My Rant on The Comments I Have Been Hearing

Do we make all marriages bad? Because that's what I am hearing. I can tell you that marriage is good for me. Plural marriage for me may be good too. Why restrict it? Some of the finest of God's servants had more wives than one. The Bible is full of references. Stop with the, I am better than you mask, and leave people to their religious lives. Especially when they are doing fine. I lived in the FLDS community. I don't now, so I can be objective about it. I will say, I prefer the way they do marriages over the way it is done anywhere else. The respect exhibited by the men toward the women is not as objects as some are misinformed, through propaganda, may conclude. No. Respect toward women there is admired by the youth, and that is why most children stay when they grow older. Young marriages are not common there. They are not forbidden, but are rather minuscule in number. Yet you would think that it is common, by the accounts of the media. It is not considered evil or wrong to marry young there. Because when girls think they are ready to marry, they have to have their parents agree, which is many times unlikely for the parents to agree. But when they do, they will present her to the prophet who will have her come back for multiple appointment sessions with the parents in tow. I will have you know that this is not unlike how the young men are treated. It is no laughing matter to the parents nor to the young people. The vows are taken seriously. Abuse is unlikely in case you are wondering. If a man is found to be abusive there, he will be sent out, and all he earned in his life will be given to a finer gentler more righteous man. Jeffs is being wrongfully targeted. It is due to the religious prejudices of those who hold authority in government. The laws that are being used to convict him are unconstitutional. Yet he has been hated by the media, the government and the LDS neighbors who just hate Warren Jeffs on the outset. There is no truth in their criticism except in their own paradigms.

The (so called) New Hope

The HOPE Organization is a non-profit group dedicated to assisting survivors of abuse within polygamous relationships on their courageous journey to personal freedom.

HOPE is a St. George, Utah based 501(c)(3) charity providing assistance to individuals and families to safely transition from a polygamous lifestyle into mainstream society.

HOPE's purpose is to offer support, protection, assistance, choices, opportunities and hope for the women, children, families and young adults (both male and female) who have been kicked out or have chosen to leave this culture. Sadly, too many women and children live under immense control, oppression and fear of eternal damnation, and they are caught in the cycle of abuse without a choice or a voice . . . We want to empower them!

Laws against these crimes are based in religion, which violates the separation of church and state. They are un-American, as they attempt to homogenize the country to a certain group's idea of morality, and that they create an oppressive society, restricting personal freedoms without justification. They teach irresponsibility, by not letting people deal with the natural consequences of their actions, but rather penalizing them whether or not their actions harmed anyone else.
Catching the "criminals" involved is an expensive affair. Victimless crimes draw manpower and funds away from crimes that do hurt innocent parties, and enforcement of the laws is not consistent enough to be an effective deterrent. I argue that actions to help people deal with problems caused by these illegal activities are effectively prevented by their criminalization -- for example, no one could be helped about their drinking problems during Prohibition. Additionally, he details how laws against victimless crimes paved the way for organized crime. from Wikipedia: Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country by Peter McWilliams

Muhammad was Christian

I don't know who says Muhammad was illiterate. I am not excusing Islam as it is written in the Koran. I just know that Muhammad was learned in Christianity. His successors were not Christians even though he taught about Jesus. I believe they were blood hungry after Muhammad died. The so-called Christians back then were not kind to these people and they needed a leader. Muslims were defended back then, God saw they were humble and prayerful. I am Mormon. I love Christ. Prayer and humility and faith in Christ are the power in the Holy Ghost.

More Proof of LDS Church authorities acknowledgement of the "hand written" revelation document

Items of special interest relative to the 1886 REVELATION. The following excerpts taken from the trial minutes of special meetings of the Twelve Apostles held in the Salt Lake Temple, February 22nd, and March 1st, 1911.

Those in Attendance were: Apostle John W. Taylor, President Francis M. Lyman and Apostles Heber J. Grant, Hyrum M. Smith, Charles W. Penrose, George F. Richards, Orson F. Whitney, David O. McKay, Anthony W. Ivins and Joseph F. Smith Jr.

President Francis M. Lyman presided and specifically informed Apostle John W. Taylor that he had been summoned to the trial, “TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.”

Apostle John W. Taylor: My father received a REVELATION which however was never presented to the Church, and I refer to this not because it was a REVELATION to my father; I don’t think a REVELATION because it came through him was any greater than one received through any other president of the Church, but because it seems to pertain to this question.

The REVELATION follows:

The REVELATION was read by Brother Penrose.

Apostle John W. Taylor: There are two things I am drawing your attention to. I am not in politics and very little in the Church, but I do this as a matter of privilege. This REVELATION is either true or it is false. Assuming that it is true, it seems to me that it would be better to offer leniency on the side of the Lord if you are going to offer any leniency, than on the side of politics....Brother Lyman what do you think of the REVELATION to my father?

President Francis M. Lyman: If you ask me if I believe in the plurality of wives, I would say that I believe it is true and will always be so, but the Lord may suspend the practice of it, and how much of the responsibility remains with the people and with the government, I don’t know. I am living with my wives now all the time, but I don’t hold the Church responsible for it but shoulder the responsibility myself....I have no fault to find with the REVELATION.

Apostle Charles W. Penrose: Do you understand the free agency referred to in the REVELATION gives any one the privilege of taking a plural wife?

Apostle John W. Taylor: I take it that it refers to the individual and relieved the Church of the responsibility and placed the responsibility upon the individual.

President Francis M. Lyman: When did you find this REVELATION?

Apostle John W. Taylor: I found it on his desk immediately after his death, when I was appointed administrator of his estate....

President Francis M. Lyman: Do you think anyone can solemnize plural marriages with authority now?

Apostle John W. Taylor: I feel under certain circumstances they could, but it would depend on the circumstances.

President Francis M. Lyman: What conditions?

Apostle John W. Taylor: I fully explained that last time.

Apostle Charles W. Penrose: What are your views with regard to that REVELATION?

Apostle John W. Taylor: I am not the one to pass upon that REVELATION. I think you are the ones to do that.

Apostle Charles W. Penrose: What I desire to get at is as to how you view the matter, whether you have been guided by that in your case. You brought the REVELATION to us and it has never been accepted by the Church or presented to it.

Apostle John W. Taylor: I think the only thing to do is to go to the presiding priesthood of the Lord and get his idea on it and get him to inquire of the Lord what His mind is regarding it.

Apostle Charles W. Penrose: I don’t think Brother Taylor should come here and tell us what we need to do. But what I wanted to know is what he thought the President meant by the REVELATION, whether the man was placed upon his own responsibility by that REVELATION and the President and Church relieved of all responsibility or not.

Apostle Anthony W. Ivins: Do you know how extensively this REVELATION has been circulated in times past and has guided people in their actions in this regard?

Apostle John W. Taylor: Brother Joseph Robinson came to me and asked for a copy of it upon the suggestion of Brother Cowley and he got it from Brother Badger. Brother Joseph F. Smith Jr. also got a copy but I don’t know how many have got copies from these.

Apostle Anthony W. Ivins: You don’t know what inference was placed upon it in early times?

Apostle John W. Taylor: No, I don’t know.

Apostle Anthony W. Ivins: I ask this question because I have heard some of the brethren interpret this REVELATION in this way, and I would like to find out to what extent they had the endorsement of the Church in view of this REVELATION, and what was the reason these brethren went to Canada and Mexico. Do you know what they based their belief upon; as they seemed to be sincere. Whether it was from this REVELATION or from the President of the Church or from what grounds were taken that they could come in contact with the law of the land and still win out. I would like to know from Brother Taylor what he knows about this and if they were justified in it.

Apostle John W. Taylor: President Smith has come out on numerous occasions with the statement that there have been no marriages of a polygamous nature solemnized with the approval of the Church, since 1890. He stands at the head of this dispensation at this moment and has adopted that policy, and as far as I am concerned I don’t want to come in conflict with President Smith on this proposition. I don’t know what others have taken from this REVELATION. If the REVELATION is true, it would certainly impress me that the Church was relieved of responsibility in this matter and the responsibility placed upon the individual.

Apostle Orson F. Whitney: Was it not the policy during your father’s administration to leave everything to the mind of the individual? I know this was the case with me when I went to inquire if I should take the test oath. I was told to exercise my own judgment. Also there is no authority as far as I can see, in that REVELATION, no authority given to man to exercise such authority in marrying any one, but the question of whether they should go into the relationship was left with the individual, as in President Young’s time men were commanded to go into it.

Apostle Charles W. Penrose: I feel that we should not express our own views on this REVELATION but should have Brother Taylor’s views if he will give them, if not we can get through with that question.

President Francis M. Lyman: The date of this REVELATION is September 1886, four years before the manifesto of President Woodruff and I remember at that time that President Taylor and all his brethren were very strongly entrenched in the principle of plural marriage. From 1880 to 1890 men were almost commanded to enter it, especially the officials of the Church. We were all pretty well engaged in this question. The change came in 1890 when president Woodruff felt the necessity that plural marriage should cease and after that he felt just as strong against it, as President Taylor had felt for it before. It was subsequent to this that President Smith made his declaration that the Church took no responsibility for the unlawful co-habitation of those in plural marriage and the performance of plural marriages. I would like to ask if you have encouraged others to take plural wives, or taken them yourself or if you think these brethren who have copies of this REVELATION have taken it as an encouragement, for instance Brother Robinson.

Apostle John W. Taylor: I will answer that by asking if anyone you have had here before you has ever said that I encouraged him.

President Francis M. Lyman: No one except Wolff, and you admit having encouraged him under the direction of a superior officer.

Apostle David O. Mckay: I would like to know who the man is that directed you to instruct Brother Wolff to marry a certain party.

Apostle John W. Taylor: I would not wish to take issue with the President of the Church or anyone who is at the head of the Church. I went to President Smith’s office the other day and had a three and one-half hour talk with him and John Henry Smith and he said that he had never authorized anyone to perform a plural marriage. I am not saying that he is the one to whom I refer, but I do not want to say any more on this point.

Apostle Hyrum M. Smith: I would like Brother Taylor to feel that we are not persuading him or any other man to do them harm but simply to get at the bottom of these matters. I feel that you are responsible for the circulation of that REVELATION.

Apostle John W. Taylor: I am willing to put in a supplemental answer to the effect that I have never married anyone without the endorsement and authority of the President of the Church and, if you desire, I will give the names of those I have married, but I think this would be unwise....

Apostle Charles W. Penrose: Under this purported REVELATION from your father do you think this authority is given to anyone to perform a plural marriage on their own free agency?

Apostle John W. Taylor: If a man had been authorized in any way by authority to perform a marriage, under that REVELATION he would be.

(Signed)

John W Woolley

Lorin C Woolley

Daniel Bateman

George Q Cannon

L John Nuttall

The mainstream LDS Church response

Official Church Statement

In the “Official Statement” from the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, signed by Heber J. Grant, A.W. Ivins and J. Reuben Clark, Jr., “First Presidency,” the words are as follows:

“It is alleged that on September 26-27, 1886, President John Taylor received a revelation from the Lord, the purported text is given in publications circulated apparently by or at the instance of this organization (Fundamentalists).
“As to this pretended revelation it should be said that the archives of the Church contain no such a revelation; the archives contain no record of any such a revelation, nor any evidence justifying a belief that any such a revelation was ever given. From the personal knowledge of some of us, from the uniform and common recollection of the presiding quorums of the Church, from the absence in the Church archives of any evidence whatsoever justifying any belief that such a revelation was given, we are justified in affirming that no such a revelation exists.”

If the revelation to John Taylor was not then in the archives of the Church, it is because it had been taken out from the archives of the Church, in order to make the statement, for each of the brethren had been familiar with it and knew that it was in existence. These three men signed the false statement with full knowledge of its falsity and with the intent of deceiving the Saints. To make the deception more complete, A. W. Ivins, one of the signers to the false statement, wrote one of our California friends as follows:

“The latter purported revelation of John Taylor (of 1886) has no standing in the Church. I have searched carefully, and all that can be found is a piece of paper found among President Taylor’s effects after his death. It was written in pencil and only a few paragraphs, which has no signature at all. It was unknown to the Church until members of his own family claimed to have found it among his papers. It was never presented or discussed as a revelation by the presiding authorities of the Church.”

Then without any apparent thought of corroboration of this statement with facts, Apostle Melvin J. Ballard stumbles into a trap and leaves Brother Ivins out on a limb, as follows:

“The pretended revelation of John Taylor never had his signature added to it but was written in the form of a revelation and undoubtedly was in his handwriting.” (Marriage—Ballard-Jenson Correspondence, p. 17.)

Thus the revelation is confirmed by two independent statements made by two leading Church officials, each of whom tried to destroy it.

The late B. H. Roberts, while Assistant Historian of the Church, stated to friends that he had seen, on more than one occasion, the original copy of this 1886 revelation, and knew that it was in the Church archives; and in his opinion it was genuine.