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