tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post4313568348185287910..comments2024-03-13T12:52:19.391-07:00Comments on Pure Mormonism: Wilford Woodruff's Pants Are On FireAlan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comBlogger216125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-23203160461935828532022-09-27T05:03:59.020-07:002022-09-27T05:03:59.020-07:00No that's not history. It may be persuasive o...No that's not history. It may be persuasive opinion. Like body parts, everyone's got an opinion. Sometimes poorly informed. Too many self-anointed general authorities are no more credible than fools who assume they know it all. BobDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09303250766268344562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-56937266190228672552022-07-22T10:32:19.957-07:002022-07-22T10:32:19.957-07:00Re: "who came to Wilford Woodruff and demande...Re: "who came to Wilford Woodruff and demanded that their baptism and endowments be done."<br /><br />In the post by John Brown above, we must assume that the gospel had been preached to all of these Founding Father spirits and other famous people and that they accepted it; otherwise, they would not have "demanded" that their temple work be done.<br /><br />This seems entirely contrary to D&C Sec. 138. There, Christ visits the spirit world between his crucifixion and resurrection and preaches the gospel to a receptive and “innumerable company” of just spirits, including ancient prophets as well as many who apparently had never heard the gospel preached (verse 19) nor received its ordinances, and tells them that they will “come forth, after his resurrection from the dead, to enter into his Father’s kingdom, there to be crowned with immortality and eternal life” (verses 50, 51). Unlike in the Woodruff episode, the various temple ordinances are NOT mentioned as requirements for these spirits to enter into celestial glory. Rather, Jesus simply promised them that after his resurrection, which occurred a day or two later, they would all be crowned with “eternal life,” finally ending “the long absence of their spirits from their bodies,” which they had viewed as bondage.Steve Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01972829970776193784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-35705904959637212722022-07-21T19:12:29.550-07:002022-07-21T19:12:29.550-07:00It seems this is much ado about a mistaken assumpt...It seems this is much ado about a mistaken assumption that the prophet can't authorize endowments in an endowment house. According to one of the people actually present, it wasn't just baptism. <br /><br />“I was also present in the St. George Temple and witnessed the appearance of the Spirits of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence. And also the spirits of the Presidents of the U.S. up to that time. And also others, such as Martin Luther and John Wesley, who came to Wilford Woodruff and demanded that their baptism and endowments be done. Wilford Woodruff was baptized for all of them. While I and Brothers J.D.T. McAllister and David H. Cannon (who were witnesses to the request) were endowed for them. These men that we did work for, were choice Spirits, not wicked men. They laid the foundation of this American Gov., and signed the Declaration of Independence and were the best spirits that the God of Heaven could find on the face of the Earth to perform this work. Martin Luther and John Wesley helped to release the people from religious bondage that held them during the dark ages. They also prepared the people’s hearts so long as they would be ready to receive the restored gospel when the Lord sent it again to men on Earth.” <br /><br />From the personal journal of James Godson Bleak, Chief Recorder in the St. George TempleJohn Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16644593323523613105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-15321980561730542892021-11-04T15:51:53.530-07:002021-11-04T15:51:53.530-07:00Re: "the well-worn story of Brigham Young tr...Re: "the well-worn story of Brigham Young transforming into Joseph Smith before the crowd"<br /><br />I suspect that much of the so-called "transforming" had to do with the fact that in the Church priesthood brethren often mimic the speech patterns of the prophet and other higher-ups, who may do the same thing. If Brigham were speaking with the same cadence and mannerisms as Brother Joseph, it is understandable that some present would go overboard and say he "transformed" into Joseph. Speaking of this priesthood speech cadence, I remember when Sonia Johnson was called to testify before Congress and was question by Sen. Orrin Hatch. She, or someone else, afterward commented on how Hatch had used his "priesthood voice" in fairly stern questioning of her.Steve Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01972829970776193784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-77912626143127547262017-02-23T13:58:41.259-08:002017-02-23T13:58:41.259-08:00The fact that they didn't have electornic reco...The fact that they didn't have electornic records will account for the fact that they baptize some people multiple times. How did one know in Logan that billie was also baptized in St. George. So to say that there is some lie or insidious wrong when they baptize someone multiple times is misleading and false. Not to mention that there is no harm in doing an ordinance more than once for someone. We are mortals and I don't think God condemns honest clerical mistakes. Not to mention that he didn't say in his record of the vision who came name for name. He stated them generally as the signers of the Declaration of Independence, thus if a few were baptized before than it wouldn't have effected his description of the vision. Not to mention that if a few signers (whom he hadn't met) were not there because their work was already done, how could he have known. <br /><br />In regards to the different re-tellings, Joseph Smith did the same with the first vision. Different parts of the experience were important to different people and different times, and especially different to Joseph. Not to mention that Joseph mentions that he actually didn't remember some of the details until later. The same thing could have been done with Wilfred. Also take into account psychologists experiments with human memory and how much it changes over the years. This happens to accounts of soldiers in WWI and WWII all the time. It is not purposeful embellishment, but what their memory is actually telling them.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13348639483462834939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-28549884384106914082017-02-10T10:39:58.581-08:002017-02-10T10:39:58.581-08:00I find the author's statements concerning the ...I find the author's statements concerning the transfiguration of Brigham Young to be lacking in facts - just because Wilford Woodruff didn't mention he was there in his journal does not mean he couldn't have been. It was the meeting to decide the next leader of the church, something the Twelve had better be there for. In addition to the morning meeting that Wilford doesn't mention, Brigham Young spoke in the afternoon, a discourse recorded in Wilford's journal entry from August 8th, 1844. See the comment(s) on this transfiguration article: <a href="http://www.ldsanswers.org/evidence-transfiguration-brigham-young/#comment-545" rel="nofollow">http://www.ldsanswers.org/evidence-transfiguration-brigham-young/#comment-545</a> IF the twelve were absent in the morning it is still very possible that they witnessed the transfiguration that afternoon. Wilford was very clear that he and the other twelve DID witness a transfiguration. <a href="http://www.ldsanswers.org/evidence-transfiguration-brigham-young/#comment-526" rel="nofollow">http://www.ldsanswers.org/evidence-transfiguration-brigham-young/#comment-526</a><br /><br />The term 'nothing has been done for us' could be in reference to the fact that previous baptisms were not done with proper authority and were not binding. It could also simply refer to the fact no TEMPLE ordinances had been done when you consider that baptisms for the dead in that day were often performed outside of temples/dedicated buildings.<br /><br />As a descendant of Wilford Woodruff and a faithful church member who loves church history, this article was offensive to me in its tone towards prophets and revelation. While I recognize that blindly following a leader is a very bad idea, I would always trust the word of a prophet (which I take to be scripture) or even the opinion of a prophet (considered opinion when stated with an 'I personally believe' or 'I think') much faster than I would trust any perceived facts or ideas. The prophet is the Lord's mouthpiece and the Lord is the only source of all truth.Faith, Family, Freedomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14065933776385488863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-78882613082527140852017-02-10T08:43:32.459-08:002017-02-10T08:43:32.459-08:00Interesting article, but it ignores the truth. Wil...Interesting article, but it ignores the truth. Wilford Woodruff and the others were fully aware that some had been baptized already (as you said). However, the remainder of their work had not been completed (endowments, etc), so Pres. Woodruff decided to re-baptize them as he did the other work - a practice not uncommon in their day. It does not make him out to be lying just because their baptisms were done - the rest of their work was incomplete. The article here contains multiple eyewitness accounts as well as the list of names: <a href="http://www.josephsmithacademy.org/wiki/eminent-spirits-appear-to-wilford-woodruff/" rel="nofollow">http://www.josephsmithacademy.org/wiki/eminent-spirits-appear-to-wilford-woodruff/</a>Faith, Family, Freedomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14065933776385488863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-228431827775405702016-10-27T14:18:58.311-07:002016-10-27T14:18:58.311-07:00I'm thinking you did not read Woodruff's a...I'm thinking you did not read Woodruff's account carefully enough, Aaron. He claims the founders complained that none of their work had been done for them, even though the saints had the use of the endowment house for years. He reported their disappointment that they had not been redeemed, they said nothing about not being exalted. The one is a function of baptism, the other of the endowment.<br /><br />I'm familiar with Michael DeGroot's piece you cite, but I did not find it persuasive. It strikes me as an attempt at damage control aimed at those who might have read Brian Stuy's research and hence come to doubt the myth. The problem with Church apologists is they tend to focus on reaffirming member's faith in the structural Church rather than concerning themselves with true events. If research appears throwing the "truthfulness" of the Church as an institution in doubt, they will circle the wagons to reaffirm faith in the institution. DeGroot speculates that Woodruff hastily baptized them because somehow rebaptism was necessary prior to their having their endowments done. And yet Woodruff's account is ALL about the baptims; he mentions nothing about doing their endowments.<br /><br />You might find it helpful to obtain Brian Stuy's full account of the incident (which I linked to in my article). In it he includes what he deemed the source of Woodruff's visions. Comepare that article with Michael de Groot's piece, than decide which version seems more likely reliable to you. Alan Rock Watermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-15107565224635076402016-10-27T13:19:13.694-07:002016-10-27T13:19:13.694-07:00The blog is misleading. You didn't read his ac...The blog is misleading. You didn't read his account carefully enough. Many had their baptisms previously performed but not the higher ordinances of the Endowment.As was common in their day Wilford rebaptized them before performing their Endowments. See the following link for a well-written explanation to your concern. http://www.ldsliving.com/What-You-Didn-t-Know-About-the-Founding-Fathers-Temple-Work-Story/s/78831 Parkinson familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09376060408378650753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-9857035863863992692016-09-25T14:12:18.303-07:002016-09-25T14:12:18.303-07:00I now see others have also provided this link. Sor...I now see others have also provided this link. Sorry for the duplication.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779362080456539297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-31800679160194504652016-09-25T14:10:07.328-07:002016-09-25T14:10:07.328-07:00http://www.ldsliving.com/What-You-Didn-t-Know-Abou...http://www.ldsliving.com/What-You-Didn-t-Know-About-the-Founding-Fathers-Temple-Work-Story/s/78831?page=1#story-content <br />This link says the Founders came because they wanted their endowments done and at the time this occurred it was common for people to rebaptize people before the endownment was done. I agree they didn't need to be rebaptized a 2nd or 3rd time BUT it appears the issue was the endowments.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779362080456539297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-45681957995769894502016-07-04T19:41:25.149-07:002016-07-04T19:41:25.149-07:00I got this from LDS Living. This explains your pro...I got this from LDS Living. This explains your problem!:<br /><br />The Vision<br /><br />In August 1877, Woodruff had what he called two “night visions,” a scriptural way of describing dreams. But these were more than just ordinary dreams—he recognized them as inspired visions. The experience was so vivid that he spoke about them as if they were visits. In them, he said, the Signers of the Declaration of Independence gathered around him and “demanded” and “argued” that he get their temple work completed. He later said George Washington was also present in that request.<br /><br />“You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years,” the Signers said to him, “and yet nothing has ever been done for us.”<br /><br />In other words, the sticking point in this accusation wasn’t baptisms for the dead, but endowments—the higher temple ordinances.<br /><br />In fact, the proxy baptisms for the Signers had been completed in stages by various people starting in Nauvoo and ending in 1876. John D. T. McAllister, who helped Woodruff in the temple, had even participated in doing some of the Signers’ work six years earlier.<br /><br />Even though there were no temples in Utah until the 1877 dedication of the St. George Temple, members of the Church were able to have their own, live endowments in the temporary “Endowment House” on Temple Square in Salt Lake City. Endowments for the dead were only first performed in St. George beginning on Jan. 11, 1877.<br /><br />By August 1877, endowments for the dead had been going on for months, yet nothing had been done to complete the Signers’ temple work. Woodruff determined to do it himself.<br /><br /><br />Darrin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01684130392473185847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-69584144043371009592016-06-04T13:52:05.093-07:002016-06-04T13:52:05.093-07:00Unknown,
Setting aside the fact that you start out...Unknown,<br />Setting aside the fact that you start out saying you won't be anonymous, then sign on as "Unknown," you berate me for a "ridiculous" post and stating I'm obviously "confused in [my] thoughts, assumptions and claims."<br /><br />Yet you neglect to offer any help. Your criticism is of no use since you neglect to show me where I got it wrong. If you would be so kind as to point out my specific errors, I would be happy to correct them. You might start by reviewing Brian Stuy's thorough examination of the topic in "Dimensions of Faith: A Mormon Studies Reader" and if I misinterpreted his findings I would be gratified if you would point out specifics. I have no desire to disseminate falsehoods. Alan Rock Watermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-53341181295326360332016-06-04T13:34:29.259-07:002016-06-04T13:34:29.259-07:00I'm not getting your point, Indiana. Brother D...I'm not getting your point, Indiana. Brother De Groote's article in LDS Living which you refer to does nothing to clarify or update, but he does speculate on his own that the founders had appeared to Woodruff not to be baptized but to have their endowments done. Yet when we read Woodruff's own words, it's clear the founders felt NOTHING had been done for them; they had been completely forgotten. So Woodruff says he grabbed Brother McCallister and did their baptisms forthwith. Perhaps a re-reading of Woodruff's recollection is in order once again this time with added emphasis to show that the founders' claim was that NOTHING had yet been done for them:<br /><br />"Two weeks before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, WANTING TO KNOW WHY WE DID NOT REDEEM THEM. Said they, “You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN DONE FOR US. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God.”...I thought it very singular, that notwithstanding so much work had been done, and yet NOTHING had been done for THEM."<br /><br />It seems pretty clear that, as far as Woodruff was aware, no one had thought about redeeming (baptizing) these most prominent Americans:<br /><br />"The thought never entered my heart, from the fact, I suppose, that HERETOFORE OUR MINDS WERE REACHING AFTER OUR MORE IMMEDIATE FRIENDS AND RELATIVES. I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon Brother McCallister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men..."<br /><br />De Groote's assertion that the founders had appeared to have their endowments done doesn't hold water, because in the first place they could not have been complaining that their endowments had not been done although "you have had the endowment house all this time" because endowments FOR THE DEAD were not performed in the endowment house. Endowments for the dead were a primary reason a temple needed to be built, a temple just recently completed. <br /><br />In the second place, now that the saints finally had a temple in operation, what did Woodruff do? He scrambled to get them BAPTIZED. He says nothing further about himself, or McCallister, or anyone else making it a priority to get these men and their wives sealed and endowed, although that work was eventually done. The story Woodruff tells is the urgency the founders expressed in wanting to get their work started, which Woodruff and McCallister did.<br /><br />Brother De Groote has a book he wants to sell, and I won't fault him for that. Doubtless the sales of his book have been curtailed somewhat by the controversy that the story he tells likely did not happen as he relates it. I hope everyone buys his book. But then I hope readers will compare what De Groote writes with the thorough research provided by Brian Stuy, who uncovered the holes and contradictions in Woodruff's tale. (I provide a link to Brian's research in my post.) Get the whole picture; that's the best way to get to the truth of any matter. Alan Rock Watermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-67890052311933540452016-06-04T10:22:08.730-07:002016-06-04T10:22:08.730-07:00I know this post came from 2013, but here's so...I know this post came from 2013, but here's some updated clarification. Wow, really showing some ignorance in the post. "Must have been baptisms because there was no temple in Utah at the time." LOL. <br />http://www.ldsliving.com/What-You-Didn-t-Know-About-the-Founding-Fathers-Temple-Work-Story/s/78831Indiana Halversen'shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15592825728936116666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-85781712715128076442016-04-14T14:16:40.967-07:002016-04-14T14:16:40.967-07:00Mine won't be anonymous. I don't mind at a...Mine won't be anonymous. I don't mind at all saying this blog is ridiculous. It always amuses me to read the statements of clueless people ignorant of the facts. I've got my own problems but I will take mine any day over people who demean prophets and make such erroneous claims. I do feel sadness and pity for anyone who thinks they understand things which they obviously have confused in their thoughts, assumptions, and claims.Patriciahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381224001219820006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-66978679660373620232016-02-20T23:30:15.766-08:002016-02-20T23:30:15.766-08:00Poor record keeping is not the issue here, Ralph. ...Poor record keeping is not the issue here, Ralph. The issue is that Wilford Woodruff presented the founders as having appeared to him wondering why their baptisms had NEVER been performed. They weren't wondering why the records of their baptisms had been misplaced, or that their baptsims had not been performed under the proper authority. According to Woodruff's story, they felt forgotten because no one had thought about them enough to perform proxy baptisms for them, ever.Alan Rock Watermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-50881503413452557112016-02-19T17:57:02.189-08:002016-02-19T17:57:02.189-08:00I know the author of, "The Eminent Men of Wil...I know the author of, "The Eminent Men of Wilford Woodruff" and have worked in the church family History Library. If you do not understand the whole history and ways of the Temple work and record keeping plus the problems of it, you cannot begin to understand what Wilford Woodruff did to correct it though revelations. Even today we have problems with work being done without proper authority. I found Brigham Young's work done without permission many times <br />because people did not know were the special temple records are kept. Other early Temple work was not officially recorded and had to be redone. As in the Book of Mormon, The records were not right and had to be corrected and will need to be corrected the next time they are checked. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10851409745773891497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-79762439904003320132015-11-24T17:06:42.129-08:002015-11-24T17:06:42.129-08:00Rock, I haven't followed your blogs, to my re...Rock, I haven't followed your blogs, to my regret, but someone posted this article on Facebook. I thought your article was well researched and compelling. The only thing that did not set well with me was your attempt to excuse Woodruff and others because that was how they did things back then, guilding the lily and such. You seem to apologize for them because it was common practice for historians to embellish the truth. However, I disagree there was any mitigating or extenuating circumstances that would excuse them. Woodruff knew his scriptures and he knew the many scriptures that referred to the sin of lying. God hates a liar, Doctrine and Covenants 42:21<br />21 Thou shalt not lie; he that lieth and will not repent shall be cast out. and many more. This notion that somehow the embellishment of the truth was culturally acceptable is damnable. Lying for the Lord became a doctrine of the church and led to false affidavits, false witness and false statements, under the excuse that if the Lord commands it, it is right. We should not cut him or my ancestors any slack on this practice of lying.truthseekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08419352868231802092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-77603762054871755382015-01-22T11:51:22.578-08:002015-01-22T11:51:22.578-08:00A pleasure to hear from you, John!A pleasure to hear from you, John!Alan Rock Watermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-3160478278961837392015-01-22T09:26:20.652-08:002015-01-22T09:26:20.652-08:00Rock, I realize that you posted this quite awhile ...Rock, I realize that you posted this quite awhile ago, but I'm especially interested in this because I'm John Bernhisel and the grandson of Dr. Bernhisel who is mentioned in your article. Thanks for the detailed account!John B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11196058737676221982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-33024675502871208572015-01-01T22:41:07.342-08:002015-01-01T22:41:07.342-08:00I really like to read. Hope to learn a lot and hav...I really like to read. Hope to learn a lot and have a nice experience here! my best regards guys! <br />Best Form Fitness Gearhttp://www.bestforminc.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-91291058121473057832014-08-20T07:12:27.182-07:002014-08-20T07:12:27.182-07:00Dear Rock,
First, I pray for your's and Conni...Dear Rock,<br /><br />First, I pray for your's and Connie's complete recovery from your health concerns. You seem to be awesome children of our God. I went through walking pneumonia for the entire month of January. Be careful please.<br /><br />Thank you for this essay; it is very interesting and thought-provoking to say the least.<br /><br />I am new to your blog having been introduced to it by "Latter-day Commentary".<br /><br />I am very interested in your essays on war. <br /><br />I have read everything I could find in way of scriptures and conference talks, and found no support among the brethern of today's church. I do honor J Ruben Clark for his conference message of Proclaim Peace.<br /><br />So in reading the comment section on one of your more recent essays is where you said for one of the commenters to read your essays on war. WOW! You confirmed everything I had been able to find previously about war and peace, and added greatly to my knowledge.<br /><br />Before finding your blog, I was so disappointed and discouraged with what seemed to be a war-like church leadership. They seemed to be turning their backs on the very foundational teachings of Jesus Christ. Thank you so much for helping me to find this community of the peaceable followers of Christ.<br /><br />On this particular essay, you mention how elders had done baptisms for the founding fathers while in Nauvoo. One of the names you mentioned a couple of times is that of my great grandmother's uncle, Haden Wells Church. I had not realized that he had done some of the baptisms for the founders. So thank you for bringing this to my attention.<br /><br />Anyway, TBM here, whose eyes are being opened. But the opening of the eyes started because of my disappointment in the LDS leaders' lack of testimony against war.<br /><br />A funny aside: Having the last name of "Church" can be confusing to some people. (Haden Wells Church was born and raised, and died in Tennessee although he raised his family in St. George, UT.) Some early members of our family were named for prominent early church persons, we have an Eliza Snow Church, and a Parley Pratt Church. Missionaries from Utah, in tracting through the rural areas in Tennesse, came across my great-uncle's home and marveled as they read on his mailbox: "Parley Pratt Church". In their innocence and immaturity they wondered to themselves when had Parley Pratt started his own church? LOL! <br /><br />Very sincerely yours,<br /><br />LindaLindanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-51229699076956254142014-08-15T13:09:59.559-07:002014-08-15T13:09:59.559-07:00"Otherwise honorable men"? I don't ..."Otherwise honorable men"? I don't think so.<br /><br />According to Christ, Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon Prophets and any righteous man who is thus respectful to women and wouldn't abuse them by polygamy, I believe all disagree that those men where 'honorable', in fact just the opposite.<br /><br />WW & those witnesses all had plenty of reasons to lie to cover for their vile deeds and false doctrines. Men who abuse women aren't trustworthy or honorable. <br /><br />It doesn't seem like you are very familiar with what kind of man W. W. was and the horrific things he did to women/wives, or also those men who gave witness. <br /><br />Not to mention how the temple and all it's ordinances prove false also, that those 'Spirit's' supposedly needed to have done for them. <br /><br />Christ warned us to 'prove all persons & prophets', before believing a word they say.<br /><br />W. W. doesn't pass Christ's test. <br /><br />While our writer of "Pants On Fire" on the other hand, proves very Christlike. <br /> <br /><br />BKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-36229860329805728562014-08-15T08:53:20.471-07:002014-08-15T08:53:20.471-07:00There were 3 other eyewitnesses to Wilford Woodruf...There were 3 other eyewitnesses to Wilford Woodruff's account! As is customary in the Law of the Lord, there were other eyewitnesses to the event of the signers and others appearing in the St. George Temple to Wilford Woodruff. A temple clerk, James G. Bleak, adds his witness saying "I was also present in the St. George Temple and witnessed the appearance of the Spirits of the Signers...the spirits of the Presidents...And also others...Who came to Wilford Woodruff and demanded that their baptism and endowments be done. Wilford Woodruff was baptized for all of them. While I and Brothers J.D.T. McAllister and David H. Cannon (who were witnesses to the request) were endowed for them." <br /><br /> This information can be found in "The Lincoln Hypothesis" by Timothy Ballard, and in "The Other Eminent Men of Wilford Woodruff" by Vicki Jo Anderson.<br /><br /> So, did each of these otherwise honorable men really perjure themselves, or has our writer (Pants on Fire) been mistaken in his assessment? Laura Fullernoreply@blogger.com