Vance Allred to Brian C. Hales
June 7, 1991

Dear Brother Brian:
I received your letter of April 23. Thank you for your invitation to meet with you to discuss the points that you presented in the draft of your Sunstone symposium paper: I was in the process of preparing some suggestions for you. I am now unclear, however, as to what you desire from me. The attitude in you letter so discouraged me that for these past weeks I have been pondering whether even to respond to you. After much thought and consultation with my uncle, and in response to his request, I have decided to try to express some concepts you may not accept, but which might at least give you pause for thought.
You had given me the impression that you were seeking an understanding of our position in order to portray it as accurately as possible; your latest letter perplexed me in that I have perceived, perhaps incorrectly, that you feel compelled to rebut every explanation that I have offered to you. I do not know exactly what you expect or want from me. I was more than willing to answer your questions regarding our beliefs, not expecting to debate every point with you.
You requested an opportunity to present a message to us. Do you not feel that we were responsive to your request? We provided you a forum to express your views and I honestly feel that we were open minded in receiving and considering the message that you offered to us. As you mentioned, you came to present what you feel is the issue: the validity or fallacy of Lorin Woolley's testimony of the 1886 eight-hour meeting and the accompanying conferral of authority. Yes, you are right, I never did respond directly to the topic that you chose that night. When accepting the offer to talk, I made it clear that there was only one topic that I would address, and that was my testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith; notwithstanding your protestations, that was, and still is, the correct response to your challenges.
I am sorry if you feel that I treated you unfairly by not accepting your ground rules. Having taught speech and debate for years, however, I felt comfortable in assuming the response that I made. My experience as a debate coach and a tournament director, led me to follow basic rules:
1) the host chooses the topic;

2) the host establishes the parameters, and time restrictions.
When you want to have a debate in your ward or stake house, invite your congregation and have your stake authorities there, we will gladly come and debate with you on your topic and follow your rules.
My main confusion, Brian, lies in the fact that you came to me after our exchange and told me that you would appreciate my help because you wanted to make your book and your Sunstone symposium presentation as accurate as possible. When you made that request, and followed up with it in the letters you sent me, you led me to assume you were serious. I took a great deal of time to present our views to you, not in the form of a position paper, but as an explanation of our beliefs. In the past, we have provided several researchers and reporters with that type of help. None of them has ever before responded by taking your posture of arguing with everything that we offered to them. You had presented yourself as an historical researcher, honestly in the pursuit of gaining a correct viewpoint of our perspective.
[p2] I admire your bravery in wishing to enter the public forum with your ideas. As an historian, I value the exchange of ideas that has developed in the past ten years, and welcome anyone who has the desire to present an idea and ask for input. From my own experience and work, and through my observations of the performance of other historians, both Mormon and non-Mormon, I categorise all of us into two groups:
1) those who pursue a topic for the purpose of gaining a correct insight, then honestly reporting what they have found in an objective and informative manner.
2) those who have a particular, predetermined mission to accomplish.
After reading your last letter, I have to tell you that I place you in the second.  You are an anaesthesiologist, and I am sure, a very good one.  Were I to come to you on advice for anaesthesiology, I would expect that you would simply inform me of your opinion, and offer a brief explanation of why you would give the advice you have; I doubt you would feel compelled to bolster and support every explanation.  And I expect that you would feel me very foolish if I went and administered anaesthesiology my own way.  I am sorry if I offend you, but as an historian I honestly cringe when I think of you presenting your paper before an audience like the Sunstone symposium.   If you are going to present the fundamentalist viewpoint as a part of your lecture, then it must be ‘their' perspective, and NOT your interpretation of it.
There are several concepts that I know to be incorrect in your papers. Of course, you may totally discount everything that I would say, but I know that there are many historians who understand correct historical analysis, and they will see your work for what it is: a faithful recapitulation of Max Anderson's work. I am enclosing a copy of some of Sam Taylor's letters from his papers which show his perspectives of Brother Max's work. You also may discount his ideas, as they do not support your position.
In my historical training I have deliberately chosen to study under non-Mormon professors, because I want my work to be as consistent with correct historical analysis as possible. The basics of my training stressed the following:
1) an historian gathers as much information from as wide a sample as possible.
2) the historian does not argue with his sources, but reports things as he finds them expressed.
3) an historian's inability to find evidence supporting a claim does not prove that something did not happen.
4) an historian makes no decisions, and draws no conclusions before he has weighed all his information.
5) the historian offers an objective view of what he finds.
I acknowledge that when it comes to my religious views that I am not as professional as I would want to be. I suggest that neither you nor Max Anderson has been as professional as you should be. The difference between you and me, is that I would not presume to present a paper at a symposium to professional and amateur historians who would see right through me.
[p3] I am sure that your presentation to the Sunstone Symposium will be interesting and informative, both for you and for those who are unacquainted with our position. But for those who do understand our position, I believe they will see what I have perceived: a desire not to understand, but to refute. It is interesting that on several points you have asked me for my understanding, yet you have rejected every response as unacceptable.
If I am not mistaken, the main purpose of your desire to correspond with me was to have an audience through which you could somehow influence your sister. I am sorry that I did not recognise that earlier. In writing to you, I was never so foolish as to presume that any correspondence between us would lead to you accepting our beliefs. It would seem to me that my purpose in inviting you to study Joseph Smith and the writings and talks of the other brethren reflected my effort to help you understand our views. You say that you already understood them, but then you turn around and write things that prove to me that you only think you do.
It seemed from your initial request, that you were interested in gaining an insight to our perspective.  I was agreeable to that, as there have been several reporters, sociologists, anthropologists and historians who have sought information from us.  At every point, however, when I gave you a response to your question, you have treated it as though it were a challenge that you felt compelled to discount, discredit or disprove.  At our first meeting you told me that you wanted my help in preparing a paper that would be as accurate as possible:  apparently my help has so far been of no value to you, except as an opportunity for debate.
Although you have not accepted my views and suggestions, it is interesting that you would challenge them and try to refute them from your understanding of fundamentalism; at times I have sensed that you feel that you understand our position better than we do. I have been a fundamentalist all my life; my background, my association with my father, and my own studies do provide me with a rudimentary understanding of what our position is. It has been curious that although we have opened our hall to you, brought our children to hear you, that you still feel that we are not willing to understand what you are offering to us. We were open minded in considering what you offered us; to my knowledge, neither you nor anyone in the church has ever opened your homes or meeting halls and invited your friends and brought your children to come to hear our testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith. We don't expect that you would become converted, but we would expect the same type of courtesy and respect that previous researchers have given us. If you are going to pose as an historical researcher, perhaps you should consider behaving as one.
For example, you might have used my material in presenting your information with an attitude something like this:
“Today’s fundamentalists pledge a deep loyalty to the teachings of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. Although they admit there are challenges to their claims of religious authority to practice their beliefs, they do feel confident that their position is consistent with Joseph Smith, and live with the assurance that were he to be among them today that he would [p4] recognise them as the only people who are living his style of Mormonism.”
That type of analysis is neither judgmental, defaming, discrediting nor unethical. The information I provided you could be used in such a way as to strengthen and bolster your book. On the other hand, should you choose to present your interpretation of our beliefs, rather than reporting our own, perhaps you could make it clear to your audience that you are doing just that.
As you have no interest in using any explanations that I have offered let me offer the following sources to you. Your brother-in-law, Todd Johnson, tells me that you are very well read. Perhaps, you have already read these:
David John Buerger's papers, especially his copies of George F. Richard's writings on the Second Endowment.
The works of Hyrum Andrus, Ken Driggs, Paul and Margaret Toscano, D. Michael Quinn, and Andrew Ehat. Perhaps some of their ideas will temper yours a little. The Adam God Maze by Culley K. Christensen, M.D. may increase your understanding as well.
I will admit that in writing to you I did have an ulterior motive. Every time someone writes a book, or prints an article on our position, or examines the practice of plural marriage or the changes that the church has made, many people are moved to study and begin to search for themselves. I had wanted to help you gain as correct an understanding as possible, so that more people would pay attention to you. You gave me the impression that you wanted to write an historical analysis of the "fundamentalist movement;" instead you have written a caustic polemic. As your work now stands, there is nothing particularly noteworthy that would draw an audience outside those who are as intensely loyal to the church's current leadership as you are. From our meeting, I had felt a willingness on your part to report our position accurately, yet what has developed is a confrontation of the original differences that caused our paths to diverge almost a century ago.
Our position is based on a continuity of teachings, doctrines and ordinances with those established by the Lord through Joseph Smith; we feel no necessity to “prove” a succession of authority, although we know, despite all that you have offered us, that there has been that succession. Your position is based on a succession of authority from Joseph Smith to the present leadership; you feel no necessity to prove a continuity of teachings, doctrines or ordinances with those established through the Prophet Joseph Smith, because you feel that any changes made by the church leadership will only be by revelation or inspiration from God; therefor, you would feel that those changes would be consistent with Joseph Smith's teachings because of the concept of continuing revelation. As a result of this basic and fundamental difference, no matter what either of us offers to the other, the other will not feel an obligation to respond. It has been an awakening to realise how far apart we have become.
You proffer the concept that one must follow the teachings and leadership of the living prophet, and you have based all your other observations and [p5] beliefs on that premise. You interpret the scriptures and revelations to authorise the present leadership to reinterpret7 alter or change any part of the doctrines, ordinances, revelations and commandments that Joseph Smith revealed as the Lord directs them to do so.
Consequently, our differences in approach, perspective and perception preclude us coming to any common ground, and our discussion is becoming very sterile. Yes, we grant, there are many difficulties and challenges to the Lorin Woolley statement that cannot be answered in the information available in the church archives; but as I explained to you but you do not accept, the logic of our premise does not require that we do so, because we will always prefer to follow and fulfil the teachings and revelations of Joseph Smith. Please do not assume, however, that we do not have the sources to justify our support of Lorin Woolley's statements.
At the same time, you must know that the teachings of the present church leadership digress from or completely disagree with the teachings of Joseph Smith; yet, the logic of your position would not require you to reconcile the two, because you would place your credence on the present leaders, and God's ability always to reveal new direction that might be a different set of conditions, ordinances or laws for different peoples at different times, according to their needs. You accept the concept of a gospel that is ever responsive and sensitive to the needs of the people; we hold to the concept that the gospel is the same, now, yesterday, always and forever.
You have the right to doubt that any of us has done the amount or type of study that you are pursuing; it is intriguing that we can all study the same things, yet because of our predispositions, we continue to come to different conclusions. Perhaps you have never seen The Most Holy Principle, a four-volume compilation of historical documents, discourses and articles which my father had printed. Most of us have read the information in them, and we are familiar with the interpretations and views that you proffer. In your writings I do not perceive an effort to find truth, but instead a desire to prove us wrong. Paul described that type of attitude in 2 Timothy 3:7:
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (Inspired Version)
You also have the freedom of arguing with and rejecting every explanation offered to you. If your desire is to prove us wrong, which appears to have been your true purpose from the beginning, then you will have to go to the scriptures, writings, revelations, ordinances and teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith in order to get our attention. You have expressed a desire to speak to us again. When you can show us where we are inconsistent with his teachings and doctrines we will pack our hall to listen to you, as he is the foundation of everything that we believe. Until you do search through the Prophet's teachings and find those discrepancies, there will not be much of an audience, because, although you may not accept it, we have already seen and heard everything that you have offered.
Evidently, you have a low opinion of our knowledge of our own history, but there are several of us who have found, read, discussed and studied among [p6] ourselves and with our children everything that you have presented to us. As mentioned in my letter, you can offer us reams to discredit the eight hour meeting or the 1886 revelation and conferral, but you will not cause us to be the least disturbed, because we know our position is consistent with Joseph Smith. Although we absolutely do have the historical and intellectual justification for the course that we are pursuing, it was the witness from the Holy Ghost confirming our testimonies of the Prophet Joseph Smith that convinced each of us to embark on our path and which gives us, the strength and the peace to continue it.
Let me offer this to you: the night that we both spoke, I made reference to sources that you have not been able to see. As you should be aware, much of the history of any people is based on the credibility of those who represent it. I did not know either of the Woolleys, but I have known people who did know the Woolleys; I have total confidence in the veracity of those who bore their testimonies to me that both John and Lorin made every claim that you assure me is false. Pardon me if I do not place much confidence in your assurances, because I have heard the testimonies of people whose integrity I know to be as pure as anyone on the earth today bear me exactly the opposite assurance. Your assurances are based on your inability to find evidence sustaining Lorin Woolley's ordination; their assurances are based on their lives of dedication to the calling of Lorin Woolley as witnessed to them by the Holy Ghost.
While none of those I knew bore firsthand witness, let me remind you that neither did anyone else besides Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith bear any first hand witness of Joseph's ordinations. In fact, there is no record in Joseph Smith’s History of the Church, that the ordinations to the Melchizedek Priesthood ever occurred. It is only because of the detailed and methodical efforts of B. H. Roberts, that we find reference to their ordinations by Peter, James and John in the footnotes, even though he could not determine an exact date. You deny any validity to a comparison of the “problems” with which the Tanners have challenged Joseph Smith, and the “problems” with which you have challenged Lorin Woolley. Is your logic’ consistent, Brother Brian? Yet, although the Tanners do not credence Brigham Young's testimony that Joseph's ordinations did occur, I place great value in his testimony. Although it is apparent that you do not respect Brigham Young, I strongly value his testimony of Joseph Smith, and I place Joseph Musser in the same relationship to Lorin Woolley and the truth of his calling as I do Brigham Young to Joseph's.
Not only did Brother Joseph Musser bear testimony of the validity of the callings of the Woolleys, but so did Daniel R. Bateman, who was present at the eight-hour meeting, and who bore his testimony to many of my relatives whose integrity is unimpeachable. Of course, you would probably treat the testimony of my friends and family and question their integrity in exactly the same way that Max Anderson treated Daniel Bateman, Lorin Woolley or anyone else whose views did not support Brother Max's pre-determined conclusions.
Obviously, you are very well acquainted with Max Anderson's Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact, as you faithfully follow and restate his ideas. It is amazing, however, how much evidence that his original draft contained which he chose not to place in his final offering. Of course, as an historian, I do not care for the Tanner style of historical "analysis" that both you and Max [use?].
[p7] It is doubtful that either of you has served the interests of posterity or of the church very well: sooner or later, the full contents of the church historian's office files will be made available; every year more and more non-biased historians are gaining more and more access, and offering more and more understanding. You state that you wish that the L. John Nuttall diary for September 1886 were available. Do you really? Honestly? If that diary proved Lorin Woolley a liar, don't you think that Heber J. Grant and his successors would have published it to the world long ago? Instead they have carefully hidden these and several other things away, just as Brother Musser told my father they had. Where do I get that idea? From what my father told me that Joseph Musser told him. You don't believe me?
Brother Musser's position, as was my father's also, whether you believe they agreed or not, was that although the members of the church had chosen to reject the fullness of God’s laws, that it was and still is His church. We don't want to see the church in the compromising positions that you and others like you have placed the church. You make these sweeping statements and assuming assertions that are later disproved when more evidence comes out. Just think how much those who support the position that you have so loyally followed have had to yield, because of the information that historians like Quinn, Buerger, Ehat, Christensen, the Toscanos and Ken Driggs have found. These historians present a problem to you which forces you and other apologists to constantly keep redefining your position.
You used to solemnly deny the existence of the revelation of 1886 - well now, yes, it does exist, o.k., you admit that you did have it all along, but it doesn't give the fundamentalists any authority. For years you maintained that Brigham Young was misquoted, and that he did not teach the Adam God doctrine - well now, yes, he did teach it, so now you simply tell us he was wrong. For years you maintained that the Manifesto of 1890 ended the practice of plural marriage - well now, yes, you have to admit that the church did continue to support, perpetuate, promulgate, encourage, sanction and perform plural marriages after the only "revelation" ever offered to justify its revocation, but you insist that doesn't mean that anyone has the right to practice it now, even though there has never been a revelation to justify why the church has rejected a law of God - not in 1890 or 1904 or 1907 or at any other time. And yes by the way, you claim that plural marriage was never valid anyway, Brigham was wrong, Heber was wrong; all of them who lived it were wrong, all the way through to and including Heber J. Grant himself.
Be assured, our attitude is very different. We relish, we welcome, we anxiously anticipate every new historical analysis, and we have expanded our views as more complete information is offered to us, because we are not at all ashamed of our history or any of God's revelations through his servants, and we are constantly accepting new light. All this new knowledge has reinforced, bolstered, augmented and strengthened our basic premise - that Joseph Smith is a Prophet. We are always looking for new ideas; the very fact that we opened our hall and brought our children to hear you should prove to you that we are always' willing to receive new information - but quite frankly, you haven't offered any. We have already read Max Anderson's book.
You question us on semantics, taking one word here, and another there, [p8] trying to beat those words into submission. You offer me analogies; some of them are interesting, but I do very much disagree with your assertion that we are a shoot that has sprung forth from a sick branch. I will not again endeavour to explain how we perceive ourselves, as you have already drawn your own conclusions, but I can tell you that we do recognise a 'smooth transition' which you are not willing to see. Your perceptions of our origins, and many of the lines of descent were interesting. For example, why did so many of the Kingstons come to my father for their ordinances? What caused you to 'deduce" that we do not trace our priesthood authority through Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith? What prompted you to “conclude” that we claim the right to preside over the church? Or what led you to assume that my father did not perceive of his calling in the same capacity as Mosiah? Who do you think taught me the concept? You aver that we make claims that he did not teach; pardon me, Brian, but I don't remember you being there when my father so carefully taught me.
You have elevated yourself to be an expert on the teachings of Rulon Allred and Joseph Musser, stating in your book, your letters and in your oral presentation that we do not understand their teachings. Please forgive me for finding humour in this, but try to understand your position: I knew my father for twenty five years, had hundreds of hours of intense gospel discussions with him, attended scores of meetings where he taught me what I have offered to you; yet, because you have read those parts of his talks that we edited and selected, you feel that you know what he taught more correctly than I do. As an historian I find that puzzling; as his son I find it amusing. As a supporter and witness of his calling, and a believer of his teachings, I find it very sad. You have been so committed to proving my father wrong that you have made no effort to comprehend his message or his mission. Also, you have spent so much time looking and searching for contradictions in the writings of Joseph Musser that you have missed the whole essence of that man's teachings and his life.
I did not know Joseph Musser, as he died when I was a small child, but I knew my father very well, and I am confident that my father knew Joseph Musser as well as anyone did. My father's best friend, who married my father's sister, (making him my uncle), and whose daughter my father married, (making him the grandfather of many of my brothers and sisters), kept a faithful diary of his associations (beginning in the 1920's) with John and Lorin Woolley, Leslie Broadbent, John Barlow and Joseph Musser and there is ample evidence In his diaries to support every claim made by Lorin Woolley, or Joseph Musser. And we have the testimonies and diaries of others who knew them well. They knew all of those men, and their integrity and virtue Is unimpeachable. I am not interested in giving you their names so that you can commence your style of 'history' on them, too.
Of course, what it all comes to is credibility. I realise that there are many people who offer wild and incredible recollections of the Woolleys. I do not believe many of the things those individuals offer. However, I do not feel any necessity to try to explain or apologise for their ideas and recollections anymore than the "Utah" Mormons sought to explain or apologise for the ideas of David Whitmer, William Marks or Emma Smith. Just as there were those, however, who did know Joseph Smith well, despite what his detractors, and Brigham's detractors claimed, there are those whom I have known - very closely - who bore [p9] their testimonies to me of the calling and function of the men you try to discredit and deny. Perhaps you can understand why none of us was moved by your views of the 1886 occurrences. Many of the people who were present are the descendants of those people who gained and bore that testimony of John and Lorin C. Woolley. But more importantly, they are the descendants of those people who gained and bore a testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ and lived the commandments, revelations, teachings and ordinances revealed through Joseph Smith.
I do not offer my uncles names, or my aunts' names, or my mothers' names, as I choose not to offer the name of the man whom I support today, because I know exactly what you would do, Brian. You tell me in your letter that you would not attack him, after you had practised character assassination on Joseph Musser, Lorin Woolley and most certainly endeavoured to discredit my father by telling me that you knew that he was inconsistent with Joseph Musser. You entered our meeting hall, and there you stood at the pulpit and told us that Brigham Young was wrong. I don't care for that type of history. It reminds me of the works and attitude of Jerald and Sandra Tanner. As an historian, I might feel challenged to refute your accusations, but as a supporter and witness of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and every other man who has held the fullness of the keys of the Priesthood, I feel no obligation to defend our position.
Any honest historian would recognise that in order to refute the Position of any great teacher or any leader or founder of any movement, idea or religion, that one has to weigh and analyse the principles, not the man himself. When I studied Karl Marx, I studied his works so that I could find the strengths and weaknesses of his positions. I never stooped to attack his personal integrity, or analyse whether he had absence of mind or mental lapses as you aver that Lorin C. Woolley did. But just as Marx's appeal and historical power lies not in his personal life but in his ideas, you are wasting your time trying to sway us by attacking the credibility or integrity of the messengers who brought us God's laws. You rejected the main point of my first letter: it is the power and ideas of the gospel of Jesus Christ that convince us and give us strength to pursue our course, not the personality of Lorin Woolley. Surely, you must know that ideas and convictions are the most powerful motivators in the world. More important than my knowledge and study of history and the forces of men's philosophies, is the testimony from the Holy Ghost of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
We are determined to fulfil all His laws and ordinances exactly as He revealed and restored them through His prophet Joseph Smith.  It becomes obvious that you do not care about the ideas that we believe, even though they are exactly, completely and exclusively those ideas revealed and instituted through the Prophet Joseph Smith.   If you are going to discredit Lorin Woolley, or Joseph Musser or Rulon Allred or his successor today, you will have to go to Joseph Smith's teachings and doctrines, as these men and their associates are the only ones who have continued, perpetuated and maintained his teachings since 1918.
Heber J. Grant and many of his successors have denied the necessity of continuing and Perpetuating Joseph Smith's teachings; they have systematically [p10] rejected, ridiculed, defamed and sought to obliterate every doctrine, principle and ordinance of the gospel that would challenge their decisions to take it upon themselves to deny the validity of Joseph Smith's calling. You take exception to my statement that there has to be authority outside of the church. Is it not plainly evident that no one in the church has been willing to function in Joseph Smith's position? Lorin Woolley wins that contest by default. He was the only one who claimed and admitted to having the same calling, the same authority, the same ordination and the same fullness as his predecessors.
You do not see a smooth transition from Joseph F. Smith to John and Lorin Woolley; I do not see a smooth transition from Joseph F. Smith to Heber J. Grant, but instead the emergence of a rapidly increasing rejection of Joseph Smith's teaching and the implementation of the ideas of men - and all of this without one single revelation to justify these changes. The only claims that any of them has made was to have been "inspired." I cannot accept that God would only "inspire" his leaders today. I have looked for and found those men who receive revelation - the kind that says, "Thus saith the Lord." Unfortunately, there has not been that kind presented to the church since 1882. Not even the Manifesto contains those words, and that is the last one that was even purported to be a revelation. Of course, we believe that Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith continued to receive revelation - but not as president of the church, because they never offered any to the church.
I was embarrassed for you when you accused us of developing our theology in retrospect. We have exactly the same theology that Joseph revealed. It is you who supports a new theology developed and created after 1918, which was developed in retrospect - not to Mormon origins, however, but to the universities, theological seminaries and lyceums of the world from where your theology comes. Please be honest, Brian: you prefer James Talmage to Joseph Smith; John Widtsoe to Brigham Young; Bruce R. McConkie to Heber C. Kimball; Mark E. Peterson to George Q. Cannon. Whose "theologies" came from God? Whose do you accept? You know which ones we follow and obey. We accept Lorin Woolley's testimony, because his calling proves a succession of doctrines and ordinances that have remained pure and unchanged in their unbroken continuity from Joseph Smith to the present. Conversely, we are not able to accept the current direction of the church's leaders because they have told us that it is impossible to accept and fulfil the teachings of Joseph Smith; in fact, they tell us that his teachings are not essential, not important, but only incidental superfluities that we don't need to believe and obey. Clearly, none of you truly believes in his calling!
Lorin Woolley and his successors are the only men on the earth who have had the courage to stand up before the world and still bear witness that Joseph Smith and his successors were, and still are, and always will be prophets of God. No one in the church is willing to make that stand to believe AND LIVE AND FULFILL THE WORD OF GOD. So how could anyone in the church, regardless of their ordination, position or calling, claim to have a fullness of the Priesthood, or to be the successors of those men who did? Your reasoning baffles me.
My experience as a speech and debate coach did permit me to find pleasant amusement at your use of provocative questions. My favourite event is Lincoln Douglas Debate, where we train the debaters to phrase questions in such a way [p11] that either a yes or a no answer can be used against their opponents. You offered your query, "If the Lorin Woolley 1886 ordinations never occurred, are [we] still justified before the Lord?" This is a fundamentally argumentative question, designed not to determine truth, but to place an opponent on a defensive position. To answer the question either way would force your respondent to admit that his position is illogical. It is similar to ones that I have heard in watching Lincoln-Douglas debaters, '8if God is all powerful, could he build a rock so large that he could not lift it?" or "if evolution is a fact, would you then admit that men were not created by god?" or if students do not have the right to have prayers in school, do they have the right to freedom of speech?"
Your question has two components which do not logically hinge upon the other: our "justification" is based on Joseph Smith, not Lorin Woolley; as Joseph Smith jr. a prophet of God, then there would have to have been a way prepared for God's children to obey His commandments. You, on the other hand, are linking two ideas together which you clearly do not believe to be true: you claim that Lorin Woolley did not receive a valid ordination; you maintain that it is not necessary, or acceptable, to live and obey all the laws and ordinances of the gospel today. Either of your premises would automatically invalidate the other. You have placed them together in such a way as to "prove" to yourself that you have correctly "deduced" truth, as you know that to answer your question with either a "yes" or a "no" would supposedly grant you your point. A "yes" would trap your opponent into accepting your assertion that Lorin Woolley's ordination was not valid; a “no” would force your adversary to validate your premise that the practice of a fullness of God's laws is not necessary. I could respond by asking you, "If the Lorin Woolley 1886 ordination did occur, are you still justified before the Lord?" Sophistry may have its use in training lawyers, theologians, doctrinal theorists and church apologists, but my testimony based on the witness of the Holy Ghost does not require me to engage in it with you.
You "additionally assure [me] that those ordinations never did occur ... [because] the evidence against the ordinations is rather significant."(page 1 of you letter of April 23, 1991) Have you read the original, uncut version of Max Anderson's book? You might ask him to let you read it some time. You might not feel so assured in your assurances. Even after finding more information that would challenge your position in it, however, you still may make your assurances to me that these ordinations never occurred. Of course, you would probably assure me that my testimony from the Holy Ghost never occurred, but it assures me that those ordinations did occur. I will not debate that issue with you, any more than I would debate with people like Jerald and Sandra Tanner who make the same kind of accusations and challenges against Joseph Smith. All of you who take that type of attitude try to prove that something did not happen, simply because you cannot find proof of it; but how could you when you determined before you even began your investigation that the Lorin Woolley statement was false. Your methodology of "history is identical to the Tanners.
The inconsistency of your logic is obvious. You have made sweeping assertions and assumptions based on an absence of information. Is that how they taught you medical or scientific research; do you make those kinds of assurances [p12] to your patients? Are you really willing to assure me that something did not occur simply because you have not found sufficient proof to satisfy you. Are you willing to stake your eternal salvation and exaltation on your inability to find evidence in sources that you recognise? Are you willing to accept everything that the present leaders of the church tell you notwithstanding the numerous contradictions to the laws of God that their doctrines contain? Are you ready to reject the whole mission and testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith simply because there is not proof among the carefully selected documents in the Church historian's office that a legal, lawful, valid ordination occurred in 1886?
Read the trial of Abinadi before King Noah's priests again. Were not Noah's priests all properly ordained to their callings? Where did Abinadi receive his authority? Were there any witnesses? Was his calling recognised by the leadership of his day? Was there a record of Abinadi's ordination in King Noah's historian's office? Did they listen to his message and obey the promptings of the Holy Spirit? Or did they reject him because he did not have control of the legal and lawful religious organisation that had been founded by Zeniff? Does ordination to an office in the church qualify a man? Or does one actually have to live and obey and receive and fulfil all the laws and ordinances of the gospel EXACTLY as they have been lived by others who have gone before? Please read the sixth and seventh Lectures on Faith again. I hope that you would believe that they are of God. To offer, as you did, that God has a different law for different people at different times might make you and other church apologists feel better, but there is nothing in the scriptures to justify such an attitude.
There has never been a time when God had a different law for people who were willing to abide a fullness than for people of another time who were also willing to abide a fullness. To offer, as you do, that God requires different things at different times is to accuse God of being a liar. Have you never read the numerous citations in which He tells us that He never changes? That He is the same, yesterday, today, forever, and always? That there is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated, and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated? To support your claim is to state that God is a very capricious and cruel God; that He might change His mind at any time. Do you not find it ironic that He would be constant, from eternity to eternity, never change from that which He has said; that he would irrevocably decree eternal, immutable laws; that His prophets would always agree, would correlate, interconnect and dovetail together in every time, among every people but that He would change ALL of His laws and promises ONLY for the Mormons since 1890? Or in 1904? Or in 1918? Or In 1921? Or in 1978? When might He change His unchangeable mind again?
The only instance that would justify your assertions was when God instructed Moses to give the children of Israel what we call the law of Moses. Hopefully, you would acknowledge that the law of Moses was a lower law, given because the children of Israel refused to receive the fullness; in consequence of their rebellion, God removed the fullness of the Priesthood from them as a people. But still, someone had it. If that is the type of relationship that you are describing to justify the church's position of today, then I would agree [p13] with you: you are living by the lower laws which do not have the Power to exalt to a fullness. Perhaps you would agree that this could not be considered progression- but rather, that it reflects a rejection of the fullness, and a retrogression.
It is amazing: the only thing that you have been able to find to even challenge us on is the absence of proof to support Lorin Woolley's position. You have no scriptural basis on which to challenge us. You came into our hall and used inference, innuendo, presumption and recently developed re-interpretations of God's word in defiance of the Prophet Joseph Smith who received those very revelations that you use to build your case. You never offered any evidence from the scriptures or even the new revelations which the recent leaders of the church are supposed to have received to bolster your Position and assertions. You say that we are unwilling to accept any of the recent revelations; where are they? If they prove us wrong, why don't you produce them for us?
Please consider a few observations.
Yes, Joseph Musser did associate with John T. Clark from 1921 to 1923, just as Gordon B. Hinckley associated with George P. Lee until 1990. But I believe that you will find that John T. Clark did not make his extraordinary claims until 1925. Joseph Smith associated with John C. Bennett in 1841; with William and Wilson Law from 1840 to 1843. Do you feel required to justify Gordon B. Hinckley's associations, or Joseph Smith's friendships? Enough said.
You infer that we do not know our history as well as you do, because you have taken the time to read the diary of Samuel Bateman and we have not. Presumably, if one of your colleagues were to tell you that you would not find much information on anaesthesiology in the diary of an anaesthesiologist, would you feel weakened as a practitioner or advocate of that man's profession even though his diaries contained no reference to his accomplishments in your field of endeavour? Or, would you seek for information on anaesthesiology from his diary after your colleagues told you that it contained nothing of relevance to your profession? At the same time, why should I feel a compelling need to read Samuel Bateman's diary, when my father told me that there is nothing in Samuel Bateman's diary of any particular interest relative to his priesthood calling? As a supporter of Lorin Woolley's Position, I feel no need to read the diary; as an historian I am perplexed that you feel that I should waste my efforts in pursuing a line of research which others have already told me bears no relevance. I can only presume what anaesthesiologists would do; but I know what trained historians would - or would not do. The Samuel Bateman diary is not an integral component of our studies, for those very reasons which you yourself offer. Then why would you feel to judge me as incompetent or ignorant for not reading it?
At the same time, it is Intriguing that you would feel qualified to pass judgement on Samuel Bateman and proclaim that he did not act or behave like an Apostle. What exactly does one have to do in order to qualify for your approval? By what criteria do you judge men to assess the value of their lives? By what authority do you determine that he did not qualify to receive a fullness? Just because you cannot find definitive proof from his diaries that [p14] he did receive the same calling as Lorin Woolley did, neither can you logically deduce that he did not. Perhaps you should consider the following concept when you do your research, particularly before you make your sweeping conclusions. This excerpt is from BYU Studies, 76:216:
"The absence of evidence may narrow possibility but does not rule it out. Unless something can be positively ruled out for other reasons, there always remains the possibility that it occurred even though it is not noted in the documentation at hand."
That is the type of historical research methodology that I was taught at the University of Montana. You and Max Anderson might consider following it yourselves.
If you study the last year of Joseph Smith's life, you will find reference to the fact that not all of his Apostles received a fullness of what he wanted to offer and confer upon them: John E. Page, William Smith and Lyman Wight did not receive the fullness of the ordinances. It appears that you still think that you know what "High Priest Apostle means more correctly than I do, but consider those men and how they differed from Brigham Young, John Taylor and the others. Also, I have known four of the men ordained to the Council or Apostleship by Joseph Musser, and none of them was ordained to be a "High Priest Apostle. They all received the charge, however, to attain a fullness of their Apostleship, just as the original Twelve received Oliver Cowdery's challenge to complete their calling and election and never cease striving until they had seen the face of the Saviour themselves.
Whether you like it or not, that is what the term "High Priest Apostle means - to qualify to receive the second anointing and one's calling and election made sure. As my wife said after having read your letter, "he sure is hung up on that thing about High Priest Apostle. I guess he's just trying to make an issue of it." I would agree with her. It appears that you think you have finally found something in our position that is different from EXACTLY what Joseph Smith taught, and you want to make an issue of it. Sorry1 but there is no issue there at all. David Buerger, Andrew Ehat and the Toscanos have been able to understand the concept quite well. Perhaps you could read their ideas again as you have no interest in my understanding. You may discount the necessity of the second anointing, or of the necessity of one's calling and election being made sure, as according to the papers of George F. Richards, those ordinances have all but died out in the church, just like so many others. Just because no one in the church is willing to obey God's laws and accept or perpetuate those ordinances, however, this does not mean that God no longer offers them, or requires men to qualify for and receive them; Just because no one in the church has qualified for or has received them does not mean that there are not others outside the church who have done so.
The part of your letter that interested me most is where you tell me that you "perceive an inability for Fundamentalists to receive all that the Lord has sent to us from heaven through His prophets." I couldn't disagree more. We have accepted everything that has ever been revealed. Do you? The truth of the matter is that there is no revelation from God to justify all the changes that have been made by the church since 1918. You listed the names of Wilford [p15] Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith and Lorenzo Snow recommending that we study their teachings too. We do. We accept everything they ever taught. Do you? What teachings are you talking about?
We do not, however, accept many of the teachings of the current leadership. All your bold and sweeping assertions notwithstanding, the church has not produced one revelation since 1882 to explain or justify any new policy implemented since 1918; no revelation exists to command or justify the numerous rejections of God's laws and commandments or the changing of His sacred, holy ordinances. You must have read the testimony of Joseph F. Smith in the Reed Smoot investigation? I would agree that the Lord did direct and instruct Wilford Woodruff to issue the Manifesto, and I support him 100%. But I also am aware that no more than a week passed after he had issued it before he directed my great grandfather to go to Mexico, and gave him a recommend to marry a plural wife there.
My family has a letter written by Heber J. Grant to my father in which President Grant acknowledged to my father that his parents, B. Harvey Allred, Jr., and Mary Evelyn Clark, had been sealed in Old Mexico, by Anthony W. livens, in 1903, with the express consent, direction and permission of Joseph F. Smith. You must know that D. Michael Quinn has proven that the church perpetuated plural marriage up until Joseph F. Smith's 1904 "second" manifesto. Yet, President Smith never claimed to have received a revelation to justify it; he was too honest to make such a claim. Section 58:30-32 50 poignantly sums it all up. Who am I that made man, saith the Lord, that will hold him guiltless that obeys not my commandments? Who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised and have not fulfilled? I command and men obey not: I revoke and they receive not the blessing.
Your "analysis" of the Manifesto, and the whole history of the principle of Celestial Marriage amazes me: as an historian, I am amused by your creative revisions, sweeping assertions, selective interpretations and embarrassing denials; as a witness of the Prophet Joseph, I am saddened that you could so belittle his mission, and his dedication to the very principle that you so casually cast aside as inconsequential. If you are going to pose as an expert on the history of plural marriage perhaps you should consider learning something about it. I have difficulty agreeing with your brief and sweeping conclusions and assertions of the Manifesto. Yes, it is true that the Lord directed President Woodruff to issue the Manifesto - just as he describes that process in Section 58. It is not possible for me to accept the watered down views that you, Eldon Watson, James Talmage and others have offered on the necessity of plural marriage.
It was highly intriguing to witness your use of Max Anderson's methodology to select just a handful of quotes from discourses which might be construed to "justify" men who choose not to live the law of plurality of wives, while you must surely know that there are HUNDREDS that prove the contrary. This type of "historical analysis" ties a few ideas here, one there, one over here, constructing a whole new history to justify the church's refusal to stand true to God and the exalting principles of the gospel in the 1880's. Mormonism' 5 monogamist men obeyed not; and God revoked his law from the church and they will receive not the blessing. How evident does something have to be?
[p16] When I read how you all perceive the sacred principle of Celestial PLURAL marriage as an inconsequential, discredited, superfluous, incidental, optional principle that never was necessary, it makes me wonder how foolish you must think those thousands of brethren and sisters were who gave up everything in the 1880's to be true to the commandments and obey that law.  I am embarrassed for you that you would judge them so harshly!  You are asserting that they were stupid because they could not see things as clearly, as you are able to do so. You all claim that it was not necessary to obey that law!  It is unfortunate that not only were those brethren so foolish as to believe that the revelation promised exaltation only to those who lived in the covenant of a plurality of wives, but all of the presiding leaders of the church also shared that same uninformed misconception and gave up everything themselves:  John Taylor went into hiding for two and a half years, never to return to the love of his family and comfort of his home (it is sad that he was unaware of Section 132:19); Wilford Woodruff and numerous others followed President Taylor into hiding; some like Joseph F. Smith even left the country; hundreds, like Lorenzo Snow, George Q'. Cannon, Rudger Clawson and Abraham Cannon were so uninformed that they mistakenly and needlessly went to prison.  Thousands of women had to struggle for as many as six years without the love, solace, comfort and support of their husbands.
It is unfortunate for them that they could not have understood the intricacies of creative reinterpretation and linguistic analysis to catch and appreciate the subtle nuances of Section 132 to be able to extract such an interpretation of that revelation as has been offered by the church's learned theologians fortunate enough to have been educated in the theological schools of the best universities of America; instead those unlearned brethren and sisters had to rely on the Holy Spirit and follow the direction of humble men who followed the dictates of the Holy Ghost and remained true to the teachings of God's prophets, and had the courage and fortitude to perpetuate His priesthood in its fullness.
Do you really hold all of them in such low esteem that you truly feel that none of them was able to read Section 132 and understand what it "really" means? Do you really feel that John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith or Rudger Clawson or Orson F. Whitney - HUNDREDS of others, were not able to read verse 19 of Section 132? Can you really feel comfortable in judging them as the unwitting followers of a non-essential, superfluous, incidental law which has no reward? Are you really suggesting that none of them needed to have practised a plurality of wives, as you aver that you and others like you will receive a fullness of every blessing offered in that revelation without having to pay the same price, obey the same laws, accept the same ordinances, receive the same fullness that they did? You fascinate me! You really do.
In my first letter you referred to my "careful interpretation" of Section 132. The whole history of Nineteenth Century Mormonism teems with discourses and discussions of the., correct" interpretation of Section 132: it is fascinating how you and those who support your position can ignore the whole history behind the origins of that revelation, its reception, its recording, its first declaration, its promulgation - and yet you can so distort and torture a plain and simple 'revelation from the mind and will of Jesus Christ to get what [p17] you want to receive out of it, despite of and in opposition to everything that our progenitors dedicated and lived their whole lives for! If you would be interested in using the methodology of professional historians and studying the origins of "Temple Monogamy Marriage," you might be quite surprised to find that it developed in opposition to and in defiance of the teachings and testimonies of the people who preserved and perpetuated the Priesthood at a phenomenal price for us. Unfortunately, it appears you do not highly esteem those Saints of the 1880's. Instead, you simply dismiss the value of their lives with a few sentences that God simply changed his mind, no longer requiring that law.
You probably have strong feelings about amateur healers who "practice" their healing processes without training, without license and without conscience - and you should, because they bring all of you into disrepute. I feel the same way about my profession. There is, however, no law that would allow people to be sued for malpractice of history. History is a discipline; it is not a science. History is not the study of "absolute" truth as that would be impossible for the human mind to absolutely deduce; rather, history is "an interpretation of the past based on evidence." I have heard that sentence uttered by history professors probably twenty different times. You seem to want to take history and "deduce" absolute truth when you want to, as when you try to invalidate Lorin Woolley's claims by reading or surveying only a small sampling of evidence; and yet you want to avoid reality by refusing to become immersed in the events, occurrences, writings, proceedings and daily lives of the Latter-day Saints in the 1880's, as that would severely challenge your predetermined position.
I have spent more time studying Nineteenth Century Mormonism than any other thing in this world. I am probably more aware of what happened in Utah in the 1880's than I am of what occurred in Utah in the 1980's; your sweeping assertions and incredible assumptions absolutely fascinate me! Where did you get your information from? Why don't you use the same careful, critical, caustic analysis of the church's origins of the concept of "Temple Monogamy" as you have used to analyse Lorin Woolley's claims? Please by consistent. How can you view the Manifesto as a revelation revoking an eternal law; how is it that you cannot see that the Lord promised deliverance to all of Israel had they stood true to Him rather than subjecting themselves to Babylon?
Consider the prophecies made by Joseph Smith concerning the coming of Christ in 1890 or 1891. First, Section 130:14-11 where he stated that the Lord would not come before he was eighty five, {December 23, 1805 + 85 = December 1890 or 1891). Secondly, Documentary History of the Church, Volume 5:336, where he stated “I prophecy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written, the Son of Man wi1l not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty five years old. And Hosea, 6th chapter, After two days, etc, - 2520 years; which brings it to 1890. The coming of the Son of Man never will be - never can be till the judgements spoken of for this hour are poured out." Third, Documentary History of the Church, Volume 2:182: "Even 56 years shall wind up the scene. [uttered February 14, 1835, the same day as the calling of the first Twelve. 1835 + 56 = 1891)
Of course, you may argue away the significance of these utterances and the year of 1890 and the Manifesto. But I know differently. The history is there. [p18] Read about the constitutional convention of 1887 where the Mormon monogamist majority assembled and made the most sacred and exalting principle of the gospel a 'crime." They outlawed the eternal Celestial law by which their leaders were living. And then the rank and file members went to the polls and voted for this constitution, making their prophets, seers, and revelators criminals. The Mormon monogamists approved this constitution by a vote of ten to one! That vote is where the concept of Temple Monogamy, using verse 19, Section 132 as its only scriptural basis, emerged. It developed from rebellion, not revelation! And yet, you tell me that the Saints had stood faithful? By whose standards? And then what about the Idaho Test Oath, for which thousands of the Saints withdrew fellowship from the church in order to vote? And then what about the Cullom Struble bill which would have made the Idaho Test Oath a national standard, after that oath had been upheld by the Supreme Court?
With the whole nation arrayed against him, his fellow members of the Holy Order in hiding, the church in the control of the monogamists as all those who were living "the law" were in hiding - and the rank and file membership in the church in open rebellion - of course Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, in accordance to the Lord’s direction. But could it have been otherwise had the Saints remained faithful? Go read these things for yourself. I have probably read all of the church's apologies for it, but nothing can change the fact that in rejecting the laws and ordinances of the gospel - in fact voting to make their leaders criminals - that the church made a covenant with death and hell, and that is when the pressure came for a changing of the ordinances as well. Only because Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith held all of the keys did those changes not occur until after 1918. Does history support the position of present day church apologists? I think not.
You have never expressed an interest in any of my works or studies, but let me offer this one insight to you. In 1983 I took a class entitled Twentieth Century European Intellectual History at the University of Montana. One of the readings was from the Selections from the Prison Notes, by Antonio Gramsci, in which he analysed the sociological, religious, cultural and political implications of hegemony in Italy. Although Gramsci was analysing the events of Italy's Risorgimento (Italy's war of political unification in the 1860's) his evaluation and analysis struck me so hard, because he might just as well have been discussing the conflict in Nineteenth Century Utah between the Mormon Polygamous leaders, the Mormon Monogamous majority, the non-Mormons in Utah, and the Federal Government. I became fascinated, and from that developed my first thesis, "Mormon Polygamy and the Manifesto of 1890: A Study of Hegemony and Social Conflict." What I found first in Gramsci and later in Karl Marx was an explanation of how social groups resolve their conflicts; from that I could see very clearly what my father had taught me all my life. I went to the University, never thinking that I would find in the ideas of men a validation of the fundamentalist perspective. If you care to be real esoteric for a moment please allow me to make the following sociological illustration.
Whenever any group of people forms an association, all their laws, rules, social controls and norms are dictated by the basic premise or foundation of their social structure. Whenever any of that social group's laws or rules comes in opposition or conflict with opposing social groups, either that society must remain true to that law or rule in conflict and pay the consequences, or that [p19] society must yield that law or rule to obtain a peaceful resolution to that conflict. Whenever any of that social group's laws or rules is yielded in order to obtain a peaceful resolution, then that change will be in direct conflict with the basic premise or foundation of their social structure. The social structure must validate all rules and laws of the social order; all rules and laws of the social order must validate the basic premise or foundation of their social structure. As there has been a conflict emerge because the social order elected to alter one of the laws or rules of the order, then the social order must alter the basic premise or foundation of their social structure.
I suggest to you, that what happened in Mormonism, is that the original model of Mormonism, which I call the Zion model, stood as the antithesis of middle class America, which I call the Babylon model. The two came into conflict many times. New York Ohio, Missouri, Illinois: each time the Mormons moved rather, than yielding or changing. Then to Utah: for forty years, 1841 to 1881, the Saints refused to yield any of their rules or laws. Finally, with the Constitutional Convention of 1881 and with the ratifying election, Utah's monogamist majority surrendered one of the most Important laws of Mormonism, in opposition to and defiance of their polygamist leaders. Having yielded one of the laws which was part of their superstructure, they then had to begin to alter the basic premise or foundation of their social structure. What emerged was a new religion - based not on Joseph Smith's religion which required that all men who presided in the church practice polygamy, but on the concept of "follow the living prophet," which would enable all monogamist Mormons the comfort of being able to justify and explain why they had yielded an integral, eternal part of an eternal everlasting gospel: they simply changed the everlasting gospel into an ever-changing gospel. And all is well in Zion.

Original Mormon Model

Current Mormon Model
Superstructure:
plurality of wives
united order 
covenant people 
law of gathering 
fullness of priesthood
unchangeable laws 
unalterable ordinances 
unalterable covenants Michael, Father and God Adam is God
Seed of Cain is cursed
Ideological,
sociological,
political and doctrinal superstructures:
all ideas and beliefs must agree with the basic premise or foundation.
Superstructure :
temple monogamous marriage 
corporate capitalism 
universal church, all races
universal church, all nations
church office ordination 
laws changed as needed 
ordinances changed as needed 
covenants changed as needed 
Jehovah (Jesus) creator of all 
Adam Is only the first man 
the curse of Cain not in force
Foundation:
Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. One must follow all of his teachings exactly as he gave or received them. In order to receive a fullness of the Saviour’s glory, one must obey all of the laws and ordinances He revealed through Joseph Smith.

Foundation:
One must follow the teachings of the living church prophets. The Lord may lead, inspire or direct them to make changes In His revelations, ordinances teachings, doctrines, laws or commandments as revealed through Joseph Smith as needed.
[p20] You didn't ask for the lesson in history. You might not find it valid or acceptable. But it might explain to you why you have not found a receptive ear to your message. We have found the model that we want to follow - Joseph Smith. You choose to follow the other model - you obey a changing doctrine, observe altered commandments, receive changed ordinances, and support any one who has control of the church today, tomorrow or next year. Consequently, you have an historical "problem."
And yet, you accuse us of not knowing or understanding our history. You claim to have found "problems" in our viewpoints and position, maintaining that we cannot support our position because of our inability to document to your satisfaction one occurrence. And yet history provides you with numerous problems" which threaten and challenge the position of the current leadership of the church. As history does not support your position you turn to non-existent revelations to justify yourselves. Surely you must recognise that the church has implemented remarkable changes in ordinances, principles, doctrine - yet none of these changes was ever justified by revelation. I am reminded of your interpretation of our position as being either:
I Understand and Believe
or
It isn't Important
Do you not see any irony in your own position?
I have appreciated this exchange of ideas with you, Brian. It has caused me to realise, quite vividly, just how far apart our positions are. I have often thought of the plight of my grandfather, B. Harvey Allred, Jr., who in 1903 received permission from Joseph F. Smith to live and practice the fullness of the gospel in Mexico. During the administration of Joseph F. Smith, my grandfather was very well admired and respected among the presiding authorities of the church. He continued to live exactly the same gospel, obey exactly the same doctrines, worship the same God, believe in the same doctrines for the remainder of his life. And yet, although he never changed or varied from anything that he covenanted to fulfil in his younger years when he had the approval and blessing of God's servants, by the time he reached his sixties he found himself, "out of harmony with the leaders of the church." He was eventually excommunicated for not bringing his life, his beliefs, his covenants and the identity of his God into harmony with church policy.
You have believe in and the same time, impossible, as reminded me of what I term the "Mormon paradox": how does one support the Prophet Joseph Smith and obey his teachings, and at support the present leadership of the church? Obviously, it is the two are mutually exclusive.
As an historian I am perplexed that you would accept all of these changes without any qualms. Your ability to point out our "problem" while validating your own "problems confuses and bewilders me. The present church position requires a great deal of faith in the living prophets, yet requires that you reject the calling and mission of Joseph the Prophet. Perhaps you will tell me that you understand the discrepancies between the present direction of the church and the teachings of Joseph Smith but you still "understand and believe;" or will [p21] you tell me that "it isn't important?" As a witness of the calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith, I am heartbroken at the incredible renunciations of the teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ through that man. And yet, there has never been a revelation stating thus saith the Lord,' ever received to justify these changes.
The only support offered for the change in the policy toward the Negro in 1978 was that President Kimball felt "inspired." Where was the "revelation" to justify a policy which placed the church in direct opposition to every prophet in the world's history since the very foundations of this creation? Surely you must know that the Prophet Brigham Young stated definitively, positively and without equivocation that the Negro could not have the blessings of the Melchizedek Priesthood or the blessings of the House of the Lord, until after all the seed of Abel received that opportunity. Please read the Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young. The prophet Joseph was most clear upon this question.
Most certainly, President Kimball's being "inspired" was a very convenient and widely accepted change, as it served to salve the consciences of those "politically correct" saints who were embarrassed by the medieval attitude of Mormonism's founders about such a socially and politically delicate issue. It is remarkable that for me to accept, believe, advocate and champion the teachings of Joseph and Brigham, once again I am running the gauntlet of those socially aware Latter-day Saints who will surely accuse me of bigotry, racism and prejudice. If so, I feel fortunate to be included in such good company as Brigham and Joseph, not to mention father Abraham who wrote: (Abraham chapter 1)
21. Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22. From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
23. The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden.
24. When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25. Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
26. Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
Of course, church apologists have written numerous contorted explanations observing that there is no link between the curse and the Negroes, no correlation between the Canaanites and the black skin. I remember Marty Martin's observations in Mormonism and America, that the church considered any link between this scripture in Abraham 1 and the Negroes of today as a "non sequitir" (a word taken from the Latin "sequi" a form of the word from which the English word "sequence" derives). In observing that there was no direct link between the black skin and the curse of Cain, and no direct correlation connecting the Canaanites with the Negro, Martin reasoned that modern church apologists had once again concluded, just as you do, that "Brigham was wrong.
Consider the words of Enoch in the seventh chapter of Moses:
8. For behold the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.
12. And it came to pass that Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were the people of Canaan, to repent.
22. And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam, and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black and had not Place among them.
Realising that every prophet from the foundation of the world has understood the significance and importance of the mark and curse placed upon the seed of Cain, it becomes very interesting to me that the church would accept an 'inspiration" to contradict the scriptures and establish new doctrine. And yet you accuse us of formulating our doctrine in retrospect. We do acknowledge that the church's decision to implement the policy of admitting the Negro to the "blessings" of the "priesthood" was within their rights, as the church is a democratic institution. The absolute tragedy is that each year hundreds of the daughters of Israel enter the temple, of all places, where they are "sealed" by the "priesthood" to the sons of Cain. What do you think the flood was all about, Brother Brian? As in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the last days.
But the church does have the right to reject scriptures, the teachings of the prophets and their revelations. They proved that point in 1887; and their action in 1978 did make possible the fulfilment of prophecy. Consider the second chapter of II Thessalonians: (Inspired Version, by Joseph Smith)
1. Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him.
2. That ye1 be not soon shaken In mind, or be troubled by letter, except ye receive it from us; neither by spirit, nor by word, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3. Let no man deceive you by any means; for there shall come [p23] a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of Perdition;
4. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
5. Remember ye not, that, when I was with you, I told you these things?
6. And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work, and he it is who now worketh, and Christ suffereth him to work, until the time is fulfilled that he shall be taken out of the way.
8. And then shall that wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.
9. Yea, the Lord, even Jesus, whose coming is not until after there cometh a falling away, by the working of Satan with all power, and signs and lying wonders.
10. And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish,; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12. That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
One could assume that Paul was referring to the falling away of the Catholic church. But then, how could the son of perdition sit "in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God," except that this would have to be fulfilled after Joseph Smith's calling? As there was not a temple of God at the time of the building of the Kirtland Temple, can one not see that this is in reference to the fact that the "son of perdition" has been allowed – invited - into the "temple of God?" Yes, we recognise that the church's decision had to happen in order for that prophecy to be fulfilled, but that is a decision that would be consistent with what Paul offers in verses 7 through 12 above. Does that decision not reflect a "falling away" as Paul prophesied?
At the same time, one could compare Paul's admonition, "[r]emember ye not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things," to the warnings of Joseph Smith that if any man teach any doctrine other than what he had taught, he would be accursed. I would not want to be in the position of teaching a doctrine that is contrary to the revelations of God through His prophet Joseph Smith. Perhaps you feel comfortable in that situation, but we prefer to follow the teachings and revelations of the prophets, and we will allow others to accept the strong delusions, or "inspirations." Where was the revelation, Brother Brian?
Where was the revelation to make the numerous changes in the temple endowment? No longer are people instructed or taught how to approach God; no longer are sisters blessed to enter into the covenant of obedience to the law of their husbands, thus precluding their approaching God in the true order of prayer. No longer are the penalties given; consequently, the signs for them, which are absolutely necessary to approach God, are no longer given either. The leadership has completely cut off their fellow church members from the ability to embrace at the veil in order to enter into the presence of God. It is no longer possible to enter into the presence of God. Where is that? The Celestial glory. Apparently that is no longer a necessary place to go, but is an inconsequential, superfluous, optional, incidental and permissible existence to obtain. But where was the revelation?
Yet you tell me to accept these revelations. Where are they?
The development of a world-wide church, with corporate structures closely patterned after the leading law firms of Wall Street - or Madison Avenue - probably brings great pride to you, Brother Brian, but it brings great concern to us. The church has become highly respected and accepted around the world. But what ever happened to the concept that there were only two forces in the world, good and evil? (1 Nephi 14:10, 2 Nephi 2) That whatsoever is good comes from God and whatsoever is evil comes from Lucifer. (Alma 5) That there must needs be opposition in all things; that there are things that act, and those which are acted upon. (2 Nephi:2) That there are only two churches in the world: the church of Lucifer and the church of the Lamb. (1 Nephi 14:10) Then why would the church need to be 'inspired" to take out the part of the preacher in the temple endowment because it was "offensive" to the feelings of other churches? Of course it was offensive to the other churches: whose churches are they? (it is interesting that the only people or religion in the world that you publicly denounce are the fundamentalists who follow Joseph Smith's teachings) But where was the revelation commanding or directing the leaders of the church to make these changes in God's temples, Brother Brian?
While I understand the necessity of being the church "upon all the face of the earth," which Nephi saw in his vision (1 Nephi 14:12), whatever happened to the concept of gathering to Zion? The church used to have a saying to the effect that
"We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion will be built upon this the American continent that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory." Joseph Smith, Wentworth Letter. History of the Church, Volume 4:531.
Surprisingly, this is still in the Pearl of Great Price as well. I assume members of the church still believe in the concept of the gathering. We do. But where was the revelation that changed this basic [p25] doctrine? The immigration quotas of the Immigration and Naturalisation Acts? Does that mean that whatever act or bill that Congress passes will immediately have a direct effect on the teachings, laws, doctrines and "inspirations' of the church? But where was the revelation that we are not accepting?
While I would agree wholeheartedly that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which Ezra Taft Benson is president, is that church of which the angel in Nephi's vision spoke, I also do look forward to the setting in order by the one mighty and strong. (Section 85) While James Talmage put some minds at rest with one of his creative reinterpretations in which he claimed that the one mighty and strong was Edward Partridge, there are many of us who do have the ability to read and understand the scriptures ourselves. The concept of the setting in order by the the mighty strong most certainly used to be an integral part of Mormon Doctrine. I remember asking my father why the church no longer teaches it. He told me that they could not accept it because to believe in the setting in order would require that they admit that the church and House of God need to be set in order. That would admit to the possibility that perhaps not all is well in Zion.
Clearly, Joseph Smith's work is not finished: he will return as a resurrected being, standing once more upon the earth in the flesh to set in order the House of God. Please read a letter that Joseph wrote to Orson Hyde and John E. Page when they were called to dedicate the Holy Land for the gathering of the Jews. There is one important line in there where he writes to them,
"brethren you are in the pathway to eternal fame, and immortal glory, and inasmuch as you feel interested for the covenant people of the Lord, the God of their fathers shall bless you. Do not be discouraged of account of the greatness of the work; only be humble and faithful and then you can say, "what art thou, 0 great mountain.' before Zerubbabel shalt thou be brought down.'.
Who was Zerubbabel? Is it not apparent to all who have eyes to see that this is Joseph Smith? Consider the words of the prophet Zechariah in chapter 4 of his prophecy:
6. Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, this word of the Lord unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.
7. Who art thou, 0 great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain; and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.
8. Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
9. The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto you.
10. For who hath despised the day of small things? For they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the servants of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole earth.
There are four very good reasons to believe that this prophecy will be fulfilled by Joseph Smith.
First, the Zerubbabel of the Bible, who is the "type" of this prophecy not finish the work of building the Lord's house that he began, therefor, fulfillment of this prophecy is yet to be accomplished. I am assuming that are familiar with the realisation that all of the Hebrew prophets used types shadows.
Secondly, Joseph Smith was promised in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 90:16:
And this shall be your business and mission is all your lives to preside in council, and set in order all the affairs of this church and kingdom.
Now, of course, one could argue that the word "lives" refers to all the members of the First Presidency, indicating that they would all hold this authority for the remainder of their mortal lives. Yet a more "careful" reading (which type you noted that I made in your previous letter) would lead one to observe the following: this revelation is to Joseph himself; all the pronouns of the previous verses demonstrate that Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams were not recipients of this revelation with him. He, Joseph alone, is the one to whom the Lord is speaking. Note in verse 6 He says: "verily I say unto thy brethren, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams." And lastly, verse 19 states: for the family of thy counsellor and scribe, Frederick G. Williams." In Joseph's lives. he will "preside in council, and set in order all the affairs of this church and kingdom." A logical deduction, you must surely admit, would be that to "set in order all the affairs of this church and kingdom" would necessitate that it is out of order.
The third reason is a very beautiful and touching prophecy from The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt. Although "I perceive an inability for" current church apologists "to receive all that the Lord has sent to us from heaven through His prophets," (compare your sentence from your page 5) I will offer this revelation received by Parley P. Pratt. This was when he was walking back to Nauvoo after the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum. From page 333 of The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt:
The Spirit said unto me: "Lift up your head and rejoice; for behold! it is well with my servants Joseph and Hyrum. My servant Joseph still holds the keys of my kingdom in this dispensation, and he shall stand in due time on the earth. in the flesh. and fulfil that to which he is appointed 
And the fourth reason is Joseph's patriarchal blessing that he received from his own father. In the History of the Church, Volume 2:380 by Joseph Smith, Jr., he tells us:
[p27] "And in my turn, father anointed my head, and sealed upon me the blessings of Moses, to lead Israel in the latter days, even as Moses led him in days of old; also the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
This blessing invites four serious inquiries.
First, how did Moses lead Israel? Was it not with a cloud and smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night, freeing them out of bondage and leading them to the 'promised land?" Surely, you would acknowledge that this was not fulfilled by Zion's camp but must require a complete fulfillment by Joseph in his lives here upon the earth in the flesh. Yes, a resurrected being.
Secondly, did not Joseph later receive a 'fullness" of this sealing when Moses appeared unto him in the Kirtland Temple as recorded in Section 110:11:
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 quarters of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north.
As this has not yet been fulfilled, we must also recognise that Joseph's mission is yet to be completed.
Thirdly, did not Moses number and organise - setting in order - all of Israel.
Lastly, although this is a peripheral observation, what are the "blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?" Read Section 132: all of it, not just verse 19.
I have presented all of this in order to lay the footing for the following scripture: Doctrine and Covenants, Section 85:7:
And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the sceptre of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God.
This verse presents incontrovertible proof that Joseph Smith is the one mighty and strong who will yet, as Moses, lead Israel, who will yet, as Ezra number the children of Israel, and as is pointed out in Ezra 2:61 and 62, discover those of "Israel" who have mixed with the seed of the Canaanites, and declare them therefor polluted, put from the priesthood. If you chance to read this revelation in the History of the Church, you will find that it comes from a letter written by Joseph the Prophet to William Phelps, and that the date coincides exactly with the Prophet's translation of the Book of Ezra by the power of the Urim and Thummim. It is evident that Joseph had this revealed to him by the power of the Holy Ghost through the holy medium of the seer stones
[p28] What did he perceive? Himself, as a resurrected being, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth;" for what purpose? 'To set in order the House of God!" Why? Because as in the days of Ezra, Nehemiah and Zerubbabel, the children of Israel would be restored to their land of inheritance, many of them would have been polluted by the cursed blood, and the House of God would have fallen into an out of order condition. How out of order? What did Isaiah say in his prophecy? Isaiah 24:5
The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
I wouldn't expect that you would believe that this scripture would describe the church in her out of order condition today, but please consider the following: what "earth is defiled under the inhabitants thereof." How can the "earth" be defiled, except that this refers to a spot or place that has been consecrated unto God, and given to the children of the covenant. Would Utah qualify for that? Which 'inhabitants" can transgress the laws? Only those people who have had them revealed unto them. Which inhabitants of the earth can change the ordinance? Only those who received it in its fullness and yet decided of their own free will by the common consent of the people to change it. And equally tragic: what inhabitants can break the everlasting covenant? Only those who have made and entered into it. And where was the revelation that told or commanded them to transgress those laws, change the ordinance, break the everlasting covenant? Where are those revelations that you say we are not willing to receive, Brother Brian? Could it be that they don't exist?
One must admit that the church in its present condition has fulfilled this scripture to a great degree. President Joseph Fielding Smith referred to that very scripture in Isaiah 24:5 when he stated:
"Are we not too much inclined to blame the generations that are past for the breaking of the new and everlasting covenant, and to think it is because of the great apostasy which followed the Apostles in primitive time....? Perhaps we should wake up to the realisation that it is because of the breaking of covenants, especially the new and everlasting covenant which is the fullness of the gospel that the world is to be consumed by fire and few men left. Since this punishment is to come at the time of the cleansing of the earth when Christ comes again, should not the Latter-day Saints take heed unto themselves? We have been given the new and everlasting covenant, and many among us have broken it." (Deseret News, October 17, 1936)
Could we not agree that Latter-day Saints have broken the "New and Everlasting Covenant which is the fullness of the gospel" because they are the only ones on earth who have it?
By your own reasoning, you cannot accuse us of any of these, because according to your sweeping assertions none of us has had or received any of these, because you claim we don't have authority to perform any of these [p29] ordinances or covenants in the first place. In contrast, the attitude that we have been taught by God's servants all of our lives, and with which I was most assuredly raised, is that we should live our lives in constant preparation for this very day. We take this scripture very personally, because we know that the Lord will hold us more accountable than most. And yet we do know that we have not mixed our blood with the Canaanite, and we hope that our names will be found in the book of the law of God. How does one have his name recorded there? By living and obeying all the laws and ordinances of the gospel.
The promise of Section 85 could have been fulfilled in 1890 and 1891, as the citations I listed before demonstrated. Jesus Christ would have come then, had the Saints remained faithful. The one mighty and strong could have come then, had they been willing to receive him. How much closer is the church to receiving the Prophet Joseph again today? Do you even believe in him? But I can promise you, because the Lord's servants have prophesied it, that he will come and set the house of God in order. Why or how is the house of God out of order? Because they have drawn closer and closer to Babylon, or the world, and further and further away from Zion. And through whom did all of the revelations on Zion come to us? Joseph Smith. Would you agree that it is probable that he would understand those revelations more than those who have reinterpreted them?
If you read Section 85 very carefully, you will see that it not only refers to a setting in order at the beginning of the millennium, but it also refers to the day of judgement and resurrection when the whole earth will be celestialized, and only those who have obeyed Celestial law will receive a lot of inheritance there. Zion is the pure in heart. Zion will be redeemed in the mortal sense, as promised in Sections 101 103, 104 and 105, yet it will also be redeemed in the immortal sense when the earth is presented to God the Father, by his Son. And where will that take place? Read Daniel chapter 7:13-14. How will His kingdom be presented to Him? As a result of an accounting or a setting in order of His House. And by whom? Who is the head of this dispensation, the dispensation of the fullness of times, unto whom a fullness of keys are given for the last time? Joseph Smith and his true successors - those who fulfil his teachings and receive the revelations of God through him.
I understand that the church prefers the King James version to the Inspired Version. Is it because Joseph Smith was involved with the latter and several of his teachings are not in harmony with current church doctrines? Even though the Prophet Joseph would be excommunicated for his behaviour were he a member today, perhaps I could direct your attention to the vision of Joseph of old in Genesis chapter 50 (Inspired Version):
30. And again, a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins: and not to the bringing forth of my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them in the last days.
31. Wherefore the fruit of thy loins shall write, and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together unto [p30] the confounding of false doctrines, and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to a knowledge of their fathers in the latter days; and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.
32. And out of weakness shall he be made strong, in that day when my work shall go forth among all my people, which shall restore them, who are of the House of Israel, in the last days.
33. And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation.
It would appear that Joseph of old thought quite highly of Joseph Smith the Prophet. Joseph of old was under the impression, and apparently the Lord was also when He gave this revelation to him, that Joseph Smith, the Seer, would bring His 'people unto salvation." The words "my people" would lead a lo9ical mind to deduce that this would mean the children of the covenant of the House of Israel. As the Lord mentioned that covenant in verse 31, and mentioned Israel in verse 32, and in verse 33 mentioned the seed of Joseph, generation to generation, how would they all be brought to a remembrance of God's covenants except - through whom? Joseph Smith! Perhaps his work was significant after all. Of course, since the church no longer sees a distinction between the seed of Israel and the seed of Cain, then the significance of these covenants might not seem important to you. They are, however, significant to us. But we believe in and accept revelation. Read Genesis 50 and 2 Nephi 3. You might also consider 3 Nephi, chapters 16 through 25, where the concepts of the covenant people are discussed.
Another thought which might be of interest to you is mentioned in Section 84:34-42. How do we get back in the presence of God? Through Joseph Smith. His work is still not done. The magnificence of his mission is not yet complete. Not only Joseph of old received revelation about him, but Lehi also, who said the following to his son Joseph in 2 Nephi chapter 3:
8. And I will give unto him a commandment that he shall do none other work, save the work which I shall command him. And I will make him great in mine eyes; for he shall do my work.
Also, in the Book of Isaiah, in many places, he refers to Joseph Smith. Consider for example: Isaiah 11:1.
And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots.
In Section 113 the Prophet Joseph Smith answered some inquiries about these concepts. The stem is Christ (verse 2); the rod is Joseph Smith (verse 3 and 4); the branch is the king of the house of David who will be raised up to preside over the government and officiate at the temple in Jerusalem. Avraham [p31] Gileadi's analysis of this verse adds understanding as well.
I mention all of this to pose one question to you, Brother Brian. As the Prophet Joseph Smith was prophesied of and promised from the foundations of the world to come and do this work, how can you or any thinking person who claims to believe in his mission possibly proffer that I should accept the teachings of the present leadership of the church as equal to if superior to those of Joseph Smith? You tell me that I must study the writings and teachings of other prophets, not just Joseph Smith. With all due respect, I have never read mention of the divine calling and mission of Gordon B. Hinckley, James E. Talmage, Mark E. Peterson, Bruce R. McConkie, Charles Darwin, John Widtsoe and the other 'prophets' and leaders of the church who have elevated themselves to the position of changing, denying, ,defiling, profaning, perverting, transgressing, breaking and disobeying the laws, ordinances, covenants and revelations of the Lord through the Prophet Joseph Smith. And yet, you seem to prefer all of them, any of them, to Joseph Smith.
Yes, even Charles Darwin, because you would prefer that a brother in the church believed that he was a descendant of natural selection and the survival of the fittest rather than believe that he was a descendant of Michael, our Father and our God. Instead of living by the same laws by which Abraham lived, you would rather that he pollute his blood by mixing with the seed of Cain. In fact, the church teaches that it is alright to do that, even though he will not find an inheritance in the Celestial Kingdom, only because Spencer Kimball was "inspired" to give those blessings to the seed of Cain, thus nullifying the prophecies and writings of Ezra, Nehemiah, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, Abraham and all of God's true prophets. I am sorry, Brother Brian, but I cannot accept being "inspired," any more than I can accept the theory of evolution; and yes, your whole theology is based on that premise. Yes, the church has "evolved" from one of revelation to one of inspiration. But is that progress?
You claim that you are constantly progressing, constantly receiving line upon line, precept on precept. But what is the scriptural purpose of that? Read Section 93, or 2 Nephi 3, and you will find that it refers to the Lord's servants accepting all that was given them until and so that they could receive a fullness. Christ did receive a fullness, and perpetuate it, before He made the atonement and was crucified. Joseph did receive a fullness, and perpetuate it, before he was martyred. Your position, and the position offered by all of your prophets of change, maintains that Joseph Smith only laid the base and you are now building the grand model. I am sorry, but you are not Zerubbabel who will finish his work. You have exalted yourself to sit in judgement upon him, offering that many of God's prophets have instituted a different law for a different time. Where? When? To whom? Where was the revelation for that?
And where was the revelation disallowing the calling of Joseph Smith? Your whole theology was developed out of your need to justify why you will not accept the calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith and do his works. You have borrowed from the author of Darwin's theories to proffer that God can change, that He can create a new species of the gospel; you generate new doctrines all the time. Your necessity to modify and "improve" the temple endowment to make it "less harsh, less threatening" represents a case of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Your "inspiration" to give the Canaanite the [p32] Priesthood and pollute the temple of God did make possible a prophecy that Paul made almost 2,000 years ago; it did enable the church to be selected' as one with the world, and to "survive among the fittest." It is doubtful whether that would justify making a decision based on American middle class values in preference to the will of God as revealed through His prophets. In fact, with all of these changes- can you really honestly state you truly feel these changes have been "progress?" Have they really brought the church closer to God, or further away?
Lehi, Nephi, Alma, Mormon and Moroni taught us at great length that there are only two forces, good and evil: good personified or represented by Zion; evil personified or represented by Babylon. Joseph Smith's whole mission was to prepare a people who would qualify to be "Zion," which Section 97:21 tells us is the "pure in heart," to be gathered out of Babylon and prepared to meet the Saviour. (Hopefully, this is not new information to you.) That would prove the existence of only two sets of mutually exclusive alternatives for God's covenant people: which do you prefer?

Babylon
Lucifer
the Abominable church 
of the Harlot 
the world 
Isaiah's "Egypt" 
the Canaanites 
false prophets
Zion
Jesus Christ 
the church of the Lamb
the priesthood of Jesus Christ
Israel
Isaiah's Zion, or Judea 
the seed of Abel 
true prophets
Please allow me to examine only a few of the "inspired" changes made since the Manifesto, and especially since 1918. I am hoping that you know and recognise that each and every one of the doctrines, principles and ordinances of salvation and exaltation has been eliminated, modified or restricted.
1. Baptism: now only given once. no rebaptism.
2. Mother's blessings: no longer given.
3. Women performing ordinances with consecrated oil: no longer permitted.
4. Sacrament: the sign of the Aaronic priesthood no longer given. The word administer" redefined in all Mormon dictionaries only to mean "bless," as deacons take the bread and water to the members who pass it to each other.
5. Dedication of baptismal water: no longer done.
6. Plurality of wives: no longer permitted.
7. United Order: faded into obscurity.
8. Temple endowment: wow. my heart breaks over this one.
9. Conferral of Priesthood: altered during the administrations of Heber J. Grant in 1921, redefined in David 0. McKay's time in 1957.
10. Travelling without purse or scrip: no longer permitted.
11. Dedication of graves by the sign of the Melchizedek Priesthood: no longer done.
12. Second Anointing: no longer done, or at least greatly restricted.
13. Dedication of the Saints' homes: no longer done.
14. Curse of the seed of Cain: "inspired" to go away.
15. Covenant people: does the church even teach this concept anymore, Brian?
16. Anything you want to put here: there are over 100 of them.
[p33] But where was the revelation that justified one of them, all of them, any of them, most of them, some of them? You say that we are not willing to accept these revelations. How can we, when they have never been presented, never been announced, never been printed, never been read - never been received? I would agree, these changes were 'inspired' - but by which source? To which of the following models, Zion or Babylon, have all of these changes drawn the church? To be a revelation from God, these changes would have to have ADDED to the revelations given through the Prophet Joseph Smith. You accuse us of not being willing to accept other than what Joseph or Brigham received: that is not true.' We expect and anticipate many more revelations and added truth and light. That is what the millennium is all about, is it not? The whole gospel is based on the premise of continual revelation.
We accept and receive all that He has revealed (do you?) all that He does now reveal (as in "thus saith the Lord" which you do not have) and that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, which is immutable, unchanging, unswerving and unalterable, unlike your position. Yes, we are not willing to accept any of these "revelations" that support your position, because they TAKE AWAY FROM Joseph Smith; in fact they deny him - in reality, however, they do not even exist! Yet, you accuse us of developing our theology in retrospect. Perhaps we err in not being willing to accept more; perhaps the church errs in not being willing to keep even that which they still have left.
As the Lord revealed and established a fullness of His laws and ordinances through Joseph Smith, which the scriptures all verify, then to add to them would mean that nothing is taken away. You justify the church's actions by implying that the Lord has added, line upon line, precept on precept. We know that Joseph did not receive nor institute ALL the truth that there is. That would deny the basic premise of Mormonism that we will ALWAYS be receiving more. But your methodology doesn't ADD, it TAKES away. Most importantly, every change has taken the church closer to Babylon, and further from Zion. If moving toward, and embracing, Babylon is what you mean by "progress," then I would sadly agree with you, the church has made remarkable "progress" since 1g18.
Consider my confusion: Mormonism started out with the perfect situation. We had a man who actually saw God, heard His voice, translated sacred records by the power of the interpreters, had numerous visitations from angels. In fact, this man was of such high calibre and integrity, that many of God's prophets prophesied of him. Some by his name. Exactly, precisely who he would be. From the foundation of the world. And yet, you and many others would think that to change the prophesies, reject the revelations, change the ordinances, break the covenants and transgress the laws that were revealed through him is "Progression?" I am confused. I never could accept the concepts taught by '1science" on the origin of the species, but I must say that they are more consistent than you are. Darwin, at least, never claimed to have started out with the perfect model, and then retrogressed, or digressed - or degenerated from there. The church was restored on Zion's plan in 1830; yet how far has the church "progressed?"
The church has become one of the most ardent supporters of the Babylonian
[p34] One of the most intriguing comments in your letter was your offering on page 3. You referred to my recommendation that you study Joseph Smith's teaching. You offered that my challenge 'to gain a testimony of fundamentalism by studying the teachings of Joseph Smith is something akin to challenging someone to gain a testimony of Catholicism by studying the teachings of the apostle Peter. It is like challenging someone to study the authority held by Christ to gain a testimony of the Pope's authority and having an investigator study the keys held by Joseph Smith to understand modern fundamentalist sealing priesthood authority.
I have tried to deduce the logical premises of your analogies. Although I have never been one to appreciate analogies, preferring simple and plain language, I believe your comparisons would follow these lines:
You posit that:
1. Lorin Wooley is in the same position as the pope.
2. The Catholic church is in the same position as fundamentalism.
3. You offer that Christ is the author of authority (notice how those words are somewhat similar); that the authority held by Joseph Smith is not the same authority held by the fundamentalists. Therefor, the authority held by the pope is similar to that held by the fundamentalists.
Your analogy presents some interesting comparisons. Perhaps I do not understand Catholic theology and history as well as you, but are not they the ones who claim that it doesn't matter what previous prophets (or do they call them popes) did or taught, but it is only necessary to study the teachings of more current or recent ones, or those teachings since 325 (the Nicaean Council)? Are not they the ones who make no effort to reconcile the teachings of the current church leadership with previous leaders, or even the scriptures? Are not they the ones who excommunicate people for believing in the teachings of the founders of their church? Aren't they the ones who excommunicate people for "being out of harmony with the present leaders of the church?" Aren't they the ones who have followed their living prophets, transgressed all the laws, changed all of the ordinances, broken the everlasting covenant, eliminated plain and precious parts of the gospel, implemented a series of changes that would be more acceptable to the world, striven to obey all the laws of the governments of the land? And all the time claimed to have been "inspired" even though they have never received a revelation justifying their changes?
In fact, don't they justify their existence by pointing out that they are the ones who control their historian's office; they are the ones who control all of the buildings; they are the ones who have a church that has world recognition; they are the ones who are so numerous that any others would be insignificant? Aren't they the ones who would discount the claims of Joseph Smith, because he could not prove his conferral of Priesthood, while they have a "smooth transition of succession" from pope to pope, for nearly 2,000 years? Of course, they admit that they have been wrong a couple of times. There really were those records that Lorenzo Valla found in the Vatican archives that they [p36] denied that they had for centuries which proved that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery. But, they argued, it doesn't prove that anyone else would have authority, because they don't have proof of those other people's claims in their archives. Aren't they the ones who have had to yield on countless points because historians like Martin Luther, Desiderius Erasmus, Thomas More, John Calvin proved their positions to be historically inaccurate? But they do have a clear succession of authority, and a valid record of witnessed ordinations. They just don't have a fullness of Priesthood. They just don't do the works of Abraham. They just do not have or receive revelations to justify all the progress that they have made.
Perhaps you might feel this is somewhat harsh in pointing out that every argument you have used to defend the church's continual slide away from its AUTHOR Joseph Smith, is exactly the same argument the Catholic church argues - every single one. How could you compare Lorin Woolley to the pope, unless you are agreeing that Lorin Woolley did have a valid ordination, just as did the pope? That premise would actually contradict the validity of your whole position, as succession and control of the legal corporate church entity is the only claim that you have to authenticity, as you have denied the truth of the calling of your founder.
How could you assert that the fundamentalists are in opposition to Joseph Smith when we are the only people on the face of the earth who really believe in his teachings? How could you argue that the fundamentalists don't have the same authority as Joseph Smith when you admit that no one in the church has that authority, lives the same laws, accepts the same ordinances, or perpetuates the same priesthood? Clearly, you do not want to be associated with him, Brian, so why do you take umbrage with us for at least trying to do his works? Yes, I find your analogy interesting, but not enlightening.
Where is this revelation that we are unwilling to accept, Brother Brian? It is amazing that you would accuse us of that. You suggest that not all of God's prophets agree; isn't that what every false prophet has claimed? This concept that different prophets can disagree perplexes me. Consider Paul's statement in I Corinthians chapter 14: (King James Version)
32. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the Saints.
And then you accuse Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith of having two different sets of positions before and after the Manifesto. On what? You cannot produce one shred of evidence to prove that those holy men ever profaned the teachings and revelations of Joseph Smith or his successor Brigham Young. You even accuse the Prophet himself of being a false prophet because you maintain that God has changed the commandments and teachings that He revealed through that most holy prophet, when and after the prophet told us beyond a shadow of a doubt that his works would stand until the millennium, unchanged in their fullness! He said, "if any man preach any other gospel than that which I have preached, he shall be cursed." (The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph [p37] Smith, p. 366.) Do you feel comfortable being in that position, Brother Brian?
I cannot express how ironic that it is that you would try to hammer us so hard. On what? One point - your inability to find proof of the Lorin Woolley statement among the carefully guarded secrets in the Church Historian's office. Of course, you have to take that position, because that is the only weakness in the perpetuation of the Priesthood that you can perceive to have found. You, and the others who follow your position, accuse Lorin Woolley of deceit and dishonesty simply because you cannot find incontrovertible proof of his claims. You refuse to approach God and ask Him! Instead, you turn to your own wisdom, refer to revelations that never have been received; you make sweeping and incredible assertions to justify your refusal to obey God's law, and yet in order to do so, you follow the very methods that you accuse Lorin Woolley of using.
You can not fault us on our doctrines, as they are all identical to those established and perpetuated by all of God's prophets, all of them, from the foundation of the world; I am sorry if your leaders do not fit in that category.
You can not challenge us on our ordinances, those established and perpetuated by all of God's the foundation of the world;  I am sorry if your accept and perpetuate them, but rather have chosen as they are all identical to prophets, all of them, from leaders have chosen not to to change them.
You can not challenge us on our covenants, as the are all identical to those established and perpetuated by all of God's prophets, all of them, from the foundation of the world; I am sorry if your leaders have preferred to break them.
You have no scriptural basis to challenge us on, except that you use the creative interpretations and positions of the present leadership of the church. You apparently feel no compulsion to rectify the teachings and predictions of recent church leaders with those who preceded them. You examine the writings of Joseph Musser to find one word here and one sentence there, when you surely must know that every revisionist theologian in the last 50 years could not possibly withstand a comparative analysis referencing their works with the teachings of Joseph Smith. Once again, I cannot understand how you refuse to recognise that Joseph Musser, and his predecessors and successors, are the only ones in the world, inside the church or outside the church who agree with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow or Joseph F. Smith, Jesus Christ, Isaiah, Zechariah, Moroni, Mormon, Nephi, and a few others.
By what criteria do you assess valid succession? Those who support Joseph Smith; or those who deny him. Those who continue his work; or those who oppose it.
Those who preside over the ordinances and laws that he instituted; or those who have the control of the legal institution that he organised according to the laws of the land? The Catholic church has an earlier right to everyone of those claims, Brother Brian. I do not understand why you even bother to claim Joseph Smith was a prophet, when you deny his teachings. You even spend your efforts challenging the only people who do support, claim and perpetuate his teachings.
On only one point! Perhaps we have been unfair in not placing all of our [p38] diaries and journals in the church historian's office. We have withheld information from you. We have not allowed you to read them in order to solve your whole dilemma. But we are not now, nor have we ever been, obligated to prove our position. Those who are looking for truth have always been able to find their way through the maze. Those who are looking to confound and argue have been able to find justification for their decision not to live all the laws of the gospel. The Jews did it, the Lamanites did it, the Catholics did it-and others today have done it as well. Denying the necessity of living the law; however, would also deny the blessings attainable only through living them as well.
I was amazed that you would claim that you understand Joseph Smith's teachings on plural marriage. Then why don't you accept them? Why don't you follow and practice them? Why don't you live them? Why don't you do his works? You wonder why you are not able to reach us, to convince us, to convert us. Could it be because we are looking to men and women who do the works of Joseph Smith? You tell us that you have a testimony of Joseph Smith, but you deny the necessity of doing his works. You bear witness that Joseph Smith was a prophet, but you do not bear witness to the laws and ordinances of the gospel that were restored through him? You tell us that you have a testimony that Brigham Young was a prophet of God, but then you tell us that Brigham didn't know who God was - that he was wrong! Interesting; how could a man be a prophet of God, and yet be wrong as to who God was. You tell us that you represent the only true source of authority, using verse 18 of Section 132 to construct your whole theology, and then you deny the very men through whom you claim your authority derived? That is curious. In twenty or thirty years will you or someone else be standing at our pulpit saying, "Joseph F. Smith was wrong." Or, how about this one, Spencer Kimball was wrong. Is that what you mean by an unchangeable, unalterable, eternal gospel?
Then you call us to repentance. To whose repentance? You assume that you are on the same 'side" as Joseph and Brigham, only because you are a member of the same legal corporate entity over which they once presided; but then you also assume that although you have the same legal entity that you are excused from living and obeying the same laws and receiving the same ordinances that they revealed, received, obeyed, fulfilled and perpetuated. And then you assume that those who are doing the works of Joseph, Brigham, Heber, John, Wilford, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph - are committing sin, because your leaders have changed the ordinances that were instituted from before the foundations of the world. You have based your whole revised, retrospective theology on one assumption: you, and other church lobbyists, assume that God can, or would, change or alter His laws and ordinances to fit the needs of His people at different times. Not even the Catholics would accept that assumption.
You support your assumption by quoting from Jacob chapter 2. Have you forgotten that this particular passage was the reason why Joseph Smith sought the word of the Lord on the question of a plurality of wives? How then could you assume that the very scriptures that would lead Joseph to receive a revelation commanding all who receive the law of Celestial PLURAL Marriage to live it, would also prohibit or forbid it? You are not the first one to use Jacob 2 to justify rejection of that holy law. Vice President Schuyler Colfax used it in 1869. You can read John Taylor's analysis of Jacob 2 and his [p39] responses to in the Deseret News. October 20, 1869. I will offer only a brief part of his response after a few citations from Jacob 2:
28. For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people, otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31. For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32. And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which have been led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33. For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34. And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
Then continue in the third chapter of Jacob 3:
5. Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our fathers - that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.
As President Taylor pointed out, the laws and commandments which Lehi was given included not just the proscription against concubinage, but against all ungodliness. Verse 30 of Jacob 2 makes it very clear that the Lord placed the law of Celestial PLURAL marriage on a much higher plane than the sin of taking concubines. The phrase, "for if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command/my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things," shows us two things. that in order to raise up seed unto' Him, He WILL command His people - to do what? obviously to live a plurality of wives, as that is what they are prohibited from doing - EXCEPT HE SHALL COMMAND: secondly, unless He calls and commands people to live that holy law, then they [p40] surely must not do so.
Most certainly, the Lord did "raise up seed unto" Himself among the RIGHTEOUS children of Lehi - to state otherwise you would have to argue that none of the children of Lehi were "seed unto" the Lord. Therefor, it follows that He DID command it to those who were worthy. Those to whom this law was not specifically revealed, were commanded to have but one wife, and concubines none. This is entirely consistent with the gospel in all ages. Hopefully you know that I could cite dozens of quotes specifying just that. If you are as familiar with Mormon history as you claim to be, you must certainly see a direct parallel among the saints in the time of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young; in fact, it was not until 1852, as you yourself stated, that the law of eternal marriage, of which a plurality was, is, and always will be an integral component, was first revealed - yet it never was a law of the church.
The teachings of Jacob provide a tragic insight into some of the problems in the church today. You may not consider these problems, but they weigh heavily on us. Consider verse 33, "they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people;" what is occurring when the daughters of Israel are being betrayed in bondage through "marriage" to the seed of Cain in the Temple? What is happening when thousands and thousands of righteous, capable women are forced either to remain in single barrenness, or to marry men unworthy of them - because their leaders have exalted themselves to deny the blessing of holy matrimony in Celestial Marriage to them?
Or "they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts;" is abortion absent from the church? Is it a "sin of equal magnitude to the most heinous of all - "polygamy?" Are righteous women being seduced into adulterous associations because there are no righteous men available? Perhaps you might answer that all of this will be straightened out in the millennium" as other church lobbyists have suggested. But where is the doctrinal basis of that idea? There is a doctrinal basis for the practice, in righteousness, of the law which would reduce, if not eliminate these tragedies: read Section 132, all of it, and you will find that this was the law given before the foundations of the world for the raising up of a righteous seed.
For those to whom this law is not commanded and authorisation not given, the law of God to the Priesthood and the church is to have but one wife, and concubines none. It has always been so. Now, in 1890, in 1852, in 1841, in Jacob's day, in Mormon's day, in Jesus' day. What, however, would lead you to assume that neither Jacob, nor any of the other Nephite prophets were polygamists? Only because the Book of Mormon doesn't say they were? What about the Lord blessing Amulek's women? (Alma 10:11) Clearly, Amulek was among those "seed unto" the Lord who had been commanded to have more than one wife. Or what of Pahoran having many sons (Helaman 1:4)?
The Book of Mormon does not say many things. Consider just a few basic gospel doctrines of which there is no mention: the eternity of marriage; the nature and personality of God as being a man enthroned in yonder heavens who once was as we are now, and is as we might become; a multiplicity of Gods, (does the church even teach that any more?), three separate kingdoms of glory; temple endowments; work or baptism for the dead; Aaronic Priesthood; the existence of [p41] Eloheim, Jehovah, Michael (does the church teach those any more?); the office of Apostle (the Nephite Twelve are referred to as disciples), the office of Bishop; the office of Patriarch; sealing keys of Elijah; washings and anointings; rebaptism; the war in heaven - just to name a few.
Would the absence of these being mentioned also lead you to assume that these were not taught then, or believed then, or practised then? Or that the children of Lehi had a different law, as you maintain in your letter? If they did not practice the law of a plurality of wives to "raise up seed unto" the Lord, as you assume they did not, then would we also have to assume, that as a result of there being no seed unto the Lord, that there was no one worthy to receive or participate in temple work? Did the Nephites not have Bishops, Patriarchs, Apostles? Was there no temple work for the dead? Could the dead only go to heaven or hell, but not the Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms? Was God not a "man enthroned in yonder heaven" then, but only a spirit as Mosiah chapters 15 and 16 might lead one to assume He was. Was God Michael/Adam in Jacob's time as He was from 1852-1877, but someone else today, or was He someone else?
The Bible doesn't tell us that Isaac practised plural marriage, either, but Section 132 does. Just because you don't find mention of something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Any good historian knows that is poor history. Consider this: as you admitted in your book, it is now uncomfortable for the church to have to admit that they had a copy of the Revelation of 1886 all along after vehemently having denied its existence for so many years. Just because Joseph Smith's history never mentions his marriage to any of his plural wives, nor the birth of any of his children by them, I hope that you would agree that he did practice the principle.
Please don't be offended, Brian, but you make all kinds of sweeping assumptions about things only because they are not mentioned: Jacob having more than one wife, Lorin Woolley's ordination - what other things that you cannot find must we eliminate simply because they are not clearly, simply stated to your satisfaction. No where in the scriptures are we told that Jesus Christ was married - either once or many times; but Brigham teaches us that Joseph Smith was a descendant of Christ. A silence about something doesn't prove that it doesn't exist. Remember what I stated earlier about historical malpractice? More important than what the Book of Mormon doesn't say, however, is what it does say.
Consider how much older that Laman, Lemuel, Sam and Nephi were than their younger brothers Jacob and Joseph. Let's theorise that Nephi might have been extremely mature at say age 15 when he killed Laban; as he was the youngest of the four brothers, and based on the average distance of two years between each brother, that would make Laman 21. Jacob and Joseph were both born during their years in the wilderness before they built their ship. Yes, I suppose that is possible for Sarai to have children who