") were given to ten elders and not six. As will be seen, having seven members in the Council of Friends is something routinely deviated from by Fundamentalists. Such also appears to be the case if one is to utilize D&C 84:63 to support a Council of Friends. HIGH PRIEST APOSTLES AND MISSIONARY WORK Musser's Fifth observation that "upon them [the High Priest Apostles] rested the responsibility of bearing the Gospel message to the world" directly contradicts Musser's other teachings that it is a duty of the Church (not the proposed Priesthood organization and a Council of Friends) to proclaim the gospel: The Church might be termed the spiritual branch or propaganda division of the Priesthood. To its sacred care is entrusted the duty of proclaiming the "gospel of the Kingdom" to mankind... (A Priesthood Issue, p. 17.) Likewise, it should be noted that the Council of Friends does not promote missionary work today. This, even though the senior member of the Council allegedly holds the "keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth" restored to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland temple on April 3, 1836.22 An examination of the Fundamentalist approach to missionary work is somewhat puzzling. Notwithstanding their attempts to practice fundamental doctrines, they ignore the many directives from the Lord to do missionary work.23 They do not actively proselyte to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or to their own external Priesthood organization. They criticize the attempts by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to effectuate the final gathering through missionary work.24 From their actions, one would readily conclude that Fundamentalists feel that missionary work was a priesthood duty of the nineteenth century only, for they place little emphasis on fulfilling the Lord's multiple commands to perform missionary work. D&C 84 - ITS IMPORTANCE This second group proposed by Musser and others as a council of High Priest Apostles may have been the source of the number of individuals Musser believed should be in his dominant priesthood quorum. Six Elders, plus Joseph Smith, make seven and since the number is seldom found in the other proposed groups,25 Musser's determination that the Council of Friends should contain seven individuals may have been primarily derived from this historical episode. The alleged Council of Friends is also referred to as the Council of Seven. The names "High Priest Apostles" and "Friends" were also probably derived from verse 63 as discussed above. CHAPTER EIGHT THE FUNDAMENTALIST LEADERSHIP COUNCIL: MEMBERSHIP - 1835 to 1837 ADDITIONAL GROUPS LISTED As Joseph W. Musser searched accounts from early periods of Church history for evidence to support the existence of High Priest Apostles; he identified six groups of men during the years of 1835 to 1837 that he felt were meetings or groups of a Council of Friends:1 1. The Twelve Instructed Feb. 1835 2. Trial of Jared Carter Sep. 1835 3. Trial of Gladden Bishop Sep. 1835 4. Temple Anointings Jan. 1836 5. Temple Washings Mar. 1836 6. Counselors to Joseph Smith Sep. 1837 This chapter will analyze these six companies. FEBRUARY 1835 -THE 12 INSTRUCTED On February 27, 1835. a group met to receive instruction from Joseph Smith. Nine of the Twelve Apostles were present. The first portion of the record reads: This evening, nine of the Twelve, viz., Lyman Johnson, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Hyde, David W. Patten, Luke Johnson, William E. M'Lellin, John F. Boynton, and William Smith, assembled at the house of President Joseph Smith, Jun., who was present, with Frederick G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon, Bishop Whitney, and three Elders. (HC 2:198-200) [Underlining by the authors.] As can be from those underlined, seven individuals were in attendance besides the members of the Twelve. Those seven included the three members of the First Presidency, Bishop Whitney, and "three Elders." Regarding these seven, Joseph W. Musser has written: While this group of seven men are not specifically referred to as the "First Elders" or "Friends" they doubtless comprised this group, possessing jurisdiction over the Twelve who they had met to instruct. (Supplement p. 105, Truth 17:171.) Joseph White Musser suggested that the Council of Friends met that day to instruct the subordinate Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. His interpretation of those events is problematic for several reasons. 1. While a lofty Council of Friends could teach the Quorum of the Twelve, it would be more consistent with the hierarchy set up by Musser for the High Priest Apostles to teach the First Presidency and for them in turn to teach the Twelve. We are unable to distinguish this hierarchy because Musser taught that all of the First Presidency were members of the Council of Friends. The number seven is completed by adding Newel K. Whitney and the three unnamed elders. A more plausible explanation for this meeting would be that the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency, with Bishop Newel K. Whitney were assembled to hear the prophet teach. Joseph Smith used the pronoun "I" when giving his instructions, not "we." To say a Council of Friends convened to instruct the Twelve is pure conjecture. 2. We are informed that the clerks for the meeting were Orson Hyde and William E. M'Lellin. They felt that listing the names of the Twelve, First Presidency, and Bishop was important. If they had understood that the "three Elders" also in attendance were members of the highest priesthood quorum, it is likely that their names would also have been included out of respect for their office alone. This was not done. 3. From previous investigation we know that Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, along with five brethren associated with D&C 84, were supposedly members of the Council of Friends. Why were they not invited? Likewise, we have a numbers problem at that time giving 13 members of that dominant priesthood council instead of seven. This does not seem to be a real problem in the Musser narrative however. 4. Six times Joseph Musser included Sidney Rigdon as a member of his Council of Friends during the 1830's.2 However, when discussing the membership in 1844, Musser showed that clearly Rigdon never could have been involved. Musser was forced to conclude this in light of Rigdon's actions after the death of Joseph Smith in 1844. The months following the martyrdom found Sidney proposing, by virtue of his authority as a counselor in the First Presidency, to serve as a "guardian" to the Church until Joseph Smith III was old enough to preside.3 He viewed his membership in the First Presidency, not a higher priesthood quorum (like the proposed Council of Friends), as the source of his priesthood authority.4 Joseph Musser apparently realized this problem and stated in A Priesthood Issue: After the death of Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon applied for the guardianship of the Church, advancing claims based on ordinations he had received in the Church. (p. 26.) Musser also stated that Sidney Rigdon "wasn't one to be trusted, even though a member of the First Presidency."5 The real problem with the idea that Sidney Rigdon had ever been associated with a Council of Friends stems from the complete lack of reference to that purported body by Rigdon in 1844 when he was trying to persuade Church members of his visions and calling to lead. After the death of Joseph Smith, Rigdon promoted the priesthood councils to be organized as they had stood at the time of the dedication of the Kirtland Temple in 1836. Nothing in Rigdon's ideology even vaguely resembled Musser's doctrine of an external Priesthood organization, a Council of Friends or High Priest Apostles. Even a negative reference to them would have substantiated the claims of their existence. Nevertheless, not so much as a hint of the Council of Friends is found. Sidney Rigdon was excommunicated from the Church in 1844 and proceeded to establish his own religion. He organized a Church with a First Presidency, not a Priesthood organization with a Council of Friends. In view of Sidney Rigdon's statements and actions after the death of the Prophet, it is impossible to believe that he was ever a member of or aware of any quorum higher than the First Presidency. SEPTEMBER 1835 THE TRIAL OF JARED CARTER Jared Carter, an Elder in the Church, was brought before the Kirtland High Council and others on September 19, 1835. The account is recorded as follows: Minutes of a High Council held in Kirtland, September 19, 1835. The trial of Elder Jared Carter. President Joseph Smith, Jun., Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Frederick G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon, and W. W. Phelps, present. [Then twelve "councilors" listed]. (HC 2:277.) Musser quoted the above and then commented: These minutes clearly indicate a trial before the "Presidency of the Council of High Priesthood" (or "Council of the Presidency", or "Presidency of the High Priesthood") (See D&C, Sec. 107:79) with twelve other High Priests chosen to assist as counselors thus indicating the functioning of the highest judicial body, the presidency of which, at least, was of the order of Presiding High Priests, herein mentioned. (Supplement p. 106, Truth 17:172.) Here we find a somewhat confused elaboration where Musser was forced to redefine titles for his Council of Friends in order to demonstrate its existence historically. From his observations above we are taught that other names for the Council of Friends include: Presidency of the Council of High Priesthood Council of the Presidency or Presidency of the High Priesthood Musser gave a reference to support his conclusion (D&C 107:79): And the Presidency of the council of the High Priesthood shall have power to call other high priests, even twelve, to assist as counselors; and thus the Presidency of the High Priesthood and its counselors shall have power to decide upon testimony according to the laws of the church. Since the term "Presidency of the Council of the High Priesthood" is not used anywhere else in the scriptures, it is easy for an author to define it to be whatever his theology requires. However, the next verse helps us to understand its jurisdiction: And after this decision it shall be had in remembrance no more before the Lord; for this is the highest council of the church of God, and a final decision upon controversies in spiritual matters. (D&C 107:80.) [Underlining by the authors.] The council referred to is a Church council. Considering the great efforts Fundamentalists exert to show that their Priesthood organization exists outside the Church, it seems a little odd that Musser would then suggest they are also a "council of the Church." Additionally, it should be noted that the stake high council is trying the case along with other brethren. This is not an appeal of a lower judgment which might, on request, merit consideration by a higher body, such as the First Presidency (or a Council of Friends if they existed). But how much sense does it make to suggest that the highest priesthood body, which exists outside the Church, is going to join with a stake high council from within the Church to try a case for the first time? Joseph Smith was then serving as President of the High Council at Kirtland and so would attend. But his presence there should not be interpreted as participation of a Council of Friends. Some will say that the attendance of Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Frederick G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon, and W. W. Phelps constitutes assistance from a special priesthood quorum of which they were all supposed to be members. However, it is more likely that the First Presidency and Assistant President Oliver Cowdery had invitation by virtue of their Church positions alone. Also, it is likely that David Whitmer and W.W. Phelps (with John Whitmer) were invited as a teaching opportunity for them as members of the Stake Presidency in Missouri.6 SEPTEMBER 1835 THE TRIAL OF GLADDEN BISHOP One week after the trial of Jared Carter, we find a member, Gladden Bishop, on trial with charges preferred by the Twelve to the Kirtland High Council. The account reads: September 26. - This morning the Twelve returned from their mission to the East, and on the same day the Council of the Presidency of the Church, consisting of Joseph Smith, Jun., Sidney Rigdon, David Whitmer, W. W. Phelps, John Whitmer, Hyrum Smith and Oliver cowdery, met to consider the case of the Twelve who had previously been reproved in consequence of certain letters and reports coming to the ears of the Council... An attempt was made in the foregoing Council to criminate the Twelve before the High Council for cutting off Gladden Bishop at their Bradford conference, but their attempt totally failed. I decided that the High Council had nothing to do with the Twelve, or the decisions of the Twelve. But if the Twelve erred they were accountable only to the General Council of the authorities of the whole Church, according to the revelations. (HC 2:283-285 and quoted with Musser's emphasis in Truth 17:172.) [Underlining ours.] Regarding the above episode, Musser has written: - Subject only to the direction of the First Presidency of the Church. (Mill. Star, 15:595) and accountable only to the "General Council of the authorities of the whole Church," or the seven High Priests who chose them and before whom they actually appeared to give an account of their labors. (Mill. Star, 15:342.) It will be remembered that the "High Council in Zion," "the standing High Council at the Stakes of Zion," "the quorum of the Presidency" and the "Twelve traveling Council" (Apostles), in their judiciary acts, are equal in authority (Sec. 107:36, 37), and that an appeal lies from the decision of each of these councils or judiciary tribunals, to the "Council of the Church before the Presidency of the High Priesthood," (107:78, 79), which is the supreme court "in spiritual matters," and from whose decisions there is no appeal, for: "After this decision (the matter) shall be had in remembrance no more before the Lord; for this is the highest Council of the Church of God, and final decision upon controversies in spiritual matters." (Verse 80) This council of the Church before the Presidency of the High Priesthood, comprises the group of seven "Presiding High Priests" in the special order of Priesthood under discussion. This "Presidency of the high Priesthood," however, "have power to call other High Priests, even twelve, to assist as counselors." (Verse 79). Thus the court of last resort in the Church of God comprises men that are Presiding High Priests whose Priesthood and appointments are indicated by God through direct revelation to his presiding High Priest on earth, and twelve other High Priests... (Supplement pp 106-107 (in part), Truth 17:172-173.) It is possible that the reader may be a little confused after reviewing Joseph Musser's commentary on the selections he cited. He asserted from the verses and the historical account: 1. That the "Council of the Presidency of the Church" comprised of Joseph Smith, Jun., Sidney Rigdon, David Whitmer, W. W. Phelps, John Whitmer, Hyrum Smith and Oliver Cowdery, which convened on September 26, 1835, was actually a meeting of the Council of Friends. 2. That the Twelve are subject only to the direction of the First Presidency of the Church and accountable only to the "General Council of the authorities of the whole church," or the seven High Priest Apostles who choose them. 3. Since 1) the Twelve Apostles, 2) the Seventy, 3) the standing high councils at the stakes of Zion, and 4) the high council in Zion all form quorums "equal in authority in the affairs of the Church,"7 the appeal from the decisions of these four groups is to the "Council of the Church before the Presidency of the High Priesthood" which is a Council of Friends. 4. By virtue of their being the "Council of the Church before the Presidency of the High Priesthood," the Council of Friends has power to call other High Priests, even twelve, to assist as counselors.8 These conclusions show the difficulty Musser faced as he tried to interject a quorum into the priesthood hierarchy that was never there in the first place. The First Presidency is entirely replaced by the Council of Friends. In the original accounts and scriptures, Musser's additional level of leadership is absent, so he is forced to displace one that was in existence (the First Presidency) to support the belief that his lofty priesthood body was then present. Here are some additional problems with his interpretation of the scriptures and events: 1. Since the Council of Friends is supposedly a priesthood body existing outside the church, it seems strange that the reference to the "Council of the Presidency of the Church" would be referring to it. This would be an accurate description of the First Presidency and any additional counselors called to assist. 2. The shifting of membership is bothersome since just one week prior at the trial of Jared Carter, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer were absent (along with Martin Harris and the D&C 84 group9) and now Newel K. Whitney is gone and W. W. Phelps has been ordained. This most powerful priesthood quorum appeared to have had a somewhat mercurial membership. 3. The statement that the Twelve were "subject only to the direction of the First Presidency of the Church, and accountable only to the `General Council of the authorities of the whole Church,' or the seven High Priests who chose them and before whom they actually appeared..." promotes an interesting philosophy mingled with scripture without any historical support whatsoever. One is left wondering if the seven High Priests Apostles have ever chosen a "General Council of the authorities of the whole church" and if so, why and when? The alleged Council of Friends did not even preside in 1844 at the trial of Sidney Rigdon who had been a member of the First Presidency and supposedly the Council of Friends. 4. Musser contended that the court of appeals for 1) the Twelve, 2) the Seventy, 3) the standing high councils, at the stakes of Zion, and 4) the high council in Zion was the Council of Friends. This, of course, bypasses the First Presidency. Since there is no record of the Council of Friends ever even existing prior to 1933, one must conclude that no appeals were ever made which is doubtful. 5. This account includes Sidney Rigdon as a member of the Council of Friends which is problematic as discussed above. 6. A question concerning the seniority arises. Several of the different Councils of Friends of the distinct polygamist sects identifiable today follow very strict orders respecting seniority. However, since Musser failed to satisfactorily define how the "Second Elder" was to be designated, at least three modes have been promoted: 1. Seniority through age. 2. Seniority through oldest ordination. 3. Second Elder chosen by the First Elder through a special ordination irrespective of remaining members of the Quorum. After the death of Joseph Musser in 1954, Rulon Allred claimed leadership as Musser's" Second Elder" through special ordination. The Fundamentalists in Colorado City, Arizona, however, followed Leroy Johnson10 through seniority of ordination.11 Throughout the first two decades of church history, little attention was paid to seniority in the groups Musser proposed. After 1933 however, positioning became very important and was the source of many splits and disagreements among Fundamentalists. JANUARY 1836 - TEMPLE ANOINTINGS The Kirtland Temple in Ohio was dedicated March 27, 1836.12 Prior to its formal dedication it was used for various meetings of church groups. One of these meetings occurred January 21, 1836. The prophet recorded: At early candle-light I met with the Presidency at the west school room, in the Temple, to attend to the ordinance of anointing our heads with holy oil... I took the oil in my left hand, Father Smith being seated before me, and the remainder of the Presidency encircled him round about. We then stretched our right hands towards heaven, and blessed the oil, and consecrated it in the name of Jesus Christ. We then laid our hands upon our aged Father Smith, and invoked the blessings of heaven. I then anointed his head with consecrated oil, and sealed many blessings upon him. The Presidency then in turn laid their hands upon his head, beginning at the oldest, until they had all laid their hands upon him, and pronounced such blessings upon his head... (HC 2:379-380.) The text proceeds by accounting how Joseph was also anointed and received a revelation that is now D&C 137. Others in attendance also "saw glorious visions" and angels administered unto them. The record then continues: The Bishop of Kirtland with his Counselors, and the Bishop of Zion with his Counselors, were present with us, and received their anointings under the hands of Father Smith, and this was confirmed by the Presidency, and the glories of heaven were unfolded to them also. We then invited the High Councilors of Kirtland and Zion into our room, and President Hyrum Smith anointed the head of the President of the Councilors in Kirtland, and President David Whitmer the head of the President of the Councilors of Zion... (Ibid pp. 381-382.) The narrative identifies Joseph Smith, Jr., David Whitmer, Hyrum Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Joseph Smith, Sr., by name as being present. Also we learn that the Bishop of Kirtland, Newel K. Whitney, and the Bishop of Zion, Edward Partridge,13 both with their counselors attended. Respecting other proposed High Priest Apostles on the date, the wording of the account would not exclude Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris (doubtful), Frederick G. Williams, W. W. Phelps, John Whitmer or any individuals such the proposed D&C 84 group of six elders, though none of them are mentioned as being there. Commenting on this occurrence, a contributed article in a monthly series from the periodical Truth, entitled "Priesthood Items" stated: From the History of the Church Vol. 2, p 379, we learn that the Presidency of the Priesthood met and received their washings and anointings. Upon this occasion many of them communed with angels, saw visions, received revelations, or viewed the face of the Savior... The following brethren were named as members of the Presidency upon this occasion namely: President Joseph Smith, Jr., President Joseph Smith, Sr., President Hyrum Smith, President David Whitmer, and President Sidney Rigdon. Others were not mentioned by name. It cannot be argued that the Presidency here named were presidents of the Church, or presidents of various quorums as is sometimes claimed, for God by revelation designates that these shall be three who shall preside as Presidents of the Church and the various Quorum Presidents later received their washings and anointings. (Truth 9:189.) Even with this explanation, several questions arise: 1. Why is the author of the commentary so certain that the reference to the "Presidency of the Priesthood" alludes to a Council of Friends and not the First Presidency? 2. It is true that the Quorum of the "First Presidency" is composed of three Presiding High Priests and is also called the "Quorum of the Presidency of the Church."14 To require that Joseph Smith or any other Church President is limited in the number of additional counselors they may wish to call to assist in the work is without scriptural basis. (This question also arises in 1837 and 1873.) 3. We know that both Bishop Newel K. Whitney, with his counselors Reynolds Cahoon and Vinson Knight,15 and Bishop Edward Partridge, with his counselors John Corrill and Isaac Morley,16 were present at this supposed meeting of High Priest Apostles. Even though both Newel K. Whitney and Edward Partridge had been listed as members of the Council of Friends previously, they carry the title of Bishop, not the proper title of President, and attend with their counselors in the account quoted. This is a curious combination of High Priest Apostles and other leaders from within the Church. The idea of a distinct quorum meeting for ordinance work deteriorates as the full complement of members in attendance is elucidated. 4. Sidney Rigdon is listed as a member which is highly unlikely in light of his statements in 1844. 5. The problem of seniority persists. MARCH 1836 - TEMPLE WASHINGS The Kirtland Temple was again the location of a group of church members who received instruction and priesthood ordinances at the hand of the Prophet Joseph Smith. March 29, 1836 found nine of the leading brethren with the two Bishops and their counselors assembled for sacred washings. A Priesthood Issue records the following: Accordingly, we proceeded to cleanse our faces and our feet, and then proceeded to wash one another's feet. President Sidney Rigdon first washed President Joseph Smith, Junior's feet, and then, in turn, was washed by him; after which President Rigdon washed President Joseph Smith, Senior, and Hyrum Smith. President Joseph Smith, Jun., washed President Frederick G. Williams, and then President Hyrum Smith washed President David Whitmer's, and President Oliver Cowdery's feet. Then President David Whitmer washed President William W. Phelps' feet, [and in turn President Phelps washed President John Whitmer's feet. The Bishops and their Counselors were then washed..]. (HC 2:429-430 -quoted in A Priesthood Issue, pp. 13-14 with the portion in brackets omitted.) Since the Quorum of the Twelve did not receive the ordinances of Washing of the Feet until the next day, Musser concluded three things. The first: 1st. That the nine brethren who performed the ordinance of feet washing as indicated, were none of them members of the Quorum of Twelve. They were doubtless the "First Elders," a Priesthood group working entirely separate and apart from the Church and independent of it, and with whom the Twelve were to meet in "solemn assembly;" and being the "First Elders," and consequently higher in the order of Priesthood than the Twelve, the ordinance was performed first in their behalf. (A Priesthood Issue, p.14.) Musser correctly observed that none of the nine individuals named were members of the Quorum of the Twelve. However, to assume that they must then comprise a "Priesthood group working entirely separate and apart from the church" is strictly his opinion and is without historical support. It is unfortunate that Joseph Musser and others have insisted that for one to be worthy of church ordinances (anointings, washings, or endowments), they must have held some high priesthood calling. Many in this group had significant church callings. For example, Joseph Smith, Jr., Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams comprised the Quorum of the First Presidency. Oliver Cowdery was Associate President of the Church. David Whitmer was President of the Stake in Missouri with counselors W. W. Phelps and John Whitmer. Joseph Smith, Sr., was Church Patriarch. The washings that took place might have been in association with their church callings, or it might have been that these men were just worthy, because of personal righteousness, of the ordinances performed. This approach is consistent with the selection of the individuals who received their entire temple endowment prior to the completion of the Nauvoo Temple. During the Autumn prior to the washings discussed above, Joseph Smith directed the Twelve to attend a "solemn assembly" with the "First Elders" in the Spring. Musser desired to show that this reference to the "First Elders" was actually a reference to the Council of Friends: That there was Priesthood council operating wholly separate and apart from the Church and, generally speaking, unknown to the Church, must be conceded for the evidence of the fact is conclusive. A single incident, as related by the Prophet, will give the reader a basis for further study. (A Priesthood Issue p. 13.) Then Musser quoted HC 2:287 adding his own emphasis: Monday, 5 (October, 1835) -- I returned home, being much fatigued from riding in the rain... and in the evening attended a Council of the Twelve Apostles... told them that it was the will of God they should take their families to Missouri next season; also this fall to attend the SOLEMN ASSEMBLY OF THE FIRST ELDERS, for the organization of the School of the Prophets; etc. It doesn't seem to bother Musser that the incident he listed as fulfillment of this directive occurred in the Kirtland Temple, hundreds of miles from Missouri. Likewise, it is a forced conclusion to assume that the Twelve Apostles were not "First Elders" themselves simply because they were to attend a "solemn assembly of the First Elders." Musser incorrectly insisted upon excluding the Twelve as First Elders. The terms "First Elders" are used thirteen times in the seven volume History of the Church.17 An examination of these references shows clearly the terms were utilized when discussing leading elders of the Church, many of which held callings far less important than the Twelve Apostles. Musser appears to have been groping in the dark when he chose "First Elders" as another name for his Council of Friends. The second thing learned from the account of the Kirtland Temple washings according to Joseph Musser: 2nd. That each of the eight brethren embracing the "First Elder," was designated by the Prophet as "President," which title is strictly in keeping with their high calling of Presiding High Priests, each of the group being a "President." (A Priesthood Issue p. 14.) We have shown that at least seven of the nine men named carried the title of "President" by virtue of their priesthood calling. Joseph Smith, Sr., and Hyrum were also both Presidents. When Joseph Smith Sr., was ordained Patriarch to the Church, he was also termed a "President of the High Priesthood" and therefore was a president.18 He was also a President in another capacity as was Hyrum. Both functioned as "assistant counselors" in the First Presidency of the Church. The Prophet's history begins listing Hyrum as a president as early as February, 1835. At the meeting of February 14, 1835, when the Twelve were called, Hyrum was first termed "President."19 A review of the offices of these nine presidents: NAME PRESIDENCY Joseph Smith Jr. First Presidency Sidney Rigdon First Presidency Frederick G. Williams First Presidency Oliver Cowdery Associate President Hyrum Smith Assistant President Joseph Smith Sr. High Priesthood David Whitmer Missouri Stake W. W. Phelps Missouri Stake John Whitmer Missouri Stake It has been shown that none of the nine individuals present for the ordinance of Washing of the Feet needed to be members of a higher priesthood quorum in order to be called "president." Additionally, it should be pointed out that today's proposed members of the Council of Friends are seldom or never referred to as "President." The third lesson listed by Musser: 3rd. That following the ceremony performed in behalf of themselves, this group of "First Elders" proceeded to attend to the same in behalf of the Bishops and their counselors, they holding the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood independent of the Church; and that following the Bishops, and on the next day, the ordinance was performed for the Twelve, whose calling, as we have shown, was to an appendage ambassadorial office. (A Priesthood Issue, p. 14.) [Underlining by the authors.] To say that bishops have ever held their priesthood keys "independent of the Church" is puzzling. It is doubtful that Joseph Musser, or any other Fundamentalist, has ever expounded this enigma.20 However, after reading the account, the need for Musser to explain why the Bishops and their counselors were invited to partake of the ordinances with a dominating Council of Friends who supposedly held much higher priesthood keys is obvious. Regarding Bishops, the Lord said: But as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices, he may officiate in the office of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found, provided he is called and set apart and ordained unto this power by the hands of the Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood. The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church. (D&C 107:17-18.) [Underlining ours] Here the Lord states the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood is to hold the keys of spiritual blessings within the church. To extricate the keys held by the Bishops from the church and make them "independent of the church" becomes difficult in light of the scriptures above. The whole concept is inconsistent with the duties of a Bishop as given in the Doctrine and Covenants and the organization established through Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and subsequent priesthood leaders. There are other difficulties in believing that the meeting on March 29, 1936 involved a Council of Friends. The old concern about membership regarding the position of Martin Harris or the D&C 84 Elders persists. Likewise, Sidney Rigdon is an active participant. SEPTEMBER 1837 JOSEPH'S COUNSELORS The minutes of a conference assembled in committee of the whole Church at Kirtland on Sunday, the 3rd of September, 1837 include: President Smith then presented Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams as his counselors, and to constitute with himself the three first Presidents of the Church... President Smith then introduced Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith, Sen., Hyrum Smith, and John Smith for assistant counselors. These last four, together with the first three, are to be considered the heads of the Church. (HC 2:509.) Concerning these sustainings, Musser wrote: Since the First Presidency of the Church consists of three presiding High Priests (D&C 107:22) the choosing of four extra counselors -- the seven to constitute the "heads of the Church" -- must be considered in a broader light than merely adding extra help to the appendage office of First Presidency. Joseph would hardly commit the error of going contrary to the revelation given of the Lord to himself, specifically designating the number that was to constitute this Church position... (A Priesthood Issue p. 14.) Joseph Musser suggested that these seven individuals were High Priest Apostles and apparently members of the Council of Friends. The leadership of the Church to this point is shown in figure 8-1. The total number of men sustained that day as "heads of the Church" was seven. The number of men in this group is probably the best evidence that they might have had something to do with a Council of Seven Friends. Problems with such an interpretation include: 1. We are told that they are the "heads of the church." Since the Council of Friends are supposed to be presiding over the Priesthood, it is strange that they might be considered as heads of the Church. A more accurate title, according to Musser, would have been "heads of the Priesthood." The First Presidency, with any additional counselors are more accurately considered the "heads of the Church." 2. These seven individuals were sustained by the church utilizing the principle of common consent: And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. (D&C 26:2.) But Musser has suggested that his "priesthood" is actually outside the church and not subject to the law of common consent: [The] Priesthood is a Theocracy - direction coming direct from God, while the Church is in essence a Democracy - all things being done in it by "common consent" of its members (D&C 26:2). (A Priesthood Issue, p. 31.) In light of this, how much sense does it make for the lofty Council of Friends, a non-church entity, to be sustained as "heads of the Church" using the law of common consent at the Church conference in question? 3. The membership is a problem. What about David Whitmer, Newel K. Whitney, W. W. Phelps, and John Whitmer? They were all active believers on the date above. 4. The inclusion of John Smith is curious because it is the only time he is ever mentioned in association with the Council of Friends. What happened to him later? 5. Sidney Rigdon is listed as a member which is difficult to believe in light of his 1844 activities. 6. The seniority inconsistency again appears. SUMMARY During the development of the doctrine of High Priest Apostles, Joseph W. Musser demonstrated considerable creativity in his selection and interpretation of the specific evidences he cited. Nevertheless, a more detailed inquiry of the membership of the Council of Friends during the 1835 to 1837 period fails to support his underlying suppositions. CHAPTER NINE THE FUNDAMENTALIST LEADERSHIP COUNCIL: MEMBERSHIP - 1842 to 1880 SIX MORE PROPOSED GROUPS Lets examine the next six companies which Musser stated were actually meetings of his Council of Friends: 1. Endowments I May 1842 2. Endowments II May 1843 3. Quorum of the 12 July 1844 4. First Presidency Oct. 1847 5. Assist. Counselors Apr. 1873 6. Quorum of the 12 Jan. 1880 1842-1844 - TWO ENDOWMENT GROUPS On May 4-5, 1842, the first endowments in this dispensation were given to members of the church by Joseph Smith.1 Prior to his death, Joseph met with those favored individuals many times for prayer and sacred ordinance work.2 Joseph Musser isolated two of the meetings of this group and suggested they were assemblies of his alleged Council of Friends. Specifically, he chose the May 4-5, 1842 group and the May 26, 1843 company as documentation that the Council of Friends existed and met during that period of Church history. MAY 1842 - ENDOWMENT GROUP I On May 4th, 1842, the Prophet's record states: I spent the day in the upper part of the store, that is in my private office... in council with General James Adams, of Springfield, Patriarch Hyrum Smith, Bishops Newel K. Whitney and George Miller, and President Brigham Young and Elders Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards, instructing them in the principles and order of the Priesthood, attending to washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles by which any one is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessing which have been prepared for the Church of the First Born, and come up and abide in the presence of the Eloheim in the eternal worlds. In this council was instituted the ancient order of things for the first time in these last days. And the communications I made to this council were of things spiritual, and to be received only by the spiritual minded: and there was nothing made known to these men but what will be made known to all the Saints of the last days, so soon as they are prepared to receive, and a proper place is prepared to communicate them, even to the weakest of the Saints... (HC 5:1-2.) Joseph Musser wrote that this was an occasion when the proposed order of "seven men holding the higher order of Priesthood, and forming the presidency of the Sanhedrin" was instituted.3 Without further explanation, we are left to believe that General James Adams, President Hyrum Smith, Bishop Newel K. Whitney, Bishop George Miller, President Brigham Young, Elder Heber C. Kimball, and Elder Willard Richards composed the Council of Friends on that date (with Joseph Smith it would have been eight). MAY 1843 - ENDOWMENT GROUP II Another proposed meeting of the Council of Friends is discussed briefly in A Priesthood Issue (page 13): Friday, 26. - At five p.m. I met in counsel in the upper room, with my brother Hyrum, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, Judge James Adams, Bishop Newel K. Whitney and William Law, and gave them their endowments and also instructions in the priesthood on the new and everlasting covenant, etc. (HC 5:409.) Musser elaborated on the group assembled: This special Priesthood Council, being an organization somewhat foreign to the present Church concept, we deem it wisdom to make further explanation concerning it. That there was a Priesthood council operating wholly separate and apart from the Church and, generally speaking, unknown to the Church, must be conceded for the evidence of the fact is conclusive. (A Priesthood Issue, p. 13.) THE TEMPLE ENDOWMENT RESTORED Any discussion of the temple endowment requires special sensitivity due to the sacred nature of the ordinances involved. A brief review of the administration of the first endowments by Joseph Smith includes the following: As work on the [Nauvoo] temple progressed, Joseph Smith sought and received additional instructions from the Lord regarding the sacred endowment. However, it is not known exactly when he received all the instructions pertaining to the temple ordinances. He introduced these ordinances to a few trusted Latter-day Saints in the upper room of his red brick store on 4 May 1842. At that time it was virtually the only large place in Nauvoo where a group could assemble in privacy.... On 3 May, with the help of others, the Prophet arranged his office and Assembly Room to represent "the interior of a temple as much as the circumstances would permit." On the afternoon of the following day the Prophet administered the first endowments to a select group, which included Hyrum Smith, Church patriarch; Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Willard Richards of the Twelve Apostles; Newel K. Whitney, general bishop; George Miller, president of the Nauvoo high priest's quorum and a general bishop; and James Adams, president of the Springfield Branch... Gradually over the next two years, Joseph Smith introduced the endowment to approximately ninety men and women.4 The "select group" of nine men with Joseph Smith became the first to receive the endowment in this dispensation. The prophet's record as found in the History of the Church shows that members of this "select group" met on other occasions for variety of reasons.5 Since Joseph Smith headed the group and they were largely unknown to the general membership of the Church during 1842 and 1843, Musser incorrectly assumed they must have been members of his newly invented leadership quorum, the Council of Friends. However, Fundamentalist assertions of this nature only reveal a high level of ignorance concerning the function and operation of that "select group" of men. To claim that they were a presiding priesthood quorum is completely inaccurate. That "select group" did not act as other priesthood quorums in a presiding capacity. References to their meetings show they met for prayer, to perform ordinance work and to receive instruction from the Prophet Joseph Smith.6 That they never acted in a "presiding capacity" is manifest through their activities. Likewise, prior to the death of Joseph Smith, women were admitted to the "select group."7 Fundamentalists would do well to also note that of the nine men who were given their endowments in 1842, only Heber C. Kimball may have been involved with the principle of plural marriage. At least three of them, Hyrum Smith, William Marks and William Law, had not yet accepted polygamy. The latter two never did. It is plain that the full blessings of the endowment were given to many men who were not practicing plural marriage. Much more could be written to show clearly that there was no Council of Friends functioning during the 1842-1844 period. THE TWELVE APOSTLES IN 1844 Admittedly the issue of the existence of a Council of Friends becomes more complicated during 1844. This is because the Twelve Apostles were supposedly all High Priest Apostles and somehow members of the Council of Friends as well as being members of the Quorum of the Twelve. Musser was forced to make that assumption8 based on special instructions given to the Twelve by Joseph Smith prior to his death. In 1869, George Q. Cannon recalled: By virtue of the ordination he received, Joseph had the right and the authority to confer this Priesthood upon others. He called twelve Apostles, and they were ordained under his authority by the direction of the Lord, and those twelve were endowed with the keys. Previous to his death, the Prophet Joseph manifested great anxiety to see the temple completed, as most of you who were with the Church during his day, well know. "Hurry up the work, brethren," he used to say, "let us finish the temple; the Lord has a great endowment in store for you, and I am anxious that the brethren should have their endowments and receive the fullness of the Priesthood." He urged the Saints forward continually, preaching unto them the importance of completing that building, so that therein the ordinances of life and salvation might be administered to the whole people, but especially to the quorums of the holy Priesthood; "then," said he, "the Kingdom will be established, and I do not care what shall become of me." These were his expressions oft repeated in the congregations of the Saints, telling the brethren and sisters of the Church, and the world that he rolled the Kingdom on to the Twelve, and they would have to round up their shoulders and bear it off, as he was going to rest for awhile, and many other expressions of a like nature the full meaning of which the Saints did not realize at the time. Prior to the completion of the Temple, he took the Twelve and certain other men, who were chosen, and bestowed upon them a holy anointing, similar to that which was received on the day of Pentecost by the Twelve, who had been told to tarry at Jerusalem. This endowment was bestowed upon the chosen few whom Joseph anointed and ordained, giving unto them the keys of the holy Priesthood, the power and authority which he himself held, to build up the Kingdom of God in all the earth and accomplish the great purposes of our Heavenly Father; and it was by virtue of this authority, on the death of Joseph, that President Young, as President of the quorum of the Twelve, presided over the Church. (JD 13:49) It becomes quite clear that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were equally endowed with "all the keys, powers and privileges pertaining to the Kingdom of God" which they received from the Prophet Joseph Smith. In light of this evidence, Musser concluded that the Twelve were given the lesser Apostleship in 1835 with their original ordinations. He also taught that prior to Joseph's death in 1844, the Twelve were given additional keys and powers making them all "full-fledged" apostles like the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon supposedly were: Thus it is clearly shown that to possess the Apostleship of Joseph, Oliver and David--the "highest authority ever given to men on earth" --it was not sufficient that men be inducted into the quorum of the Twelve and ordained to the "Apostleship of the Twelve"... These anointings, privileges and powers, the members of the Quorum of Twelve received, not by virtue of their being called into the Quorum of Twelve, but strictly in line with their callings late given them, of Presiding High Priests, the former being an appendage calling only. (A Priesthood Issue, pp. 11-12.) In these statements, Musser demonstrated an inaccurate understanding of the apostleship. Being ordained an apostle, as Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were in 1829, does not require membership in the Quorum of the Twelve. Several individuals have received the apostleship without becoming a member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles.9 Also, we must understand that whatever authority Joseph Smith received from Peter, James and John in 1829 was given to the Twelve Apostles in 1835. Between 1835 and 1844, Joseph Smith himself received visitations from divine messengers who imparted keys to him. Prior to his death in 1844, the prophet Joseph shared those keys with the Twelve in conjunction as related by Elder George Q. Cannon above. The idea that the Twelve Apostles received a lesser apostleship in 1835 than the Three Witnesses held in 1829 is incorrect. THE QUORUM OF THE TWELVE LEAD AFTER THE DEATH OF JOSEPH SMITH Brigham Young first heard of the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith on July 16, 1844. He recalled, "The first things which I thought of was, whether Joseph had taken the keys of the kingdom with him from the earth." Then after little hesitation he concluded, "The keys of the kingdom are right here with the Church."10 With the President of the Church lying dead in Nauvoo, the Church, Kingdom, and Priesthood of God had lost their leader. The ensuing months would see conflict over who should led the Church as Sidney Rigdon and others would try to displace the Quorum of the Twelve and the Senior Apostle. Today, Latter-day Saints believe that the Quorum of the Twelve held the authority and were therefore the rightful successors. However, Fundamentalists claim that a Council of (Seven?) Friends whose membership included the Twelve Apostles and others, continued to direct the Church and Kingdom during that period. Why the proposed Council of Friends may have felt the need to wait three years to replace the subordinate First Presidency is unclear. Since Musser et al have suggested that his group of High Priest Apostles were also the same Apostles which took control of the Church and lead the people West, it is impossible to survey the memberships for comparison. However, an examination of statements by Brigham Young, John Taylor and other supposed High Priest Apostles, might be useful to determine which Priesthood Quorum, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or a Council of Friends, was promoted to lead the Saints since the First Presidency was dissolved through the death of Joseph Smith. Additionally, the inquiry becomes even more enlightening as Sidney Rigdon, a proposed one-time member of the Council of Friends, is forced to convince the Saints of his authority claims to the exclusion of the Twelve. THE SAINTS CHOOSE THE TWELVE Sidney Rigdon11 arrived in Nauvoo on August 3, 1844, about five weeks after the Carthage massacre. Sidney spoke forcefully of a vision he received showing that since he was appointed by revelation as Joseph Smith's spokesman and since the Church would now have to be built up to Joseph, he would have to be Joseph's liaison. Sidney desired an early meeting for the Saints to decide. Willard Richards, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, proposed that the Saints wait until the rest of the Twelve had returned. On August 7th, the Twelve Apostles, the High Council and some high priests met in the second story of the incomplete Seventy's Hall and listened to Sidney Rigdon rehearse his claims. He claimed to have received a vision which was presented to his mind after prayer, but was not an open vision.12 He proposed that every Quorum should stand as they had stood in the washings and consecrations of the Kirtland Temple period. After Sidney's plea, Brigham Young spoke briefly and said: I do not care who leads the church, even though it were Ann Lee,13 but one thing I must know, and that is what God says about it. I have the keys and the means of obtaining the mind of God on the subject. I know there are those in our midst who will seek the lives of the Twelve as they did the lives of Joseph and Hyrum. We shall ordain others and give the fullness of the priesthood, so that if we are killed the fullness of the priesthood may remain. Joseph conferred upon our heads all the Keys and powers belonging to the Apostleship which he himself held before he was taken away, and no man or set of men can get between Joseph and the Twelve in this world or in the world to come.14 (HC 7:230.) [Underlining by the authors.] Wilford Woodruff, a purported High Priest Apostle and member of the Quorum of the Twelve, recorded an account of the same meeting:15 We spent the fore part of the day at Br Taylors, and in the afternoon, we met in Council at the Seventies Hall, viz the Twelve, High Council, and High Priest &c. & we herd Sidney Rigdon tell his Story and message which he had to us and the Church. A long Story it was a kind of second Class vision. He said he was appointed to come and offer himself to lead the Church, and many things was said. He was followed by Br Brigham Young and he showed that their could not be any one before the Twelve. (Wilford Woodruff, Journal, Aug. 7, 1844.) The following day, August 8, 1844, the whole Church met in the form of a Solemn Assembly. At this meeting, Brigham Young taught the congregation:16 For the first time in my life for the first time in your lives, for the first time in the kingdom of God do I step forth to act in my capacity in connexion with the quorum of the Twelve as Apostles of Jesus Christ unto the People and to bear of the keys of the Kingdom of God in all the world... I now want to ask each of you to tell me if you want to chuse a gardeen, a Prophet evengellst or sumthing els as your head to lead you. All that are in favor of it make it manifest by raising the right hand. No hands raised. All that wants to draw away a party from the Church after them let them do it if they can, but they will not prosper... There has been much said about President Rigdon being president of the Church leading the People, being the head, &c. If the People want President Rigdon to lead them, they may have him. But I say unto you that the quorum of the Twelve have the keys of the kingdom of God in all the world. They stand next to Joseph and are the Presidency of the Church, and hold the keys and would have to ordain any man unto that appointment that should be chosen ie. if one was to be chosen. You cannot appoint any man at our head. We should have to ordain him. You cannot appoint a man at our head. But if you want any other man to lead you, take him, and we will go our way to build up the kingdom in all the world... Let those who holds the keys of the Kingdom of God build it up in all the world. If their is a spokesman if he is a king and Priest [received the fullness of the priesthood] let him go and build up a kingdom. This is his right, and it is the right of many here. But who is the head? The Twelve. If one Thousand rise up and say they have the Prophets Joseph shoes I know they are impostors. If you know how the Church is organized I wish to ask a question. Now If you want Rigdon, Lyman or Law to lead you or any body else, you may have them. But I tell you in the name of the Lord, that no man Can put another between the Twelve and the Prophet Joseph. Why? Because Joseph was their file leader and he has committed into there hands the keys of the kingdom for all the world. Don't put a thread between the Priesthood and God... (Ibid., August 8, 1844.) President Rigdon asked W. W. Phelps to speak on his behalf since he could not speak. Brother Phelps, who was supposedly a member of the Council of Friends since the 1835 trial of Jared Carter, said: ...You are ready to submit to the Authority of God. The Twelve are Chosen to rise up and bear the Church off triumphant.... But let us go ahead and build the Temple and you will then be endowed. If you want to do right uphold the Twelve. If they die I am willing to die with them. But do your duty and you will be endowed. I will sustain the Twelve. Joseph and Hiram are removed whare they can converse with Gods beyond the reach of powder and ball. (Ibid. See also Times and Seasons, 5:638) Anyone present in that solemn assembly that day would have left the meeting believing that the Quorum of the Twelve was the priesthood body possessing the Keys of the Kingdom and the right to lead. Musser admitted that the Twelve Apostles must have also been High Priest Apostles and therefore they could make such claims based on their alleged secret ordinations. To show that such secret ordinations never occurred and that a secret organization (e.g. a Council of Friends) also never existed is difficult since even an overwhelming lack of evidence can be excused as being consistent with the purported "secret" nature of the group. However, if a Quorum of High Priest Apostles (or Council of Friends) was actually the presiding priesthood authority at the Solemn Assembly, its members were purposefully lying to the people about who was in charge. The people were taught that no man or group such as a Council of Friends existed above the Quorum of the Twelve. Members of the Church heard W.W. Phelps, also supposedly a High Priest Apostle, state, "If you want to do right uphold the Twelve." Through it all, the Council of Friends was apparently kept very secret. The secrecy was maintained so well that not one member of the Church attending the conference that day would have had the slightest idea from what was taught that any priesthood group could ever preside over the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The purported wholesale deception of the Saints by their priesthood leaders, affirmed by Fundamentalists, is difficult to defend. The truth is that the Twelve Apostles were the highest Priesthood Quorum then in existence. 1847 - FIRST PRESIDENCY With the death of Joseph Smith in 1844, the bulk of the Church members followed the Quorum of the Twelve and their claims to the keys of the Kingdom.17 Brigham Young was sustained as the leader of the Saints by virtue of his position as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It was not until after the Saints arrived in Utah in 1847 that the First Presidency was reorganized with Brigham Young as President, Heber C. Kimball as First Counselor, and Willard Richards as Second Counselor. Joseph Musser used this episode attempting once again to identify a Council of Friends historically and to assert that it was directing the affairs of the Church on that occasion: [In 1844] Brigham had the "keys" and therefore the "means of obtaining the mind of God on the subject." Did he hold those "keys" by reason of his being the President of the Quorum of Twelve? No, he held them by reason of his ordination unto the higher order of the Priesthood -- a Presiding High Priest -- and from the fact that he had become, through the death of Joseph and Hyrum, the senior President, by ordination, and therefore the head of that order of Priesthood. He and his associates, then, were the group that possessed the authority to reorganize the First Presidency, which was later done in accordance with the will of Heaven. Brigham Young was the choice of the Lord for the position of President of the Church, as Joseph had been before him, and the Saints sustained him as such, but not by virtue of his being the President of the Twelve --that fact the Saints should get thoroughly fixed in their minds. (Truth, 9:169.) Musser did not tell us the membership of the Council of Friends in 1847 (see figure 3-3). However, they were supposedly presiding during the reorganization of the First Presidency which occurred in December of that year. Wilford Woodruff recorded some of the discussion that accompanied the reorganization: I had a question put to me by President Young what my opinion was concerning one of the Twelve Apostles being appointed as the President of the Church with his two Counselors. I answered that a quorum like the Twelve who had been appointed by revelation and confirmed by revelation from time to time I thought it would require a revelation to change the order of the quorum. (Wilford Woodruff Journal, October 12, 1847) Sunday. We rode to Brother O. Hydes and spent the day and night. We an interesting time. We had a good feast and went into council and Brother Brigham Young expressed his feelings concerning the organizing of the Church and appointing a First Presidency. This subject lies with weight upon my mind. I have been stirred up to do this by the Spirit of the Lord. He wished all of the Quorum present to express their feelings upon this subject beginning at the oldest and each one of the following person expressed their feelings in rotation: Heber C. Kimball, Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt, Willard Richards, Wilford Woodruff, George A. Smith, Amasa Lyman and Ezra T. Benson and many interesting remarks were made by the various individuals who spoke. We were followed by President Young After which Orson Hyde moved that Brigham Young be the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that he nominate his two Counselors and they form the three First Presidency. Seconded by Wilford Woodruff and carried unanimously. (Ibid., December 5, 1847.) [Spelling standardized. Underlining added.] The references to "council" and "quorum" above could only mean the Quorum of the Twelve, since Wilford Woodruff never referred to anything even remotely resembling a Council of Friends at anytime. All the men who spoke were members of the Quorum of the Twelve. Clearly there was no higher Council of Seven Friends presiding over the proceedings. A survey of the actions and statements of all the priesthood leaders during the 1844-1847 period clearly shows that the Quorum of the Twelve was guiding the Saints.18 If one subscribes to Musser's theories regarding a Council of Friends directing the Church after 1844, it is curious to note that they waited three years to reorganize the First Presidency. The Saints were taught that the Twelve held the keys and were able to preside. Waiting for three years until the Lord inspired them to re-establish the First Presidency seemed consistent with the teachings of the apostleship they all held. The instruction to form a new First Presidency needed to come from the next highest authority above the Twelve and the Saints were taught that that was the Lord. It is indeed peculiar that Musser's lofty Council of Friends supposedly felt the need to wait three years to recreate the subordinate First Presidency. The delay and the wholesale deception concerning the purported Council of Friends seems to serve little useful purpose. 1873 - ASSISTANT COUNSELORS TO BRIGHAM YOUNG In early 1873 the First Presidency of the Church consisted of Brigham Young President, George A. Smith (1817) First Counselor and Daniel H. Wells Second Counselor. At the April conference, Brigham called five additional counselors: Lorenzo Snow, Brigham Young, Jr., Albert Carrington, John W. Young and George Q. Cannon. Respecting these callings Musser wrote: A similar situation prevailed in the year 1873, at the general conference of the Church held in April, when President Brigham Young, in choosing five other counselors announced that "he had two counselors to aid him as President of the Church; he had the privilege of having seven brethren to assist him in this capacity. (Mill. Star, Vol. 35:292)" Since, as explained above, only three could constitute the First Presidency of the Church, the "privilege of having seven brethren to assist him in this capacity," undoubtedly referred to some other "capacity" than that of the First Presidency. Brigham Young, like Joseph Smith, was occupied in a dual capacity; he not only presided over the Church as its President, but also presided over the Priesthood of God, and the seven counselors were to assist him in this latter office. (A Priesthood Issue, p. 15.) Hence we are taught that these eight men composed the Council of Friends in 1873. This possibility raises several questions: 1. Why is there no evidence of this important priesthood quorum functioning between 1847 and 1873? 2. What about previously mentioned "High Priest Apostles" such as Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff who were still alive? 3. According to Musser, the alleged Council of Friends was composed of the following in 1873: Brigham Young George A. Smith Daniel H. Wells Lorenzo Snow Brigham Young, Jr. Albert Carrington John W. Young George Q. Cannon It is peculiar that upon the death of Brigham Young, John Taylor became the President of the Church and supposedly the senior member of the alleged Council of Friends since he wasn't even mentioned in Musser's discussion of the 1873 High Priest Apostles. 4. Why did Brigham Young wait until he supposedly identified a need to replace five members of the alleged highest priesthood quorum, instead of calling replacements one-at-a-time? 5. Why were members of this non-Church Priesthood council presented for a sustaining vote at a Church conference? 6. Why did Brigham Young feel the need to call these men to an inferior Church position (as his counselors) at the time they were also supposedly "High Priest Apostles?" Joseph Musser failed to give any additional justification for his belief that these men, besides being counselors to Brigham Young, were also High Priest Apostles. For Fundamentalists who believe Musser was correct in this assumption, the challenge is apparent and awaiting. 1880 QUORUM OF THE TWELVE On the night of January 26, 1880, Wilford Woodruff, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, received a vision:19 The Lord poured out his spirit upon me and opened the vision of my mind so I could comprehend in good measure the mind and will of God and his purposes concerning our Nation and the inhabitants of Zion... (Wilford Woodruff Journal.) In conjunction with that vision, President Woodruff recorded a personal revelation. The revelation has never been presented to the membership of the Church, but Fundamentalists hold it in high esteem and quote from it often. One part includes the following: And while my servant John Taylor is your President, I wish to ask the rest of my servants of the Apostles the question, Although you have one to preside over your Quorum, and over the Church which is the order of God in all generations, do you not all of you hold the Apostleship, which is the highest authority ever given to man on the earth? You do. Therefore you hold in common the Keys of the Kingdom of God in all the world... (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, January 26, 1880.) [Underlining added.] In light of the statement concerning the status of the apostleship held by the Twelve in 1880, Musser was forced to assume that in addition to the Apostleship of the Twelve, these men had also been ordained to the High Priest Apostleship he had described:20 This higher order of Apostleship was evidently held by the members of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time of the Revelation of the Lord to Wilford Woodruff, January 26, 1880. (A Priesthood Issue, p. 12.) As with the previous assertions concerning the 1873 counselors to Brigham Young, we are left with nothing but Joseph Musser's opinion regarding the priesthood calling of these men. Difficulties in believing Musser's conclusions regarding the 1880 Quorum of the Twelve21 "High Priest Apostles" parallel those of the 1873 group. Noteworthy concerns surface as we compare this group to the proposed reorganization of the Council of Friends in 1886. (See chapter four.) Inconsistencies abound. THE "COUNCIL OF FRIENDS" AS PROPOSED BY OTHER FUNDAMENTALIST AUTHORS In 1971, Lynn L. and Steven L. Bishop published a book of just under 300 pages entitled Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated. Their text is different from other Fundamentalist literature in that it actively discusses the doctrine of a Priesthood existing outside the Church and yet its theories differ from Musser's ideas in several significant ways. Most Fundamentalist publications treat this topic by borrowing parts from Musser's High Priest Apostle philosophy. Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated is the only other serious attempt to explain the existence of a presiding Priesthood Council external to the Church since 1829 utilizing Lorin C. Woolley's claims.22 Parallels do exist between the theories promoted by Joseph Musser and the Bishops. Both employ a Council of Friends as the mechanism for extracting the sealing authority from the Church and making it available to the Fundamentalists. However, the membership differs: Musser's presiding authorities are "High Priest Apostles"23 while the Bishops suggest that the Council of Friends is filled with Apostles only.24 The term "High Priest Apostle" is not employed by the Bishops to describe the membership of their dominant priesthood council.25 Even though apostles comprise Bishops' Council of Friends, they are thought to hold a higher calling than the apostles of the Quorum of the Twelve. The basis of this assumption is purely conjectural, as is most of Musser's evidence. One value of Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated is most evident when its priesthood theories are compared to Musser's ideas. A detailed comparison of the members of the Council of Friends over the years with the fifteen groups promoted by Musser will not be provided here.26 Many differences and similarities between the proposed members exist. The Bishops entirely omitted any group that contained Sidney Rigdon. Reasons for these omissions may be secondary to the same problems to his supposed membership in the Council of Friends listed in chapter eight. Overall, Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated utilizes much of the same reasoning as that found in Musser's works to demonstrate the existence of a superior priesthood quorum, outside the Church, from the year of 1886 onward. An analysis of Musser's ideas will serve to address Bishops' conclusions because the two philosophies are more closely related when discussing the membership of the Council of Friends between 1886 and 1932. As one reviews the multitude of Fundamentalist factions, one in impressed with the wide variety of beliefs concerning priesthood authority. Notwithstanding this diversity, it appears that no one group strictly follows the Bishops' theories to the exclusion of Musser's suppositions. Indeed, the discrepancies are disregarded since the three authors (Musser and the two Bishop brothers) agree on the basic premise that authority to seal polygamous marriages is somehow available to Fundamentalists today. SUMMARY An examination of the "select group" given their endowments by Joseph Smith in 1842 shows clearly they did not function in a presiding capacity as a Council of Friends was supposed to do. Additionally, women were admitted which is inconsistent with Musser's lofty priesthood council as well. After the death of Joseph Smith in 1844, it was plainly taught and evidenced through their activities that the Quorum of the Twelve, not a higher priesthood quorum, was presiding and directing the affairs of the Church and Kingdom of God. Teachings that the additional counsellors to Brigham Young in 1873 or the Quorum of the Twelve in 1880 were somehow members of a Council of Friends is completely unsupported by the historical record. The doctrine of early priesthood authority as contained in Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated, is unique in that it parallels Musser's theories while differing with them on several important points. Besides these three authors, no other Fundamentalist has written on this important topic in such detail. The fact that they supplement each other at times, while disagreeing on other major issues, is representative of Fundamentalist theology in general. It seems historical documentation serves only to substantiate the ideology that has already been accepted. A multitude of discrepancies appears to cause little distress to these sincere believers. CHAPTER TEN THE FUNDAMENTALIST "CHURCH" ORGANIZATION Most Fundamentalists today consider The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the only true Church on the face of the earth. While they are usually not members of it, having never joined or having been excommunicated, their expressed reverence for that institution as "God's Church" is commonly acknowledged.1 The ability of modern polygamists to proclaim the divinity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, while not being members of it, is derived from two misguided tenets of Fundamentalist faith: 1. Though The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, supposedly it is presently "out of order."2 2. The PRIESTHOOD can and does exist outside of the Church as a separate organization. Fundamentalists often believe they are members of the external Priesthood organization and therefore do not need membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. MUSSER CITES HIS EVIDENCE Fundamentalists have promoted their external Priesthood organization widely. Should any Church member question the Priesthood's legitimacy, it is likely that any Fundamentalist would respond with an immediate rebuttal, reflecting the fact that most Fundamentalists "take for granted" the idea. However, an analysis of the origin of the teaching provides understanding regarding its true beginning. An examination of when Musser first became aware of the doctrine, as well as the first mention of the concept in modern polygamist publications, is useful. We have already discussed the history of the Council of Friends which supposedly provided leadership for the proposed Priesthood from 1829 to the present, but clearly did not exist. Through the pages of several of his many publications, Mussser promoted his external Priesthood organization which he was able to recognize historically. An analysis of his evidence resulted in the identification of the 15 groups of a Council of Friends previously examined. It also produced four different periods when the Priesthood was supposedly functioning in a manner similar to the various3 Priesthood organizations existing today. According to Fundamentalists therefore, the Priesthood, as a distinct organization external to God's Church, was supposedly functioning: 1. Prior to April 6, 1830 and the formal organization of the Church. 2. 1830's-1852 while Latter-day Saints practice plural marriage prior to acceptance of the doctrine by a Church conference. 3. In post-1890 Manifesto plural marriages. 4. As a Book of Mormon religious organization. A brief examination of these periods is useful in determining whether an external Priesthood organization was really operating as Musser declared. THE "PRIESTHOOD" BEFORE THE CHURCH In his writings, Musser repeatedly observed that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received their ordinations to the priesthood in May and June of 1829, which was prior to the formal organization of Church which occurred in April of 1830. He wrote: This Priesthood group began to function with Joseph Smith, its head, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, as early as June, 1829. (Supplement, p. 96.) First then, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were endowed with the Priesthood - the Aaronic and then the Melchizedek. This was all done before the Church was organized. The Priesthood first functioned in Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and, later in others. The "Gospel of the Kingdom" was preached, converts were baptized and the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" bestowed, still no church organization, according to the laws of the land, was in existence. The Priesthood could and did function without the Church. (A Priesthood Issue p. 5.) Musser correctly observed that there was no Church "according to the laws of the land" in 1829. The question still exists however, "Was there a Church in the land according to the Lord?" Prior to the restoration of the priesthood to Joseph Smith in 1829,4 the Lord gave a definition of His Church found in D&C 10:67-68: Behold, this is my doctrine -- whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more of less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church. By this definition, one would assume that as soon as Joseph Smith "repented and came unto the Lord" in 1820 that a "church" was upon the land as far as the Lord was concerned. It is problematic to claim that no church could exist in the eyes of the Lord until the laws of the land were complied with. Fundamentalists are sometimes quick to criticize the ways of "men," but Musser seems comfortable requiring the Lord to observe the laws of "men" before a "church" could be established in the land.5 Today, concerns about the membership status for Church members who live in countries that do not officially recognize The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would exist if Musser's ideas were correct. Would "Church members" suddenly become "Priesthood members" upon entering a country where the Church was not yet officially established? A second problem concerns the lack of evidence that those men who were given the priesthood prior to April 6, 1830 ever saw themselves as presiding in a Priesthood organization. No evidence exists to support the notion that the six elders who formed the Church of Christ on that date believed they were doing so as members of a superior Priesthood organization as Musser affirmed. POLYGAMY 1830's - 1852. Sometime in the 1830's, Joseph Smith and other Church members began practicing polygamy without the knowledge of the general membership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Since no General Conference of the Church had voted to accept the doctrine until 1852, Musser taught that no member of the Church could have lived the principle of plural marriage. This assertion is based on D&C 26:2: And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Musser contended that until the Church complied with the law of common consent, any believers practicing the principle of plural marriage were doing so as members of the Priesthood.6 If we therefore assume that all polygamists were practicing plural marriage as members of the Priesthood prior to 1852, a question concerning their "Church" and "Priesthood" standing after the conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepted the doctrine in 1852 exists. Were the participants then thrust back into the Church leaving the Priesthood with only its proposed leadership? It is more than confusing. The greatest difficulty with Musser's belief that no member of the Church can live a doctrine until the Church has voted to abide by it concerns the introduction of the temple endowment in 1842. The ordinances associated with the temple are closely tied to Celestial Marriage.7 Based on Musser's teachings of the law of common consent, participation in the ordinances of the Temple, which have never been accepted by a General Conference of the Church, could only be accomplished by members of his contrived Priesthood organization. Do we therefore conclude that the five thousand Latter-day Saints who received their endowments in the Nauvoo Temple in the winter of 1845-468 became members of the Priesthood afterwards because the ordinances had not been previously accepted through the "law of common consent" (D&C 26:2) by a conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? As illustrated, several problems exist for Fundamentalist authors who wish to draw a parallel between the polygamists of the Nauvoo era and the Fundamentalist movement of today. POST-1890 MANIFESTO PLURAL MARRIAGES Fundamentalists teach that the Priesthood authorized hundreds of plural marriages after the 1890 manifesto.9 Musser wrote: Since the signing of the Manifesto and prior to that time, other men were set apart under the direction of the Presidency of the Priesthood to keep the principle alive - notwithstanding the Manifesto and the covenant of the Church with the Government concerning this law. Among the men so ordained and placed under covenant after those previously mentioned were Anthony W. Ivins, John Henry Smith, John W. Taylor, Matthias F. Cowley, and Patriarch Tolman. (Truth 9:10.) [Underlining by the authors.] Joseph Musser repeatedly taught that plural marriages occurred after the Manifesto under the direction of his Priesthood organization. To support his belief, he listed the men he believed were ordained by his Priesthood, to continue plural marriage. If Musser was correct, those men should have had first-hand knowledge of the existence of the Priesthood. The names given include: Anthony W. Ivins, John Henry Smith, John W. Taylor, Matthias F. Cowley, and Patriarch Tolman. The inclusion of John Henry Smith as a member of Musser's Priesthood is pure conjecture. Musser inserted his name, but gives no additional evidence for his assertion. As noted earlier in this book both Matthias F. Cowley and John W. Taylor resigned from the Quorum of the Twelve because they were out of harmony with their file leaders. The latter was later excommunicated from the Church in 1911 for marrying a plural wife after resigning from the Quorum.10 Despite his being excommunicated from the Church, John W. Taylor never joined with any schismatic polygamous sect, though he was invited to do so.11 To his death, he recognized the authority within the Church and was entirely oblivious to any proposed external Priesthood group. Matthias Cowley remained a faithful member of the Church and in the 1930's served a mission to England. He remained separate from all polygamists who were forming groups in the 1920's and 1930's. The Priesthood was supposedly functioning among those groups (though evidence supporting that idea is lacking). His actions show clearly he was never affiliated with any kind of Priesthood organization as described by Musser. Patriarch Tolman was excommunicated in 1910 for performing unauthorized plural marriages. Incorrectly, he claimed his authority from his ordination as a Patriarch.12 Musser wrote that Tolman received authority from the Priesthood directly. Why then would Tolman have needed to assume sealing authority from his position as a patriarch if he had been ordained by the Priesthood as Musser described? The case of Patriarch Tolman shows clearly that he was unaware of any Priesthood organization. It is ironic that Joseph Musser chose to include Anthony Ivins for Ivins' actions suggest quite strongly that he was entirely unaware of Musser's theories. In 1923, Elder Ivins wrote to an excommunicated polygamist: The Lord made known to Joseph Smith that all bonds, covenants, contracts, obligations, oaths, vows or performances whatsoever, which men enter into while in mortality, are void, and of no effect in the life to come, unless they are sealed by the holy spirit of promise, (the power of the priesthood) they are of no effect after men are dead. He also makes it plain that there is but one person on the earth at the same time, who is authorized to exercise the sealing power, as it applies to this ordinance... When a worthy man can have more sealed to him it will be the same way, it will be done by proper authority. Joseph F. Smith, who held the keys to this ordinance, [issued] a proclamation to the Church... It is sufficient for me to say that the obligation is not at present upon any man to enter into this order of marriage. (Reminiscences of John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley, vol. 2, appendix A.) If Ivins was aware of any Priesthood organization whose purpose was to continue plural marriage, it is illogical to think he would reprimand a man trying to live plural marriage in this manner. Ivins was very active in discovering and excommunicating the individuals who disregarded the directives of the Church Presidents. This caused Musser to write in his journal after Elder Ivins' demise: Within 3 1/2 days after Lorin [Woolley] was called [home], Anthony W. Ivins was stricken with heart failure and died the next morning (Sunday at 4:30). Since Elder I. had assumed the place of Jas. E. Talmage in ferreting out and persecuting the Saints who are living in the Patriarchal Order of marriage, and since he has recently denied the word of the Lord as given through Wilford Woodruff in 1880 and John Taylor in 1886, and repudiated and attempted to make null and void eternal laws as pertaining to the Gospel of Salvation. I am of the firm opinion that Anthony's passing so near on the heels of Lorin, resulted from the labors of Lorin as soon as he arrived there [next life]. (Entry for September 30, 1934.) It is apparent that Anthony Ivins knew nothing of Musser's proposed external Priesthood organization and its leadership. THE BOOK OF MORMON AND THE "PRIESTHOOD" Many Fundamentalist apologists have labored extensively in attempts to show that polygamy and their Priesthood organization existed among the Nephites in the Book of Mormon.13 The need becomes apparent as LDS authors often rebut the ideas by quoting Jacob 2:26-27 where the Lord commanded: Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; Despite this command and the obvious absence of authorized polygamy among the Nephites, some Fundamentalists have suggested that they did indeed practice it. The greatest support for any parallel between the Fundamentalist Priesthood organization and anything in the Book of Mormon is the fact that the Nephite religious organization is not called a "church" until 147 B.C. in Mosiah 18:17. Fundamentalists are quick to conclude that the Priesthood must have been the Nephite religious organization up until that time. The problems with this conclusion are numerous and a detailed analysis can not be included here.14 In reality, the only parallel that appears to exist is that neither the modern Fundamentalist Priesthood organization nor the Nephite religious organization prior to Mosiah 18 carry the title of "church."15 A second attempt to draw a parallel is to observe that Mosiah II16 in Mosiah chapters 25-26 presided over Alma (the Elder) who appeared to be the head of the "Church." As they strive to justify their theories about priesthood leadership positions, Fundamentalist apologists will attempt to manipulate Mosiah II into being their "Senior member of the Council of Friends" and therefore the presiding "High Priest Apostle." Then they claim Alma was made "President of the Church," thus explaining his apparent subordinate calling in the Church that was organized.17 Besides the multitude of obvious dissimilarities between the two situations, we also remember that Mosiah II was serving in a dual civil and ecclesiastical capacity as "King" to his people. His position as presiding officer to the people was unlike anything found today. The Senior High Priest Apostle is not referred to as "King," nor does he always preside over temporal things.18 It appears to require an excessive amount of "stretching" to manipulate these Book of Mormon incidents into supports for the existence of Musser's Priesthood organization or its leadership. The Lord gave a definition of His "Church" in Mosiah 26:22: For behold, this is my church; whosoever is baptized shall be baptized unto repentance. And whomsoever ye receive shall believe in my name; and him will I freely forgive. While it is true that the Nephite religious organization was not called a "church" until Mosiah 18, the Nephites certainly had complied with the definitions19 given by the Lord to identify His Church before that time. JOSEPH MUSSER - WHEN DID HE LEARN OF THE "PRIESTHOOD"? Joseph W. Musser has been the primary teacher of the doctrine of an external Priesthood organization. An excerpt from his journal, July 20, 1935, relates the following: Thursday held meeting at home of Edwin Barlow... I spoke, calling the Saints to repentance from their criticisms of the Priesthood, their selfishness and jealousies... Told of a brother who said: "It is alright [sic] for the Priesthood to direct in spiritual matters but not in Temporal matters, in the latter they make mistakes." To, think that people will risk their eternal salvation with men with whom they are afraid to trust their property or a few paltry dollars. It is like a jeweler placing his glass settings under lock and key and exposing his diamonds. All is spiritual with the Lord. The Priesthood is His voice... [Underlining added.] This entry suggests that at least by July of 1835, the doctrine of "the Priesthood" was firmly understood in the mind of Joseph Musser. He referred to the Priesthood as a distinct organization three times without hesitation. By examining his teachings as reflected in his publications and various entries in his personal journal, it becomes possible to approximate the month and year prior to 1835 that Musser became aware of this important doctrine. Musser himself admitted that the teaching of an external priesthood is "generally unknown to the Church,"20 therefore he certainly would not have been introduced to the concept through the standard Church curriculum. A review of the life of Joseph White Musser reveals several occasions when he might have been introduced to the existence of an external Priesthood organization by individuals who should have known about the group if it ever existed. Listed chronologically they are: 1. During his youth - taught by his father A. Milton Musser 2. 1899 - when purportedly selected to continue plural marriage 3. 1915 - when supposedly given the sealing keys 4. 1921 - when excommunicated from the Church 5. 1922 - listening to the teachings of Lorin C. Woolley 6. 1929 - when purportedly ordained a "High Priest Apostle" An examination of these incidents is useful in determining when Joseph Musser first became aware of this important doctrine. A. MILTON MUSSER - A TEACHER OF THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTERNAL PRIESTHOOD? Joseph Musser's father, A. Milton Musser, served as a traveling bishop for the Church between 1858 and 1876 and was later imprisoned for his obedience to the principle of Plural Marriage.21 In 1902 he was sustained as an assistant Church historian, a position he held until his death in 1909.22 It has been suggested to one of the authors that A. Milton Musser, while serving as assistant Church historian, gained access to information that provided "incontrovertible evidence" concerning the existence of a Priesthood group outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after 1886.23 As one reviews the actions and writings of Joseph Musser, it appears that if A. Milton Musser ever uncovered anything that supported Lorin C. Woolley's story or the doctrine of an external Priesthood, he never informed his son, Joseph. If Joseph Musser had been taught by his father about an external Priesthood organization, it is quite likely that Joseph would have followed after its purported leaders and maintained contact with their religious organization. As late as the 1920's, Joseph Musser was confused as to who represented the Lord as His mouthpiece upon the earth. This is readily illustrated by observing Joseph Musser's interactions with John T. Clark. John T. Clark was a charismatic self-proclaimed prophet who professed to be the "One Mighty and Strong" mentioned in D&C 85:7 who was to "set in order the house of God." Clark also declared himself to be "the most literal descendent of Jesus Christ on earth today" and to carry "indian blood in his veins."24 Joseph Musser wrote in 1922 that he was "deeply impressed with his claims"25 and while Joseph Musser did not espouse all of the teachings of John T. Clark, he later recorded in his journal: "That he has important work to do, I do not doubt..."26 To demonstrate his support for John T. Clark, Joseph Musser aided him for many hours27 as Clark wrote a book titled The One Mighty and Strong.28 That book contains nothing about a Council of Friends, the office of High Priest Apostle or an external Priesthood organization. It also contradicts Musser's later teachings on the subordinate position of the Church President. A comparison of the doctrine found in Clark's book, The One Mighty and Strong, and Musser's later teachings is found in figure 10-1. In 1927 and again in 1928, Joseph Musser transported Clark and others to a farm at Alpine, Utah where Clark claimed "hidden great treasure of Ancient Mexicans and possibly many divine records the Lord [was] preserving to come forth shortly" were held.29 John T. Clark was also invited to bless members of Musser's family.30 John T. Clark died September 16, 1932. None of Clark's prophecies had been fulfilled and Musser admitted in his journal, "it appears he was misled by the spirit he followed."31 It appears unlikely that Joseph Musser would have expended such energies with John T. Clark32 if Joseph had been taught by his father, A. Milton Musser, about an external Priesthood led by John W. and Lorin C. Woolley. Embracing the Woolleys and their teachings at a very early date would have been the most likely course for Joseph Musser to have taken but he did not. 1899 - MUSSER SELECTED TO ENTER PLURAL MARRIAGE? Musser claimed that he was selected to enter plural marriage in December 1899: A messenger came to me from President Snow, stating I had been selected to enter plural marriage and to HELP KEEP THE PRINCIPLE ALIVE. (Truth 20:17.) There are many serious problems believing that Joseph Musser might have been selected by Lorenzo Snow to participate in plural marriage.33 However, if such a selection had taken place, it would have been an excellent time for the "messenger" to have introduced Joseph Musser to the Priesthood and its leaders. Again, Musser's actions and writings of the 1920's strongly argue that Musser was entirely unaware of any external Priesthood organization until much later. 1915 - MUSSER GIVEN THE SEALING AUTHORITY? Musser claimed that: "In the year 1915 an Apostle conferred upon me the sealing power of Elijah, with instructions to see that plural marriage shall not die out."34 The identity of the "Apostle" is never given, but if that Apostle were promoting plural marriage as asserted by Musser, it is likely that he would have had some knowledge of an external Priesthood and its leadership. Nothing exists to suggest that Musser believed in a Priesthood organization or its leadership until years later. 1921 - MUSSER EXCOMMUNICATED Joseph White Musser was excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on March 21, 1921, for practicing plural marriage.35 Since he lost his Church membership on that date, it seems likely that he might have immediately joined with the external Priesthood organization in order to fill the void made by his excommunication if any such religious group existed.36 However, there is nothing in his journal to suggest he had even heard of such a group. His journal is entirely silent with respect to dealings with other polygamists until March 12, 1922 where he recorded: Attended special meeting held at home of Brother Baldwin37 in East Mill Creek, and attended generally by those in sympathy with plural marriage... In contrast to Musser's journal entry from 1935 where he referred to the Priesthood several times as an organization, Musser is found joined with a much less illustrious group: "those in sympathy with plural marriage." One week after the meeting mentioned above, Musser wrote of another gathering: Attended meeting with "Fellow Sufferers" in plural marriage, at Dr. Gamble's, Forest Dale. About 25 present. Excellent spirit. Everyone felt under obligation to sustain the present Authorities and patiently await the Lord's pleasure in all things. (Journal of Joseph W. Musser, March 19, 1922) [Underlining added.] Any reference to the Priesthood is conspicuously absent. Likewise, those in attendance appeared unaware of any external Priesthood leadership as they "felt under obligation to sustain the present Authorities." This behavior seems very inconsistent if they understood, as Musser would later teach, that the Priesthood as an organization had existed for over one hundred years (since 1829) and that they were members of it by virtue of their participation in post-manifesto polygamy. It appears that no acquaintance of Joseph W. Musser was aware of the purported Priesthood organization in the 1920's. We recall that Musser had been in contact with many people sympathetic to polygamy and his excommunication had been published in the newspaper.38 If such an organization existed, it is quite likely some member of it would have known of Joseph W. Musser and his conviction to the principle of plural marriage. It is likely that they would have invited him to join with them since he already qualified as a member through his polygamous activities. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this occurred or that any external Priesthood existed in 1921. 1922 - TEACHINGS OF LORIN WOOLLEY Since Musser would claim in the 1930's that the President of the High Priesthood39 after Joseph F. Smith died in 1918 was the father of Lorin C. Woolley, John W. Woolley,40 one might assume that when Musser met with the Woolleys, he would have been taught about the Priesthood from its president. However, there is no evidence to support the idea that Musser ever discussed any doctrine with the elder Woolley. John W. Woolley was born in 1831 and was in his nineties when his son, Lorin C. Woolley, started to make his claims to priesthood authority through 1886 ordinations.41 Notwithstanding John Woolley's proposed position as God's representative on earth, Joseph W. Musser apparently never sought him out to learn from his alleged prophetic knowledge. At least if he did, Musser never mentioned it in his journal. The first reference to John W. Woolley was of his death in 1928.42 However, as Musser began to expound the doctrine of the Priesthood in the mid-1930's, he appears to have recruited John W. Woolley as the senior member of the Council of Friends posthumously.43 Several secondary sources suggest that John W. Woolley did agree with the claims of his son. Nevertheless, the evidence is quite limited and contrasts sharply with other of God's prophets who boldly declared the Lord's word to His people. Notwithstanding the paucity of teachings from John W. Woolley, his son Lorin loved to vocalize the things he "had forgotten, but was gradually remembering"44 about the purported 1886 events. In addition, Lorin C. Woolley was active in teaching other doctrines as well. Musser's first entry in his journal with teachings of Lorin Woolley is found April 9, 1922. During that meeting, Musser recorded that Woolley discussed over a dozen different topics which comprised several pages in Musser's typed record.45 Woolley taught the importance of continuing plural marriage and addressed priesthood topics including leadership. He even talked of his alleged ordination as an "apostle."46 Throughout it all however, there was no mention of the Priesthood, High Priest Apostles or a Council of Friends. There were no admonitions to join with him in his Priesthood organization or to recognize the purported priesthood calling of his father John W. Woolley (supposedly the senior member of their Council). Musser listened to Lorin C. Woolley teach at least five times in 1922 and recorded pages of notes of his teachings, however, nothing is mentioned of the Priesthood as Musser would later describe it.47 Neither did Musser feel any need to look outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for priesthood leadership after hearing Lorin Woolley's 1922 teachings. On January 5, 1923, he recorded in his journal: Routine at office. In evening attended meeting at home of Nathan Clark of Bountiful. Several assembled with Bro. Alder, Hansen, Clark, and myself and same splendid sisters. Bore testimony to the Gospel and counseled those present to sustain the leaders of the Church as loyally as possible. [Underlining added.] Additional insight can be gained by noting Joseph Musser's religious activities during the years after he listened to the teachings of Lorin C. Woolley in 1922. Rather than join with him and his father (the alleged senior High Priest Apostle) in the Priesthood organization, Musser apparently lost contact with him since there is no mention of him again until 1928.48 During the period between 1922 and 1928, Musser met with those sympathetic to polygamy a few times, but Woolley was absent and there was no sign of the Priesthood.49 When he participated in Sabbath worship, he would usually attend Church at an LDS ward. If there was an external priesthood organization existing in the 1920's, Lorin C. Woolley should have known about it since he was supposedly one of its leaders. Woolley undoubtedly would have introduced it to those he was so eager to impress with his fantastic teachings. He would have plainly taught Musser that his father, John Woolley was God's prophet and Musser would have followed him. However, an examination of that period fails to detect any established Priesthood group or leadership existing exterior to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. At least if one did exist, it was apparently unknown to Lorin C. Woolley and Joseph W. Musser. 1929 - MUSSER IS ORDAINED A HIGH PRIEST APOSTLE (?) In a history of Joseph W. Musser published in the periodical Truth the authors of the article claimed that his journal entry from May 14, 1929 read: I was ordained a High Priest Apostle and a Patriarch to all the world, by a High Priest Apostle, and I was instructed to see that never a year passed that children were not born in the covenant of plural marriage... (Truth 20:28 and Journal of Joseph W. Musser p. 11.) The source of this quotation is not Joseph W. Musser's personal journal, but an autobiography which was entitled The Journal of Joseph White Musser. However, his personal journal for that date actually reads: Received most wonderful blessing from Bro. Lauren [sic] C. Woolley. Spent 2 1/2 hours with him listening to his past experiences. I rejoice greatly in his friendship and the Lord's blessing. Vital points to be considered: Patriarch Apostle Family ties - Sustain - Sacred Great in Kingdom & Church Humble Wise Just as the Musser journal account apparently evolved during the period between his 1929 journal entry and the writing of his autobiography, so too did the significance of the "blessing" that later became an ordination as a "High Priest Apostle." It appears likely that if Musser was indeed ordained to a lofty priesthood quorum in May, 1929, he might also have been taught of the Priesthood since he was supposedly a member of its presiding quorum. Nevertheless, there is no mention in Musser's diary of meeting with the Priesthood or serving in a leadership role for several years. If Lorin C. Woolley understood the doctrine of the Priesthood, there is nothing to suggest that he taught it to Musser in 1929. It is also interesting to observe Musser's activities during the latter part of 1929 and 1930 with John T. Clark. As noted earlier, Clark made many incredible claims and prophecies including several of priesthood leadership. Musser did not accept them all, but he spent a great deal of time with him. In December of 1929, Musser "had conference and prayers with John T. Clark."50 On March 31, 1930, Musser received instruction from Lorin C. Woolley concerning "my friend John T. Clark as [being] in error in supposing he is the `one Mighty and Strong,' like unto Moses," though Woolley did not entirely discount Clark's claims.51 Despite that assessment by Joseph Musser's alleged file leader, Lorin C. Woolley, who was purportedly senior member of the Council of Friends and therefore supposedly God's prophet and President of the High Priesthood, Musser continued to follow after John T. Clark and met with him several times, listening to his prophecies and recording them in his journal.52 Musser's actions with John T. Clark after Clark's claims were discounted by Lorin C. Woolley, seem inconsistent with a man who was supposed to have been an ordained High Priest Apostle and was presiding over the Priesthood as a member of the Council of Friends. The months and years immediately after Musser's purported ordination find him continuing to indulge in Clark's speculative prophesying. Likewise, Musser's journal fails to record any activity with an established religious organization such as the Priesthood or a Council of Friends. The activities of Joseph Musser after his alleged ordination by Lorin C. Woolley in 1929 significantly contrast the behavior expected of a man actually ordained to such a lofty priesthood office.53 We would expect him to begin to function in his calling immediately after receiving the authority to do so. Musser taught that High Priest Apostles had existed for over a century, so the duties should have been well understood by his superiors. Musser's journal fails to support that notion that he was presiding over a Priesthood (or functioning in a Council of Friends) after the proposed ordination. Moreover, it is entirely silent about even the existence of the Priesthood until years after the "blessing" of May 14, 1929. It appears that the Priesthood was yet to be established among those modern polygamists along with its leadership group, the Council of Friends. EARLY 1933 - NO SIGN OF THE "PRIESTHOOD" It seems likely that the doctrine of the Priesthood was developed by Joseph Musser, with the assistance of Joseph Leslie Broadbent, in late 1933. The issue of the location of the keys of sealing authority was emphasized in a statement by the First Presidency distributed June 17, 1933. The First Presidency of the Church taught: The keys of the sealing ordinances rest today solely in President Heber J. Grant, having so passed to him by the ordination prescribed by the Lord, at the hands of those having the authority to pass them, and whose authority has never been taken away by the Lord, nor suspended, nor interfered with by the Church. President Grant is the only man on the earth at this time who possess these keys. He has never authorized any one to perform polygamous or plural marriages; he is not performing such marriages himself... (Messages of the First Presidency,54 5:315-330, Truth 16:292-302.) This clear claim to the sealing keys by the Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints placed the polygamists somewhat on the defensive with respect to the issue of authority. If the statement were true, their polygamous marriages "would not be valid, nor of force in the world to come."55 The issue of priesthood authority was pushed to the forefront in the conflict between the excommunicated polygamists and the Church. A question arises over why those practicing plural marriage outside the Church had not addressed the issue of sealing keys before 1933. Undoubtedly they were aware of the Lord's statement that "there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred."56 We know that Lorin C. Woolley was claiming authority to seal polygamous marriages as early as 1922, but he did not claim, at that time, to be the "one" anointed and appointed. Part of the explanation may be found by reviewing the vernacular used by both President Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant to inform the Church and the world that those performing polygamous marriages after the Manifesto were doing do without authority. In 1910, President Joseph F. Smith taught: Plural marriages have ceased in the Church. There isn't a man today in this Church or anywhere else outside of it who has authority to solemnize a plural marriage, not one. (Quoted in April conference, 1911, Gospel Doctrine, pp. 280-281) Heber J. Grant taught similarly in 1921: No man upon the face of the earth has any right or any authority to perform a plural marriage, and there are no plural marriages today in the Church of Christ.57 Since both of these Church Presidents stated that "no man" had authority to seal a plural marriages, the polygamists concluded that Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant did not hold the sealing keys themselves. By assuming that those keys were lost from the Church, it was easy for the polygamists to assume they had access to them, though the issue of the "one man" who held the keys to the sealing power mentioned in D&C 132 was not directly addressed until 1933. While it is true that Presidents Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant stated that "no man" could seal a plural marriage, there are significant problems believing the polygamist's interpretation that President Smith and President Grant were also declaring that they had lost the keys of sealing prior to making their statements. The actions of these Church Presidents show that they indeed possessed the sealing authority for it was being used to seal monogamous marriages for the living and both monogamist and polygamous marriages for the dead regularly within the LDS Temples before and after both of these statements were made. Since polygamous marriages for the living were not being performed, Fundamentalists sometimes attempt to extract from the sealing keys, the authority to seal plural marriages for the living. However, this is impossible to do. All of the verses in D&C 132 which refer to the "one man" anointed and appointed, refer to only one set of sealing keys.58 No priesthood leader has ever taught that it was possible to extricate the portion of the keys of sealing necessary to seal plural marriages for the living from the Keys of Elijah restored to Joseph Smith in 1836.59 Despite their desire to do so, modern polygamists cannot legitimately claim possession of a "limited sealing authority." Such teachings contradict the scriptures and all the instructions of prophets in this dispensation. 1933 appears to be the first year that anyone ever wrote or taught about an external Priesthood organization. Publications written in 193260 such as the popular A Leaf In Review by B. Harvey Allred contained nothing about a presiding Council of Friends or teachings on the external Priesthood. In fact, the book taught that the First Presidency of the Church presided over both priesthoods and that the First Presidency was to be ordained by the Twelve Apostles.61 Allred was consistent in referring to the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the presiding priesthood authority.62 There is no hint of the priesthood doctrine that Musser was to introduce a year or so later.63 It is interesting to note also that Lorin C. Woolley is quoted as saying that "Every word of [A Leaf in Review] is scripture."64 A second volume, Celestial Marriage? written by J. Leslie Broadbent in 1927 is also devoid of any reference to Musser's doctrine of an external Priesthood, High Priest Apostles or a Council of Friends. 1933-1934 THE "PRIESTHOOD" IS BORN The first reference to the Priesthood by Joseph W. Musser is in his September 1933 publication: The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage. Musser wrote: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is simply a vehicle used by the Priesthood for the accomplishment of certain ends, and is, in connection with the Kingdom of God on earth, subject to this body of Priesthood. (The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, p. 78.) [Underlining added.] While it appears that this reference to the Priesthood is actually referring to the leadership of the external priesthood (the Council of Friends), it does introduce a new utilization of the term "priesthood." The new definition uses the word to refer to distinct organization which could apparently exist external to the subordinate Church.65 Despite this usage, readers were going to have to await two additional publications, Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage printed in July, 1934 and Priesthood Items published in August of the same year to acquire additional enlightenment on this important topic. Musser expanded his ideas in a later publication entitled A Priesthood Issue which has been reprinted several times. An examination of Musser's journal also supports a 1933-1934 emergence for the concept of the Priesthood. The first utilization in his journal of the term "priesthood" as a separate organization occurred in February of 1934.66 Afterwards, the term is used frequently and without apology.67 In conjunction with the introduction of the Priesthood into his journal entries, we also discover that Musser's references to other members of the proposed Council of Friends, such as J. Leslie Broadbent and John Y. Barlow, carry the title of "President" starting in 1934.68 This is consistent with Musser's teaching that members of the Council of Friends were all called "President."69 The question arises as to why these men were not referred to as presidents back in 1929 when they were all supposedly ordained members of that lofty priesthood quorum? In conjunction with the development of the doctrine of the external Priesthood, Musser noted several times in his journal that he had spent time teaching the polygamists about the priesthood "set-up" or "situation."70 This was necessary because undoubtedly his listeners were as unfamiliar with Musser's teachings of the external Priesthood as Musser had been just years before.71 Musser's ideas legitimized the authority of the modern polygamists and were readily accepted by them. THE PROPER ELEMENTS COMBINED IN 1933 TO FORM THE "PRIESTHOOD" It appears that three things came together in 1933-34 to form an enduring doctrine of an external Priesthood: 1. Authority was alleged through the claims of Lorin C. Woolley and his 1886 ordinations. 2. Leadership was obtained by recruiting the five men purportedly ordained in 1886 and transforming them into a COUNCIL OF FRIENDS. 3. Musser developed the idea for an external PRIESTHOOD organization and retrospectively identified its existence historically. In order to support his theories of an external Priesthood organization, a Council of Friends and High Priest Apostles, Musser searched through the scriptures and the historical sources that he had at his command. These included books such as the seven volume History of the Church, volumes five through eight of the Historical Record, the Journal of Discourses, issues of Church periodicals like the Times and Seasons, Millennial Star, Messenger and Advocate, Juvenile Instructor and the Deseret News. Musser and other modern polygamists generally acknowledge that no early priesthood leader overtly taught about a Priesthood organization that was capable of existing external to the Church or a higher leadership council and office. Nonetheless, Musser was able to comb the early historical sources for references that might apply to his newly created entity. An examination of those citations shows they are tangential references at best. Regardless, Musser was able to utilize these quotations by taking them out of context and shaping them with his own narrative. The issue of why no other monogamist or polygamist before Musser had been inclined to discuss openly the alleged Priesthood organization as Musser did is not addressed by Fundamentalists. Modern polygamists believe that early priesthood leaders knew about it, its Council of Friends and High Priest Apostles, but were very careful not to ever mention them directly (for they never did).72 Musser taught that the doctrine was for "general circulation"73 though he never explained what authorized him to be the only man in over a century to publicize it, since previous priesthood leaders had purportedly kept it so secret. In December of 1942, some eight years after introducing the concept of an external priesthood organization, Musser reflected on his doctrine and wrote: I am convicted with the feeling that the Priesthood is one organization and the Church is another, and that Pres. [Heber J.] Grant has jurisdiction in the Church. If I am wrong I pray the Lord to correct me and to assist me in getting back into the proper channel. Up to date, however, in all the reasoning power I have, and listening to the voice of the Spirit of the Lord, I am convinced that I am right. (Journal of Joseph W. Musser, December 28, 1942.) In this journal entry, Musser ascribes the doctrine of the external priesthood to "all the reasoning power" he possessed and "the voice of the Spirit of the Lord." Fundamentalists would prefer to attribute their priesthood organization to the teachings of the Lord through the Prophet Joseph Smith. However, as has been illustrated, the Priesthood, as an organization, is of a much more recent origin. CHAPTER ELEVEN THE FUNDAMENTALISTS AND THE 1890 MANIFESTO In 1852, Brigham Young announced to the world that Latter-day Saints believed in the principle of plural marriage. For a few years prior to 1852, discussion of the principle had been an "open secret" among the Saints.1 This doctrine was sufficiently offensive to members of the United States congress that they passed several laws during the ensuing four decades that ultimately disfranchised The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members, providing prison terms to those practicing plural marriage.2 THE 1890 MANIFESTO To Whom It May Concern: Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy-- I, therefore, as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory. One case has been reported in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay. In as much as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise. There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land. (signed) WILFORD WOODRUFF President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints The sacrifices required by Church members, both monogamists and those practicing the principle of plural marriage, after 1852 became increasingly significant. Believers were taught that to receive the fullest exaltation, they needed to participate in plural marriage,3 however, new laws with severe penalties inhibited overt, if not covert compliance. During the 1880's, Church leaders and others practicing plural marriage were forced onto "the underground" away from their families and daily Church activity to avoid detection. By the year 1890, the United States Government was threatening to take possession of the Church property including the Temples constructed at St. George, Logan, and Manti, Utah. President Wilford Woodruff faced a challenge unlike any previous Church leader: how to continue obeying the commandments to perform missionary work, ordinance work for the dead, the building of Zion, and the practice of plural marriage when it appeared that living the latter principle would preclude the realization of the former directives? In that atmosphere Wilford Woodruff brought forth the Manifesto which signaled the end of Plural Marriage within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A copy of the Manifesto is found within the box on the previous page. The issuing of that document informed the Latter-day Saints that they were to obey the laws of the land respecting plural marriage. In evaluating the effect of the Manifesto on the Church and the Fundamentalist movement, the answers from each group to three questions can define several important differences: 1. What was the Manifesto? 2. Who wrote the Manifesto? 3. Why was the Manifesto given? THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS AND THE MANIFESTO THE CHURCH - What was the Manifesto? Latter-day Saints today maintain that the Manifesto of 1890 was an inspired document that accomplished at least two things: 1. Informed the Saints that the Lord was no longer requiring the practice of Plural Marriage.4 2. Satisfied the nonmembers and allowed the Church to continue its efforts in missionary work, work for the dead, and building Zion. By 1890, it had become very obvious to President Woodruff that governmental reactions to plural marriage significantly inhibited the effectiveness of missionary efforts, work for the dead, and the building of Zion. THE CHURCH - Who wrote the Manifesto? The following account relates the authorship and preparations for publication of the Manifesto: As the Church president entered his office the morning of 24 September 1890, he told Bishop John R. Winder and President George Q. Cannon that he had not slept much the night before. He had been "struggling all night with the Lord about what should be done under the existing circumstances of the Church. And, he said, laying some papers upon the table, `here is the result.' Upon these was written what, with the exception of some light changes, is known as the manifesto."5 He then showed the Brethren assembled before him the document he had written. After they had approved it and prepared it for publication, President Woodruff declared that the Lord had made it plain to him what he was to do and that it was the right thing.6 [Underlining added.] Thus, after "struggling all night with the Lord," Wilford Woodruff was able to present the brethren with the original document that became the Manifesto.7 Some modern polygamists wish to discredit the Manifesto by claiming it was a product of inspiration and not revelation.8 President Woodruff stated "that the Manifesto was just as authoritative and binding as though it had been given in the form of `Thus saith the Lord'..."9 Therefore, the distinction has little merit. The document came to the Church signed by the Prophet of God, the President of the High Priesthood, the "one man" who held the keys of sealing authority: Wilford Woodruff. THE CHURCH - Why was the Manifesto given? To suggest that the Manifesto was entirely unrelated to the growing persecution the Church was exposed to in 1890 would be inaccurate. Various state and federal laws had been utilized by the governments since the Saints were settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, attempting to eliminate plural marriage. Church members had endured the suffering inflicted upon them by the various bureaucracies because they believed that obeying God was better than obeying man. Likewise, they maintained that the eternal reward justified whatever sacrifice was required. So in September of 1890 God said, "It is enough," and accepted the sacrifice of the Saints. In 1891, George Q. Cannon explained what occurred: I know myself that it was the will of God that the Manifesto should be given. I know it was the will of God that the word should go to the Latter-day Saints that plural marriage should cease and that we should conform to the requirements of the law... God gave the command, and it required the command of God to cause us to change our attitude. President Woodruff holds the same authority that the man did through whom the revelation came to the Church. It required the same authority to say to us, "It is enough." God has accepted of your sacrifice. He has looked down upon you and seen what you have passed through, and how determined you were to keep His commandments, and now He says, "It is enough." It is the same authority that gave us the principle. It is not the word of man. Now, it is for us to obey the Law.10 As Latter-day Saints review the wonderful blessings associated with the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, they note the promises are extended to monogamists as well as members practicing plural marriage: And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them --- Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths -- then shall it be written in the Lamb's Book of Life... and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in al things, as hath been sealed upon their heads which glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end. (D&C 132:19-20.) Nothing is stated requiring the practice of plural marriage to receive the promises, including "a continuation of seeds forever and ever."11 These verses, accompanied by the 1890 Manifesto, more easily demonstrate the eternal blessings anticipated by all believing Latter-day Saints. FUNDAMENTALISTS AND THE MANIFESTO There are many different Fundamentalist reactions to the Manifesto of 1890. Modern polygamist groups disagree with each other on many doctrinal topics, the Manifesto included. Multiple attempts to expose the document as an uninspired endeavor which resulted from placing faith in the arm of flesh have been promoted. The details of the various narratives are interesting. While Fundamentalists interpretations may differ on many aspects surrounding the manifesto, they all believe that it did not remove the requirement to live the principle of plural marriage. FUNDAMENTALISTS - What was the Manifesto? Fundamentalists have supplied us with a variety of answers. The Manifesto was: 1. Man's permission to break God's Law.12 2. A Covenant with death and Hell; a fulfillment of Isaiah 28:15.13 3. Fulfillment of D&C 130:14-17.14 4. From the "lower regions."15 A smoke screen.16 Inspired by Satan,17 etc. The Manifesto purportedly provided the permission of man to break God's Law. Musser has written: By permission of the leaders, laws and ordinances have been broken and changed to better accommodate the efforts of the Saints to be one with the world. (Truth 6:109.) Fundamentalists generally concede that the Manifesto was issued by the "one" anointed and appointed who held the Keys of the Sealing Power and who was President of the High Priesthood, but they submit that it was not inspired and therefore is not truly binding on the Saints. Exactly how the Lord's prophet could be allowed to deceived His people, as Fundamentalists allege, and still remain the Lord's mouthpiece on earth is seldom addressed by modern polygamist authors. The Manifesto was a "covenant with death and hell, a fulfillment of Isaiah 28:15. A contributed article to the periodical Truth read: President Wilford Woodruff fulfilled the words of Isaiah, (28:15) when he signed the Manifesto: "Because ye have said, we have made a covenant with death, and with hell we are at agreement." (Truth, 6:20.) Isaiah 28:14-15 reads: Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: (Isaiah 28:14-15.) The strong language used by Isaiah was appropriate for the wicked leaders presiding over the people in Jerusalem at that time. We know that Isaiah spoke in parallels that allow many of his writings to apply to the latter-days. However, for these verses to also pertain to 1890, the modern day "scornful men" referred to would have to be President Wilford Woodruff and the other Church leaders who presided over the people during the time that plural marriage was discontinued. Fundamentalists generally hesitate to directly condemn these Priesthood Authorities for supporting the Manifesto. In light of the wonderful spiritual experiences they enjoyed after the Manifesto was issued,18 it is very inconsistent to believe that such harsh words could also be directed at them. To support the idea that the Woodruff Manifesto was a "covenant with death and hell" they quote the following: It is authentically reported that immediately after President Woodruff signed the Manifesto, he said: "My God what have I done?" Joseph F. Smith his second Counselor, replied: "You have made a covenant with death and an agreement with hell, that's what you have done."19 There is nothing to support that this conversation ever occurred and it contradicts comments made by President Woodruff on September 24, 1890. No reference is ever given, only "it is authentically reported..." This fabricated conversation is repeated several times in Fundamentalist literature. It shows the lengths to which certain Fundamentalist authors will extend themselves in their attempts to discredit the Woodruff Manifesto. The Manifesto fulfilled Doctrine and Covenants 130:14-17. On April 2, 1843, Joseph Smith gave some items of instruction which included the following: I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter. I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time. (D&C 130:14-17.) [Underlining by the authors.] Since Joseph Smith was born December 23, 1805, his 85th birthday would have occurred on that date in December, 1890, about three months after the issuing of the Manifesto. Concerning this prophecy, a prominent Fundamentalist, Rulon C. Allred, wrote: Let me indicate its fulfillment upon that date, namely, "during the latter part of the year 1890." when the Manifesto was signed September 24, 1890 and accepted by the gentile Church on October 6, 1890. (Truth 3:78.) It is perplexing to ponder the theory that the Manifesto and the Lord's promise to Joseph Smith that "if he lived to be 85, he would see the face of the Savior" as recorded in D&C 130 are somehow related. It is true that both involve the year 1890, but that is where any connection ends. This again illustrates the compelling desire of some Fundamentalists to enlist any quotation in support of their theology, even if their arguments are entirely inconsistent. The Manifesto was from the "lower regions," a smoke screen, and inspired by Satan. The number and variety of criticisms used by Fundamentalists to describe the Woodruff Manifesto exemplify their contempt for the document. Still, little effort is expended to explain why the Lord would have allowed His prophet to issue it as he did. FUNDAMENTALISTS - Who wrote the Manifesto? Consistent with their testimony that the Manifesto was not inspired, Fundamentalists assert that many individuals, including anti-Mormons, were involved in producing the document: Incident to an investigation of the Manifesto, one soon learns that President Woodruff did not write it. It was written by Charles W. Penrose, assisted by Elder Frank J. Cannon and John White. After its preparation, it was submitted to a committee of non-Mormons, Judges Charles S. Zane, C. S. Varian, and O.W. Powers, none of whom were well known for their friendship for the Mormons and their institutions. A change of wording was insisted upon in the Manifesto, and the document was recopied by a clerk named Green... President Woodruff, fully aware of the situation and the designs of the Lord signed the completed document. (Most Holy Principle, 4:67-68, Truth 1:20[8].) Fundamentalists therefore believe the original "Manifesto" was written by a group of Latter-day Saints first.20 However, they also often quote a dubious account attributing the 1890 Manifesto to Elder Charles W. Penrose alone.21 This document, it is claimed, was then reviewed by several anti-Mormons22 and then submitted to Wilford Woodruff for his signature. One confusing entry in the Journal of Joseph W. Musser in 1922 recorded that Lorin C. Woolley claimed: "He knew the Manifesto, because he helped to make it."23 It is ridiculous to believe that Lorin C. Woolley, as a 33 year-old monogamist, would have had anything to do with the 1890 Manfesto. The Fundamentalist accounts of the history of the Woodruff Manifesto are impressive in light of the many details they provide. Specific individuals are named and the particulars of their interactions explained. These qualities impress the average reader and improve the overall believability of their stories. Unfortunately for modern polygamists, it just did not happen that way. As shown earlier in this chapter, the original draft of the Manifesto was penned by Wilford Woodruff and no non-Mormons were involved in preparing that document for publication. The exact origin of the many fictional components is unknown. However, as with the detailed versions of the 1886 vision and alleged ordinations by Lorin C. Woolley, possibly some sincere Fundamentalist was simply "remembering things forgotten"24 which can be tantamount to inventing an incident that never occurred. Nevertheless, such "recollections" are generally developed with sincerity. The greatest challenge presenting Fundamentalists who declare the Manifesto was uninspired and unapproved of God, is to not personally criticize Wilford Woodruff for signing it. They attempt to discredit the Manifesto, without discrediting him. Reasons for this include: 1. He received several visions and spiritual manifestations after signing the Manifesto.25 2. There was no Fundamentalist leader available to fill the void he would have created if the manifesto was divinely unapproved.26 Personal criticisms do exist. Musser wrote: Wilford Woodruff, as good a man as he was and as faithful and true to his covenants as he had been in earlier years, was not "alert and active" at the time of the signing of the Manifesto. He was in his 84th year of age, was weak both physically and mentally. (Truth 4:146.) Even if this were true, it is unclear exactly how such an observation would discredit the Manifesto. Generally, most Fundamentalists speak of President Wilford Woodruff in a positive manner. Some Fundamentalist authors go so far as to claim that President Woodruff believed the Saints would not accept the Manifesto: The writer is informed through sources considered by him perfectly reliable that President Wilford Woodruff did not believe for one moment previous to the presentation of that manifesto that the people would vote for its approval. It has been reported to me that he made the statement before entering the conference session of that day, "the Saints will never approve of it." President Wilford Woodruff is reported to have grieved and felt more distressed over the final outcome in acceptance of the manifesto than any other being not possessing the knowledge he had been given could have felt. (A Leaf in Review, p. 196.) Therefore, they strive to attribute the Manifesto to the transgression of Church members.27 FUNDAMENTALISTS - Why was the Manifesto Given? As noted above, Fundamentalists strongly affirm that the Manifesto was unapproved of the Lord. In order to better explain how such a document could have been promoted by priesthood leaders, they suggest several theories: 1. The Church members demanded the Manifesto.28 2. The Saints were planning to obtain Statehood and then legalize polygamy.29 3. It was given to fool the gentiles while the Church secretly continued the practice of plural marriage.30 4. It came as a result of the wisdom of men, particularly Wilford Woodruff.31 Let's examine these ideas in greater detail. The Church members demanded the Manifesto. Anyone familiar with God's dealings with His children knows that it is the responsibility of the Lord's prophet to boldly declare His word regardless of the desires of the people. Fundamentalists assert that the people wanted a Manifesto in 1890 and so the Lord gave them one to their condemnation: The Saints demanded a certain situation and in harmony with the principle of agency and "common consent" (D&C 26:2), the Lord granted it, permitting His servant to sign it. (Truth 8:260.) It is evident from what has already been written that we as a people did assume all responsibility and voluntarily surrendered plural marriage. God had nothing to do with it, only insofar as He permitted the people to use their own agency in accepting or rejecting the responsibility of His law. (Truth 8:202.) A survey of Fundamentalist literature reveals that the most popular explanation of why the Lord would allow His prophet to issue the Manifesto is because "the people demanded it." As Musser put it, "It became necessary for the leaders to pacify the multitude."32 Other common rhetoric states that the Saints of 1890 had become more concerned with their property and worldly possessions than with keeping the commandments of God and were hounding Wilford Woodruff "day and night for a declaration of recession of polygamy."33 The 1929 Lorin Woolley account states: Leading men from all over the Church [were] asking the leaders to do something, as the Gentiles were talking of confiscating their property in connection with the property of the Church. (Supplement, p. 56.) It is true that some Church members had inquired to see if the Church's position on polygamy could be changed. Others had vocalized the trials they were required to bear. However, neither of these actions should be interpreted to mean that the general Church membership were desirous of a Manifesto if such a doctrinal change would limit their eternal exaltation or place them condemned before the Lord. For a member to state that they are enduring hardships is not tantamount to requesting that the trials be removed, especially if a spiritual penalty is attached. Fundamentalists suggest that after the Manifesto of 1890, the Saints rejoiced because they were no longer required to suffer on account of polygamy. Others insinuate that the Manifesto allowed the Saints to glory in their property and mammon. This idea fits well into their narratives and theology, but unfortunately it just isn't true. In truth, the Saints were somewhat confused by the Manifesto. This is why the Church Leaders felt it necessary to explain its meaning to the people in many subsequent discourses. The Fundamentalist "party line" that the Saints wanted a Manifesto at any cost to remove their persecutions is unfounded. Church members followed their leaders and accepted the counsel of President Woodruff. To reject a prophet's instruction, is to reject the prophet. This the Saints did not do. It is true that any group of people can exercise their free agency and vote together to set aside a commandment of God. However, such an action would estrange them and their leaders from the Lord. As one views the continued progress the Church has made since 1890, His divine guidance and approval will be obvious to the sincere inquirer. Since most Fundamentalist factions still allow the Church enough authority and divine approval to perform missionary work and work for the dead, this proposed transgression is curious indeed. It is also quite convenient for the Fundamentalists who declare the Church's apostasy, but only to the point that the Church is still able to fulfill the commandments the Fundamentalists do not wish to fulfill. In order to justify this enigma, various polygamist apologists have suggested parallels with the Lord's divine dealings in previous ages. They say issuing the Manifesto was like: 1. Joseph Smith giving Martin Harris the 116 pages (D&C 3, 10).34 2. The Israelites demanding that Samuel give them a king (1 Samuel 8:6-10).35 3. The Israelites in the desert who rejected the higher law and were given the Law of Moses in its stead (Joseph Smith Translation - Exodus 34:1-2).36 These analogies place Wilford Woodruff in the position of Joseph Smith, Samuel, and Moses respectively. The Church becomes Martin Harris or the Israelites. Even a cursory examination of the attitudes of Church members prior to the issuing of the Manifesto fails to find the determination of a Martin Harris to have the 116 pages or the Israelites to have a king. Likewise, where is the wanton disregard for the Lord's law that accompanied the building of the golden calf?37 While Wilford Woodruff may be forced to play the roles delineated above, only a superficial analysis would class the behavior of the general Church membership with that of Martin Harris or the Israelites. These "parallels" do little more than give Fundamentalists an excuse to continue believing their ideology. The Saints planned to obtain statehood and then legislate the practice of polygamy.38 While it appears that some Church members espoused this belief, its presentation by Fundamentalists to strengthen their position is puzzling. The suggestion that the Saints would support the Manifesto to obtain statehood and then pass laws allowing polygamy indicates that the Church was planning to continue plural marriage and that the Manifesto was only to be a temporary restraint. This contradicts the most common Fundamentalist explanation of the Manifesto which places the responsibility squarely upon the membership of the Church: ...the Pride of Ephraim beg[ged] President Woodruff to importune the Lord for the Manifesto. The Saints were tired of the persecutions, and many were ashamed of the scorn of the world. Pride and the desire for financial prosperity predominated and finally the Lord gave in, and permitted the Manifesto... (Gospel Problems p. 43.) Likewise, Wilford Woodruff, who they hesitate to criticize, would have had to shoulder a majority of the accountability. The Manifesto was passed to fool the Gentiles while the Church was going to continue plural marriage. This proposal shares the same weaknesses as the one above. Often, to strengthen this claim, Fundamentalists will cite a dubious source that the Manifesto was to, "beat the Devil at his own game."39 As modern polygamists are confronted with dozens of statements by the Lord's Apostles and Prophets40 declaring the Manifesto of 1890 as inspired and binding on the Saints, it is easy to understand why they might repeatedly quote any citation that excuses it as a man-made document. Discrediting the Manifesto with such statements might initially appear to bolster the Fundamentalist position, but it creates a piece of the puzzle that doesn't seem to fit anywhere. The Manifesto was the result of uninspired men solving Church problems in their own ways. As seen above, this interpretation of the events also transfers the responsibility for the 1890 Manifesto from members of the Church to their leaders and differs from the most popular Fundamentalist explanation. Some suggest41 the Woodruff Manifesto is similar to the 1835 statement on marriage which accompanied the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.42 It is believed that Oliver Cowdery wrote the document which was not a revelation and reflected man's wisdom, not the Lord's. This approach states that President Woodruff dealt with the problems caused by the U.S. Government in the best uninspired way he could.43 Another argument is based on the scripture found in D&C 124:49:44 Verily, verily, I say unto you that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings. That this might have been a basis for the Manifesto was suggested by George Q. Cannon in his discourse immediately after the Manifesto was approved by the congregation on October 6th, 1890.45 His talk was somewhat ironic in that five years earlier he had condemned a speaker who had attempted to use this verse to suggest that polygamy too might be suspended as had the command to build the Independence, Missouri Temple.46 Were this the only basis for issuing the Manifesto, Fundamentalists' confusion concerning it might be easier to understand. However, Wilford Woodruff himself claimed he was inspired and that the Lord had shown him in vision what would occur if it was not issued.47 The many Fundamentalist explanations for the coming of the Manifesto typify the movement in general. Their authors are usually quick to cite anything that appears to support their position and to quote statements derogatory to the Church's theology. FOLLOWING THE LORD'S ANOINTED Most Latter-day Saints were taken by surprise when the Manifesto was presented by President Woodruff in that October, 1890 General Conference. To understand the real intent of the Manifesto, Church members were instructed by their priesthood leaders. Wilford Woodruff taught: What I intended was to give counsel stopping the practice of the patriarchal order of marriage in the Church... What I said to the people of our Church I said by inspiration, as I view it -- by the mind and will of the Lord. I intended to give them to understand that we should stop the practice of plural marriage.48 I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. The Lord has told me by revelation that there are many members of the Church through Zion who are sorely tried in their hearts because of the Manifesto... Now, I want you to understand that [President Woodruff] has not lost the Spirit nor is he about to apostatize. The Lord is with him, and with this people. He has told me exactly what to do, and what the result would be if we did not do it.49 Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing.,.. All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind...50 President Woodruff spoke of the spirit which had prompted him to issue the Manifesto, and said it was of God.51 Here are George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith and these Twelve Apostles. I want to ask you if Wilford Woodruff could have done anything that these men would not have accepted, in performing the work that was done that pained the hearts of all Israel, except by the spirit and power of God. No. I would just as soon have thought of moving the foundations of this world as to have taken any course to move these men, only by the revelations of God. When that Manifesto was given they accepted it. Why? Because they had the Spirit of God for themselves; they knew for themselves it was right.52 In September, 1890, the present head of the Church, in anguish and prayer, cried to God for help for his flock, and received permission to advise the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that the law commanding polygamy was henceforth suspended.53 I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me nor any other man who stands as the President of this Church, to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.54 George Q. Cannon instructed: But the time has come when, in the providence of God, it seemed necessary that something should be done to meet the requirements of the country, to meet the demands that have been made upon us, and to save the people...We have waited for the Lord on the matter; and on the 24th of September, President Woodruff made up his mind that he would write something, and he had the spirit of it. He had prayed about it and had besought God repeatedly to show him what to do. At that time the Spirit came upon him, and the document that has been read in your hearing [the Manifesto] was the result.55 Question by Examiner Loofourow: State whether you believe that manifesto was given by inspiration to President Woodruff? Answer: I believed it then and I am still of that opinion that he was inspired to issue it and I so stated to the Conference.56 President Woodruff is a very modest man. [The Manifesto] would have been a command if some men had issued it, and it was a command in his case. He was fully persuaded that the Church at large, like himself, received a testimony that this Manifesto was issued by inspiration from God.57 Besides these declarations, other Priesthood leaders such as Joseph F. Smith,58 counselor in the First Presidency and Lorenzo Snow,59 President of the Quorum of the Twelve affirmed to the Church and the world that the Manifesto was inspired. Fundamentalists usually acknowledge that after the Manifesto was presented to the Church, priesthood leaders taught that it was inspired. In order to reduce the significance of this fact, Fundamentalists repeatedly emphasize that the Saints should not "blindly follow" their priesthood leaders.60 Since the Lord's prophet taught that after the Manifesto, the members of the Church were to obey the law, the subsequent scenario proposed by Fundamentalists to dismiss his teachings is singular indeed. They suggest that the Lord's mouthpiece and other Church leaders actively promoted false doctrine. This required the Saints to obtain truth directly from the Lord, to the exclusion of His prophet's guidance. (See figure 11-2.) To strengthen this proposal, Musser wrote: To the time-worn statement that the Lord will not permit the leaders to lead His people astray one need but reflect on the history of the past. The Saints have been led astray by their leaders on numerous occasions. The Jews were so led by the recreant High Priests in the days of Christ -- indeed they were led to crucify the Savior. King Noah and the priests of his day caused the people to stray from the simple truths of the Gospel until only a few faithful ones, under the leadership of Alma remained and they were driven into the wilderness. So it is in the present day [1940], by permission of the leaders, laws and ordinances have been broken and changed to better accommodate the efforts of the Saints to be one with the world.61 Musser's assertion places Wilford Woodruff in the position of the wicked High Priest, Caiaphas, who encouraged the crucifixion of our Savior62 or of King Noah who killed the prophet Abinadi.63 Other Fundamentalist analogies presented earlier in this chapter had Wilford Woodruff acting as Joseph Smith, Moses and Samuel the prophet. None of these parallels fit. Once again it illustrates the extremes to which some Fundamentalist writers will go to support their position. If the Lord did not sanction the Manifesto, Wilford Woodruff would have been guilty of a grievous sin in issuing it. However, he continued to receive visions and revelations from the Lord after the Manifesto of 1890. Likewise, even the Fundamentalists are hesitant to criticize him. The general Church membership accepted the word of the "one" anointed and appointed, the President of the High Priesthood, God's prophet on earth when he presented the Manifesto. Exactly why Fundamentalists believe that those Saints are condemned for following the Lord's mouthpiece is perplexing. Is it really possible that God would complicate His instructions to "keep my commandments" by deceiving His people concerning what those commandments were? This is an extraordinary doctrine. SUMMARY The average Church member in 1890 was taught that plural marriage was no longer required after the Manifesto. Fundamentalists wish to condemn those members because they believed their priesthood leaders, suggesting that they should have known from the Spirit that the prophet was teaching them false doctrine. Sometimes Fundamentalist authors also denounce the priesthood leaders themselves, but this is less common. It is entirely inconsistent with God's dealings with His children to have His Prophet actively lead them astray to their eternal condemnation. What is more important is that the vast majority of Saints were willing to continue sacrificing. The idea that they were demanding the Manifesto is mostly fantasy. In 1890 we see an example of the teaching found in the Articles of Faith, verse nine: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.64 It is fortunate for the Church and the Kingdom of God that there were but few who chose to reject the words of modern prophets since 1890. Even as Fundamentalists unitedly condemn the Manifesto, questions concerning their lack of authority persist. CHAPTER TWELVE THE SELF-APPOINTED Today, the number of men and women practicing plural marriage probably exceeds the number doing so at the time of the 1890 Manifesto. The various polygamist groups have persisted through the years in the inter-mountain area and beyond. Some of the new adherents forsake The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as their misguided feelings induced them to join their "work" and enter into the "principle." A survey of the relatively recent expansion of modern polygamy might cause one to ask why such a movement continues to exist, despite problems with priesthood sealing authority. Possible reasons could include: 1. Fundamentalism presents an enduring theology 2. The numerous inconsistencies of Fundamentalist priesthood doctrine are shrouded in secrecy 3. The divine admonition to pray and study.1 is short-circuited due to the lack of a accurate histories of Fundamentalist priesthood claims Let us examine these ideas a little more closely. FUNDAMENTALISM PRESENTS AN ENDURING THEOLOGY Fundamentalism today offers an impressive body of distinct theological tenets that exemplify the philosophies of men like Joseph W. Musser and Lorin C. Woolley mingled with scripture. As has been shown in the past eleven chapters, these men were the main creators of the priesthood doctrines now espoused by thousands. Musser himself attributed his idea of the external Priesthood to "all the reasoning power he possessed" and "the voice of the Lord" as he heard it.2 This admission exemplifies the recent origin of many of these important doctrines. Notwithstanding Musser's extensive utilization of his own "reasoning power" as he formed the ideas he promoted, his religious teachings and those of other Fundamentalist writers are impressive on several accounts: 1. A superficial analysis of Fundamentalist literature gives the appearance of internal consistency. 2. The sheer volume of proposed supporting evidence is significant. 3. Sincerity is portrayed along with a confident attitude. 4. Accounts, such as that composed in 1929 about the purported 1886 activities include many details. The sheer volume and apparent internal consistency of Fundamentalist priesthood doctrine compel many investigators to adopt its ideas without examining them too closely. Joseph W. Musser was a creative and determined supporter of plural marriage. His many efforts resulted in the publication of a large volume of literature which support the practice of modern polygamy. One significant contribution to the doctrine of the external Priesthood Musser made is found in a 1934 publication, Priesthood Items. Later he expanded his ideas in a popular pamphlet entitled A Priesthood Issue which has been reprinted many times and is still available today. An appendix to this chapter contains a Study Guide which lists chronologically the 50 events and quotations that Musser compiled to support his priesthood theories. The page numbers for the references in A Priesthood Issue are listed on the left. The reader may wish to "study" the citations further and "ask God if it be right." Musser listed a few additional evidences in publications such as Supplement to a New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage and various issues of Truth magazine. However, the bulk of his support is found in reprints of A Priesthood Issue. SINCERITY OF WOOLLEY AND MUSSER NOT QUESTIONED Anyone familiar with the works of Lorin C. Woolley and Joseph W. Musser would be impressed with the sincerity of these men as they promoted the ideas they believed were true. The question arises regarding how they might have been misled concerning the external Priesthood, a Council of Friends, or High Priest Apostles. In the case of Lorin Woolley, the probable explanation can be found in the 1929 statement of the purported 1886 activities. In that statement, Woolley admitted: Many of the things I forgot, but they are coming to me gradually, and those things that come to me are as clear as on the day on which they were given. (Supplement p. 60. See the appendix to chapter four.) In 1929, Woolley would have been 73 years old.3 He concedes that he had previously "forgot" many of the things he was teaching. To forget something and then to later remember it may be akin to fabricating something that you believed to be true, but that may never have happened.4 Woolley's betrayed memory is the likely source of the 1886 ordinations. As has been pointed out, no other primary witnesses exist and the lives of the men supposedly involved are strong testimonies that the ordinations never occurred. Joseph W. Musser was a faithful supporter of plural marriage. His faith and determination to continue his cause are admirable. Unfortunately, he failed to understand: "FAITH is no substitute for TRUTH" Musser exhibited great faith in the doctrines he developed and proceeded on his self-appointed course with great velocity. Despite his faith, efforts and accomplishments, the Truth remained with the Lord's anointed within the Church. In 1935, he reflected on his rationalization for the continued focus of his energies and faith in his journal: Those of us who feel the need of more definite direction from the Lord should take courage in the feeling that since we have dedicated all unto God, and are executing all our energies to keep his commandments, the Lord must be pleased with our course, else he would set us right; No good father will permit his children who want to do right to go far astray... (Journal of Joseph W. Musser, March 11, 1935.) It is true that Joseph Musser and some of his followers were expending a great deal of energy in their efforts to live plural marriage. However, respecting the observance of the Lord's commandments, Musser was keeping them in his own way, not the Lord's. Musser assumed that his efforts were divinely approved because he was trying, again in his own way, to follow our Heavenly Father because "no good father will permit his children to go far astray." Musser also apparently felt that he and his followers were the only children of God who wanted "to do right" since God apparently let everyone else but him and his followers "go far astray." Joseph W. Musser chose his course and pursued it with vigor. He, with the help of a few others, produced an ideology mingled with scriptures and quotes of priesthood leaders which has influenced many. It is truly unfortunate that a man of his talent and ambition chose, at a relatively early age, to attempt to "steady the ark"5 and, almost single-handedly, set the Church on a course he thought was right. PRIESTHOOD DIFFICULTIES ARE SHROUDED IN SECRECY Many Fundamentalists are aware of some of the problems associated with their claims to priesthood authority. The author of The Notes, a popular pro-Fundamentalist volume, has written: When Brother Joseph W. Musser wrote articles defending and explaining Priesthood in the last day, he also gave hints, perhaps more specific hints, but upon closer scrutiny it is found that although his writing led the mind along a path closer to the keys, he yet did not reveal those things that were not to be found in the written record and unbelievers were not hard pressed to find the straw contained in that purposeful creation... (The Notes pp. 423-424.) Notwithstanding the 602 pages which comprise Robert R. Openshaw's The Notes, the question of the succession of the Keys of the Priesthood is excused in three paragraphs (less than a page) in the name of secrecy.6 It is likely that Openshaw realizes the stark deficiencies in Musser's doctrines and deliberately avoids defending them. Even more recent volumes, such as Rulon C. Allred's Treasures of Knowledge have been edited to avoid any frank discussion of the Priesthood.7 The compilation of the sermons on Leroy S. Johnson contains little information on Fundamentalist priesthood doctrines.8 Joseph W. Musser possessed a high opinion of his doctrine of the external Priesthood, the Council of Friends and High Priest Apostles which motivated him to proclaim his ideas far and wide. In 1934, after completing his publication Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage which included a chapter explaining his Priesthood ideas,9 Joseph Musser extracted that chapter and expanded it and then republished it as Priesthood Items. His journal recorded in his own handwriting: July 26, (Thu.) - Monday gave order to Printer for 2000 copies of Priesthood Items and statement of Lorin C. Woolley for general circulation. August 3, (Fri.) - Last Sunday mailed about 1200 "Supplements" and Priesthood pamphlets to Gen. Authorities, President of Stakes, and Missions, Bishops. Etc. By Wednesday some 1000 copies mailed out. Sept. 2, (Sun.) - In a re-reading of our Booklet - The Supplement - today, I find nothing I would wish to change, except that some points might be amplified some. God inspired the writing of that book - it is the word of God to his people, and it will stand as such. [Underlining by the authors] Musser felt so strongly that these topics should be discussed that he personally sent copies of his priesthood theories to all General Authorities etc. at his own expense. His doctrines of an external Priesthood, a Council of Friends, and High Priest Apostles were expounded in these two publications. Certainly Musser would disagree with anyone trying to dismiss a discussion of his priesthood doctrines claiming they were not to be revealed or to be "found in the written record."10 The September 2, 1934, journal citation listed above records that Musser believed his book The Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage was "the word of God to his people" and would "stand as such."11 It is difficult to relate these assertions and the actions of Fundamentalist prophet Joseph W. Musser with any attempt to shroud a discussion of Musser's Priesthood as being too secret to talk about. The Lord promised: And again, I will give unto you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived... (D&C 52:14.) Inquirers might ask: Where is the "pattern" of an external Priesthood, a Council of Friends, or the office of High Priest Apostle? The lack of any historical or scriptural evidence for these entities should not be interpreted in terms of "secrecy." The real explanation appears to be related to the fact that they were created a century after The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was formally organized. PRAYER AND STUDY ARE SHORT-CIRCUITED Since the 1930's, multiple Fundamentalist authors have repeatedly published their beliefs. Many volumes have been dedicated to the theme that plural marriage is still required of the Latter-day Saints today. In contrast to those publications, few authors in or out of the Church have pursued a more objective analysis of the historical evidences. Several books have appeared whose approach is so anti-Fundamentalist that their authors have been less-than-honest in compiling and analyzing the historical data. Such methodology renders them less useful in determining the truth about the origin of modern polygamist priesthood authority. While the authors of this publication admit conviction concerning the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is hoped that even the Fundamentalist believer will gain new insights from the evidences presented herein and prayerfully consider them. It is likely that because of the paucity of critical studies of Lorin C. Woolley, Joseph W. Musser and their priesthood claims, that many present-day polygamists have done little more than read their teachings and then immediately began praying about their truthfulness. However, the Lord has commanded that we do more than pray: Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong. (D&C 9:7-9.) [Underlining by the authors.] Since most Fundamentalist authors have so carefully avoided the topic of priesthood authority and its history in the past, "studying it out in your mind" has been very difficult. One Fundamentalist suggested: Since when has the Lord's injunction to "study it out in your mind" meant search for proof through every obscure source you can possibly find, be careful not to miss anything, and "then ask me if it be right?"... if your interpretation of "study it out in your mind" is correct then only historians and scholars can have testimonies.12 Under special circumstances in the past, individuals have been blessed with testimonies without having to follow the admonition to "study it out."13 Nevertheless, the Lord has instructed that "For of him unto whom much is given, much is required" (D&C 82:3) and "when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise" (D&C 82:10). Could it be that the Lord requires us to do even a little research into the teachings of Lorin C. Woolley and Joseph W. Musser before we petition Him concerning the validity of their claims? Simply reading their accounts and praying "short-circuits" the command to study it out. We recall that in the last days: For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.14 (Matthew 24:24.) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Ibid. 7:22-23.) Is it possible that "the very elect" who were deceived are those who failed to follow the Lord's directives to study the words of men before praying about them? IF YOU STUDY, YOU WILL JOIN US Many Fundamentalists believe that all a sincere investigator must do is prayerfully study their theology and then they will somehow come to know that their particular polygamist sect is the only religious group on earth commissioned and authorized to continue plural marriage today. It is likely that this attitude has persisted because there has been relatively little historical information available regarding their priesthood authority and the evolution of their Priesthood doctrine. The irony of the belief that "most people who study Fundamentalist theology will eventually become polygamists" is that it has been almost impossible to actually "study" Fundamentalist priesthood doctrines. This is partly because the control over available journals and evidence has been so effective in making only selected sources accessible.15 THE DESIRE TO SACRIFICE One additional element in evaluating the relatively large numbers of people participating in modern polygamy deals with their obvious desire and willingness to sacrifice for the Lord. It is likely that most Latter-day Saints would engage in just about any sacrifice if they were convinced that the sacrifice would guarantee eternal life. It is possible that a member might feel that his or her attempts to keep the commandments emphasized by Church leaders, which require perfection, is somehow insufficient. Some may desire additional security through making sacrifices more visible to the Lord, like living the principle of plural marriage. One of the authors was personally criticized by a leader in the Allred Group for addressing the topic of priesthood authority. The Fundamentalist leader felt it would have been much more appropriate to write about his followers in this fashion: Today's Fundamentalists pledge a deep loyalty to the teachings of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. Although they admit there are challenges to their claims of religious authority to practice their beliefs, they do feel confident that their position is consistent with Joseph Smith, and live with the assurance that were he to be among them today that he would recognize them as the only people who are living his style of Mormonism.16 It is likely that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or John Taylor would be impressed with the sincerity and discrete separation from the world that modern polygamists attempt to maintain. However, they would also be amazed at the priesthood doctrine that has been contrived from their teachings. Their questions would include: "When did we ever teach you of a Council of Friends, an external Priesthood organization or High Priest Apostles?" "Where did these ideas come from?" Even if polygamists were the only ones living Joseph Smith's "style of Mormonism," that would not authorize them to perform plural marriages. Without the proper priesthood authority, modern plural marriages "are not valid, nor of force in the world to come" irrespective of the sacrifice, lifestyle or sincerity of those entering into the marriages.17 THE SELF-APPOINTED GUARDIANS Most modern polygamists realize the importance of utilizing the Keys of Elijah to seal their plural marriages. The Lord requires the proper authority to be used in sealing eternal marriages and therefore, anyone believing in marriage for time and all eternity, must evaluate whether that marriage is "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom [the Lord has] anointed and appointed unto this power."18 The modern polygamist movement did not grow as a living branch, preserved by the Lord, on a sickened tree. Rather, it sprouted as wild flowers in a vacant field. While their borrowed light may presently sustain them, the heat of the day is yet to come. APPENDIX EVENTS USED BY JOSEPH MUSSER TO SUPPORT HIS THEORIES ON POLYGAMY Taken from his publication: A Priesthood Issue - A PRIESTHOOD ISSUE - Study Guide - page 5 12 1829 June - Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery are ordained Apostles. (D&C 27:12.) - Twelve are ordained "of" not "by" Jesus Christ. (D&C 18:29.) 22 13 10 29 1832 Feb. Sep. Nov. - References to the "Church of the Firstborn." (D&C 76, 77, 78, 93, 107.) - Church of the Firstborn later organized at Kirtland. (JD 5:129.) - Lord refers to "Apostles, God's High Priests." (D&C 84:63.) - Lord may send one "mighty and strong" to set in order the House of God. (D&C 85:7.) 9,15 13 1835 Feb. Oct. - 12 Apostles chosen by Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris. (D&C 18:37, JD 6:29.) - 12 Apostles to attend a solemn assembly of the first Elders in Missouri next season. (HC 2:287.) 5,21 24,29 to 1852 - Plural Marriage practiced without general church knowledge. 13 1836 Mar. - 9 men called "President" and experienced the Washing of the Feet one day prior to the 12 Apostles. (HC 2:430-431.) 18 14 1837 Apr. Sep. - Joseph Smith states revelations to come through the Presidency. (HC 2:477.) - Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith Sr. and Hyrum Smith called as Assistant Counselors. (HC 2:509.) 7,20 1841 Jan. - Hyrum Smith called as Patriarch, to hold the "sealing blessings" of the church. (D&C 124:124.) 12 1842 May - Endowments given to James Adams, Hyrum Smith, Newell K. Whitney, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, William Law, William Marks and George Miller. (HC 5:1.) [Endowments I] 13 20 7 1843 May July Aug. - Endowment group meets again. (HC 5:409.) [Endowments II] - Brigham Young teaches a prophet is accountable to God only. (HC 5:521.) - Joseph Smith preaches of "Patriarchal Priesthood." (HC 5:544.) 11 17 26 26 27 1844 May June Oct. - Joseph Smith bestows keys, ordinances, and priesthood on the 12. (T&S 5:651.) - Brigham Young states, "the kingdom is organized." (HC 7:381-382.) - Brigham Young teaches that the priesthood may build up the Kingdom. (HC 7:235.) Heber C. Kimball states that more than 30 men have authority higher than Sidney Rigdon. (T&S 5:667.) - Brigham Young states, "...there are keys that the written word never spoke of, nor never will." (T&S 5:667.) 10 18 1852 Apr. - Brigham Young preaches that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, were Apostles first. (JD 6:320.) - John Taylor writes that the priesthood and the 12 received their priesthood from Joseph Smith. (Government of God, pp -117.) 21 23 1853 Apr. - Brigham Young teaches that prophet and president are different. (JD 1:133.) - Brigham Young writes that the Elders have attained only a portion of the Holy Priesthood. (MS 15:440.) 17 1855 July - Brigham Young teaches "The kingdom is organized..." (ref. ?) 10 1856 Dec. - Wilford Woodruff uses the term "High Priest Apostle." (JD 4:147.) 15 1857 Oct. - Brigham Young states he is an Apostle of Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ. (JD 5:296.) 8 1861 May - Brigham Young purportedly teaches of a Priesthood of the Second Comforter. (in part JD 9:87.)20 19 19 1862 Apr. Oct. - Brigham Young says every branch will have a Patriarch, President, Bishop, High Council, etc. (JD 10:96-97.) - Brigham Young teaches "abuse of that principle [Plural Marriage] will send thousands to hell..." (JD 9:269-270.) - Brigham Young wishes to see a fully organized Branch of the Kingdom. (JD 10:20.) 26 1867 June - Brigham Young teaches the Christian world left the Priesthood. (JD 12:69.) 15 1873 Apr. - Brigham Young calls Albert C. Carrington, John W. Young, Brigham Young, Jr., Lorenzo Snow, and George Q. Cannon as additional counselors. (MS 35:292.) 16 1874 Aug. - Brigham Young says "There are further organizations..." (JD 17:156.) 14 19 1877 June - Brigham Young says there will be no seats in the temple for the Quorum of the Twelve. (DNW, June 6, 1877.) - Brigham Young states that the Priesthood of Peter, James and John was the highest ever bestowed. (DNW, June 6, 1877.) 16 1879 Mar. - John Taylor discusses differences between church and kingdom. (JD 20:166.) 12 1880 Jan. - Revelation to Wilford Woodruff - 12 hold in common the Keys of the Kingdom. Members included John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, Lorenzo Snow, Charles C. Rich, Erastus Snow, Franklin D. Richards, George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith, Brigham Young, Jr., Albert Carrington, and Moses Thatcher. (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Jan. 26, 1880.) 10 1882 Oct. - Revelation to John Taylor refers to Heber J. Grant and George Teasdale being ordained to "the Apostleship of the Twelve." (My Kingdom Shall Roll Forth, pp. 50-51.) 25 1886 Sep. - John Taylor purportedly has vision of Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ, allegedly sets apart Lorin C. Woolley, John W. Woolley, Charles Wilkins, George Q. Cannon and Samuel Bateman as "High Priest Apostles." (Supplement 56-61.) 21,25 1890 Oct. - Wilford Woodruff issues Manifesto as President of Church, but supposedly not as President of the High Priesthood. (T 5:212.) 23 1892 - John Taylor teaches prophets held the High Priesthood. (M&A p. 68.) 16 1893 - B. H. Roberts writes, "The authority of the Church comes from the Priesthood. (Outlines of Eccle His., pp. 373-374.) 20 18 1901 Nov. prior - Joseph F. Smith says, "We have not always carried out strictly the order of the priesthood. (MS 63:801-802.) - George Q. Cannon writes that the Church and Kingdom of God are not the same. (Juvenile Instructor.) 23 1918 Nov. - No revelation calling Heber J. Grant as President of the Church. (Musser's observation.) 24 1921 Apr. - Heber J. Grant states, "No man upon the face of the earth has any... authority to perform a plural marriage." (CR 1921 p. 202.) 29 1936 Mar. - J. Reuben Clark writes, "The Priesthood is essential to the Church, but the Church is not essential to the Priesthood." (IE March, 1936, p. 134.) 27 given also - Samuel the Lamanite "called the Church to repentance. God ignored the church leadership at that time..." (Musser's assertion.) Key to Sources: CR - Conference Report, DNW - Deseret New Weekly, MA - Messenger and Advocate, MS - Millennial Star, T&S - Times and Seasons, T - Truth. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, Thomas G., "The Odyssey of a Latter-day Prophet: Wilford Woodruff and the Manifesto of 1890," Journal of Mormon History, 17 (1991) 169-206. Allred, B. Harvey, A Leaf in Review, Draper, Utah: Review and Preview Publishers, 1980. Allred, Rulon C., Treasures of Knowledge, 2 vols. Hamilton, Montana: Bitterroot Publishing Co., 1981-1982. Allred, Vance, "Mormon Polygamy and the Manifesto of 1890: A study of Hegemony and Social Conflict," Senior Thesis: Department of History, University of Montana, June 1984. Anderson, J. Max, Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact, Salt Lake City, Utah: Publishers Press, 1979. Baird, Mark and Rhea, Reminiscences of John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley, 5 vols. N.p. N.d. to 1987. Ballard, Melvin J., with Eslie D. Jenson, Marriage - Ballard/Jenson Correspondence, Salt Lake City, Utah, N.p., 1935. Barney, Ron, "Priesthood Restoration Narratives In the Early Church," to be published in 1992 in Brigham Young University Studies. Barrett, Ivan, J., Joseph Smith and the Restoration, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1973. Bateman, Samuel, Journal Bennion, Heber, Gospel Problems, Dugway, Utah: Pioneer Press, N.d., (originally published in 1920). Benson, Ezra Taft, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1988. Bible Dictionary, accompanying the Topical Guide published with The Holy Bible by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979. Bishop, Lynn L. and Stephen L, Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated, Draper Utah, 1971. Bitton, Davis, Guide To Mormon Diaries and Autobiographies, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, Provo, Utah, 1977. Brewster, Jr., Hoyt W. Prophets, Priesthood Keys and Succession, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1991. Broadbent, Joseph Leslie, Celestial Marriage? / In the Case of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Vs. Joseph Leslie Broadbent, Salt Lake City, Utah: N.p., N.d. (1932). Cannon, Donald Q., and Lyndon W. Cook eds., Far West Record, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1983. Cannon, George Q., Gospel Truth, Discourses and Writing of George Q. Cannon, Jerreld L. Newquist, compiler, two volumes in one, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1987. Church History in the Fulness of Times, Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1989. Clark, James R., Messages of the First Presidency, 6 vols. Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1965-1975. Clark, John T., The One Mighty and Strong, N.p., 1922 Cook, Lyndon W., The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1985. The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981 edition. Salt lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981. Durham, Jr., Reed C. and Steven H. Heath, Succession In The Church, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1970 Ehat, Andrew F. and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1980. Flake, Lawrence R., Mighty Men of Zion, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Press 1974. The Four Hidden Revelations, N.p., N.d. Fulton Jr., Gilbert A., Gems, 3 vols., Salt Lake City, Utah: Gems Publishing Company, 1967. - Most Holy Principle, 4 vols., Salt Lake City, Utah: Gems Publishing Company, 1970-1975. Godfrey, Kenneth W., "The Coming of the Manifesto," Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 5 (Autumn 1973) 3:11-25. Grant, Heber J., Gospel Standards, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News Press, 1941. Gunn, Stanley R., Oliver Cowdery, Second Elder and Scribe, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1962. Heinerman, Joseph, Temple Manifestations, Salt Lake City, Utah: Magazine Printing and Publishing, 1974. History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1978. Jenson, Andrew, comp. The Historical Record: A Monthly Periodical Devoted Exclusively to Historical, Biographical, Chronological, and Statistical Matters, 9 vols., Salt Lake City, Utah: Andrew Jenson, 1887. - LDS Biographical Encyclopedia, 4 vols. Salt Lake City, Utah: Andrew Jenson Historical Co., 1901-36 Jesse, Dean C., "A Comparative Study and Evaluation of Latter-day Saint and `Fundamentalist' Views Pertaining to the Practice of Plural Marriage." M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1959. Johnson, Leroy, S., Sermons of Leroy Johnson, Hildale, Utah: Twin City Courier Press, 1984, vol. 1. Journal of Discourses, 26 volumes, Liverpool, England: F.D. Richards et. al., 1854-1886. Kraut, Ogden, The 1890 Manifesto, 100th Anniversary, pamphlet, 1990. LeBaron, Ervil M., The Priesthood of God And The Church Of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times, Buenaventura, Mexico, N.d. - Priesthood Expounded, Mexican Mission of the Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times, August, 1956. Ludlow, Daniel H. ed. Encyclopedia of Mormonism, New York, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992. Lyman, E. Leo, Political Deliverance: The Mormon Quest for Utah Statehood, Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1986. Madsen, Truman G., Joseph Smith the Prophet, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1989. McConkie, Bruce R., Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1966. Millennial Star, (also referred to as Latter-day Saint Millennial Star), [Liverpool, England]. Musser, Guy, Star of Truth, vols. 1-4, Salt Lake City, Utah, N.p., 1953-1957. Musser, Joseph White Musser, Private Journal (photocopy in possession of the authors). - Truth, Truth Publishing, 1935-1956. - (with J.L. Broadbent) Supplement to a New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, N.p. 1934. - New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, N.p., 1933. - (and J.L. Broadbent) Priesthood Items, N.p., 1933. - A Priesthood Issue, N.p., N.d. - Items from a Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, N.p., N.d. - Journal of Joseph White Musser, 1872-1954, N.p., N.d., (available from Pioneer Press). - Celestial or Plural Marriage, Salt Lake City, Utah: Truth Publishing Company, 1944. My Kingdom Shall Roll Forth, Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979. Openshaw, Robert R., The Notes, Pinesdale, Montanan: Bitterroot Publishing Company, 1980. Packer, Boyd K., The Holy Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1980. Parkin, Max H., "A Preliminary Analysis of the Dating of Section 10," Seventh Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1979, pp. 68-84. The Pearl of Great Price of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1981. Peterson, Daniel C., Authority in the Book of Mosiah, Provo Utah: F.A.R.M.S., 1991. Pierce, Norman C., 3 1/2 Years, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1963. Porter, Larry C., "Dating the Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood," Ensign, June, 1979, pp. 5-10. Richards, Henry W., A REPLY TO "The Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times," Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News Press, 1965. Shields, Steven, Ed. Restoration. Short, Dennis R., Questions On Plural Marriage, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1974. Singer, Merrill, "Nathaniel Baldwin, Utah Inventor and Patron of the Fundamentalist Movement," Utah Historical Quarterly, 47 (Winter 1979) 1:42-53. Smith, Joseph, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, compiler, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1976. Smith, Joseph F. Gospel Doctrine, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1977. Smith, Joseph Fielding, Essentials in Church History, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News Press, 1922. Smith, William, Smith's Bible Dictionary, Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1975. Stone, Jessee Burke, An Event of the Underground Days, Salt Lake City, Utah: Shepherd Book Company, N.d. (Reprinted in vol. 3 of Reminiscences of John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley.) Stuy, Brian, Collected Discourses, 5 vols., Sandy Utah: B.H.S. Publishing, 1987-1992. Talmage, James, E., The House of the Lord, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1976. Taylor, John, Times and Seasons, 6 vols. - Mediation and Atonement, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News Company, 1982. - Government of God, Liverpool, England: W. Richards, 1852. Taylor, Samuel, Family Kingdom, Salt Lake City, Utah: Western Epics, Inc., 1974. Whitmer, John, John Whitmer History, Archives, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Widstoe, John A., Priesthood and Church Government, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1963. Wilford Woodruff, journal Woolley, John W., 1914 Affidavit, Anthony W. Ivins papers, Utah State Historical Society. Young, Brigham, Discourses of Brigham Young, John A. Widstoe, compiler, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1954. Zitting, Laura Tree, The Life of Charles Frederick Zitting, N.p., 1988, (available from Pioneer Press). 1 Joseph White Musser, a prominent Fundamentalist prophet stated: "The question before the Saints today is purely and simply a Priesthood Issue." Joseph W. Musser, A Priesthood Issue, N.p, N.d., p. 3. 2 See article on (Fundamentalists( written by one of the authors in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., 4 Vols., New York, New York: Macmillan Pulbishing Company, 1992, pp. 531-532. 3 Ogden Kraut, an "Independent" Fundamentalist, has written more than 45 books and pamphlets on polygamist themes. He publishes at Pioneer Press, 7285 Highland Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84121. Interestingly enough, none of his publications have addressed the topic of fundamentalist priesthood authority. 4 Church History in the Fulness of Times, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1989, pp. 254-255. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1978, 5:xxix-xxx. (Hereafter abbreviated HC.) 5 The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981 edition. Salt lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981. (Hereafter abbreviated D&C.) 6 D&C 132 preface. HC 5:501. 7 My Kingdom Shall Roll Forth, Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979, p. 53. 8 Church History in the Fulness of Times, p. 256. 9 Ibid., p. 424-425. 10 D&C Official Declaration 1 11 Danel Bachman and Ronald K. Esplin in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 volumes, Daniel H. Ludlow ed., New York, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992, p. 1095. 12 Acts 3:21. 13 D&C 13. 14 D&C 27:12-13. An excellent analysis of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood is available by Larry C. Porter, "Dating the Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood," Ensign, June, 1979, pp. 5-10. 15 See D&C 18:9, 20:2-3, 27:12; The Journal of Discourses 26 vols. Liverpool, England: F.D. Richards et. al., 1854-1886 (hereafter abbreviated as JD), 6:29, 320. Recent research suggests that the full significance of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been completely appreciated until years after it occurred. See Ron Barney, "Priesthood Restoration Narratives In the Early Church," to be published in an upcoming issue of Brigham Young University Studies. 16 D&C 110. 17 Ibid., verses 11-16. 18 D&C 128:20-21. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, compiler, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1976, p. 180. 22 JD 21:94. 23 D&C 128:21. 24 Truman G. Madsen, Joseph Smith the Prophet, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1989, pp. 39, 147 (endnote 22). 25 Wilford Woodruff confirmed that the senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve was to become the Church President in a letter to Heber J. Grant. Excerpts from that letter are found in President Woodruff's journal for March 28, 1887: At the death of the President of the Church, the Twelve Apostles became the presiding authority of the Church, and the President of the Twelve was virtually the President of the Church by virtue of his office as much while presiding over the Twelve Apostles as while presiding over two as his councilors. (Wilford Woodruff Journals, LDS Historical Department.) See also Hoyt W. Brewster, Jr., Prophets, Priesthood Keys, and Succession, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1991, pp. 106-117. 26 D&C 132: 7, 18, 19. 27 This concept is derived from the Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:2-4. 28 Ervil M. LeBaron, The Priesthood of God And The Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times, Buenaventura, Mexico: Church of the Firstborn, n.d., p. 28. Quoted in Dean C. Jesse, "A Comparative Study and Evaluation of Latter-day Saint and `Fundamentalist' Views Pertaining to the Practice of Plural Marriage." M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1959, p. 37. 29 Ervil M. LeBaron, Priesthood Expounded (Mexican Mission of the Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times, August, 1956), pp. 23, 36. See also, The Priesthood of God and The Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times, pp. 10, 16, 17. Quoted in Jessee, 1959, pp. 23-24. 30 Some of these priesthood claims are examined by Henry W. Richards in A REPLY TO "The Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News Press, 1965. 1 This will be discussed in greater detail in chapter six. 2 Quoted by Brian Stuy, in Collected Discourses Sandy Utah: B.H.S. Publishing, 1987-1992, 2:132. 3 The Senior Apostle has always risen to that position through his seniority as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. For example, Brigham Young Jr. was ordained to the apostleship in 1864, but did not become a member of the Quorum of the Twelve until 1868. Joseph F. Smith was ordained an apostle in 1866 and became a member of the Quorum of the Twelve in 1867 and became the Senior Apostle after the death of Lorenzo Snow in 1901. The precedence of the Senior Apostles has always been derived from the date they entered the quorum, not the date of their ordinations to the apostleship. For more discussion, see Prophets, Priesthood Keys, and Succession, pp. 87-89 and Reed C. Durham, Jr. and Steven H. Heath, Succession In The Church, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1970, pp. 69-72. 4 John A. Widstoe, Priesthood and Church Government, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1963, p. 108. 5 D&C 20:1. 6 D&C 115:3-4. 1 J. Max Anderson, Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact, Salt Lake City, Utah: Publishers Press, 1979, pp. 145-146. 2 Joseph Leslie Broadbent, Celestial Marriage? / In the Case of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Vs. Joseph Leslie Broadbent, Salt Lake City, Utah: n.p., n.d. (1927), second section, p. 7. 3 Some Fundamentalist writers suggest the keys went from J. Leslie Broadbent directly to Joseph W. Musser (Robert R. Openshaw, The Notes, Pinesdale, Montana: Bitterroot Publishing Company, 1980, pp. 394-395). However, Musser's comments in his journal suggest that if this actually occurred, Musser was unaware of it. (Photocopy of originals of Joseph W. Musser's journals obtained by J. Max Anderson by permission of Musser's daughter who had them in her possession.) See the entry June 13, 1935 where Musser clearly acknowledged John Y. Barlow as the head after the death of J. Leslie Broadbent. More on this later. 4 Lorin Woolley died September 18, 1934 and Broadbent succumbed to pneumonia suddenly March 16, 1935. 5 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, June 13, 1935. 6 Ibid., see entries for July 30, 1935, July 27, 1936 and Feb 2, March 1, and August 16 of 1937. 7 Ibid., August 7, 1936. 8 Ibid., Feb. 23, March 7, 8, 12, 22, 23, 1921. 9 Ibid., April 9, 1922. 10 Joseph W. Musser, ed. Truth, 21 Vols. Salt Lake City, Utah: Truth Publishing Company, 1935-1956, 20:28. See also a publication entitled The Journal of Joseph W. Musser, n.p., n.d. (which is an autobiography and not his journal) p. 11. 11 Joseph W. Musser and J. Leslie Broadbent (collaborator), Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, n.p., July, 1934 (hereafter abbreviated Supplement) pp. 56-62. Journal of Joseph W. Musser, September 22, 1929. It was specifically published in several books and separately in 1934 (see entry for July 26, 1934). 12 See Journal of Joseph W. Musser, August 21, 27, Sept. 1 1922; April 28, 1925; August 5, 1925; Sept. 11, 1933; March 12, 1934; June 19, 1935. 13 Ibid., March 7, April 1, 1934 and March 8, 1935 are examples. 14 Supplement pp. 99-100. 15 Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1966, p. 594. 16 Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1977, p. 136. 17 A few examples of such usage may be found in D&C 119:2,4, 124:123, HC 4:185, 5:27, 7:226, 235, 239, 251, 301, 317, 327, 351, 388, 535, 542. 18 Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, John A. Widtsoe, (compiler), Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1954, p. 130 and JD 11:132. 19 The periodical Truth, and books, Priesthood Items, Salt Lake City, Utah: Truth Publishing Company, 1934; New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, Salt Lake City, Utah: Truth Publishing Co., 1934; A Priesthood Issue, and Supplement (Supplement to a New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage). 20 The "Kingdom" referred to is primarily composed of the Council of Fifty which was a political organization organized by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois in 1843. See Encyclopedia of Mormonism, pp. 326-327. 21 A Priesthood Issue, pp. 15-16. See also Truth 17:164. Priesthood Items, p. 13. Supplement, p. 91. 22 A Priesthood Issue, p. 25. 23 Members of the fundamentalist PRIESTHOOD organization who are not members of the leadership elite somehow become integrated as part of a subordinate congregation. Their exact individual status has never been defined in fundamentalist literature, but they acknowledge they are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Fundamentalists believe people were baptized members of this purported PRIESTHOOD organization as early as 1829: Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were endowed with the Priesthood -- the Aaronic and then the Melchizedek. This was all done before the Church was organized. The Priesthood first functioned in Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and, later in others. The "Gospel of the Kingdom" was preached, converts were baptized and the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" bestowed, still no church organization, according to the laws of the land, was in existence. (A Priesthood Issue, p. 5.) [Underlining added.] Some fundamentalist authors erroneously teach that baptisms prior to the formal organization of the Church in April of 1830 must have been baptism in to the organization of the PRIESTHOOD, since they also declare that there was no Church of any kind in existence at that time. However, multiple problems with this interpretation exist for while there was no church according to the laws of the State of New York, there most certainly was a church in the eyes of the Lord (see D&C 10:67-69). 24 Lynn L. and Stephen L. Bishop, Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated, Draper, Utah, 1971, pp. 84-88. Supplement, p. 103, 109. 25 Mark and Rhea Baird, Reminiscences of John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley, 5 Vols. N.p., N.d. to 1987, Volume one: Life Sketches, p. 2. 26 A Priesthood Issue, p. 10. 27 Supplement, p. 105. 28 A few of the other proposed titles include: "Presidency of the Priesthood" (A Priesthood Issue, p. 18), "Presidency of the Council of High Priesthood" and "Presidency of the High Priesthood" (Supplement, p. 106), and "Council of the Church before the Presidency of the High Priesthood" (Ibid. p. 107). 29 The only time this council (if it existed before 1930) may have contained one member was after the death of John W. Woolley on December 13, 1928 which left only Lorin C. Woolley as a council member. Musser wrote that "upon him as a thin thread the Priesthood rested, with the Keys from late in 1928 to Feb or March 1929..." (Journal of Joseph W. Musser, September 30, 1934.) Lorin C. Woolley supposedly ordained Joseph Leslie Broadbent and John Y. Barlow in March and Joseph W. Musser in May of 1929. 30 The council apparently contained at least 14 members in June of 1844 as all of the Twelve Apostles were supposedly members as well as Joseph and Hyrum Smith (A Priesthood Issue, p. 11). 31 Supplement, pp. 114-116. 32 Few modern polygamists address the issue of why no monogamist or polygamist taught of their priesthood doctrines prior to the 1930's. 33 New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, pp. 76-79. Laura Tree Zitting, The Life of Charles Frederick Zitting, N.p., 1988, (available from Pioneer Press), p. 62. 34 Supplement, pp. 96-98. 35 A Priesthood Issue, p. 8. Musser and other Fundamentalist authors repeatedly quote the following to show that the President of the Church need not be the Prophet: Perhaps it may make some of you stumble, were I to ask you a question -- Does a man's being a Prophet in this Church prove that he shall be the President of it? I answer, no! A man may be a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being the President of the Church. Suffice it to say, that Joseph was the President of the Church, as long as he lived; the people chose to have it so... (Brigham Young in JD 1:133 quoted in A Priesthood Issue pp. 20-21.) It is true that the members of the Church can choose someone other than the Prophet and President of the Priesthood to be the President of the Church. God will force no one to sustain and follow His prophets. However, as soon as a people choose to be lead by someone other than the prophet, they will lose their standing before the Lord and cease to be God's people. The new individuals following the Prophet would be God's Church and He would guide them through that prophet. Parley P. Pratt taught concerning the selection of Brigham Young as President of the Church: Had we undertaken Presidentmaking in this Church simply by our uninspired notions, Brigham Young held more keys than all our votes put together; and had we voted against him, we would have voted ourselves out of the kingdom of God. He and those that stood by him would have held the keys of the Priesthood, as they have and do, and would have built up the kingdom, while those who opposed them would have been like salt that had lost its savor. It was not in our power to manufacture this Presidency, but only to uphold and cleave to it; and blessed are we, inasmuch as we have done this thing. (JD 5:200.) The idea that God's prophet could possibly exist outside God's Church in a so-called PRIESTHOOD organization is innovative but untrue. It is significant that no monogamist or polygamist taught such a thing prior to 1930's. 36 A Priesthood Issue, p. 12. Supplement, pp. 93-96. 37 See p. 769 of the Bible Dictionary which accompanies Holy Bible, Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979. 38 Supplement, p. 93. 39 Bible Dictionary, p. 769. See also William Smith, Smith's Bible Dictionary, Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1975, pp. 604-605. 40 Supplement, p. 111. Lorin C. Woolley taught of "The Grand Council of the Kingdom" which was supposedly fully organized at Adam-ondi-Ahman during the 1830's. Woolley also taught that this council contained fifty men (not seventy) and included non-members. No historical evidence has been found to associate Musser's teaching of the "Sanhedrin" to Lorin C. Woolley. 41 The Church of the United Apostolic Brethren, established by the Allred Group in South Salt Lake City, Utah does not consider itself a "church" to replace The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints even though it carries the title. It regards itself as the PRIESTHOOD organization described by Musser and believes that its leadership would be directing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if the Church were not "out of order." See chapter ten. 1 Church History in the Fulness of Times, p. 470. 2 Ibid. 3 Letter from Joseph Fielding Smith to Dean Jessee, July 13, 1956. Photocopy in the possession of one of the authors. 4 This affidavit is found in the Anthony W. Ivins papers, Utah State Historical Society. 5 D&C 107:39; See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 38-39, 151. HC 3:381. Joseph Fielding Smith, Essentials in Church History, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret New Press, 1922, pp. 168-169. John Taylor, Times and Seasons, 6:928. Additionally it should be noted that these verses alone could not possibly authorize a patriarch to act independently and seal an eternal marriage. Utilization of the keys of sealing are always subject to the "one" anointed and appointed mentioned in D&C 132:7, 18, 19. Once Hyrum Smith, the Patriarch to the Church, performed a sealing ordinance without the Prophet's direction or sanction and was reprimanded by him for doing so. Brigham Young wrote of this to William Smith, Hyrum's successor as Patriarch: Hyrum held the Patriarchal office legitimately, so do you. Hyrum was counsellor, so are you. But the sealing power was not in Hyrum legitimately, neither did he act on the sealing principle only as he was dictated by Joseph in every case. This was proven for Hyrum did in one case undertake to seal without counsel and Joseph told him if he did not stop it he would go to Hell and all those he sealed with him. (Brigham Young to William Smith, August 9, 1845, quoted in Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact, pp. 101, 126-127.) 6 Journal of Reed Smoot, Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, October 1, 3, 1910. 7 Samuel Bateman's diary (photocopy of typescript in possession of the authors) for the period of 1886-1890 places Lorin Woolley in the position of mail carrier, but never as a body guard to the brethren. Between August of 1886 and February 5, 1887 (last entry in his journal until January 1, 1899), Bateman refers to Lorin C. Woolley 12 times in the following activities: 1886 Oct. 21 "went with the mail" Nov. 1 "to supper" 19 "went with the mail" Dec. 10 "came with the mail" 25 "changed mail 31 "went in my place" 1887 Jan. 7 "sent with the mail" 11 playing checkers, "came" 29 "came" Feb. 3 "came" 5 "brought the mail" transported George Q. Cannon The only other reference to Lorin C. Woolley during the period between February 5, 1887 and March 16, 1888 mentions that Woolley was on a mission to the "Indian Territory." Woolley produced many exciting accounts of his activities with the brethren throughout the "underground days." However, there is little evidence that he served as anything more than a simple mail carrier, seldom interacting with the authorities otherwise. 8 Lorin C. Woolley, "Statement of Facts", 1912. Quoted In The Polygamy Story, Fiction and Fact, pp. 2-3. 9 Gilbert A. Fulton, Jr., editor, Gems, Salt Lake City, Utah: Gems Publishing Company, 1967, Vol.1, pp. 4-5. 10 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, April 9, 1922. 11 Supplement, pp. 56-61. 12 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, March 19, 1922. 13 Lorin C. Woolley expanded his recollections through a process of remembering things he had forgotten. One example occurred August 6, 1922, when Woolley stated: "One thing which I had forgotten which [John Taylor] told us, that now comes to my memory, was that in the day of the seventh President of the Church [Heber J. Grant], the Church would come 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." (Items from a Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 5.) This process results more in the fabrication of history than in acquiring knowledge of "things as they really were" (D&C 93:24). The prophecy Woolley "remembered" above was not fulfilled "in the day of the seventh President of the Church" or anytime since. 14 Musser himself heard the story from the lips of Lorin C. Woolley as early as April 9, 1922 (see Musser's journal for that date), but Musser continued to align himself with a man named John T. Clark who claimed to be the "One Mighty and Strong" from D&C 85:7 and also the "most literal descendent of Jesus Christ on the earth (Ibid. May 16, 1922). Woolley did not share Musser's belief in John T. Clark, but that did not deter Musser from spending many hours with Clark helping him publish his claims (see entries for May 20, 22, 24, June 8, 10, July 21, 29, 31, and August 4, 1922), even allowing Clark to bless him (December 18, 1922). It does not appear that Musser, in 1922, identified Lorin C. Woolley as the conduit through which the sealing keys would be made available to modern polygamists. See chapter ten. 15 See Journal of Joseph W. Musser, July 26, 1934 and also chapter 12. 16 Personal correspondence between one of the authors and Samuel W. Taylor. 17 Ensign, May, 1978, pp. 45-48. 18 The conversation occurred between the prophet and Henry W. Richards. 19 Deseret News Weekly Oct. 6, 1896, (53:610). Quoted in George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, Jerreld L. Newquist ed., Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1987 (two volumes in one), p. 106. 20 John Taylor's personal journal undoubtedly contains many private entries that required confidentiality for years after his death. It is probable that the policy of isolating his journal was made by either President Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, or Joseph F. Smith during their tenures as Church President and no subsequent LDS President has felt inclined to change that policy. 21 Quoted in The Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact, p. 46. 22 Ibid., pp. 46-47. 23 Copy of original diary entry reproduced in The Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact, p. 34, (46). 24 Prominent fundamentalist author, Ogden Kraut, has refrained from specifying the exact dates of the proposed meetings and ordinations. He reports that it was sometime in September of 1886. He is undoubtedly familiar with the date problems associated with Lorin C. Woolley's 1929 account of the proposed September 26-27, 1886, activities. 25 Description used by Anthony W. Ivins in a Letter, February 10, 1934, Church Archives, Salt Lake City. Supplement p. 15. Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact p. 68, footnote 9. 26 Some historians believe the document genuine, but its authenticity has not been established. See Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact pp. 64-70. 27 Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, March 29, 1892, quoted in Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact pp. 65-66. 28 Official Statement, Deseret News, Church Section, June 18, 1933. 29 Here is the text circulated by Fundamentalists: 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 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 commandment, 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. (Quoted from Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact pp. 63-64.) Fundamentalists believe that the "law" referred too in the last sentence is the same "law" discussed in D&C section 132. However, D&C 132:7 defines "the conditions of this law" and plural marriage is not listed as one of those conditions. 30 D&C 132:34 and Jacob 2:27 31 Matthias F. Cowley File, May 10, 1911, Church Archives, Salt lake City. Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact p. 66. 32 John W. Taylor File, February 22 and March 1, 1911, Church Archives. See also Samuel W. Taylor, Family Kingdom, Salt Lake City, Utah: Western Epics, Inc., 1974, pp. 274-279. 33 See a letter from Anthony W. Ivins dated February 10, 1934 quoted in Supplement, pp. 13-22. 34 John W. Taylor File, February 22 and March 1, 1911. Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact pp. 66-67. 35 Supplement, pp. 59-61. 36 Supplement pp. 56-61, see also the appendix to this chapter. 37 D&C 20, 84, 107, 110, 124, 132. 38 A Priesthood Issue, p. 25. 39 This is interesting because Lorin C. Woolley claimed in 1922 that he was ordained an Elder at age 13 and sometime later an apostle by John Taylor and Geo. Q. Cannon. (Journal of Joseph W. Musser, entry for April 9, 1922). By 1929, the story had changed and he asserted that he was given the apostleship at the age of 13 by Brigham Young, not John Taylor and George Q. Cannon (see Items from a Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, N.p. N.d. p. 10 and Truth 4:130). Church records show that he was ordained an elder on March 10, 1873, at the age of sixteen by John Lyon (Church Membership Records, South Davis Stake - quoted in The Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact, p. 145). Charles Zitting, a so-called High Priest Apostle ordained by J. Leslie Broadbent in 1932, believed that Lorin C. Woolley's original ordination came from John Lyon, not Brigham Young. (Life of Charles Frederick Zitting, p. 61.) 40 Rulon Allred taught they were ordained as "Apostles." Gems 1:9-10, 21-22. 41 The "Kingdom" referred to is generally thought to be referring to the Council of Fifty. See chapter three, footnote 21. 42 Rulon C. Allred taught that the five men involved were only given enough authority to continue plural marriage and not preside over the Church or Kingdom etc. (See Gems 1: 4-5, 21-22.) This clearly contradicts Joseph W. Musser's teachings on the subject. 43 D&C 110:11. 44 John Taylor taught: You who are familiar with the history of the Church know that there was a Temple built in Kirtland, Ohio, and that while the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were seated in their proper places in that Temple, there were several important personages appeared to them, and gave unto them several keys, powers and privileges, and that among these heavenly beings was Moses, who represented what is termed the Gathering dispensation. His mission to earth was to restore the keys of the Gathering dispensation, which should gather Israel from the four quarters of the earth, and also restore the ten tribes... Moses conferred these keys of authority upon the prophet Joseph Smith, and he afterwards conferred them upon the Twelve Apostles and others, who when they were ordained received them as part of their ministry and priesthood, to prepare them for the work that was to be done. And when these elders went forth in the performance of their duties, calling upon the people among whom they traveled to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins... (JD 19:238239.) 45 D&C 110:13-16. 46 Joseph Smith taught in March of 1844: I wish you to understand this subject, for it is important; and if you will receive it, this is the spirit of Elijah, that we redeem our dead, and connect ourselves with our fathers which are in heaven, and seal up our dead to come forth in the first resurrection; and here we want the power of Elijah to seal those who dwell on earth to those who dwell in heaven. This is the power of Elijah and the keys of the kingdom of Jehovah. (HC 6:252.) 47 Also Stephen L. and Lynn L. Bishop wrote Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated, which approaches Lorin C. Woolley's teachings from the view of a "Woolley" Independent Fundamentalist. 48 Bateman's journals cover two distinct periods. The first starts in August 26, 1886 and ends March 16, 1888. The second begins after a 12 year interruption on January 1, 1899 and ends in mid-1909. Holograph is 3 volumes and is located at the Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Typescript includes 422 pages and is also located at the Harold B. Lee Library at BYU with a copy at the Historical Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 50 East North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah. See Davis Bitton, Guide To Mormon Diaries and Autobiographies, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, Provo, Utah, 1977, page 21 (entry 147). 49 Woolley's 1929 account. See the appendix to this chapter. 50 Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated, 172-173. 51 Journal of Samuel Bateman, entry for May 5, 1901. 52 Ibid., August 17, 1904. 53 Samuel Bateman recorded meetings with his son on the following dates during the first year after the proposed September 27, 1886 ordinations: (for the remainder of 1886) September 30; October 8,11,12,16,17,25; November 3,11,13,22,24,27,29; December 5,6,8,13,15,16,17,22,23,25. For 1887: January 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,12,14,18,20,29,30; February 4,7,10,18,19,20,26; March 2,5,7,8,9,10,12,13,21,24,27,28,29; April 2,5,7,8,9,11,13,19,23,25,30; May 1,3,4,7,9,14,16,20,21,31; June 2,11,12,14,16,17,28; July 4,5,10,25,26,27,28; August 2,3,4,5,7,8,15,16,18,20; September 6,8,14,16,18,19,20,23,26. Letters were sent to or received from Daniel Bateman on the following dates (1886) September 28; October 1,10,22,23,25; November 10. For 1887: January 22,25; February 1,7,18,23; April 16; May 2,4,25; June 7,8,30; July 2,13,15,22,28,31; August 1. 54 Also spelled "Wilcken." 55 Reminiscences of John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley, Vol. 1 (interview with Olive Woolley Coombs held June 13, 1971), page 5. 56 Joseph F. Smith and John W. Woolley were friends. Joseph F. Smith's son, Joseph Fielding Smith, was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve when Woolley was excommunicated. Concerning the episode he wrote: I was well acquainted with John W. Woolley. He was a good man, but permitted himself to be drawn into the performing of a so-called "plural marriage." When this rumor first appeared, John W. Woolley was called into a session with the Council of the Twelve. President Francis M. Lyman reported to President Joseph F. Smith the fact that Brother Woolley had been before the Twelve and that he had disclaimed any association with those who were engaged in this traffic. My father replied to President Lyman that he was very grateful to know that Brother Woolley was clear, for my father had the utmost confidence in John W. Woolley. Some time later John W. Woolley was in the presence of President Joseph F. Smith, and President Smith said to him, "John, I am happy to know that you have not been involved in any of those so-called plural marriages." John W. Woolley hesitated a moment and then replied: "President Smith, I cannot lie to you. I am guilty." Then he confessed his wrongdoing. Of course action had to be taken. (Letter from Joseph Fielding Smith to Dean Jessee, July 13, 1956.) 57 Affidavit in Anthony W. Ivins papers, Utah State Historical Society. 58 D&C 6:28, 2 Cor. 13:1. 59 Supplement pp. 61-62. Truth 2:120 and Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated, p. 123. See the appendix to this chapter. 60 The testimonies of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery concerning the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood (D&C 13), the Melchizedek Priesthood (D&C 27:12-13), and the Keys of Moses, Elias and Elijah (D&C 110:11-16). See also the three and eight witnesses of the Book of Mormon (preface of any edition except the first where they were placed at the end). 61 Journal of Joseph Musser, April 9, 1922. See also The Polygamy Story, Fiction and Fact, p. 146. 62 Lorin C. Woolley did not enter into a polygamous marriage until 1932, two years before his death. 63 Reminiscences of John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley, Volume 3 (interview with Charles W. Kingston held October 1971), page 9; Volume 5, p. 32. Items from a Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 15. 64 Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, pp. 14, 15, 16, 22, 23 and Life of Charles Frederick Zitting, pp. 57-58. See chapter three, footnote 41. The details of Woolley's "Grand Council of the Kingdom" have never been fully elucidated. 65 Reminiscences of John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley, volume 4 (interview with Harold Allred in 1972), page 21, volume 5, pages 12, 38; 66 Journal of Joseph W. Muser, April 9, 1922. 67 Reminiscences of John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley, volume 2 (interview with Price W. Johnson, June, 1971), page 22, volume 4 (interview with William Thomas, 1972), number VI p.16. 1 D&C 132:7, 18, 19. 2 Jesse Burke Stone, An Event Of The Underground Days, p.8 suggests that the "Keys of the Kingdom" were given to John W. Woolley in 1886, but that those keys only allowed him to "preside over the grand council of the kingdom" which apparently was not a priesthood council. 3 Truth 6:21-22, 8:262, 9:142, 144, 251, 10:329, 16:79; Sermons of Leroy S. Johnson, Hildale, Utah: Twin City Courier Press, 1984, volume 1, p. 211. 4 Collected Discourses, 2:128 (Lorenzo Snow), 132-133 (George Q. Cannon). 5 Archibald F. Bennett, Saviors on Mount Zion, pp. 142-143. Quoted in Joseph Heinerman, Temple Manifestations, Salt Lake City, Utah: Magazine Printing and Publishing, 1974, pp. 118-119. 6 D&C 107:65. 7 An Event On The Underground, p. 8. See also Truth 9:74-75 and Items from a Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 12. 8 LeRoi C. Snow, "Remarkable Manifestation to Lorenzo Snow," The Deseret News, Church Section, Saturday, April 2, 1938, pp. 3, 6. Quoted in Temple Manifestations, pp. 135-136. 9 A Priesthood Issue, p. 25. There is a problem with the Fundamentalist story that President Taylor instructed Joseph F. Smith in the membership of the COUNCIL OF FRIENDS prior to his death. Samuel Bateman recorded in his journal: The 18 Monday [July, 1887] At Do. I stayed with the President till after 12 o'clock midnight. He seemed to be about the same, only a little weaker. Was bothered in his mind a good deal as he has been for several days. Rained quite a shower. No mail today. This afternoon Joseph F. Smith arrived here from the Sandwich Islands. Bro. Albert Davis went and met him up in Idaho territory. Bro. John Woolley met them at Brigham City and brought them here.... The 20 Wednesday ... The President seems about the same only weaker. The 21 Thursday ... The President still weaker... The 22 Friday ...The President still continues to grow weaker. The 23 Saturday ... At 1 o'clock p.m. the President took a decided change for the worse, his pulse stopped beating. The 24 Sunday ...The President no better, still weaker. The 25 Monday At Do. The President much weaker. I lay down after 4 o'clock. Got up before 10 o'clock a.m. Stayed by the President the rest of the day. At about 6 o'clock p.m., he took a decided change for the worst. At bout a quarter to 8 o'clock p.m., I saw that he was going. I told Bro. Malin to call the folks in, and he breathed his last 5 minutes to 8 o'clock p.m... These entries show that President Taylor was "bothered in his mind" prior to the arrival of Joseph F. Smith and that his health only deteriorated until his death a week later. The Fundamentalist story of President Taylor instructing and ordaining Joseph F. Smith after the latter arrived in Utah from the Sandwich Islands appears to have been impossible and is unsupported by the events as related by President Taylor's body guard, Samuel Bateman. 10 The question of why Lorenzo Snow ascended to the presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints even though he was not a member of the proposed 1886 COUNCIL OF FRIENDS exists. The question of the location of the Keys of Sealing during President Smith's presidency also looms. An analysis of this complicated issue of the proposed seniority of the fundamentalist COUNCIL OF FRIENDS between 1890 and 1918 will not be provided here. 11 Items from a Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 27. 12 See chapter four. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 The Notes p. 394; Guy Musser ed., Star of Truth, 4 vols. Salt Lake City, Utah: N.p., 1953-1956, 4:51, Gems, 1:4-5. 16 D&C 138:11. 17 The Notes p. 394; Guy Musser, Star of Truth, vols. 1-4, Murray, Utah, N.p., 1953-1957. 4:51; Items from a Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, pp. 12, 14, 24, 28. B. Harvey Allred, A Leaf In Review, Draper, Utah: Review and Preview Publishers, 1980, pp. 40-41. 18 Obvious examples include John W. Woolley and Judson Tolman. The Quorum of the Twelve, under Joseph F. Smith's direction, was put in charge of discovering and excommunicating members who continued plural marriage without proper authority. 19 Gems 1:4; Rulon C. Allred, Treasures of Knowledge, Hamilton, Montana: Bitterroot Publishing Co., 2 Vols. 1981-1982, 2:201; Truth 16:78, The Notes p. 395. 20 Journal of Joseph W. Musser September 30, 1934. 21 3 Nephi 28:1-9 22 Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated, pp. 317-318, 329-330. Journal of Joseph W. Musser July 20, 1935. Reminiscences of John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley, Vol. 2, (Price W. Johnson interviewed June, 1971), p. 22. 23 Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated pp. 317-318. The authors unfortunately list their source as their own "Journal Notes" which are entirely unavailable for review concerning their reliability. Nonetheless, many other independent sources verify that Lorin Woolley taught he was transported to the Yucatan, Mexico and there ordained an Indian prophet. See A Leaf in Review, p. 219 and Journal of Joseph W. Musser, July 20, 1935. 24 Norman C. Pierce, 3 1/2 Years, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1963, pp. 77-78. 25 Items from a Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, pp. 15, 21. 26 Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated, p. 325. 27 It is reported that Joseph Musser and others attempted, without success, to visit the Yucatan, Mexico, in 1951 to meet the purported Lamanite Prophet. See Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated, p. 326. 28 Musser taught that such keys were personally given by the Lord through a divine visitation and ordination. See chapter six. 29 The Notes p. 394 lists John Y. Barlow as a "President of the Priesthood" but has his name in parenthesis. The significance of the parenthesis is not specified. See also "The Succession of the Keys of the Priesthood," an article printed in The Branch, a magazine published by Christ's Church, June, 1981. The article was republished in Restoration, Vol. 1, No. 3, (July 1982), pp. 11-14. This article contains useful copyrighted diagrams of the fundamentalist priesthood organization and the line of authority. John Y. Barlow is not listed as a President of the Priesthood between J. Leslie Broadbent and Joseph W. Musser. 30 See also Life of Charles Frederick Zitting, pp. 61-62, 66, 70. 31 One group was headed by Gerald Peterson (see Restoration Vol. 1, No. 3 (July, 1982) pp.11-14). Many of "Woolley" Independents have had association with the more prominent groups, only to later split away claiming their own special priesthood conduit to deity. 32 Gems 1:33-45 recounts the split after Musser's death from the Allred side. The whole issue of "Second Elder" and the legitimacy of Rulon Allred's position deserves special consideration and has been analyzed in an unpublished manuscript by one of the authors. 33 Weeks after the death of Rulon Allred, Owen Allred, his successor, commented to Fred C. Collier that he did not know where the priesthood keys were (personal conversation with Fred Collier). 1 A Priesthood Issue, p. 10. 2 Ibid, pp. 9-10. 3 Musser mistakenly assumed that the entire Section 84 was given to six elders (Supplement, pp. 101-104, Truth 17:170-171) because the first verse starts with six. However, the chapter was given over two days to groups of different sizes. Verses 1-41 were given to six elders on the first day and everything after verse 41 (including verse 63) was given to ten elders on the second day. See Lyndon W. Cook, The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1985, p. 176. The difference in numbers is important because the quorum of High Priest Apostles is supposed to have seven members. If six were present with Joseph, the total receiving verse 63 would have been seven, but actually 11 were present. See chapter seven. 4 Mormon Doctrine, p. 46-47, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, pp. 59-61. 5 Reminiscences of John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley, Volume 1, Life Sketches Section, page 2. The authors Mark J. and Rhea A. Baird refer to John W. Woolley as a member of this council. 6 See D&C 84:63, 77; 88:3, 62, 117; 93:45, 51; 94:1; 97:1; 98:1; 100:1; 103:1; 104:1; 105:26; 109:6. 7 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, August 13, 1930 (see also May 28, 1935). 8 Even Lorin C. Woolley appears to have waited until he heard Musser's theories on D&C 84:63 before he taught about the COUNCIL OF FRIENDS, if Woolley ever mentioned it at all. In 1930, Lorin Woolley discussed "Great High Priests," but they were members of the "Grand Council of the Kingdom" which included "honorable men of the world" as members. (See Journal of Joseph Musser, August 13, 1930.) It is unlikely that Woolley's "Grand Council of the Kingdom" could have had anything to do with Musser's COUNCIL OF FRIENDS since the former contained non-members and the latter was supposedly composed of the highest priesthood authorities on earth. Lorin C. Woolley failed to mention any "higher apostleship" or that of the High Priest Apostles. Apparently, Joseph Musser would develop these ideas later. 9 Supplement pp. 99-100. 10 Ibid. 11 Items from a Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 27. 12 Ibid. 13 D&C 107:23. See also HC 2:357 and 418. 14 For example see HC 7:37-38, and 7:232, and Wilford Woodruff Journal April 26, 1839. Also see Collected Discourses 1:120, 297; 2:165, 378; 3:37. 15 Examples include HC 2:394, 499; 7:37, 232, 517; and Times and Seasons 5:637. 16 Truth 4:132. 17 D&C 18:37-39 and HC 2:181-200. See also chapter seven for a more in-depth analysis of those ordinations. 18 It is inaccurate to believe that no member of the Quorum of the Twelve has received a divine witness. Elder Boyd K. Packer observed: We do not talk of those sacred interviews that qualify the servants of the Lord to bear a special witness of Him, for we have been commanded not to do so. But we are free, indeed, we are obliged, to bear that special witness. (Ensign, May, 1980, p. 64.) 19 A Priesthood Issue, p. 11. 20 Ibid., p. 25. 21 In Joseph Musser's autobiography entitled The Journal of Joseph W. Musser, he recounted: "May 14, 1929, I was ordained a High Priest Apostle and a Patriarch to all the world, by a High Priest Apostle..." (p. 11, see also Truth 21:28). Musser's personal journal contains no such entry for May 14, 1929 (or any other date). 22 Woolley claimed to have been given the apostleship, but exactly when he was ordained and who purportedly ordained him is a much confused issue. 23 Reminiscences of John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley, Vol. 5, p. 34. 24 Musser recorded that his own prophecy of June 23rd, "was literally fulfilled" in a meeting held the 24th. However, he did not specify how his predictions had been realized. It appears unlikely that J. Leslie Broadbent had successfully "rebuked the nations with boldness and power from afar" or that the Church authorities were "made to tremble at his [J. Leslie Broadbent] word" so exactly what may have been "fulfilled" is unclear. 25 See chapter five. 26 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, December 19, 1938. 27 In 1932 Charles F. Zitting was ordained a member of the of the COUNCIL OF FRIENDS by J. Leslie Broadbent (under the direction of Lorin C. Woolley). In that ordination, Zitting was instructed: "...you will be able to discharge your duties with God's approbation and in due time receive the confirmation of your calling under the hands of your Saviour Jesus Christ, when you will meet him as one man converse with another." (Life of Charles Frederick Zitting, pp. 61-62.) 28 D&C 27:12-13, 20:2-3. 29 D&C 110:11-16. 30 HC 5:1-2. 31 Improvement Era, 4 (Jan. 1901):230. Quote in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, p. 780. 32 Personal communication with several Fundamentalists who wish to remain nameless. 33 JD 16:266 (Wilford Woodruff) and 19:233 (George Q. Cannon). 34 D&C 132:18. 35 A Priesthood Issue, p. 25. 36 These multiple references to a single Council or Quorum of Apostles, which clearly refers to the Twelve, show that Orson Pratt was entirely unaware of a second purported Quorum of High Priest APOSTLES. Allegedly, Orson Pratt was a member of both Quorums of Apostles. See A Priesthood Issue, p. 12. 37 Contrast Musser's teaching that: "The Church might be likened to an executive committee appointed by a board of directors - the directors, of course being those of the priesthood..." (Supplement, p. 100.) 38 The Journal of Discourses contains 175 references to the "apostleship" and the History of the Church, 22. Recently INFOBASES (3549 N. University Ave. - 250 Yorktown Bldg., Provo, Utah 84604-4440) and INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC. (P.O. Box 23235, Salt Lake City, Utah 84125) have made databases like the History of the Church and the Journal of Discourses available for the computer and rapid computerized searches of terms like "apostleship" and "apostle." The original scanning of the Journal of Discourses was actually performed by Fundamentalists from Colorado City, Arizona. This is ironic because the Journal of Discourses database allows one to easily recognize the complete absence of any teachings concerning a COUNCIL OF FRIENDS, an external PRIESTHOOD organization or High Priest Apostles within its pages. It appears obvious that Priesthood Leaders between 1854 and 1886 (the years the Journal of Discourses were produced) were entirely unaware of those ideas. 39 See A Priesthood Issue, p. 10 on the calling of Heber J. Grant to "the Apostleship of the Twelve." Also Truth 8:172. 40 See figure 3-3. 41 John Taylor, Mediation and Atonement, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News Company, 1882, p. 156. 42 It should be noted that the Quorum of High Priest "Apostles" referred is clearly subordinate to Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. See footnote 5, this chapter. 1 Found in their publication, Keys of the Priesthood, Illustrated. 2 D&C 27:12. 3 D&C 18:9 4 HC 2:187. 5 D&C 20:38-39, 46-48. 6 The exact date of this occurrence is not given, but William McLellin was excommunicated on May 11, 1838, so it most certainly occurred prior to that time. The incident likely transpired early after their ordinations as apostles since the Twelve appeared to know relatively little of what they had received when they were ordained to the apostleship. 7 HC 2:187. 8 David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri, 1887. 9 John Whitmer, John Whitmer History, Archives, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Chapter XX. 10 Stanley R. Gunn, Oliver Cowdery, Second Elder and Scribe (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1962), pp. 181-82. Printed in Ensign of Liberty, (Kirtland, Ohio) 1 (May 1848): 91-93. 11 D&C Section 84 heading, 1981 and previous editions. 12 Ezra Taft Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1988 p. 223. 13 Supplement, p. 100; Truth, 17:170-171. 14 D&C 84:42. 15 Musser wrote in his journal that he was starting his "Book of Remembrance" March 20, 1932. 16 Items from a Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser, p. 26. 17 Andrew Jenson, comp. The Historical Record, 9 Vols. (Volumes 5-9 of the Historical Record were printed as a monthly periodical between 1886 and 1889 and later compiled as a single publication with pages consecutively numbered 1-1011) Salt Lake City, Utah: Andrew Jenson, 1889, p. 25; see also Brigham Young Journal cited in HC 1:297. 18 D&C 58:14. 19 HC 1:438. 20 Andrew Jenson, LDS Biographical Encyclopedia, 4 vols. Salt Lake City, Utah: Andrew Jenson Historical Co., 1901-36. 21 Flake, Lawrence R., Mighty Men of Zion, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Press, 1974, p. 75. 22 D&C 110:11 23 Possibly the most repeated theme in the Doctrine and Covenants is that of doing missionary work. A few examples include: 1:4-5, 4:1-7, 11:21-22, 15:6, 16:6, 18:15, 21:9, 84:60-62, 88:81, 100:5-8 etc. 24 Truth 2:143, 12:134-135. They justify their condemnation by quoting D&C 84:86 which says: "Therefore, let no man among you, for this commandment is unto all the faithful who are called of God in the church unto the ministry, from this hour take purse or scrip, that goeth forth to proclaim this gospel of the kingdom." Since missionaries receive financial support from others and do not preach without "purse or scrip," Fundamentalist wish to discount their efforts. It should be noted that preaching without purse or scrip is against the law in most countries including the United States. Likewise, the Lord realized acceptable missionary work could occur with missionaries who carried purse and scrip. He counseled His disciples: "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip..." (Luke 22:36.) Additionally, missionaries were receiving financial assistance from the Church or their families as early as September, 1843 (HC 6:14-15, see also JD 8:172-173). Fundamentalists wish to postpone the final gathering until it can be performed "without purse or scrip" despite the Lord's subsequent council, as taught by His prophets, that rendering assistance to missionaries in the field is acceptable. 25 See figure 3-3 in chapter three. 1 See figure 3-3 in chapter three for references and membership. 2 See figure 3-3. 3 Church History in the Fulness of Times, p. 289. 4 Musser attempted to bolster his claims that a Council existed which presided over the Church (COUNCIL OF FRIENDS) by quoting Heber C. Kimball who stated in 1844 at the trial of Sidney Rigdon: Elder Rigdon after he came from Pittsburgh never attended council only when he could not avoid it. He has no authority, only what he receives from the Church; if he was one with us, why was he not in our councils? [Musser added: Councils independent of the Church]. He was not in the council pertaining to the High Priesthood until just before he started for Pittsburgh. Brother Phelps was the means of bringing him in, but he has not got the same authority as others; there are more than thirty men who have got higher authority than he has. (A Priesthood Issue p. 26, quoted from Times and Seasons, 5:663.) Musser's examination of Church history caused him to seize any quotation that might possibly support his ideas. He interpreted this reference to mean that their were thirty High Priest Apostles living at that time, though he never elaborated on who they were or how they related to his COUNCIL OF SEVEN FRIENDS. Of course, Musser's High Priest Apostles all purportedly possessed higher authority than the First Presidency. In reality, the thirty men referred to were those who had received their full temple endowment which Rigdon had not received. The "councils" referred to were those associated with the restoration of the temple endowment. It is pure fantasy to suggest that the "councils" were somehow "independent of the Church." 5 A Priesthood Issue, p. 26. 6 LDS Biographical Encyclopedia 1:252, 265 and 3:694. 7 D&C 107:33-37. 8 Ibid verse 79. 9 See chapter six. 10 Rulon Jeffs succeeded Leroy S. Johnson. 11 Two members of the purported COUNCIL OF FRIENDS, Charles F. Zitting and LeGrande Woolley, declined to assume the leadership position. The next senior High Priest Apostle was Leroy S. Johnson. 12 James E. Talmage, The House of the Lord, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book. 1976. p. 99. 13 The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 102-103, 118. 14 D&C 107:22 see also 112:30. 15 HC 2:509. 16 Donald Q. Cannon and Lyndon W. Cook eds., Far West Record, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1983. p. 7. 17 Besides the quote listed, see HC 1:307, 342; 2:108, 110, 144 (twice), 164 (twice), 308; 4:470, 6:44, 7:359. 18 HC 4:190-191 (see footnote), 2:273. 19 HC 2:186; see also 2:219, 274, 283, 364, 366, 367, 372, 382, 411, 427 etc. 20 President Joseph F. Smith taught: In a local capacity, there is no body of priesthood in the Church who should excel, or who are expected to excel, those who are called to bear the office of high priest in the Church. From among those who hold this office are chosen the presidents of stakes and their counselors, and the high councils of the stakes of Zion, and from this office are chosen the bishops, and the bishops' counselors in every ward in Zion. (Gospel Doctrine, p. 182) 1 HC 5:1-3, Essentials in Church History, pp. 318-319. 2 Examples include HC 5:44-46 (June 26 and 28, 1842), 5:84 (Aug. 31, 1842), 5:409 (May 26, 1843), 5:412 (May 28, 1843), 5:556 (Aug. 27, 1943), 6:2 (Sep. 3, 1843) and 6:31 (Sep. 11, 1843). 3 A Priesthood Issue, p. 12. 4 Church History in the Fulness of Times, pp. 253-254. 5 See footnote 2, this chapter. 6 Ibid. 7 One interesting list of meetings of the proposed COUNCIL OF FRIENDS found in the Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated includes ten dates when their proposed COUNCIL OF FRIENDS met during the years of 1842 and 1843: 1. May 4, 1842 2. May 5, 1842 3. June 26, 1842 4. June 28, 1842 5. May 26, 1843 6. May 28, 1843 7. May 29, 1843 8. August 27, 1843 9. September 3, 1843 10. September 11, 1843 Three of these dates (numbers 1,2, and 5) correspond to the Endowment groups I and II promoted by Musser with similar membership. An initial review of the list raises the question as to why they claimed there were no more identifiable meetings of the proposed COUNCIL OF FRIENDS after September 11, 1843. The alleged abrupt discontinuation of meetings is perplexing since the chart that contains this list is titled, "MEETINGS OF COUNCIL OF FRIENDS BEFORE MARTYRDOM." With the last suggested meeting being in September of 1843, a gap of over nine months prior to the death of the Prophet in June, 1844, supposedly existed without an identifiable meeting of the proposed COUNCIL OF FRIENDS. It appears that it was in September of 1843 that the first women may have been given their endowments and joined the "select group" that first assembled in May of 1842. The subsequent meetings of the "select group" included the participation of women which was inconsistent with an assembly of a presiding priesthood quorum such as a COUNCIL OF FRIENDS. Hence, no other gatherings of the "select group," after women were admitted, were advocated by the Bishops as meetings of the COUNCIL OF FRIENDS. In fact, no other dates are given for meetings of this purportedly dominant priesthood council prior to the death of Joseph Smith. 8 A Priesthood Issue, p. 11. 9 Men who served at one time as Apostles outside of the Quorum of the Twelve include Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Amas M. Lyman, Jedediah M. Grant, John W. Young, Daniel H. Well, Joseph A. Young, Brigham Young, Jr., Joseph Fielding Smith, Sylvester Q. Cannon, and Alvin R. Dyer etc. See Succession in the Church, pp. 196-198. 10 Church History in the Fulness of Times p. 289. 11 Sidney Rigdon was not the only man who claimed to be Joseph Smith's successor. See Prophets, Priesthood Keys, and Succession, pp. 50-75. 12 HC 7:229-230. 13 Ann Stanley Lee (1736-1784) claimed to be the female reincarnation of Jesus Christ. She was the founder of the "Shakers" or "Shaking Quakers," which were a celibate religious sect. Their name was derived from the contortions they experienced during their religious dances. 14 The exact source of the portion underlined is presently unknown. Even if it only reflects a Utah period interpolation, it nevertheless accurately reflect's Brigham's understanding of the expansion of the definition of the apostleship of the Twelve. 15 Original spelling retained. 16 Original spelling retained. 17 See chapter nine and also Ivan J. Barrett, Joseph Smith and the Restoration, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1973, pp. 627-634. 18 We are reminded that Joseph Musser taught that the Twelve in 1844 were all High Priest Apostles anyway. Regardless, the complete absence of a COUNCIL OF FRIENDS must be conceded. 19 See My Kingdom Shall Roll Forth, p. 61. 20 Reportedly, Rulon Jeffs, leader of the Colorado City, Arizona, polygamists does not believe this verse that requires all members of the Quorum of the Twelve in 1880 to be "High Priest Apostles" (private interview - notes in possession of the authors). 21 When the First Presidency was reorganized in 1880 (after the death of Brigham Young), the entire absence of an COUNCIL OF FRIENDS is illustrated by Orson Pratt's observation: Upon the death of President Young, who was the President in the First Presidency, it then fell again upon the Twelve as formerly, and they have continued some three years and upwards occupying that position. Have they done right? Yes; they have done as they were required to do during the time being. And now, after having performed their duties, they still keep in mind the necessity of this First Quorum of all Quorums of the Church again being filled up, so that the revelations of God may be honored and we fulfill their requirements. Hence, the Council of the Apostles has taken into consideration this subject, and the question in our minds was, Have we sufficiently, as the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, magnified our office and calling, in setting in order the Church of the living God, in organizing the various Councils, or is there something lacking? Every time we thought upon the subject, we saw that one Council, the most important of all, was still vacant. Could we ignore it? No. We therefore considered the propriety of organizing it at the present conference. (JD 22:37 quoted in Succession in the Church, pp. 89-90.) [Underlining by the authors.] 22 Even Ogden Kraut, a very active fundamentalist writer, has yet to address the topic, though he has plans to do so in the future (personal communication). 23 A Priesthood Issue p. 10. 24 Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated, p. 58. 25 Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated, p. 75 does reference Wilford Woodruff's quote from the Journal of Discourses (4:147) where the term "High Priest Apostle" was used. However, that is the only reference to High Priest Apostles in the whole book. 26 It has been examined in an unpublished manuscript by one of the authors. 1 A Priesthood Issue, p. 16, Truth 6:234. 2 This concept is derived from D&C 85:7 where the Lord referred to "One Mighty and Strong" who would come to "set in order the house of God." Most polygamists interpret the "house of God" to mean the Church, though every other reference to the "house of God" in the D&C is referring to the Temple (see 45:18, 88:119, 129, 130, 136, 109:8, 138:58). Additionally, Fundamentalist prophet Lorin C. Woolley also purportedly taught that not only would the "Church" someday be out of order, but that also the polygamists would be "out of order." See Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated pp. 285-288 and Reminiscences of John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley, Volume I, Number 1, (interview with Olive Woolley Coombs), p. 10. Also, it is likely that Apostle Orson Pratt would have disagreed with this Fundamentalist interpretation of D&C 85:7 (see JD 12:323, 17:305, 21:150-151). 3 Today several entirely separate PRIESTHOOD organizations exist each with their own distinct COUNCIL OF FRIENDS (see Figure 1-2). Of course each separate PRIESTHOOD group claims they are the true PRIESTHOOD and that all others are false and without authority. 4 The exact date for section ten from which this scripture is quoted is unclear. Copies of the Doctrine and Covenants prior to the 1921 listed a May, 1929 date. Later research suggests that at least parts of the section were composed as much as a year earlier than that date. See The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 17-19, 122-123 and Max H. Parkin, "A Preliminary Analysis of the Dating of Section 10," Seventh Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1979, pp. 68-84. Regardless, these verses were given prior to the complete restoration of the Priesthood. 5 The requirements of the state of New York concerning "Religious Societies, How Incorporated": III, And be it further enacted, that it shall be lawful for the male persons of full age, belonging to any other church, congregation or religious society, now or hereafter to be established in this state... to elect any number of discrete persons of their church, congregation or society, not less than three, nor exceeding nine in number, as trustees, to take the charge of the estate and property belonging thereto, and transact all affairs relative to the temporalities thereof... That on the said day of election, two of the elders or church wardens and if there be no such officers, then two of the members of the said church, congregation or society, to be nominated by a majority of the members present, shall preside at such election, receive the votes of the electors, be the judges of the qualifications of such electors, and the officers to return the names of the persons who, by plurality of voices, shall be elected to serve as trustees for the said church, congregation or society. (Laws of the State of New York, 1813, vol. 2, p. 214.) [Underlining by the authors.] 6 A Priesthood Issue, p. 24. It is true that polygamists of the Nauvoo Era were at times referred to as the "Secret Priesthood" (Journal of William Clayton, May 23, 1843). However, the Nauvoo "Secret Priesthood" group was in no way related to Musser's external PRIESTHOOD organization with its COUNCIL OF FRIENDS and High Priest Apostles. 7 Church History in the Fulness of Times, p. 255. 8 The House of the Lord p.110. See also, Boyd K. Packer, The Holy Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1980, p. 175-176. 9 Truth 7:235, 8:201. 10 Church History in the Fulness of Times, p. 470. 11 Family Kingdom, pp. 273-279. 12 See chapter four. 13 Truth 3:177-183 and personal correspondence with a son of Rulon C. Allred. 14 For an excellent treatise of the Church and authority in the Book of Mormon, see Daniel C. Peterson, Authority in the Book of Mosiah, Provo, Utah: F.A.R.M.S., 1991. The issue and its relationship to Fundamentalism have been examined in an unpublished manuscript by one of the authors. 15 A comparison of the doctrines and spiritual priorities of the Nephite religious organization and the fundamentalist PRIESTHOOD organization fails to show significant parallels. 16 Mosiah the first was the father of King Benjamin and is mentioned briefly in Omni verses 12-23. 17 This idea has been explained to one of the authors by a son of Rulon C. Allred in private correspondence. 18 While serving as the senior member of a COUNCIL OF FRIENDS in 1936, John Y. Barlow was put in charge of the temporal dealings with the believers in Short Creek (now Colorado City), Arizona. The participants became disillusioned with his temporal leadership and complained to Musser. Musser recorded in his journal for November 13, 1936: J.W. Musser explained his views on Priesthood matters: That the special mission and labors of the Priesthood group was to keep plural marriage alive; that we were not called upon to colonize only as the Lord might dictate such a move; that it was the feeling of the Priesthood that the affairs of the Saints should be conducted by them in their local communities and not by the Priesthood... 19 See also D&C 10:67-68. 20 A Priesthood Issue, p. 13. 21 LDS Biographical Encyclopedia, 1:381-386 22 Ibid, 3:765. 23 Personal correspondence with a son of Rulon C. Allred. 24 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, May 16, 24, 1922. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid, 10 June 1928. The reference reads: To me, John [T. Clark]'s claim's do not ring true in their entirety. That he has an important work to do, I do not doubt, but that he is chosen to lead the people I do doubt. And shall continue to doubt, until at least the Lord shall make his mind and will known to me. This reference strongly suggests that Joseph W. Musser was unaware of Lorin C. Woolley's alleged priesthood calling and the 1886 ordinations as late as June of 1928, even though Musser had been listening to the teachings of Lorin C. Woolley's for several years. 27 See the Journal of Joseph W. Musser, entries for May 20, 22, 24, July 21, 29, 31, and August 4, 1922. It is interesting to note that the journal entry for May 20, 1922, reads: Took typewriter to Kenyon Hotel to assist John T. Clark in preparing a pamphlet on "The One Mighty and Strong" for publication. This entry was handwritten, while previous journal entries were typed. For days after May 20, the entries continued to be written, not typed, apparently until Musser was able to reacquire his typewriter. 28 John T.Clark, The One Mighty & Strong, N.p., 1922 p. 64. It has recently been republished by Willard E. Palmer, 835 Garfield Ave., Salt Lake City, Utah, 84105. 29 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, August 2, 1927, June 10, 1928; see also May 16, 1930. 30 Ibid., April 19, 1928; February 10, March 10, December 29, 1929; July 27, August 4, 11, 1930. 31 Ibid., September 16, 1932. 32 Entries that include mention of John T. Clark from Joseph Musser's 1920-1944 journal are: 1921, February 28; 1922, May 12,13,16,20,22,24, June 14, July 21,29,30,31, Aug. 4,6,7, Dec. 18; 1927, Aug. 2; 1928, Feb. 25, April 19,20, May 16,19, June 10, Oct. 3; 1929, Jan. 28, Feb. 10, March 3,10, Aug. 25, Dec. 29; 1930, Feb. 23, March 31, May 6,15,16,25, July 27, August 4,6,7,8,11, Sept. 30, Oct. 23, Dec. 10; 1931, Jan. 14, March 14,15, July 15,17,23, August 12, Nov. 23; 1932, May 7, Sept. 16,18. 33 A review of Musser's personal journal for that period contains nothing regarding the proposed "messenger" or Musser's being "selected" to become a polygamist. The very idea that President Snow would suggest such a thing goes contrary to other actions and statements he made supporting the 1890 Manifesto. Brigham Young, Jr., quoted President Snow in his journal: There cannot be a plural marriage solemnized in this church without my consent and I have never given consent for this to be done since President of the Church. God has removed this privilege from the people and until he restores it, I shall not consent to any man taking a plural wife. It is just as fair for one as it is for all to go without. The business is taken out from our hands and we cannot fight the United States. It is for them and God to settle this question. We are not in it. There is no such thing as men taking plural wives and keeping it secret. It cannot be done. Has any one of the apostles a right to seal plural wives to men by reason of former concessions made to them by the Presidency? No, sir, such right must come from me and no man shall be authorized by me to break the law of the Land. (Brigham Young, Jr., Journal, B.Y.U. typescript, pp. 36,37.) Fundamentalists are quick to point out that the first sentence states that no plural marriages could be performed in this church, but he also states clearly that God had removed "this privilege from the people," "it is just as fair for one as it is for all to go without," and "there is no such thing as men taking plural wives and keeping it secret." These passages show clearly that he was unaware of any external PRIESTHOOD movement commissioned to continue plural marriage, nor would he, as holder of the keys of sealing, approve of such. 34 N. a., Journal of Joseph White Musser, 1872-1954, n.p., n.d., pp. 11, 20. Despite the title, this publication, distributed by Pioneer Press, is not Joseph Musser's journal, but an autobiography. 35 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, March 23, 1921. 36 This commonly occurs today. Any member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who practices polygamy, does so without any authority whatsoever and is immediately excommunicated. They often thereafter join with one of the contrived Fundamentalist PRIESTHOOD organizations. 37 Nathaniel Baldwin was a successful inventor who used his resources to support the polygamist movement in the 1920's. See Merrill Singer, "Nathaniel Baldwin, Utah Inventor and Patron of the Fundamentalist Movement," Utah Historical Quarterly, 47 (Winter 1979)1:42-53. 38 Deseret Evening News, March 23, 1921. "Notice of Excommunication." 39 D&C 107:65-66. 40 Several Fundamentalist quotes exist alleging that the Sealing Keys of Elijah left The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after Wilford Woodruff signed the Manifesto (Truth 6:21-22, 8:262, 9:142, 144, 251; 16:79; and Sermons of Leroy S. Johnson, vol. 1, p. 211), however, most Fundamentalists probably hold to the idea that the keys left after the death of Joseph F. Smith during the presidency of Heber J. Grant. With either approach, many questions arise that are difficult for Fundamentalist apologists to explain. See chapter five. 41 See chapter four. 42 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, December 16, 1928. 43 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, September 30, 1934, December 20, 1936, July 18, and December 19, 1938. 44 Lorin C. Woolley described his recollections of the 1886 meetings and ordinations as "things I forgot, but they are coming to me gradually..." (Supplement, p. 60 and the appendix to chapter four). 45 Musser typed much of his journal between November 1920 and September 11, 1922. He appears to have lost access to a typewriter after that time until March of 1935 when typed entries reappear. 46 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, April 9, 1922. 47 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, April 9, August 6, 7, 13, and November 22, 1922. Additional notes from Woolley's teachings can be found in Items from the Book of Remembrance of Joseph W. Musser. 48 See Journal of Joseph W. Musser October 16, 1928. Fundamentalists will claim that Musser might have met with Woolley during the period between 1922 and 1928 and just not recorded it in his journal. Musser held Woolley in high regard and wrote a daily entry for most of that period. The detail of Musser's journal included a record of the drilling depths of the oil well he was managing (for example: May 26, 1923) and other activities. It is highly unlikely that any interaction with Lorin C. Woolley would have escaped his record. 49 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, January 5, February 28, 1923; April 22, May 1, 22, October 12, 29, 1927. 50 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, December 29, 1929. 51 Ibid., March 31, 1930. 52 See entries for May 6,15,16,25, July 27, August 4,6,7,8,11, Sept. 30, Oct. 23, Dec. 10, 1930; Jan. 14, March 14,15, July 15,17,23, August 12, Nov. 23, 1931; May 7, Sept. 16,18, 1932. 53 Available evidence also fails to support the idea that John W. Woolley ever functioned as a High Priest Apostle prior to his death in 1928, though purportedly he was the senior member of the COUNCIL OF FRIENDS for several years. 54 James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 6 vols. Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1965-1975, 55 D&C 132:18. 56 D&C 132:7. 57 Heber J. Grant, Gospel Standards, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News Press, 1941, p. 159. This is a quote from April, 1921 LDS Conference. 58 Verses 7, 18, 19. 59 D&C 110:13-16. 60 A Leaf In Review was originally written in 1932 with first edition published in 1933. 61 A Leaf In Review, p. 48. 62 Ibid., pp. 195-196. 63 It is interesting to observe that B. Harvey Allred approached the "Priesthood Council" (COUNCIL OF FRIENDS) in January of 1934 with a response to the 1933 First Presidency's Message that Heber J. Grant held the keys of sealing. Musser recorded on January 22: "We did not favor its publication." Since there was no hint of an external PRIESTHOOD organization or a COUNCIL OF FRIENDS in Allred's first publication, A Leaf In Review, one wonders if Allred's response to the 1933 First Presidency's Message agreed with the doctrine being developed by Musser? 64 Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated, pp. 305-306. 65 The other two definitions were discussed in chapter three. 66 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, February 25, 1934. The reference to the PRIESTHOOD came after Musser recorded a portion of the 1882 revelation (My Kingdom Shall Roll Forth pp. 50-51. Also in The Four Hidden Revelations p. 11.) given to John Taylor. In that revelation the Lord states that: "It is not meet that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my Priesthood." Musser interpreted "abiding my law" as meaning participating in plural marriage. Thus, the idea of a presiding PRIESTHOOD, composed of polygamists, was likely born. Apparently President John Taylor understood the revelation differently because over one-third of the General Authorities called by him were monogamists. 67 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, see entries for June 23, September 30, October 11, November 22, 30 of 1934, March 16, April 29, May 28, June 3, 6, 13, 18, July 20 of 1935 etc. 68 For J. Leslie Broadbent see June 3, 10, 11, 15, 1934 etc. and for John Y. Barlow see June 13, 1935 etc. 69 A Priesthood Issue, pp. 13-14. 70 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, December 1, 1936, Dec. 8, 1938, April 26, November 5, 1939 and July 23, 1939. 71 Not all polygamists in the 1930's believed Musser's new ideas. Musser recorded on August 1, 1935: Clyde Nielson and Roy Wilson came to office and got Chas. Zitting out in the hall, informing him that the four of us, myself, John Y. Barlow, he and Lewis A. Kelsch were going to die pre-mature deaths unless we reversed our statements on the Priesthood set-up. Clyde was speaker. He said he had dedicated his life to the destruction of the Sanhedrin idea. 72 Most modern polygamists assume that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor etc. all privately taught about the PRIESTHOOD, COUNCIL OF FRIENDS and High Priest Apostles, though neither Woolley nor Musser ever listed them as the source of these ideas. While some contemporary historians have unfortunately gained access to private writings and teachings of these men, even things that are sacred, they have not found among them any doctrines that even remotely resemble Musser's beliefs on the priesthood. 73 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, July 26, 1934. 1 Encyclopedia of Mormonism, p. 1094. 2 See Kenneth W. Godfrey, "The Coming Of The Manifesto," Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 5, (Autumn 1973) 3:11-25. 3 See the statement of the First Presidency in Messages of the First Presidency 3:230. Other examples: JD, (Orson Pratt) 1:54, 17:224-5; (Heber C. Kimball) 3:125, 4:108, 5:22, 203-4; (Brigham Young) 3:266, 11:268-9, 16:166; (George A. Smith) 3:291; (John Taylor) 11:221; (Joseph F. Smith) 20:28-31, 21:10; (Wilford Woodruff) 24:244. 4 Deseret News Weekly, November 17, 1891, p. 6 (quoted in this chapter - footnote 10). 5 This is a quote from the Salt Lake Temple Historical Record, 1893-1922, LDS Historical Department, Salt Lake City, p. 71. 6 Church History in the Fulness of Times, pp. 440-441. 7 The original document, in President Woodruff's handwriting, contained 510 words. It was later edited by George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency to its present 356 words. See Encyclopedia of Mormonism, p. 853. 8 See Truth 5:86-87, 107-112, 14:211-214, 18:311, 20:199-206. 9 First Presidency Office Journal, Oct. 21, 1891. See Thomas G. Alexander, "The Odyssey of a Latter-day Prophet: Wilford Woodruff and the Manifesto of 1890," Journal of Mormon History, vol. 17, (1991), pp. 171, 204-206. 10 Deseret New Weekly, November 17, 1891, p. 6. 11 Fundamentalists often want to add a footnote to these verses specifying polygamy, since the monogamous context is so obvious. The verses are seldom quoted in Fundamentalist literature. 12 Truth 6:109. 13 Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated, p. 222. Truth, 1:21[9], 4:42, 5:248, 6:20. Heber Bennion, Gospel Problems, Dugway, Utah: Pioneer Press, N.d. (originally published in 1920), pp. 45-46. 14 Truth, 3:78, 8:182. Gilbert A. Fulton, Jr., Most Holy Principle, 4 volumes, Salt Lake City, Utah: Gems Publishing Company, 1970-1975, 4:144. Also personal correspondence between one of the authors and a son of Rulon Allred, dated April 1, 1991, pp. 17-18. 15 Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated, p. 218. Truth, 8:260. 16 Keys of the Priesthood, Illustrated, p. 218. 17 Truth, 8:256. 18 See chapter five. 19 Truth, 4:42, 6:20; Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated, p. 222. 20 Most Holy Principle, 4:68; Dennis R. Short, Questions On Plural Marriage, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1974, pp. 23-24; Truth 1:20[8], 5:86; Star of Truth 3:278, 4:44; Melvin J. Ballard with Eslie D. Jenson, Marriage - Ballard/Jensen Correspondence, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1935 p. 78. 21 Questions on Plural Marriage, pp. 23-24; Truth 1:20[8], 5:114, 189, 20:204; Star of Truth 4:44. 22 A Leaf In Review p. 196; Truth 1:20[8], 6:182, 8:255; Star of Truth 3:278; Marriage - Ballard/Jensen Correspondence p. 78. 23 Journal of Joseph W. Muser, April 9, 1922. 24 Supplement, pp. 60-61. 25 Temple Manifestations, pp. 118-119. 26 Some Fundamentalists claim John W. Woolley replaced Wilford Woodruff in his priesthood responsibilities after the Manifesto. This assertion is inconsistent with Woolley's actions and statements. See chapter four. 27 Gospel Problems p. 43. 28 The best treatise which implements this approach is by Vance Allred, "Mormon Polygamy and the Manifesto of 1890: A study of Hegemony and Social Conflict," Senior Thesis: Department of History, University of Montana, June 1984. See also Ogden Kraut, The 1890 Manifesto, 100th Anniversary, pamphlet, 1990, p. 18; Questions on Plural Marriage, 24-25, Truth 1:21[8], 2:130, 6:21, 8:202, 260, 18:310, 20:200; Star of Truth 3:27; Marriage - Ballard/Jensen Correspondence p. 78; Gospel Problems p. 43. 29 Most Holy Principle 4:69-70; Joseph Musser, Celestial or Plural Marriage, Salt Lake City, Utah: Truth Publishing Company, 1944, p. 89, 148; Truth 4:146-147, 6:179, 18:310; Star of Truth 3:277; Marriage - Ballard/Jensen Correspondence p. 77. 30 Truth 1:21[9], 8:257. 31 Truth 6:108-109, 8:260, 9:142. 32 Truth 20:200. 33 Truth 8:255. 34 Gospel Problems, p. 43, 49-50; Most Holy Principle 4:66; Truth 6:19-20. 35 Most Holy Principle 4:66; Truth 2:130, 6:21. 36 Questions On Plural Marriage p. 25; Truth 18:315, 20:201; Star of Truth 3:276; Marriage - Ballard/Jensen Correspondence p. 76. 37 Exodus 32:1-8. 38 For a discussion of the atmosphere surrounding the pursuit of Utah Statehood, see E. Leo Lyman, Political Deliverance: The Mormon Quest for Utah Statehood, Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1986. 39 Most Holy Principle 4:68; Questions on Plural Marriage pp. 23-24; Truth 5:189, 6:179, 18:234. 40 D&C 1:14. 41 Truth 3:10. 42 1835 Edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, pp. 251-252. Also HC 2:247-248. 43 See also Truth 6:108-109, 9:142, 260. 44 Truth 5:111, 18:313. 45 Collected Discourses, 2:129. 46 Deseret News Weekly, April 1, 1885. Quoted in Truth 18:313-314. 47 Deseret News Weekly, November 14, 1891. Quoted in "Excerpts from three addresses by President Wilford Woodruff regarding the Manifesto" after Official Declaration - 1 at the back of the 1981 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. 48 Wilford Woodruff, Testimony before the Master in Chancery, October 19-20, 1891, published in the Deseret News Weekly, October 23, 1891, pp. 4-5. 49 Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret News Weekly, November 14, 1891. Parts found in "Excerpts from three addresses by President Wilford Woodruff regarding the Manifesto," found after Official Declaration --1, Doctrine and Covenants, 1981 edition. 50 From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah. Quoted in "Excerpts from three addresses by President Wilford Woodruff regarding the Manifesto" found after Official Declaration - 1 in the Doctrine and Covenants, 1981 edition. 51 Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, April 7, 1892. 52 From a discourse at the fourth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt lake City, Utah. 53 From a petition for amnesty signed by members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles December 19, 1891. See Contributor 13:196-197. 54 October 6th, 1890 General Conference (after the Manifesto had been presented). Collected Discourses, 2:137. 55 Remarks by George Q. Cannon at the October 6th, 1890 General Conference of the Church. Collected Discourses, 2:132-133. 56 President George Q. Cannon before the Master in Chancery October 20th, 1891. Deseret News Weekly, Oct 23, 1891. 57 Ibid. 58 Besides issuing the Manifesto of 1904, Joseph F. Smith stated he felt the Manifesto was a "result of direct revelation" before the Master of Chancery October 20, 1891. 59 Lorenzo Snow affirmed the "manifesto to be a revelation to President Woodruff" before the Master in Chancery. Ibid. 60 Truth 6:108, 9:143. 61 Truth 6:109. 62 John 18:13-14, see also Matthew 26:57; Mark 14:53; Luke 22:54. 63 Mosiah 11:1-7, 17:12-20. 64 Pearl of Great Price of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Articles of Faith, V. 9. 1 D&C 9:7-9 2 Journal of Joseph W. Musser, December 28, 1942. 3 Lorin C. Woolley was born October 23, 1856. 4 The medical term is "confabulation." 5 D&C 85:8. 6 The Notes, pp. 423-424. 7 This admission was made by a son of Rulon C. Allred who assisted with the editing of the two volumes. The authors feel that several of the items Rulon C. Allred taught contradict Joseph Musser on important priesthood doctrines such as the presiding function of the COUNCIL OF FRIENDS (JWM in Truth, 9:169 with RCA in Gems, 1:4-5), the keys imparted with the purported 1886 ordinations (JWM in A Priesthood Issue, p. 25 with RCA in Gems, 1:9-10), the Office of Presiding Patriarch (JWM in A Priesthood Issue p. 20 or Priesthood Items p. 16, with RCA in Treasures of Knowledge, volume one, page 104-105) and Wilford Woodruff and the 1890 Manifesto (JWM in A Priesthood Issue, p. 25 with RCA in Gems 1:3). Notwithstanding the adamant denials by certain Fundamentalists, Joseph W. Musser and Rulon C. Allred taught very different doctrines with respect to the Priesthood and its presiding offices and authority. 8 Sermons of Leroy S. Johnson has been reprinted several times, but has had a very protected circulation. 9 See chapter six of that publication. 10 At the trial of Sidney Rigdon, Brigham Young referred to the "unwritten keys" which were associated with ordinances of the temple (Times and Seasons, 5:667). Some Fundamentalists authors have unsuccessfully tried to squeeze their PRIESTHOOD organization, COUNCIL OF FRIENDS and High Priest Apostles into the "keys" that were not to be written. 11 Contrast the previous evaluation from Robert Openshaw (in The Notes) that Musser's teachings on the PRIESTHOOD constituted "hints... yet did not reveal those things that were not to be found in the written record." 12 Personal correspondence with a Fundamentalist who desires to remain nameless. 13 A few examples: Lamoni and his wife in Alma 18-19, Lamoni's father in Alma 22. See Alma's teachings on faith in Alma 32. 14 See 3 Nephi 14:22-23. 15 When one of the authors requested to obtain a copy of the personal journal of Joseph W. Musser, he was told by a Fundamentalist that the journal was not available because of the sacred things it contained. As has been shown, Joseph Musser recorded many important items in his journal that are useful in understanding the "evolution" of the priesthood doctrine within the modern polygamist movement. 16 Excerpt from the 52 page letter to one of the authors from a son of Rulon C. Allred. We understand that this letter has been published and circulated by its author. 17 D&C 132:18. 18 Ibid. ?? ?? ?? ?? 158 Introduction The Priesthood of the LDS Church The Fundamentalist Priesthood The Fundamentalist Priesthood The Purported 1886 Ordinations Fundamentalist Authority 1886-1949 The Higher Apostleship and COUNCIL OF FRIENDS The COUNCIL OF FRIENDS 1829-1832 The COUNCIL OF FRIENDS 1835-1837 The COUNCIL OF FRIENDS 1842-1880 The Fundamentalist "Church" Organization The Self-Appointed The Self-Appointed 167