Truth Never Changes Volume 13, No. 3, PM After Manifesto, Pt. II; Dedication of St. George Baptistry; A Revelation; Reflections of Bill Baird; Commentary On; Editorial

TRUTH NEVER CHANGES

A PUBLICATION IN THE SPIRIT AND TRADITON OF TRUTH MAGAZINE

Y VOLUME 13    MARCH  2010   NUMBER 03 Y

P L U R A L   M A R R I A G E S
AFTER THE 1890 MANIFESTO

D. Michael Quinn, 11 August 1991, Bluffdale, Utah
PART II

Matthias F. Cowley was an Apostle from 1897 and released in 1906.  He was the first person advanced to the Quorum of Twelve after the Manifesto of 1890.  For that reason, he became the most prominent one involved in plural marriage. 

IN THIS ISSUE: PLURAL MARRIAGE AFTER THE MANIFESTO, PART II……………...66 QUOTE…………………………………………………………………………………82 MISSION STATEMENT…………………………………………………………..…83 DEDICATION OF THE ST. GEORGE TEMPLE BAPTISTRY…………….83 A REVELATION………………………………………………………………………..87 GOLDEN PLATES ON DISPLAY IN BULGARIA…………………………….88 REFLECTIONS OF WILLIAM N. BAIRD…………………………………….…89 COMMENTARY ON………………………………………………………………...93 EDITORIAL……………………………………………………………………………...95 RECOMMENDED INTERNET SITES…………………………………………...97

The Manifesto denied that any plural marriages were solemnized in Utah from June 1889 to September 1890.  Yet, Cowley was married to a plural wife during that period by President Daniel H. Wells in the Endowment House.  Therefore, Cowley had the distinction that with full Church authorization, he had violated the Manifesto even before it was written and published.  He was the first Apostle appointed after the Manifesto and the first whose name was not on the 1892 Petition to the U.S. President for general amnesty. Thus, George Q. Cannon chose Apostle Cowley as the moat appropriate Apostle to perform plural marriages.

                On 11 April 1898, Cowley received his second anointing from President Lorenzo Snow.  Two days later, Apostle Cowley performed the first of nearly 80 plural marriages.  He performed more plural marriages than any other officiator from 1890 to 1905.  Cowley performed most of these plural marriages in the United States, the Church's elite 6 Apostles, plus General Board members, Mission Presidents, Stake presidents and Bishops, who were therefore spared the trip to Mexico which was required of the rank and file who wanted to enter into plural marriage, and who did not live in Mexico.

                Matthias Cowley married a plural wife himself in 1905, the ceremony being performed by a Patriarch in Canada, John Wolfe.  In October 1905, he submitted a resignation similar to John W. Taylor's, and it also was not supposed to be used unless it was absolutely necessary.  Cowley may have been the one who performed plural marriages in 1906.  After that he only encouraged men who were interested and he performed no new plural marriages himself.  He also referred some men to Patriarchs Tolman and Woolley for plural marriage ceremonies.

                Cowley felt that he wasn't technically violating the second Manifesto, which said nothing about providing information for plural marriage.  So he felt that there was no problem for him to say, "I know a man who knows the sealing ceremony;" when somebody asked him to perform a plural marriage and he chose not to himself.

                To protect his Church membership, he denied these things when he was called before the Quorum of Twelve.  ln 1911, Cowley was "deprived of the right to exercise the priesthood" after three fourths of the Quorum of Twelve refused to disfellowship him as Francis M. Lyman wanted to.  Cowley was never disfellowshipped.  That's the thing that three fourths of the Quorum of Twelve voted against doing.  And they only agreed to end the two-day deadlock over the issue by saying, "We'll have him deprived of the right to exercise the priesthood, but we won't agree to having him disfellowshipped."  So therefore he could partake of the Sacrament, which he did, and he could enter the Temple, which he did, and he could have other blessings of the Church that were typically denied to those who had been disfellowshipped.

                Apostle Lyman was unrelenting and tried unsuccessfully to have Cowley excommunicated in 1914, not on the basis of anything new but for what they had proved he had done before his resignation in 1906.  Cowley did not affiliate with the fundamentalists after the 1920s.  He did up until the mid-1920s.  He was closely associated with them in a number of ways.  And I say "them" in the sense of the distinction the Church made between those who were continuing plural marriage at that time.  The First Presidency fully restored him in April 3, 1936.

                I have a fairly long discussion about Abraham O. Woodruff at this point, who is interesting for a number of reasons, so why don't we take a break at this time, and you can stand and stretch a couple of minutes, and when you feel rested, then we'll sit down and resume.

                Abraham O. Woodruff   died in 1904 in Mexico with his first wife.  A year after his ordination as an Apostle in 1897, Owen Woodruff, as he was called by his friends, prayed that God would tell him through a stake Patriarch if he should marry a plural wife.  The Patriarchal Blessing in 1898 said that Apostle Woodruff would "be blessed with wives and a great posterity."  He and his first wife were still childless at that point.

                In January 1899, Apostle Franklin D. Richards promised Owen that God would fulfill all the promises made to the Apostle.  Nine months later, Owen's wife bore his first child.  A month after this birth fulfilled the first part of the promises by the Patriarch and Apostle Richards, Owen Woodruff performed two plural marriages in Mexico in November of 1899.  Then in July 1900, Apostle Woodruff met his future plural wife, and 3 days later he asked her father for permission to marry her.  Within 2 months, Apostle Woodruff obtained permission of First counselor, George Q. Cannon and Second counselor. Joseph F. Smith, to marry her in plural marriage.  He knew better than to ask President Snow, and he never did.

                After consultation with Joseph F. Smith for their first visit to the Latter-day Saints in Juarez Stake in November 1900, Apostle Woodruff arrived first and while there, before Counselor Smith arrived, he performed a plural marriage there.  And then Apostle Woodruff witnessed the first plural marriage which Alexander F. MacDonald performed in Mexico, which had been authorized by Joseph F. Smith.

                At Juarez Stake Conference a few days later, Apostle Woodruff prophesied that polygamous children would always be born in the Church until the second coming of Jesus Christ.  Counselor Smith sat on the stand next to him and made no effort to correct him.  The President of the Seventy, Seymour B. Young.  Stood in the conference and endorsed Woodruff's remarks.

                ln January 1901, Apostle Woodruff married his new plural wife in Preston, Idaho, the ceremony again performed by Apostle Cowley.  Owen met beforehand with President Snow, who may not have known of this plural marriage, but certainly his counselor, Joseph F. Smith, did, and so did George Q. Cannon.

                In 1902, Church President Joseph F. Smith authorized him to marry another plural wife.  And in December 1902, Apostle Woodruff wrote Heber J. Grant that, "The regulation denials of new plural marriage are being called for."  Woodruff's Salt Lake City home and that of his mother, who was Wilford Woodruff's wife, became hiding places for pregnant post-Manifesto plural wives;  and Apostle Woodruff gave polygamous newborn children names and blessings, since this could not be done safely in Church meetings.  And I understand you people are familiar with this necessity, at least regarding the L.D.S. Church.

                                In November 1903, Apostle Woodruff performed four plural marriages in Mexico.  Woodruff may have been the one who performed a plural marriage for his own father-in-law in December of 1903, in Salt Lake City, I don't know who the officiator was of that.  He was surely one of the two Apostles who witnessed a plural marriage by Apostle Cowley in Salt Lake City in January 1904, right after in an Apostles' meeting they agreed to be cautious. And these three men refused to be cautious about plural marriage.

                Owen's first wife wrote in February 1904 that they had decided for him to marry again.  He was subpoenaed to testify in Washington, and President Smith told him to leave Conference early and to prepare for a foreign mission in order to avoid the subpoena.  He said, "You wouldn't be a good witness."

                In a pre-Conference meeting, Apostle Woodruff opposed the second Manifesto, but he voted for it.  He then explained his vote by saying that, "The responsibility does not lie upon me, I am only following what the Presidency has requested."  And then he proposed to show what his real feelings were right after this he proposed to a relative of his cousin, Reed Smoot.  Woodruff left Utah to be with his plural wife at the delivery of her first child in Mexico.  And shortly after, he and his first wife died, in June 1904.

                Rudger Clawson became an Apostle in October 1898.  He was President of the Quorum of Twelve and next in line to be Church President from 1901 to 1943.  In November 1901, Clawson preached on plural marriage in a Salt Lake City ward. He was the one who converted Joseph W. Musser and his wife to have a new wife enter their family.  In January 1902, Clawson told the Apostles that they should be sure all men and women believe in plural marriage before serving in any Church position.

                By early 1903, Rudger Clawson was aware of the plural marriage of Apostle Owen Woodruff.  In the first part of August 1903, his brother-in-law entered a plural marriage.  At the end of that month, in Arizona, Rudger Clawson met his future plural wife.  Then he went to Mexico where he performed a plural marriage and gave Ivins an ultimatum to marry a plural wife himself.  For the balance of 1903, Rudger Clawson courted his own intended plural wife by mail.  And then in October 1903, at the end of an Apostles meeting, Mariner w. Merrill advised him and three other Apostles to marry in plural marriage.

                Rudger Clawson performed a plural marriage in Salt Lake City in December of 1903, indicating the increasing extent of his commitment to The Principle.  He was surely one of the two Apostles at the plural marriage Apostle Cowley performed in Salt Lake City in January of 1904.  In a meeting before the 1904 statement, or the second Manifesto, was presented to the conference, Rudger Clawson expressed his opposition to it.  "He thought it would be a second Manifesto, and we had Manifestos enough."

                Clawson was the only polygamy advocate in Salt Lake City when a plural marriage occurred there in 1904.  And undoubtedly he was the one who performed it, but I don't have direct evidence of that.  Rudger Clawson himself married a plural wife, and the ceremony was performed by Apostle Cowley in August 1904.  This occurred in Colorado.  She cohabited with Apostle Clawson from August 1904 until their return from England in 1913.

                From 1909 thereafter, Rudger Clawson was understandably quiet when the Quorum of Twelve tried those who were entering plural marriage after the second Manifesto of 1904.  He must have felt special anxiety in 1911 and 1914, when the Quorum of Twelve tried repeatedly to get Cowley to list all the plural marriages he had ever performed.  There, sitting in front of Cowley, who was fighting to keep his membership in the Church, was one of the Apostles he had performed a marriage for, after the second Manifesto.

                Reed Smoot became an Apostle in 1900.  Despite his testimony before the U.S. Senate that he had never heard a discussion of plural marriage in meetings of the Apostles, Reed Smoot was present at 16 meetings before 1904, where plural marriage was discussed by the Apostles, including a January 1902 meeting, when Smoot told his fellow Apostles, "This order of marriage if universally practiced would save the world much sorrow and distress, and he looked forward to its restoration.

                In October 1903, he heard Mariner W. Merrill advise three Apostles to marry plural wives, and yet in 1904 he testified under oath before the U.S. Senate that he had never heard a discussion of plural marriage in the Temple. He committed perjury as well.

                In 1904, Apostle Smoot advised the First Presidency to have post-Manifesto plural wives hide, in order to avoid being arrested.  Then from 1905 onward, Reed Smoot pressured President Joseph F. Smith to excommunicate all post-Manifesto polygamists, no matter who performed or authorized their marriages.  He failed at this but succeeded in getting John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley released,  by threatening himself to resign from the Apostleship, if they were not released.

                Smoot also successfully urged the release of many prominent post-1890 polygamists from Church Offices where they would need to be sustained by Conferences.  At the last minute, Smoot also prevented the appointment of a post 1890 Manifesto polygamist, Ben E. Rich, to the First council of Seventy in 1909.  The First Presidency had approved this, even though Rich had publicly been recognized and identified as a man who married plural wives after the Manifesto.  Reed Smoot was able to cancel that appointment.

                Hyrum M. Smith became an Apostle in 1901.  Included in his charge as a new Apostle was the admonition, "that you accept the principle of plural marriage."  He visited the Canadian Mormons in March 1902 with Apostles John W. Taylor and Owen Woodruff.  Later, Hugh B. Brown remembered that all three indicated "they did not approve of the suspension of polygamy."  I have no other evidence that Hyrum M. Smith advocated even verbally new plural marriages. But certainly by October 1903 he was expressing in the Temple his opposition to continuing new plural marriages.  And after the Presidency withdrew from the meeting, Mariner W. Merrill told Apostle Smith to marry a new plural wife as soon as possible.

                In January 1904, Hyrum M. Smith denied before the Quorum of Twelve that he ever encouraged or performed any plural marriages anywhere in the world.  Either he failed to remember his anti-Manifesto statements during his 1902 Canada visit, or Hugh B. Brown was mistaken in remembering this 70 years later.

                George Albert Smith became an Apostle in 1903 and then President of the Church from 1945 to 1951.  His father, Apostle John Henry Smith, told mission presidents that he could not sustain his son as an Apostle if George Albert Smith did not accept plural marriage, and then he told his son the same thing in the Apostle's Charge.  In October 1904, George Albert Smith expressed opposition to the performance of new plural marriages.  But this may have reflected the caution of his pro-polygamist father, rather than total rejection of new polygamy.

                In February 1905, George Albert told Reed Smoot's secretary that no action would be taken against Apostles Taylor and Cowley.  He also told of the revelation to Lyman for John W. Taylor not to testify.  After Reed Smoot wrote the Presidency in December 1905 to have Owen Woodruff's post-Manifesto plural wife hide, Apostle George Albert Smith was the one who visited her in Salt Lake City to warn her to leave Utah.  So certainly, even if he wasn't advocating new plural marriages, he had a good knowledge of those that had already occurred.

                Then George Albert Smith condemned John W. Taylor's 1909 plural marriage.  George Albert apparently suggested that this was adultery. For this, John W. Taylor threatened to kill him, but instead cursed him by the Priesthood.  And John W. Taylor said that George Albert Smith's nervous breakdown from 1909 to 1911 was the result of that curse.

                In January 1928. he confirmed Joseph W. Musser's polygamist son "he" being George Albert Smith who was an Apostle at this time into the L.D.S. Church.

                Charles W. Penrose, an Apostle in 1904 and then Presidency Counselor from 1911 to 1925.  He helped draft the final version of the 1890 Manifesto.  In September 1898 as editor of the Deseret News, he told a meeting of the first President and Apostles that he had evidence some of them had performed at least one or two plural marriages.  Then a month later, Penrose wrote an editorial that

not a single plural marriage had occurred "in the Mormon Church."  Then he also helped draft the 1904 second Manifesto.  Then six months later, in October 1904, newly appointed Apostle Penrose told a mission president, who was also a known post-1890 polygamist, that the second Manifesto of 1904, "doesn't mean anything more than the other, and that doesn't mean Mexico or any place where there is no law against polygamy."

                In November 1904, he traveled with Apostle Cowley to Mexico.  Penrose told him that the 1890 Manifesto was phrased ambiguously so that it wouldn't mean "anything at all." After Taylor and Cowley were released in April 1906, Penrose's public and private position was against post-Manifesto polygamy, consistently.  And he did not in any way advocate in any manner plural marriage after the release of these two Apostles.

                Orson F. Whitney is one of the most interesting. He became an Apostle in 1906 as the replacement for John W. Taylor in the Quorum of Twelve.  As a Salt Lake City Bishop, he was courting a young woman in his ward from 1893 to 1895, when the Apostles sent Heber J. Grant to warn him to stop his attentions because they were attracting gossip.

                Bishop Whitney expressed interest in another local young woman from 1898 to 1900, when he finally proposed to her after George Teasdale, an Apostle, encouraged him to do so.  Bishop Whitney was stunned to learn that she had become somebody else's plural wife that very same month, just before he proposed to her.  Foiled again!

                In 1903, Bishop Whitney again proposed plural marriage, but this time it isn't clear whether he actually married the young woman.  Whether it was courtship or marriage, this relationship continued through 1905.  But apparently it ended after his appointment as an Apostle in 1906.       

                In March 1909, his son-in-law's sister became a plural wife, the ceremony performed by Patriarch Judson Tolman.  Tolman also performed a plural marriage that same year Orson F. Whitney, now an Apostle for his brother-in-law.  In July 1909 when the Apostles investigated Joseph W. Musser's post-1890 plural marriage, Musser noted that Whitney was "very generous and considerate."  Apostle Whitney told his fellow-Apostles that most Mormons felt Apostles Taylor and Cowley had not been out of harmony in 1906, but were sacrificed for the Church.  This put Francis M. Lyman into a fit of anger.

                Later in 1909, that same year, Apostle Whitney began courting another woman. She was the sister of a post-1890 polygamist in Provo.  By February 1910, one of the Apostles was convinced that Whitney was trying to obstruct their investigation of recent polygamous marriages, and he was certainly of the mind to do so because he was currently polygamously courting.

                ln December 1910, Orson F. Whitney entered into a covenant of marriage with a Young woman, but their relationship ended within a year.  In January 1915. Whitney may have had some role in the plural marriage of the brother of this same young woman that he had courted in 1909 to 1910.  This couple was excommunicated by the Apostles in April 1918.  By May 1918, Whitney had given up promoting plural marriage, according to the publication here I depend upon the fundamentalist publication by Lynn Bishop and his brother, The Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated.  They base that on interviews that they had done, which I have not seen.  But they indicated that he was favorable to plural marriage until 1918.

                In Anthony W. Ivins we have another interesting case.  He became an Apostle in 1907 and a Counselor in the First Presidency from 1921 to 1934.  He performed about 45 plural marriages in Mexico, from 1897 to 1904.  And when the First Presidency authorized him to perform them for worthy residents of the Juarez Stake, Ivins did so on the request of residents.  But he refused to do so during all but a few months of the period of 1897 to 1902, because the First Presidency did not give him blanket authority during that period to do it.  Then he resumed performing these marriages for residents from 1902 to 1904.

                From 1897 to 1898, and again from 1903 to 1904, Ivins performed plural marriages from non-residents of Mexico after he received a written letter of authorization from the Presidency's office, of which the non-residents carried a duplicate which they then gave to him upon their arrival.  This was their way of his knowing that they in fact were the ones referred to in the letter. 

Although Ivins courted a young woman he declined to marry her after the Manifesto, even though the Apostles were pressuring him to do so.  And the woman died unmarried after his own death.  They were both true to their covenant, remained true to each other, but they never entered into a plural marriage.

                Still, Ivins was not opposed to plural marriage per se, even though he was in his own life, because he performed a polygamous ceremony for his daughter in 1903.  Anthony W. Ivins consistently opposed new plural marriages after the April 1904 second Manifesto.  He saw that there could be, in his view, no exceptions to that.

                Richard R. Lyman became an Apostle in 1918; he was excommunicated in 1943.  In 1925, Apostle Lyman entered into a mutual covenant of plural marriage with a woman who had been disfellowshipped in 1921 for her earlier plural marriage to a man from whom she had now separated.  Ironically, his father, Francis M. Lyman, had investigated this woman's post-Manifesto marriage.  Richard R. Lyman became acquainted with her when he arranged for her restoration to full Church membership in 1922.  Their marriage was a marriage of love.  They saw themselves as soul-mates.  He saw himself as unhappily married to his first wife who had no knowledge of this relationship.

                At their marriage in 1925, he was 55 Years old, and she was 53.  And his first wife did not know.  Apostle Lyman and his plural wife ware in their 70s when they were discovered and excommunicated, 18 years later.  They did not finally end their nearly 30 year association until 2 years before Lyman was again baptized into the L.D.S. Church, on October 27, 1954.

                I've focused primarily on the men.  But let me speak to you briefly and give you a list of the prominent women who entered into plural marriages after the Manifesto.

                Julie Ann Goodbrioksen was the young ladies YLMIA Board member from 1898 to 1926.  She became a plural wife in 1903 of a General Board member, Louis A. Kelsch, Sr., father of Louis Kelsch who became a martyr of the fundamentalist movement with his many imprisonments, beginning with the raid in 1945.

                Agness S. Campbell was a member of the YLMIA General Board from 1898 to 1929.  She married stake counselor Edwin T. Bennion in 1904, after the second Manifesto.

                Amelia B. Carlin, one of the earliest lady missionaries in 1901 to 1902, became a plural wife in 1902 of mission president James G. Duffin.

                Hannah Grover became a plural wife in 1904 of Victor C. Beckstead. I don't know who performed this ordinance, but it was performed in Salt Lake City in May 1904.  She became Stake Primary President before 1919.

                Lillian Hamlin was a BYU faculty member from 1898 to 1902, and she became plural wife of Apostle Abraham H. Cannon in 1896 in a Salt Lake Temple ceremony.  And then in 1901 she became a plural wife of Bishop Louis M. Cannon.

                Harriet Bennion Harker was a plural wife in 1899 of Apostle Matthias F. Cowley, the ceremony performed in the Logan Temple.  She was a member of the Relief Society General Board from 1906 to 1910.  She was one of those, incidentally, who was released from General Boards under the pressure from Apostle Francis M. Lyman and Reed Smoot.

                Nancy Murphy Humphrey was a plural wife in 1901 of a Seventy,  Jabez E. Durphy, and she was counselor in a stake YLMIA presidency from 1904 to 1912.

                Martha Jane LeFevre was president of a stake YLMIA.  She became a plural wife in 1902.

                Mary Lucretia Lyerla, if any of the descendants of Louis Kelsch are here, she became a plural wife in 1899 of mission president Louis A. Kelsch.  She was one of the early lady missionaries in 1899.

                Alice Caroline McLaughlin, Salt Lake Tabernacle Choir from 1891 to 1893, became a plural wife in 1899 of mission president Ben E. Rich.  And then she became a lady missionary in 1900.

                Margaret P. Cardell became a plural wife in 1900 of stake counselor John M. Cannon.  She was the Matron of the Logan Temple from 1916 until 1943.

                Vilate Pearson became a plural wife in 1900 of General Board member Hugh J. Cannon, and she served on the Primary General Board from 1906 to 1909, during which time she had two children and died in childbirth with a polygamous child.

                Margaret Curtis Shipp was a physician and became a plural wife in 1891 of The President of Seventy, B. H. Roberts.

                Catherine Sorenson was stake Primary President from 1898 to 1904.  She became a plural wife in 1903 of a stake counselor.

                Bertha Christine Wilkins Stewart was an instructor at Brigham Young College in Logan from 1892 to 1895, and in L.D.S. Business college from 1896 to 1898.  She became a plural wife in 1898 of stake counselor, Helaman Pratt.  And then she was Counselor in a Stake Relief Society from 1909 to 1912.

                Clarisse Thatcher, Apostle Thatcher's daughter, was a guide at Salt Lake Temple Square.  She became a plural wife in 1901 of General Board member, Henry S. Tanner, although without her father's knowledge.

                Pearl Udall became a plural wife after the second Manifesto of 1904, to Apostle Rudger Clawson.  She became a member of the YLMIA General Board in 1917. But as soon as President Grant became President in 1918, he released her.

                Fanny Woolley, early lady missionary, from 1900 to 1902, became a plural wife in 1902 of stake President George C. Parkinson.  She became a member of the Primary General Board in 1903.

                And in alphabetical order last, Margareta Zundel became a wife in 1901 of Stake President Oliver C. Hoskins, and she became a Stake Primary President from 1904 to 1909.

                In what I've presented to you today, I present it for your interest in showing that the messages of the official Church were very ambiguous from the 1890 Manifesto onward, and that prominent men and women in leadership positions at the general Church level, as well as the local level, by their conscience, by their faith and in many cases by instruction of General Authorities, entered into plural marriages.  As you well know, that principle has not ceased.  So with that, I'll turn the time over to you for whatever questions or comments you may want to make.  I know your patience has been long, and I don't want to draw that out.  And when the questions end, whenever they do, whether it's 5 minutes or 25, then we'll call an end and, as far as I'm concerned, you'll be free.  I don't know if there will be any other things that your presiding officers will want to present before we finally close.

                Question:  Do you get questions from L.D.S. Church members about plural marriage after the Manifesto, and do you get into trouble for answering them?

                  Yes, to the first part of that question, I find that many L.D.S. Church members are interested.  In fact, this is particularly true among the probably 50,000 or more active Church members living today who are descended from these plural marriages performed after the 1890 Manifesto.  And that's a conservative estimate.  And after I published the article in Dialogue magazine about the First Presidency's involvement in this continuation of plural marriage, I heard from a number of these descendants who in some cases in a very emotional way said that for years they had been taught and had quietly had to accept the judgment of Church leaders and local leaders that they were bastards, that they had been born to adulterous relationships after the 1890 Manifesto.  And they expressed to me their gratitude for knowing that although secret, that these marriages had been entered into with authorization of the Church Presidency.

                Concerning the question of my own getting into trouble, after I published the 1985 Dialogue article, the members of the Quorum of Twelve gave orders to my stake president to withdraw my Temple recommend, and if that didn't stop me from publishing controversial Mormon history, to hold a court on me.  The stake president didn't roll over and die, he said this was wrong and he was a "Dialogue" subscriber and had read the article and found nothing objectionable in it.  His counselors likewise had done so: in fact, I had them read the article before they came into print.  But he felt it necessary to comply with the letter of the law in withdrawing my Temple recommend, so he asked me to give it to him.

I told him I would, but I told him to tell them "them", (we know who they are) that I would not be intimidated by anybody.  Nobody can intimidate me.  And that I was going to go ahead and do what I wanted to do, and they had to know that, that this was not going to stop me, but that I would not speak of it to others, and I did not.  I kept silent about that.

                My stake president, on his part, left me in a stake presiding position I was in, because they hadn't mentioned that to him.  So I was being sustained in stake conferences, some of which were held in the assembly hall on Temple Square.  I was also ward gospel Doctrine class teacher and remained in that position till I resigned from B.Y.U.  He also felt that this was a back door effort to get me fired at B.Y.U., so my stake president said that if anyone at B.Y.U. asks if I have a Temple recommend, tell them yes and don't volunteer that it's in my desk drawer.  So there are some wonderful, good-hearted people even in the Church structure.

                Question: Where was Lady Mountford?

                Well, I don't have any evidence of her whereabouts on the days that he was on the ship, and if he has evidence from San Francisco where she was living that he was not on the ship, then that's evidence I don't have.  And that certainly alters the perspective of my conclusions.  However, I find it curious that he was writing letters to San Francisco prior to the trip and told his secretary as they were going on the trip that anything he asked him to do was what God's will was for him to do, even if it didn't square with what the secretary thought should be done.  And I find it especially curious that the marriage that didn't occur was ratified by proxy in the Salt Lake Temple 23 Years later.  But beyond that, I have no knowledge of independent references to her whereabouts during the dates that President Woodruff was with his secretary aboard ship.

                Question:  Do you have any evidence of any modern Apostles after Richard R. Lyman, such as Joseph Fielding Smith or Harold B. Lee J. Reuben Clark is another one who has been identified as one who had entered into plural marriage, whether in fact do you have any evidence that they did so?

                My answer is no, I don't have any evidence that they did.  The evidence that I do have indicates that they were privately extremely opposed to anyone entering into plural marriage, and that any rumors that they did, I think, are unfounded.  But the absence of evidence doesn't prove anything, it just proves that you don't have evidence of this.  But I don't have evidence that there were any other Apostles after Richard R. Lyman, who did enter into plural marriage.

                This, of course, is setting aside eternal plural marriage, because many of them, Joseph Fielding Smith among them, have entered into eternal plural marriages where, after the death of one wife, they have been sealed for time and eternity to another wife.  In Joseph Fielding's case, to three such wives.  So in terms of sealing, a number of the Apostles have been sealed to wives where there would be a polygamous relationship following this life.  But that's the only sense which I am aware of their having any participation in plural marriage.                                 

Question:  Why was it necessary to ratify a marriage that had occurred outside the Temple, in the Temple by proxy.

                There was a difference of opinion in the period after the Manifesto about whether any sealing performed outside the Temple should be ratified at a later time in the Temple.  Most of these sealing were monogamous sealing.  They were performed for couples in Arizona primarily, but also in Canada, in Oregon, in the settlements of Mormons in Colorado and New Mexico and also in Mexico, where young couples were sealed, where one or both of them had never been to the Temple for an endowment.  The question is often raised, these have been authorized but should these people be re-sealed?  The position went back and forth.  Sometimes the First Presidency would decide no, they don't need to be re-sealed in the Temple.  Then other times they would say, well if it's convenient at some future time for those to be re-sealed over the altar in the Temple, that that should be done.                   

                So the fulfillment of that was haphazard.  A number of the couples who were sealed outside the Temple, whether they were monogamous sealings or plural marriage sealings, went to the Temples, whether it was Manti or St. George or Salt Lake or Logan, and had those marriages re-sealed within the Temple so that those marriages would be of record within the Temples of the Church.  And that was the whole idea, to have them of record in the Temples of the Church, in the records of the Church.

                That was always a family question, and I can only think that it was not something that was ever imposed by the Church Leaders saying, "you should go back." or, "I require you to go back into the Temple and have this done."  It was left to the decision of the families.  Madam Mountford's marriage I can only assume was within the Woodruff family there was a desire for this marriage to be ratified for the records of the Temple by proxy.  It couldn't have come from Madam Mountford's family, because she was the only member of her family who had joined the Church.

                Question:  What were the circumstances that resulted in John W. Taylor being reinstated in 1965?

                This was at the repeated request of Samuel W. Taylor and Raymond W. Taylor who were two sons of John W. Taylor.  They had jointly collaborated in writing such books as, "I Had Six Wives." Which was a somewhat fictionalized biography of Rulon Allred.  Taylor changed the names but based this on research they had done with President Allred and a number of others within the group.  They had also published a family memoir about John W. Taylor called, Family Kingdom. They had made repeated requests and finally succeeded in obtaining the permission of David O. McKay for the ceremony to be performed.  And Joseph Fielding Smith was the one who performed the ceremony of reinstatement.  I don't know who performed the baptism, but Joseph Fielding Smith reinstated all John W. Taylor's former blessings and sealings upon him.

                Question:  How did you get interested in plural marriage and plural marriage after the Manifesto?

                Actually, it was that book I just referred to, Family Kingdom.  When I was 17, a girlfriend of mine said, "You know, there's this book my mother just read.  It's about early Mormonism.  I think you'd be interested in it."  So she gave me the book and I read Family Kingdom and felt very disturbed that John  W. Taylor had  been  dropped  from  the  Quorum  of  Twelve and was later  excommunicated.  I felt that he, as the book presents him and as I believe he was, that he was a sacrificial lamb for the defense of the Church.  I felt very concerned about that.

                Well, in our ward, my Bishop was a son-in-law of Apostle LeGrand Richards who frequently came to my ward to see his daughter and son-in-law and speak our ward meetings.  The New Years Eve after I read the book, New Years Eve fell on Sunday, so we couldn't have our traditional Sunday dances and celebrations on New Years Eve, so our youth group met in the Bishop's home.  With us at that time was LeGrand Richards.  The Bishop said that LeGrand Richards was going to give us a talk about whatever he chose to speak about, and after that time 'we were free to ask him any questions we wanted to.

                So I'd been reading the Journal of Discourses, the first volume that summer, too, so I asked him about plural marriage after the Manifesto and the Adam-God doctrine.  Of course this was in front of these other friends of mine who had never heard of either one of these things.  I thought Brother Richards was very blunt, and I thought he was very honest in what he said.  About Adam-God, he didn't deny it in any respect.  He said Brigham Young taught a lot of things that he (Richards) didn't understand.   He said that, "The Adam-God doctrine is one of those things that I just put on the shelf.  And I don't claim any ability to understand it now.  I will one day take it off the shelf when I can meet with our Lord and ask him personally about it.  But until that time. I don't make any statement about it." Which I felt was a very honest thing to   say.  That was the position I took thereafter.

                About plural marriage after the Manifesto, he only knew of it through what his father had told him, George F. Richards, who was one of the replacements he was the replacement for Matthias F. Cowley when he was released in 1906.  And Apostle Richards told me that his father regarded John W. Taylor as a very proud man, and that John W. Taylor felt that because his father had this revelation, this gave him the right to do anything regarding plural marriage no matter what the President of the Church felt.  Apostle LeGrand Richards told me that he felt that John W. Taylor's downfall came because he was arrogant, and that, to me, sounded reasonable.  So I accepted that argument and felt that they had acted contrary to the First Presidency's proposals, and I didn't really explore plural marriage after the Manifesto until I was a returned missionary.  One of my young men I had responsibility for at B.Y.U. came up to me furious, saying he was going to leave B.Y.U., he was definitely going to leave his Book of Mormon class and was probably going to leave B.Y.U. that term, and might leave the Church.

                I tried to calm him down and said, "What's the matter?"  He said, "Well, I've been used to being given misinformation by my seminary teachers about plural marriage after the Manifesto, and I Knew that they didn't understand a lot, and I figured that this was just honest misinformation on their part.  But a religion professor at B.Y.U. told me that anyone who entered into plural marriage after the Manifesto was an adulterer.   My grandfather was a mission president who married two plural wives in Salt Lake City in 1901, and stayed mission president for 19 years.  My family has a letter of recommend for one of those plural wives, signed by Joseph F. Smith."  Well, I tried to explain to him that the religion professor probably didn't understand any more about this than his seminary teachers did, and I was sure he wasn't lying.

                But this really disturbed me, because it went so much against what I had felt was a reasonable explanation that LeGrand Richards gave to me. So I went up to The Salt Lake Genealogical Society that next weekend and checked his father's genealogical group sheet, and sure enough there were the dates for the marriages and the children's births, places of the marriages, and I checked Andrew Jenson's list in the "Biographical Encyclopedia" for this man, and sure enough, he was mission president from 1901 to 1919.  The answer no longer worked.  So from that point forward I wanted to understand, and I felt that not only was it important for me to understand, it was important for these descendants of these marriages to understand too.  So that's how I got involved in this.

                Question:  The question relates to the proxy ceremony for Wilford Woodruff and Lydia Mountford.  Wilford Woodruff's proxy was one of his sons.  The proxy for Lydia Mountford was Susa Young Gates, who was the sister-in-law of Wilford Woodruff.  She was the sister of another secret marriage that Wilford Woodruff had entered into, but this one he had entered into in 1877, and had married the sister of Susa Young Gates.  The marriage didn't last long, it ended in divorce.

                Susa Young Gates is also interesting as a proxy, because she was an advocate  of  plural marriage  after the  Manifesto  and  had tried to get her daughter, Leah, to marry Abraham Cannon, in 1896, and she was seriously being courted by Abraham Cannon.  But when Abraham Cannon died, in 1896, a year later, Leah Dunford married John A. Widtsoe.  So those were the proxys.

                Question: What is the source of your information for this proxy marriage.

                The Salt Lake Temple record.

                Question:  How do we get access to those?

                If you have a Temple recommend, you can get to the Salt Lake Temple record.  There is another source, though, for it, too.   That is that Anthon H. Lund performed the marriage, and he recorded the ceremony in his diary; and those diaries are going to be published in another year or so.

                Question: What is your understanding of the circumstances surrounding the 1886 revelation and what is your personal evaluation of whether it was valid and what significance has it?

                As a historian, I find that there is abundant evidence to demonstrate that the 1886 revelation occurred, that John Taylor was being asked to suspend or end the practice of plural marriage.  And in response to a question relating to that, God told him in a revelation, a fairly brief revelation, that that should not occur and that God could not revoke the practice or principle of plural marriage. And because of that, John Taylor did something fairly interesting, and that is that John Taylor had never been in violation of the federal laws concerning plural marriage, because he had entered into his plural marriages in Utah before the 1862 law which made plural marriage a violation of law.

                Within a month, it was a month after the 1886 revelation, John Taylor married a plural wife, which was his first violation of federal law concerning plural marriage.  The 1886 revelation, however, in my view, really added nothing to any of the revelations that had been given on plural marriage.  It did respond to that specific circumstance from 1885 to 1886, when many loyal Church members saying, "Why should we suffer anymore?  Why don't we just agree to suspend the practice of plural marriage and end this crusade?"  And the 1886 revelation did respond to that specific situation and request or consideration.

                But if you read, as I have read the 1886 revelation, I don't find that it says anything different than the original written 1843 revelation.  In there, God says that this is a new and everlasting covenant which shall never be abrogated.  It is an eternal covenant.  The 1889 revelation of Wilford Woodruff, who was an Apostle at that time, says the same thing.  The 1889 revelation received on November 24, 1889 by Wilford Woodruff, when there was a similar proposal to him about making a promise to the federal government not only said that, the revelation of marriage being eternal, but also told him to make no promises to the Federal Government at all, of any kind.

                So I don't think that the 1886 revelation, in terms of the irrevocability of the principle of plural marriage, said anything new.  I really find it curious that there has been such a strenuous effort on the part of L.D.S. Church members and leaders to deny the existence of the 1886 revelation, because it makes them vulnerable to denying something that can be demonstrated as having occurred.

                The reason the 1886 revelation, though, has historical significance beyond its actual content is because through the later testimony of Lorin Woolley, the 1886 revelation is linked with another event.  And they are two separate historical circumstances.  The 1886 revelation is linked with the ordination or setting apart of men to the office of High Priest Apostle, to have an authority to perform plural marriages, as defined later "no matter what the Church itself might do."  I find no historical contemporary evidence to support that ordination of the Council of Friends in 1886.

                As I said, absence of evidence doesn't prove anything.  lt doesn't prove that something did not occur.  All absence of evidence does is that you can say. "I don't have evidence of this."  And as a historian, I have no evidence that there was a setting apart or an ordination of a Council of Friends in 1886.  However, I do have as early as 1906 a reference by local Church members that there had been men who had been set apart to keep plural marriage alive no matter what.  And that certainly is a support for the account of 1886, but it doesn't refer in any specific way to the 1886 ordination of the Council of Friends.  So the 1886 revelation relates to that event, that alleged event or that claimed event, but the existence of the 1886 revelation as a true document does not prove that there was an ordination of men in 1886.  They are really two separate historical items.  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.  But aside from the one reference I gave to you, in 1906, I find no evidence of that event prior to Lorin Woolley's detailed statements on various occasions in the 1920s concerning the 1886 ordination.

                Question:  Are you writing a book about plural marriage and what you've been talking about today?

                Yes, I've been working on this for a number of years and eventually it'll be two books.  I'm planning to write one book on plural marriage before it was publicly announced in 1852, when it was secret and being denied, and you had the public and then you had the private confusion going on, and then I plan to write a book on the similar event or similar circumstances in Mormonism that occurred after 1890.  That book will deal with plural marriage among the Mormons.  I'm not sure what the cutoff will be.  If I have my preference, I think I'll cover from 1890 to 1990, but we'll see what my energy level is for that.  But that's upcoming.

                I also have, as some of you know here who have been kind enough to allow me to interview you, I have an article coming out on, "Plural Marriage and Mormon Fundamentalism." and the University of Chicago is going to be publishing that next year.  It was supposed to come out this year, but they had a delay with a number of other people who were contributing to the volume.  That presents not only my historical research, but also interviews with plural wives and plural children and plural husbands within the fundamentalist movement today, helping I hope, readers to understand that it ain't what they think it is in terms of plural marriage today.  But that won't be a book, it'll be a long article. lt is 60 pages of typed text and 30 pages of notes.  I don't know what the full book is going to be like it's probably going to look like a medical dictionary because there are about 20 other contributors, and they're writing articles that are 40 pages long supposedly.   Every time I kept sending something to the authors, they kept asking me to ask more questions, and that kept expanding the length of the article until it ended up being 60 pages of text.

                Okay, we're out of time for questions.  I can just allow one more you have greater patience than I think I would under your circumstances of sitting in meetings for 5 hours at a stretch.

                Question:  you've referred to concubinage, and what does that mean in the L.D.S. Church.

                You need to remember that if you read section 132, the 1843 revelation, that revelation not only approves plural wives, it also approves concubines.

                The question is: what does that mean?  well, the term "concubine" as I understand it, and I'm not a biblical scholar and haven't researched this carefully, but in  the  Old  Testament  you  have  references  to  wives  and  concubines.  My understanding is that in the Old Testament when it used that term, whatever the original Hebrew was, it meant that it was a wife who did not have the same social and legal status as other wives. Topically, concubines were slave women or servants in the home who became wives of the master of the home.

                Several of Abraham's wives, he had four, and two of those wives were concubines.  They were his servant women who became his wives.  I believe two of them had the higher social and legal status.  They were not his servant women. So there was that distinction.  lt related not to the legitimacy of the marriage, but to the social standing of the women in the marriage.

                Then in contemporary use, concubine came to mean basically a woman who was in like a mistress, and that became a conventional  British and American understanding of the word concubine.

                Then you have the revelation of 1843 approving plural wives and concubines, and it doesn't explain what they are.  So you are left to wonder what we're talking about there, because there are no slaves.  Well, that's not true, there were black slaves in American society, but there were no slaves in Nauvoo society that this would have applied to, so what was it referring to?   My only understanding of this, any time the brethren referred to concubines, they never explained what they meant.  They just said "concubines."

                I think that what it came to mean in Mormon practice and in Mormon thought in the 19th century was a woman who was married to a man without benefit of a sealing ceremony performed by a Priesthood holder.  So it referred to a woman who became married to a man through an ordinance of what I call a "solemn covenant of marriage."  And I don't like referring to those women as concubines because of the very negative connotations that term had and did have, even in the 19th century.   But I think that's what George Q. Cannon and others were referring to when they said that concubinage is a true principle of the Lord, and if necessary it's going to occur again.  It meant that if necessary, if they for, one reason or another couldn't have a Priesthood holder perform a ceremony of sealing for a couple, that the couple could enter into concubinage under the authorization of God by agreement or vow of love and fidelity between themselves and this goes to what I regard as a principle that the structure of the Church is not necessary to ratify what God approves, and that in terms of relationships, a relationship of love and commitment doesn't need to have an ordinance to perform it, to have the approval of God, that that is between the couple and their relationship and God.

                Yet, in the 19th century, that was a minority practice.  Most of the polygamous relationships that existed began with a formal ceremony in which there was a formal officiator performing it.  There were very few of concubinage.  But I've traced down a number of them.  I focused on them primarily after 1890.  And there were very few of those.  That will have to be the last question, I'm afraid.  I don't want to take the patience of those sitting here wondering, "will he never stop?"  So thank you again for the opportunity to speak before you.

                Question:  What do you have on the visit of Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith to John Taylor in 1886, and of the 8-hour meeting other than Lorin Woolley's affidavit?

                Okay, this is the traditional, foundational claim. I think it's fair to say, of Mormon fundamentalism.  One is the 1886 revelation. Two, is the miraculous appearances of angels and of Joseph Smith and of Christ himself to John Taylor.  And three, the ordination of those men.

                There is no question that again, the historical evidence in terms of what I am bound by in terms of my training as a historian, there is no question historically to cast any doubt on the 1886 revelation.  There can also be no question that John Taylor spoke with God face to face in 1885 and also in 1886.  I'll refer you to that.  In December 1885, Joseph Smith III, from actually November to December, Joseph Smith III of the Reorganized Church, was going throughout Utah, preaching that plural marriage was not a practice of his father and that it was only a corrupt, evil invention of Brigham Young.

                During that time, John Taylor received a revelation in December wherein Jesus Christ appeared to him face to face.  That revelation and that appearance of Christ to John Taylor face to face was being referred to in people's diaries and in meetings of local wards as early as May 1886.  So this is months before the September 1886 events that you have people publicly saying and recording in their diaries that John Taylor  had received a revelation concerning plural marriage and had spoken with Christ face to face.

                During this period from 1885 to May of 1886, John Taylor had not lived in the home of John W. Woolley, so it had nothing to do with the Woolley home. Then in 1897, while Lorin Woolley was on a speaking engagement outside Utah, he spoke to a ward and bore testimony that while in his father's home, the home of John W. Woolley, President John Taylor had spoken with Jesus face to face, as well as a number of other angelic ministers.  He didn't at that time associate it with a plural marriage revelation.  He just testified that this had occurred.  So that's the earliest contemporary account I have of the appearance of Jesus Christ and other messengers, to John Taylor while John Taylor was in John W. Woolley's home in September 1886.

                Then years later, Lorin Woolley gave more details about those visions appearances that occurred in his father's home, involving John Taylor.  But I think it's important to know that people in the early part of 1886, were talking about John Taylor speaking face to face with Jesus Christ in regard to a revelation on polygamy.

 

“My greatest concern for this people is that either their leaders will become too much of a dictatorship or that the people will become too independent to take righteous counsel.”  J. Ted Jessop

 

 Mission Statement

This electronic-publication is an endeavor to instruct and perpetuate the Fulness of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ as restored by Him through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

We encourage the reader to submit any material that will help edify and build the Kingdom of God.  All submissions are subject to editing, and must be in good taste.   All contributors remain anonymous, not because of fear of reprisal from the public, but to give honor and glory to God.

In past years, Truth Never Changes has charged for subscriptions, however with the evolution of technology and availability of information, this e-publication is now free to all those who have the desire to seek and understand the mysteries of God…

  E-mail any submissions to:  

angelwolf51@yahoo.com

sanhedrin70@yahoo.com

 “The Kingdom or Nothing!!”

DEDICATION OF THE ST. GEORGE, UTAH TEMPLE BAPTISTERY

Dedicated by Elder Wilford W. Woodruff, 1 January 1877

                                                                                   

     Oh God, our Heavenly father, Father of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Thou who has created the heavens, the earth, the seas, and the fountains of living waters, all things that dwell therein; accept of the gratitude of our hearts and the thanksgiving of Thy people that Thou hast preserved our lives to again enter into another Temple, which has been built by the saints in these valleys of the mountains, in which to organize the Holy Priesthood, and to administer the ordinances of the Gospel of the Son of God, both for the living and for the dead. Oh, Our God, we thy sons and daughters have assembled together, in the name of Thy son, Jesus Christ, within the walls of this Temple, this day for the purpose of dedicating and consecrating a portion of this house unto the Lord our God, that it may be holy and acceptable in Thy sight. May the prayers of thy people ascend into thine ears, oh Lord, and be heard and answered upon their heads. We now dedicate this Temple Block, the land, the water tank, the fencing and all appertaining thereto, that it may be holy in Thy sight. We dedicate and consecrate the foundation upon which this Temple stands, that it may be holy unto the Lord our God. This foundation has been erected through much labor and diligence of Thy servants, and we pray, Oh God, that thy blessings may rest upon it, and it may remain as firm a foundation of the everlasting hills; that it may not be moved to the injury of this Temple which is built thereon. We dedicate the outer walls of this Temple unto thy name, O Lord, that it may be holy and all the materials of which they are composed: the rock, the mortar, the sand, the lime; the plastering inside and out, and every material thing that is used in their construction, that they may be sanctified unto the Lord. We dedicate all the windows belonging to this basement story; the sills, the frames, the sash, the glass, the putty, the weights, the cords, the fastenings, and all the materials of which they are composed, that they may be holy unto the Lord. We dedicate all the outer steps and stairways leading to the Temple with the railing, stone, wood, iron, lead and all materials of which they are composed. We dedicate unto the Lord all the inner walls of this Temple, with all the materials of which they are composed, that they may be holy unto the Lord, Our God, we dedicate all the doors of the basement unto the Lord; with the frames, butts, screws, locks and all fastenings, that they may be holy. We dedicate unto thy most Holy Name the font which the people have erected for the ordinance of baptism for the living and the dead. We dedicate the flagging, the foundation, on which the font stands, unto the Lord. We dedicate the twelve oxen that bear up the font, that they may be holy. We dedicate the font itself, with the steps leading to it and the railings and all materials of which they are composed, the castings, the iron, the stone or wood, and we pray that they may be acceptable unto thee, Oh, Lord, our God. We dedicate the boiler, the engine and pipes leading to the font and washing baths, for the washing of thy people, unto Thee, Oh Lord. We dedicate the railing which surrounds the font unto thee. We dedicate unto thee, O Lord our God, the rooms which will be used by thy people, for giving of endowments and the administration of the ordinances of thine house, and all other rooms including the water tank belonging to the basement story of this Temple of the Lord our God. We dedicate all the frames, partitions, with the curtains and doors thereof, that they may be holy and acceptable unto the Lord. We dedicate all the carpeting which is laid upon the floors, unto the Lord our God, that the labor of the mothers and daughters of Zion may be acceptable in the sight of all Heaven. We dedicate all the altars with their coverings and trimmings which are used in those rooms, unto the Lord our God, praying that they may be acceptable unto Thee. We dedicate unto the Lord all the chairs, benches and all materials which shall be used in the seating of Thy people in the rooms of this house. We dedicate unto the Lord all the furniture made use of in the lower rooms of this house; the desks, stands, stoves, pipes, wood boxes, and all material, that they may be holy unto the Lord. We dedicate all the pillars, and beams resting upon the pillars erected in the lower rooms of this Temple for the support of the upper rooms, that they may be holy unto the Lord. We dedicate all the rooms leading from the basement to the upper rooms, with the stairs and railing, and all material made use of in their construction, that they may be holy. And we dedicate all the white-washing and painting, and plastering, inside and out, and any material not heretofore named, made use of in the construction of this Temple, that it may be holy unto the Lord our God. And we ask thee, our Father in Heaven, in the Name of They Son, Jesus Christ, that Thou will accept this Temple at the hands of Thy saints, both male and female, who have built it unto Thy Holy Name. And may no unclean thing be permitted to enter therein. Wilt thou bless thy servants and handmaidens with the spirit and power of God, who shall administer in any of the ordinances of life and salvation within the walls of this house; and all Thy people who enter the threshold of this Temple. May they feel Thy power and be constrained to acknowledge that the power of God rests upon it, and we ask in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, that the prayers offered up in the further dedication of the other parts of this House, this day or at any future time, in the dedication of this House by those holding the Apostleship, or Holy Priesthood, that their prayers may enter into the ears of the Lord of the Sabaoth, and be answered upon the heads of Thy people. Oh Lord, be not angry with thy servants while we continue our supplication before Thee in this, the Temple of our God. Thou hast said that thou wouldst take unto thyself them whom Thou wouldst preserve; Thou hast taken unto Thyself thine aged servant Joseph Smith the Patriarch and his sons, Joseph, Hyrum, Carlos, and Samuel, and many more others of Thy servants, but Thou hast raised up unto Thyself Thy servant Brigham Young, as a law giver unto Israel and a leader of thy people. Thou hast taken unto Thyself his counselors Willard, Jedediah, Heber and George. A., yet Thou hast sustained Thy servant Brigham for a generation, as men count time, by the right hand of Thy power. He has been with Thy people through all their afflictions and persecutions and led them to those Mountains of Israel, guided and directed the settlement of Thy saints and all the affairs of Zion, as inspired by the power of God in this, the last Dispensation and Fullness of Times, in which Thou hast said thou wouldest establish Thy Kingdom to be thrown down no more forever. Therefore, O Lord, our God, we pray that Thou wilt give Thy people faith, that we may claim this blessing of Thee, the Lord of Hosts, that thou wilt lay Thy hands upon thy servant Brigham, unto the renewal of his body, and the healing of all his infirmities, and the lengthening of his days and years; yea, Oh Lord, may he live to behold the inhabitants of Zion united and enter into the Holy Order of God and keep the celestial law, that they may be justified before Thee. May he live to behold Zion redeemed, and successfully fight the devils visible or invisible, that make war upon Thy saints. May he live to behold other Temples built and dedicated unto Thy name and accepted of thee, O Lord, our God, and we pray Thee, our Father in Heaven, in the Name of Jesus Christ, if it can be consistent with Thy will, that thy servant Brigham may stand in the flesh to behold the nation which now occupies the land upon which Thou, Oh Lord, has said the Zion of God should stand in the latter days; that nation which has shed the blood of the prophets and saints which cries unto God day and night for vengeance; the nation who are making war against God and His Christ; that nation whose sins, wickedness and abominations are ascending up before God and the Heavenly Hosts, which causes all eternity to be pained, and the heavens weep like the falling rain, yea, O Lord, that he may live to see that nation, if it will not repent, break to pieces like a potter's vessel, and swept from off the face of the earth, as with a besom of destruction, as were the Jaredites and Nephites, that the land of Zion may cease to groan under the wickedness and abominations of those who now cumber the ground. We pray Thee, O God, that Thou wilt bless all the counselors to Thy servant Brigham, bless thy servant John W. Young, his first counselor, that he may be clothed upon with power of God, that he may be a polished shaft in Thy quiver in the defense of Zion and her cause; may he comfort the heart of his father and have the blessings of God and thy people upon his head. Bless the household of Thy servant Brigham, his wives and children, and all appertaining unto him. May his posterity remain upon the earth in righteousness until the coming of the Messiah, and through the Millennium. Bless Thy servant, Daniel H. Wells, with the spirit and power of God and all his household. Bless all the counselors to thy Servant Brigham, with their wives and children and all appertaining to them. Bless, Oh Lord, thine Apostles that the spirit and power of the Apostleship may rest upon them. Bless their wives, and children with salvation and eternal life; and may all the Apostles of the Lamb of this last dispensation and Fullness of Time, realize their responsibilities before God, Angels and men and magnify their calling in that manner that they will be satisfied at the end of their labor. Bless Oh Lord, Thy servant George Q. Cannon, who is our delegate, appointed to represent us in the Capitol of our nation. Clothe him with Thy Power, Oh God, and enable him to do Thy will, that his garments may be clean of the blood of this nation, that they may be left without excuse, in the days of Thy judgments upon them, for Thou knowest, Oh Lord, their destruction is at the door. Oh Lord bless the Patriarchs, whom Thou hast appointed, May they have power to bless by inspiration as did the ancients, that their blessings may be fulfilled upon the heads of the saints. Bless their families and all pertaining to them. We pray Thee, Oh Lord, to bless the High Priests' quorum throughout the land of Zion. May the power of the Priesthood rest upon them, that they may magnify their calling and have power to build up the Zion of God on the earth.  Bless their wives and children and all appertaining to them. We pray Thee, our Heavenly Father, to bless the quorums of Seventies, with their presidents.   They are called to be special messengers to the nations of the earth. Bless them with the testimony of Jesus Christ, and be prepared to assist in binding the law and sealing the testimony among the Gentiles, in Thine own due time.   Bless their wives and children and all their households. May the blessings of God rest upon all the Elders of Israel in the World, with their families. Oh, our Father in Heaven we pray Thee to remember in mercy the Aaronic Priesthood with their Bishops, Priests, Teachers and Deacons, who are appointed as standing ministers unto the Church, clothe them with the power of God, salvation and eternal life, with their wives and children. Bless we pray Thee thine aged servant, Edward Hunter, who is called to preside over the bishopric. Thou hast seen his labor and Thou knowest the integrity of his heart, clothe him with thy Holy Spirit; fill him with the spirit of counsel and consolation to his brethren; and preserve him in the flesh as long as he shall desire. And when he shall sleep with his fathers, may he rest in peace, and the words of righteousness follow him. Bless all the organizations of thy Church and Kingdom. May Thy people accomplish the work unto which they are ordained, build up Zion of God and prepare the earth for the coming of the Son of man. Bless the Female Relief Societies throughout the land of Zion. May they fully accomplish the object of their organization by Thy servant Joseph. May they influence the daughters of Zion to deeds of virtue, holiness, righteousness, and truth. May the blessings of Sarah, Huldiah, Hannah, Anna, and Mary, the ancient prophetesses and holy women, rest upon them. Oh God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob we ask Thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, that Thou wilt remember Thy servants, which Thou hast made, with the whole House of Israel. Remember them in all their abidings in these last days. We pray Thee in this the Temple of our God, that Thou wilt make bare Thine arm of power of preservation and salvation of the small remnant of the Lamanites that are left in the land. Deliver them, Oh God, from the hand of the Gentiles who seek to annihilate them from off the face of the earth. Inspire their hearts by Thy Spirit to receive the Gospel of the Son of God; that they may be prepared to build up Zion, and fulfill the covenants and promises made unto them by their forefathers who inherited this land. Remember, Oh Lord, Thy covenant people in the north country, hasten the day when they shall come in remembrance before thee, when their prophets shall smite the rocks and the mountains of ice shall flow down upon them. May the highway speedily be cast up in the midst of the great deep that they may come over dry shod. May the everlasting hills tremble at their presence, and their enemies become prey unto them. May they come forth unto Zion and bow the knee that they may be crowned in Zion under the hands of Ephraim, Thy servants. We pray Thee, Oh God, that Thou wilt remember in mercy the sons of Judah, upon whose heads the blood of Jesus Christ has rest for 1800 years. They have been trampled under the feet of the Gentiles and been made a hiss and a byword, in fulfillment of the words of Moses, their law giver, and of Jesus of Nazareth, and we pray Thee Oh Great Elohim, that the past may suffice. Inspire their hearts to return home to Jerusalem the land of their fathers and rebuild their City and Temple, that they may be prepared for the coming of Shiloh, their King, Oh hear, hear us, Lord in these our petitions and answer us from Heaven Thine Holy Habitation, and we will ascribe all honor, glory and thanksgiving unto God and the Lamb, both now and forever, Amen and Amen.     (Journal of History, 1 January 1877, Wilford Woodruff Journal)

Thus saith the Lord, unto my servant, Ted, as you have asked about missionary work; The Gospel must go forward, have not I set the Fulness of the Gospel for a standard unto the Saints and the Gentiles?  Lift up thy voice and proclaim that the higher laws and ordinances are yet obtainable. Many seek these things and know not where to find them.  Hold not back thy voice when thou are inspired, for who so heareth and receive in spirit, the same shall find me. And how can any come unto me save they be prepared?  How can they be prepared save they receive the ordinances and the keys to come into my presence.  With such as do I and my Father will take up our abode with them and sup with them and their joy will be complete.  (Taken from J. Ted Jessop’s handwriting.  Date and location unknown)

Golden Plates on Display in Bulgaria

The world's oldest multiple-page book — in the lost Etruscan language — has gone on display in Bulgaria 's National History Museum in Sofia . And something about that book has particular interest for Latter-day Saints.
As is evident from the photograph, this book was created on metal plates that are bound together with metal rings similar to the original source documents that became the Book of Mormon.

The book dates back to 600 B.C., which is roughly the time that Lehi and his family left Jerusalem .

The small manuscript, which is more than two and a half millennia old, was discovered 60 years ago in a tomb uncovered during digging for a canal along the Strouma River in southwestern Bulgaria . It has now been donated to the museum by its finder, on condition of anonymity..

Reports say the unidentified donor is now 87 years old and lives in Macedonia.The authenticity of the book has been confirmed by two experts in Sofia and London , museum director Bojidar Dimitrov said quoted by AFP. The six sheets are believed to be the oldest comprehensive work involving multiple pages, said Elka Penkova, who heads the museum's archaeological department..

There are around 30 similar pages known in the world, Ms Penkova said, "but they are not linked together in a book".

The Etruscans — one of Europe's most mysterious ancient peoples — are believed to have migrated from Lydia, in modern western Turkey, settling in northern and central Italy nearly 3,000 years ago. They were wiped out by the conquering Romans in the fourth century BC, leaving few written records.

The long debated question about bound metal records existing in the Middle East 2500 years ago as claimed by the Book of Mormon can now be put to rest. Critics should take note and check that item off their list of objections to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.  (Information found on the Internet.  Contributed)

REFLECTIONS OF WILLIAM N. BAIRD

4 December 1992

Salt Lake City, Utah

Today Brother William N. Baird passed away at 8: AM, or close to that hour.  Last Wednesday, I spent about two and a half hours with him by myself in Centerville.  We spoke about things that were glorious to me.  I’m going to write them down—or as they come to me.  I know that this won’t cover all that we spoke of, but some things will be recorded.  We spoke of many things—one of which, was when I began to ask about the anti-Christ.

I related that my father had told me that this planet was made of seven other planets that failed to live the law.  I accepted this simply because it was my father, who told me.  Years later, my Uncle Jim told me that Brother Woolley told my Grandpa this very same thing.  Jim told me that he was just a child, when my parents lived there in the Woolley farm (Moroni Jessop managed the farm for John Woolley).  Jim said that he could remember on many occasions, my father, Grandpa and Brother Lorin Woolley talking way into the night.

I related to Brother Bill that I have found where the Prophet Joseph said that this planet was made of others, and was organized, not created.  Also B. H. Roberts stated that this planet has been broken up and brought back together again.  Brother Musser quotes Brother Roberts in his book, Michael, Our Father…about the breaking up.

Brother Baird said, “Your father taught you that?”

“Yes,” I responded.

“I wish I was like you!”  He then said.

“How is that?”  I questioned.  “You have entered the principle with five lovely wives.  You are an Apostle—how can you be envious of me, a new-comer, who has waited so long to come in?”

He answered, “Because you have received these teachings since your childhood.”

I told him that I have often thought how could a world be destroyed for not complying with the law.  The only way that I can see is if the Savior of that world failed to offer the Atoning Sacrifice, and thus failed to bring to pass the redemption and the resurrection.  For me, then it is conceivable for bones to be billions of years old, as the carbon dating shows, and yet, this earth only be 6000 years old.

“Yes,” he said.  “And I’m going to show you another way it could be: What did Moroni tell Joseph about the sealing keys of Elijah?”

“That he would reveal the Priesthood by the Prophet Elijah and he would turn the hearts of the fathers to the children—and the hearts of the children to the fathers,” I answered.

“Yes.  Or what would happen?”

“The earth would be destroyed.”
“That’s right.  And what are the sealing keys of Elijah?”

“I believe that it includes everything—the Fulness of the Gospel.”

“Ted, when Joseph was alone, what did he do?”

“He taught others and ordained them to keep it alive.”

“When John Taylor was alone and those around him were surrendering the Principle, what did he do?”

“Ordained men to keep it alive.”

“Yes, and Lorin Woolley was the last of those who Pres. Taylor called and what did he do?”

“He ordained men to keep the principle alive.”

“Then the council got off base,  In fact, I don’t even recognize John Y. Barlow as the Head.  Joseph W. Musser was selected to be the Head after Leslie Broadbent.  But, anyway, after Brother Barlow died, Joseph was left alone standing on principle.  What did he do?”

“He called others to keep it alive,” I responded.

“Do you realize that four times, it was down to just one man?  Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Lorin Woolley and Joseph Musser; and it will yet happen again.  You will see the time that it will be down to just one man.  But what would have happened if any of those—any one of those four—would have weakened?”

I answered, “The Lord would have had to reject the earth.”
“Now I want to ask you what does it take to have the Fulness of the Gospel?”
“Everything.”
“That’s right.  Can you delete any part of the Gospel and still have a Fulness?”

“No.  I don’t believe you can.”

“So, if any one of them had given any part up—no matter what the principle might be—then the Fulness of the Gospel would not be upon the earth?”
“I think that is correct,” I stated.

“So then, I want to ask you if a principle is voluntarily surrendered, can it be reclaimed and still be recognized by the Lord?”

“No,” I said, “This is the last dispensation.”

“So what would happen, if for one generation, all of the principles and ordinances of the Gospel were not passed on by those who have received them?”

“The earth would have to be rejected and destroyed!”

“Do you see how important work is?  Do you see how much the Lord needs you?  He needs men, who will take hold of the Gospel and never let go!”  He raised himself off the bed, and clutched both hands and shook them.  “Never, never, let go!”

My eyes were opened to why we couldn’t wait for things to progress to a point of total out of orderness.  We can’t just wait for the “One Mighty and Strong” to put things back in order.  If we surrender Ordinances, or watch them disappear, and fail to contend for righteousness, that it will bring upon us the judgements of God.  All of a sudden, Brother Musser’s teachings made perfect sense to me—that whatever the Church gave up or was no longer qualified to do, then the Priesthood must step forward and carry on that work.  Now I could see why—so that that particular principle would still be upon the earth at the Savior’s coming.  Out of order—yes—but still on the earth.

The flood of light that came upon me as we discussed these things can only be explained to those who know and trust the Spirit of the Lord. 

I then said to him, “Is this our seventh go-around?  I’ve asked myself more than once: Is this my seventh time?”
He got a smile on his face and said, “Could you learn all that you need to know with just one trip?  You know the end; it’s all in you.  You have done it all before—all truth is in you—you only have to remember!”

I then asked about another doctrine, “I was taught that Brother Woolley taught my Grandfather that Cain was sired by Lucifer, or one of the saviors that came off the cross.  Is that really true?”

Brother Bill got a large smile on his face and raised his upper lip, as I have seen him do many times, and cocked his head and said, “Oh, no.  You’re not going to pull me into that one.”

I said , “Well, I brought this up in Priesthood class, and kinda got my hands slapped.  So I came to realize that not all things can be taught in the open, not even among Fundamentalists, but I do believe this to be true, Brother Bill.  I just wanted your opinion for my knowledge.  I know that my Grandfather was taught many things by Brother Woolley, that he was told not to reveal, and I believe that he didn’t disclose any of those things he was told not to.”

Brother Bills aid, “I would not ever tell you not to tell someone, but would rather say, ‘If the Spirit tells you to do something, then go ahead.’  I wouldn’t put any restrictions on the Lord’s Spirit, but what you just mentioned is true.  I was first taught this by Brother Rulon, as we were driving.  He went into great detail and depth to explain this to me.  We arrived at Brother _______’s house and as we walked in, Brother ________ said, ‘Brother Rulon, something has to be done!  People are teaching that Cain was sired by the devil, and this is false doctrine!’  Brother Rulon paused for just a moment and said, ‘You’re right, ________; it is false doctrine.’  Then just went on about the business at hand and never even batted an eye at me.  Well, my mouth just about dropped open.  But you see, Ted, this principle was used by Joseph, Brigham, the Woolleys and Brother Musser-—ot to give more than what the people can accept.  If you give that which will be rejected, then you haven’t blessed them—you have brought down condemnation upon them.”

He pointed his finger at me and said, “I know who you are!  You’re not that person yet, but I know who you are.  You can’t allow any changes to come into the Gospel!” 

Brother Bill again prophesied that I would be called to the Apostleship.

I asked if in a way, that had not already happened?  “Is not being a Seventy also being an Apostle?

He said, “Yes, some are, we have conferred the Seventy Apostleship upon some of the Seventies, but it is not the same that you will get.  You will have conferred the complete Apostleship upon you.  I don’t know when or where, but I tell you in the name of Jesus Christ that it will happen.  You will be blessed with wives and children.  Go home and write it down, for it will surely come to pass!”

The main topic that I went to speak to Brother Bill about was the Lamanite Prophet.  That indeed was the beginning of our conversation.  We had spoke about this on other occasions, but had not really gone into depth about it.  I began by stating that if we accept the 85^th section of the D&C, then we must also accept the revelation that speaks of the Prophet Joseph taking Lamanite wives, as both are taken from a letter that W. W. Phelps wrote to Brigham Young.  Bro. Phelps states that this was the first time that he had ever heard the doctrine of Plural Marriage taught. 

I then asked if the Lord gave Joseph this commandment to take Lamanite wives, and if he failed to do so, would not that be a sin and a transgression?

Brother Bill agreed.

Then can we not safely assume that he did comply with this commandment?  I reviewed the prophecies of David, Joseph’s son and how Brigham first felt  that Emma’s son, David, would fulfill them.  In D&C 84:4, it states that in this generation (Sept. 22, 1832), people would be living to build the Temple in New Jerusalem.  If, with the longevity of life as the ancients were, he could still be alive and thus all could be fulfilled.

Brother Bill said, “But he and Brother Owen can’t both hold the keys.”

I responded, “That is true.  So many have rejected this because of the teachings of the Bishop brothers, and Rhea Kunz.  These people have rejected all authority here and they seek to put the keys somewhere else, where they are unobtainable to reach.  I have read where Lothair Allred believed that, too.  Rulon’s son, and others have hammered that there is no Lamanite Prophet, but I don’t see the conflict.  When Lehi came to America, who held the keys?”
Brother Bill agreed that it was Jeremiah.

“Yes,” I said, “Jeremiah held the keys over the earth, yet Lehi held the keys and Priesthood authority to preside over his family.”  Again I asked, “When Christ came to the Americas to organize His Church, who did he call to preside?”

“Nephi, in 3^rd Nephi.”

“Did he hold the keys over all the earth?”

“No,” said Brother Bill, “Peter did.”

“Was there a conflict between Peter holding the keys over all the earth and 3^rd Nephi hold the keys to preside over the Nephite-Lamanite Church?  Or a conflict between Jeremiah and Lehi?”

“No,” said Brother Bill.

“So should there be a conflict over Brother Owen holding the keys over the earth and a Lamanite Prophet holding Priesthood authority among the righteous Nephite-Lamanite remnant?  I see no conflict; and I do believe that they exist.  B. Harvey Allred saw a Lamanite Prophet, Lorin C. Woolley prophesied about him, he will yet make his appearance.”

At this, Brother Bill said, “Let’s go find him!”  Then he said, “No, you young people will have to—I can’t get on or off a horse anymore.”

I reached down and kissed him with the holy kiss.  This was the last time that I saw him alive…                                                  (Jackson Ted Jessop)

—COMMENTARY—

ON

JUSTICE IN ZION

In addition to last month’s editorial, regarding becoming the teachers of laws forsaken by the corporate Church, and mastering those laws so we can become effective instructors, I feel to add that with that responsibility also comes learning to be righteous judges, and administering justice and fairness in Zion.

I am reminded by the Scripture, “Let us flee unto Zion, for her laws are just.”  I apologize for not providing the reference, however, the statement alone speaks volumes.  When the New Jerusalem—Zion is established and built, there will be battlements surrounding the city to keep the world out in the world, and keep Zion within Zion.  There will be a separation between the two.  And people will hear rumors of peace and justice and equality and harmony being practiced there.  People will have grown weary of the tyranny out in the world; of all the oppression, and will yearn to live their lives the way the Saints live their lives in Zion.  Zion will lead, bearing the standard of righteousness for the world to follow.  And people will flee the world just to obtain those liberties. 

“And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach of us his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”  (2^nd NE 12:3)

We have all been placed upon this earth in our final of several probations.  This is the shortest, but the most difficult.  Before we came to this earth, we lived with our Heavenly Father and knew a great many things, but birth, and passing through the veil to our mortal tabernacles has caused us to forget those things we knew in the pre-existence.  Thus, we have to learn these things again, which is basically, a remembrance, for when we learn truths, they strike a chord of absolute truth within us.  We go through life obtaining our ordinances and bringing to fruition those things that were promised us in the pre-existence.  We are all traveling upon the road to godhood.

Plural marriage is one of those laws that teaches man temperance and the administration of justice.  Living this law can teach a man humility and tolerance or it can teach him to become an unyielding dictator.  A man living the law of plural marriage will experience so many more things a monogamous man will not.  The scenarios are endless, but one of the prime wisdoms a man learns, is impartiality; how to mete righteous justice, while maintaining integrity and honesty.  And no man can do this without the Lord.  We are required to go through life living all of the laws and ultimately obtaining a fullness of Priesthood—the apostleship, for without it, we cannot have the blessing of our calling and election made sure by the Lord Jesus Christ, Himself. 

The situations described in Truth Never Changes, September 2009 come to mind, of a man in a Priesthood group, who had a plural wife leave his family and took their children with her.  She sought a “release”, which was granted her by an apostle, without ever investigating one allegation made by this sister.  To this day, this sister has not yet given reason for her departure from her marriage with her husband.  And the husband will not consent to this “release”.

To issue “releases from marriages,” and I use quotations, (because no one as the authority to give a divorce from a marriage, except the husband) without any inquiry and weighing evidence and accusation; without formal examination, is in short, Priestcraft.  What was committed against this man was an atrocity and an abomination.  For anyone to divide families and give their approbation to the separation of children from their two parents is a wicked thing.  There is no other way to put it.

What would have happened if this scenario had been played out according to proper justice?  Perhaps a Priesthood tribunal or court would have been held to hear the wife’s allegations and consider and review any evidence and testimony that she could present.  The husband would have also been afforded to defend himself, and the judge or judges—acting in impartiality—would execute justice in righteousness, bearing in mind the eternal covenants at stake and the mental and spiritual welfare of the children, should a division be granted. 

Any righteous apostle would have sought to resuscitate the marriage and encourage reunion, seeking a positive resolution, rather than grant a “release” solely based upon the testimony of a disgruntled wife.  Instead, the rights of the husband were blatantly disregarded.

I sincerely believe the marriage could have been saved and the children would be living together with their father and mother, while the parents reconciled their covenants.

Although I am far from a state of perfection, I know we all have room to learn.  The Lord has yet to give us a great many things to experience before we can sit in the capacity of a righteous administrator of justice unto men. 

E    D    I    T    O    R    I    A    L

I pray a portion of the Lord’s Spirit to attend me this moment in your faith and prayers, dear brothers and sisters.  I don’t feel like I could really say anything more than what has already been said.  I think verbally a beautiful picture has been painted of the life and character of Brother Baird.

I first had the opportunity of meeting that beautiful man—and how appropriate our opening hymn was to me, because I’ve gone into the deserts of Arizona and pleaded with the Lord and asked Him, “Where, oh where, dear Father, are the prophets of God?  Where are they?”

I literally feel like I have pleaded in the desert and cried in the desert unto the Lord.  And how well I remember a little over a year and a half ago when I met Brother Baird and Brother Thompson at Brother Omer de la Cruz’s house.  Brother Baird after he had been talking for some time, sat down and Brother Joe began to talk.  Brother Baird just looked at me and just smiled with the intensity of his face, and it was like I had known him all my life and he was saying, “Where have you been?  Where have you been, I’ve been waiting for you.”  And it was just an immediate, spontaneous love.

Then in his beautiful way of asking questions, he would stop Brother Joe and point his finger right at me and say, “I’d like to ask this man a question,” and then he would begin with his questions.  It doesn’t matter whether you respond or not, although he wanted a response, the questions themselves generate the thoughts.  Such a beautiful way of teaching.

I have been overwhelmed more than once at the deep, deep spirituality of this man.  His depth of perception has been a source of inspiration to me because he could tell you what you were thinking, and he could tell you what you were feeling, and he could tell you what went on in your home the night before and he would call and ask, being troubled in spirit.  Oh what beautiful teachings proceeded from this great man.  How I treasure them.

Like Harley, I had the opportunity of going over and visiting with him last week and spending some time.  And I’m here to tell you that I heard things that I’ve never heard before in my life.  I treasure those, I treasure those from the depths of my soul, because Bill Baird loved the Gospel.  He loved it and it was the center focal point of his life.  One of the things that he kept reiterating to me that day, he said, “We need men that will hold on.”

He took his hands like that, and he said, “Men who will hold on!  Who won’t let go!  Men who won’t allow the ordinances to be changed!”

Then he went on to explain what would happen if they were changed.  And you see that really becomes our lot, brothers and sisters, that really becomes our mission on earth.  God the Eternal Father, it has so pleased Him to deliver the gospel in its purity, and we have become the recipients of the Gospel.  I’ve always loved the Gospel; I’ve always believed in the Gospel.  Many think that I have changed religions—I haven’t.  I haven’t changed religions in no sense of the word!  I have found Mormonism in a greater purity, I have found where the keys of the Priesthood are.  And I firmly believe that if a person will allow himself to be guided by the Spirit of God, there is only one place that the Spirit of God will bring the, and that’s to the feet of the Priesthood.

Therefore, now that we have been brought in, in whatever way, whether we were born here or whether we’ve been brought here, most of us have been brought here.  Now, it behooves us to see that the Gospel of Jesus Christ does not change, that we cleave unto our covenants, that we cleave unto the purity of the Gospel.  Because as Brother Bill explained to me the other day, he said it just takes changing one ordinance, that’s all it will take, and how true that is!  How true that is!

As he began to explain those things, my, oh my, the pressure that I began to feel, the intensity that I began to feel, because there are only the few of us—relatively speaking—there are only a few of us who can understand the gospel.  Therefore, it needs be that we cling unto every word of God.

Brother Baird asked me a question, “What would happen with our people if we asked them to give up television?  Would we do it?”  He said, “As long as we keep television, somewhere down the road it will pollute us.  Somewhere down the road, the ways of the world will come in.”

But would we be willing, would I be willing?  I know Brother Bill loved the work, I know that he saw the face of God in each one of us.  He expressed that more than once.  I know the great love that he expressed for his wives.  Time after time he told me what a beautiful family he has, what beautiful wives he has and how blessed he was.

I would just like to bear testimony that I believe the gospel with all my soul.  There is no question in my mind, no question at all that Brother Allred holds the keys of Priesthood.  I recognize him as my priesthood head.  And I’m grateful for this beautiful council and pray, pray that we can be an asset to the work of God.  I desire to be a servant of God, to do His work.  There is nothing else on my mind, either.  I want to do the work of the Lord, and there is no place else that we can do it, that the opportunities are there for us, unless we allow ourselves to be sidetracked, unless we allow ourselves to deviate, and in the sacred name of Jesus Christ.  Amen.  (Jackson Ted Jessop, 06 December 1992, Bluffdale, Utah)

Qadosh L’Adonai.  —The Editor—

Recommended Sites 4thefamily.us (Open chat & polygamy & Mormon doctrine discussion) fullnessradio.acrobat.com/fullness/ (Internet broadcast Wednesdays 8pm MST.  Discussion of deeper mysteries of the Kingdom of God.) allofthegospel.com  (An in-depth website offering extensive Fundamentalist Mormon information and works)

 

Holiness

Y
To The  

Lord

TRUTH NEVER CHANGES
Volume 13, Number 03
March 2010