Evidences against John Taylor's alleged 1886 revelation(polygamy)

Discuss the last days, Zion, second coming, emergency preparedness, alternative health, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Evidences against John Taylor's alleged 1886 revelation(polygamy)

Post by AI2.0 »

On another thread, we've been discussing this purported revelation and I thought I would put this information in a thread dedicated solely to this, rather than muddy up J.Wharton's 'Advent of the son of man' thread.

Here's the gist of it;

During the 1880's Pres. John Taylor was forced to go into hiding because of the church's practice of polygamy. During this time, Lorin Woolley claimed that John Taylor stayed at his house and received a revelation. He also said that John Taylor held a meeting with 13 people for eight hours and after this meeting, he set apart five people to carry on the practice of polygamy, making sure that a baby would be born every year within a plural union.

There are no corroborating letters, diary accounts etc. to support Lorin Woolley's claim. He did not share this until abt. 40 years later, when plural marriage was no longer allowed and those who entered these marriages were excommunicated for it. He told people that he was authorized by Pres. John Taylor to perform these marriages and to give others the power to perform these marriages. His claims were picked up by other polygamists who used them as the basis of their claim to authority.

Thos who believe this is true have used it to criticize the LDS church for ending Polygamy.


This website has a lot a very good information which is well researched and this page gives a lot of information about this specific event.

http://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/arc ... stions.htm

From the page:
Questions regarding the described 1886 ordinations

Of all of the assertions made by Lorin Woolley in the 1920, none is more important that his descriptions of ordinations that allegedly occurred on September 27, 1886. According to Lorin's 1929 account, he and four other men then received lofty authority to continue plural marriage:[1]

He [John Taylor] called five of us together: Samuel Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins [Wilcken], George Q. Cannon, John W. Woolley, and myself. He then set us apart[1] and place us under covenant that while we lived we would see to it that no year passed by without children being born in the principle of plural marriage. We were given authority to ordain others if necessary to carry this work on, they in turn to be given authority to ordain others when necessary, under the direction of the worthy senior (by ordination), so that there should be no cessation in the work...

John Taylor set the five mentioned apart and gave them authority to perform marriage ceremonies, and also to set others apart to do the same thing as long as they remained on the earth...[2]

Within these two paragraphs we find perhaps the most significant assertion Lorin Woolley or any other Mormon fundamentalist has ever shared. LDS theology stresses the importance of the proper authority in sealing plural marriages. If the details presented are true, Woolley was describing a legitimate connection to the keys of sealing that were then held by the “one” man, John Taylor.

Evidences Supporting 1886 Ordinations

This section is devoted to citing the evidences supporting the likelihood that five men were ordained:

1. Lorin Woolley remembered that the ordinations occurred.

2.

[I have been unable to identify any other specific evidence for 1886 ordinations, but am awaiting research offered from fundamentalist sources.]

Evidences Against 1886 Ordinations

This section is devoted to citing the evidences against the likelihood that five men were ordained:

1. Lorin Woolley is the only witness of these important ordinances. Lorin reported that thirteen people attended the eight hour meeting before the described 1886 ordinations were performed, but only Lorin left his testimony. This lack of witnesses to these crucial ordinations contrasts scriptural guidelines. We are told that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (D&C 6:28, 2 Corinthians 13:1). When important priesthood ordinations occurred, at least two witnesses were present. For the bestowal of the Aaronic priesthood (D&C 13:1), the Melchizedek priesthood (D&C 27:12), and important keys of the Priesthood (D&C 110:11-13), both Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were there bearing witness.

Fundamentalist apologists have defended this solo witness by observing that Joseph Smith was alone when he received the First Vision. However, there is a difference between personal visions and the conferral of priesthood authority. “It is necessary to know who holds the keys of power, and who does not, or we may be likely to be deceived” instructed Joseph Smith.13 To help inquirers, God has provided witnesses to priesthood conferrals.

2. Lorin Woolley waited thirty-five years to first mention this important ordination. No specific evidence has been found to support that anyone knew of these special ordinations prior to the 1920s. No journal entries, no notes from meetings of the five men, no letters written or discourses given with reference to these important ordinations. Nothing but thirty-five years of silence has been identified. Interestingly, it also appears that Lorin never attempted to use that authority until the late 1920s.
Historian D. Michael Quinn admitted: “I find no historical contemporary evidence to support that ordination of the Council of Friends in 1886… As a historian, I have no evidence that there was a setting apart or an ordination of a Council of Friends in 1886… I would be more than happy to find verification, and if I did find it, I certainly wouldn't conceal evidence of the ordination of men in 1886 as a Council of Friends to continue plural marriage… I find no evidence of that event prior to Lorin Woolley's detailed statements on various occasions in the 1920s concerning the 1886 ordination.” (August, 1991 meeting with the Allred Group, Bluffdale, Utah.)

3. Woolley’s 1929 account does not mention the “one” man who holds the keys of sealing. It does not clarify whether the “worthy senior” mentioned is also the “one” man on earth at a time who is anointed and appointed to hold the keys of sealing as described by Joseph Smith in D&C 132:7, 18, 19. If the “worthy senior” is not the “one” man, then there is confusion regarding who presides. Are these men authorized to perform plural marriages once John Taylor has died or do they need to consult the next Church President (Senior Apostle) for permission? Other questions emerge regarding the fact that Lorin’s testimony is the only one in existence attesting to these important ordinations[3] and the obvious problems with “secret ordinations.”[4]

4. There is no evidence that Samuel Bateman ever sealed a marriage. Samuel Bateman was a powerfully built man who had led the first platoon under Captain Lot Smith in the guerrilla action against the invading U.S. Army in 1857. He and Orrin Porter Rockwell were considered the “keepers of the peace who filled the gap between no control and the control of law and order which slowly developed” in the Utah territory.[5] Later Bateman served as a member of the Salt Lake City police force and also was known to accompany Brigham Young on his tours throughout the territory.[6] Samuel, who was also a polygamist,[7] was chosen by John Taylor to serve as his personal bodyguard when the two of them entered the “underground” early in 1885.[8] After President Taylor’s death, Samuel became a guard and driver for President Woodruff and his counselors. However by late 1888, he tired of life on the underground and turned himself in to the sheriff. He was fined seventy-five dollars and given a prison term.[9]

While Samuel Bateman “insisted on his children marrying within the Church,”[10] no evidence has come to light to suggest that he ever performed any type of marriage ceremony. His daughter wrote a book describing many events from his life, but nothing is mentioned that would support the idea that he had received a lofty priesthood responsibility in 1886. Regarding the 1890 Manifesto, she wrote that her father’s “intelligence told him that time and circumstances may change, even that which he believed had been revealed by God.”[11] He attended the October Conference when the 1890 Manifesto was presented and recalled that “some power not my own” raised his arm. “I voted to sustain President Woodruff in this matter. As soon as I had done it a sense of peace and contentment came over me.”[12] It appears that he did indeed sustain the 1890 Manifesto, fathering no more children afterwards.[13]

Samuel Bateman’s oldest son, Daniel, was an avid supporter of Lorin Woolley during the 1920s and 1930s and would often confirm the recollections that Lorin would recite at fundamentalist gatherings. Despite Woolley’s statement that thirteen were in attendance at the meeting on 27 September 1886, Daniel Bateman is the only other person to corroborate the story.[14] However, Daniel admitted that he “was not present when the five spoken of by Brother Woolley were set apart for special work...”[15] Daniel never explained why he missed his father’s important ordination that day. And he admitted that during the next twenty-five years, his father “did not tell him so” regarding it.[16] Daniel and Samuel were very close, living only a short distance from each other for many years after 1886.[17] If the elder Bateman held an important priesthood calling or the authority to seal eternal marriages, by his son’s own admission, Samuel was very successful in hiding it from his own family.[18] Daniel reported that he first learned of his father's priesthood ordination from a “Brother Finlayson,” who wrote to him about it some time after his father’s death in January, 1911.[19]

5. There is no evidence that Charles H. Wilcken ever sealed a marriage. Charles Henry Wilcken (sometimes Wilkins) was a large man, a veteran of the German army who had been decorated with the Iron Cross for bravery on the battlefield. He came to Utah with General Johnston’s invading army in 1857 and was converted to the gospel. He served a mission for the Church in 1871-73, then attached himself to Brigham Young as his devoted protector. Following Young’s death in 1877, his allegiance shifted to President John Taylor and later to George Q. Cannon[20] and Wilford Woodruff.[21] During his life, Charles Wilcken experienced two failed marriages and several frustrations as an unsuccessful real estate speculator. Nevertheless, he remained devoted to the Church,[22] being ordained a patriarch by President Joseph F. Smith on 13 April 1911 and serving the last few years of his life as a guide on Temple Square, dying in 1914. Nothing in the history of Charles H. Wilcken has been yet identified to suggest that he performed plural marriages or had received the commission and authority that Woolley would, years after his death, claim that he held.
6. There is no evidence that George Q. Cannon was a member of a secret group. Cannon was ordained an apostle in 1860. Concerning the apostleship, Brigham Young taught: “The High Priesthood, and the Lesser Priesthood, and all the Priesthood there is are combined, centered in, composed of, and circumscribed by the apostleship,”[23] Accordingly, having already received the apostleship, it appears that there was little Elder Cannon might have gained through any other ordination. Regarding the Woodruff Manifesto, Cannon taught in 1891:

If the Lord were not with this Church, if he were not directing His servants, and the people themselves did not have the testimony of Jesus concerning this work, the issuance of that manifesto would have had a fatal effect upon thousands, perhaps, in the Church. I can say for myself that I never shrunk from anything in my life as I did from that. I know it was God who dictated it B that it was issued in accordance with the requirements of the Spirit of God; and I also know that every member of this Church who is living in close communion with the Lord has had a testimony B notwithstanding their natural feelings with reference thereto, notwithstanding the painful consequences which followed its adoption in relation to existing family relations B that it was the right thing to do....

Go and plead with the Lord; ask Him to remove the darkness from your minds, to give you the light of the Holy Spirit, that it may shine upon your understanding, that you may comprehend it [the Manifesto] and you will not wait upon Him in vain. I can assure you that He will hear your prayers and answer them; He will fill you with peace and joy, and you will know for yourselves that this is God’s work.[24]

7. John W. Woolley left no testimony of the described ordinations. John is the only one of the five men, besides Lorin, who was still alive during the 1920s when the younger Woolley taught of 1886 meeting and ordinations. John was in his nineties at the time and was quite hard of hearing.[25] If he believed the things his son Lorin was teaching, he left no written record of his testimony.[26]

John holds and immensely important position in Mormon fundamentalist tradition because besides being one of the five men his son Lorin listed as being ordained in 1886, most polygamists today believe that at one point before his 1928 death, John held the keys of sealing and was the "President of the Priesthood" (a priesthood office unheard of prior to 1933). An interesting picture of John Woolley emerges as contemporary documents are consulted and fundamentalist traditions scrutinized.

For most of his life, John W. Woolley was a monogamist. He experienced plural marriage with two wives for only six years between 1886 and 1892. John was sealed to Julia Seales Ensign March 20, 1851 with whom he had six children. On October 4, 1886, he wed Ann Everington Roberts for time only and lived the principle of plural marriage until 1892 when his first wife died. Roberts was the widow of B. H. Roberts and bore Woolley no offspring. Ann passed away January 11, 1910 and two months later on March 23, John married 39 year old Annie Fisher for time only as well. Despite the comparative brevity and limited plurality that John experienced in his personal polygamy, he was nevertheless a constant follower of plural marriage.

While the elder Woolley performed plural marriages before and after his excommunication in 1914,[27] he stated his belief that his authorization came from the Church President through Matthias Cowley rather than an 1886 ordination. John W. Woolley secretly performed the sealings of Warren Longurst and Evan Allred in Salt Lake City, Utah, 17 November 1909 and was involved with other polygamous marriages prior to that time. Subsequently, John W. Woolley was called into a session with the Council of the Twelve, but disclaimed any association with those who were involved with new plural marriages.[28]

As a close friend of John Woolley, President Smith performed his civil marriage in 1910.[29] “Some time later, President Smith said to him, 'John, I am happy to know that you have not been involved in any of those so-called plural marriages.’ John W. Woolley hesitated a moment and then replied: 'President Smith, I cannot lie to you. I am guilty.’ Then he confessed his wrongdoing.”[30] Upon learning of this, President Joseph F. Smith notified Francis Lyman, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

A Church Court was held 16 January 1914 resulting in Woolley’s disfellowshipment. In an attempt to retain his membership, he wrote: “Some months ago I met Matthias F. Cowley on the street and he asked me if I was familiar with the sealing ceremony. I told him I was. He said, 'If any good men come to you don’t turn them down.’ I believed from that statement that it was still proper that plural marriages be solemnized, and that President Smith had so authorized Cowley to instruct me.[31] Since that time I have married wives to Nathan G. Clark, Joseph A. Silver, Reuben G. Miller, and K. Lemmon, Jr.” All of these men were subsequently called up for Church discipline.[32]
The Quorum of the Twelve considered Woolley’s case on March 30th. Apostle James E. Talmage recorded: “It became our painful duty to take action by which Brother John W. Woolley was excommunicated from the Church for insubordination and disobedience to the regulations of the Church. It may be here stated that Brother Woolley, according to evidence and his own confession, has been instrumental in bringing about the unauthorized and sinful pretenses for plural marriage in the cases of other brethren who have been of late visited with the extreme penalty of excommunication.”[33]

Having already excommunicated most of the men sealed by John Woolley, a letter from the First Presidency was sent addressing the status of the women who were also involved in those plural marriages. On 11 March 1915, Apostle Francis M. Lyman was instructed: “Joseph F. Smith recommends 'disfellowship or excommunication’ for plural wives and polygamous marriages performed by John W. Woolley.”[34]

During the years following his excommunication, John Woolley desired to be reinstated[35] and in 1918 he asked his half-brother, George E. Woolley[36] to assist as an intermediary with the General Authorities.[37] John related how “he felt very keenly being on the outside of the Church” and confessed that “he had suffered very much in his feelings” as a consequence of his excommunication.[38]

An examination of the lives of the five men Lorin Woolley described as receiving special priesthood ordinations in 1886 fails to reveal any significant supportive documentation for Lorin's recollections. Conveniently three of the five were long deceased when Lorin started telling his story about the ordinations (thirty-five years after they allegedly occurred). Even his father, who was still living, failed to leave any corroborating record.

Admittedly there is room for more research regarding the lives of these five men. Ironically, Mormon fundamentalists have expended little or no energy sifting the historical record for any supportive evidence. Perhaps additional scrutiny will uncover that supportive evidence. Perhaps not. The opportunity awaits those who have placed their eternal salvation in the hands of Lorin Woolley and his undocumented stories about 1886 ordination, which he first related in the 1920s and 1930s.
I think it is important to be aware of some of these claims as I think that as Satan has more hold on the hearts of people, this will be another fight the church will have to deal with. I think that the chance that polygamy will be legalized in the next few years is very likely. When that happens, I expect that the polygamy sympathizers will try to claim that the church was wrong for ending the practice and attempt to use this purported revelation to put pressure on the church to allow the practice.

Post Reply