Church Catalog releases John Taylor's 1886 Revelation

[JLHPROF]

1886 Revelation - Church Catalog

The LDS Church has officially acknowledged the 1886 revelation to President John Taylor instructing the continuation of plural marriage by providing it in President Taylor's own handwriting.

While this changes nothing in Church teachings on polygamy this is very significant. The Church has at times denied its existence, called it bogus, and while never presented for acceptance this marks a reversal of position on its historical existence.

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

1886 Revelation - Church Catalog

The LDS Church has officially acknowledged the 1886 revelation to President John Taylor instructing the continuation of plural marriage by providing it in President Taylor's own handwriting.

While this changes nothing in Church teachings on polygamy this is very significant. The Church has at times denied its existence, called it bogus, and while never presented for acceptance this marks a reversal of position on its historical existence.

The are also allowing the Journal of Discourses to be printed and sold through Deseret Book:

https://www.deseretbook.com/product/5250322.html?srsltid=AfmBOoocDOW8dbkpLZGghm_fVPHON-BSH5yIThchwzGyYRQIi5WlLbYD

** Seems the era of silencing (don't know if that's the right word) of material used by Fundamentalists is over. **

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The are also allowing the Journal of Discourses to be printed and sold through Deseret Book:

https://www.deseretbook.com/product/5250322.html?srsltid=AfmBOoocDOW8dbkpLZGghm_fVPHON-BSH5yIThchwzGyYRQIi5WlLbYD

** Seems the era of silencing (don't know if that's the right word) of material used by Fundamentalists is over. **

They've learned it's better to control challenging elements of Church history than to deny or pretend they didn't happen.

[helix]

Is everyone forgetting what the catalog is for?

>The Church History Library collects materials by or about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members. These materials come from a wide spectrum of sources and represent numerous points of view. Users of the catalog should not assume that the Church or the Library endorses every item in the collection.

It's a vast collection of media that may be of interest of researchers. 

For example, here is the link in the catalog to The Godmakers soundtrack: https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/e6b5262a-5abb-45c5-b4b1-d0be9ecf8d63/0?view=summary&lang=eng 
 

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, helix said:

Is everyone forgetting what the catalog is for?

>The Church History Library collects materials by or about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members. These materials come from a wide spectrum of sources and represent numerous points of view. Users of the catalog should not assume that the Church or the Library endorses every item in the collection.

It's a vast collection of media that may be of interest of researchers. 

Nobody is claiming this is an endorsement or changes anything in Church teachings.

But by publicly providing an original historical document in President Taylor's own handwriting that the Church had officially claimed did not exist but apparently had in their possession all along absolutely represents a reversal of position.

[helix]

Gotcha. The 1886 document has been considered authentic for years. Seems the big news is that we likely have the source of it.

In 1933, the First Presidency apparently did not know it existed as someone searched the archives and couldn't find it:
 

Quote

It is alleged that on September 26-27, 1886, President John Taylor received a revelation from the Lord, the purported text of which is given in publications circulating apparently by or at the instance of this same organization. As to this pretended revelation it should be said that the the archives of the Church contain no such revelation; the archives contain no record of any such revelation, nor any evidence justifying a belief that any such 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 revelation exists. Furthermore, insofar as the authorities of the Church are concerned, since this pretended revelation, if ever given, was never presented to and adopted by the Church or by any council of the Church, and since to the contrary, an inspired rule of action, the Manifesto, was (subsequently to the pretended revelation) presented to and adopted by the Church, which inspired rule in its term, purport, and effect was directly opposite to the interpretation given to the pretended revelation, the said pretended revelation could have no validity and no binding effect and force upon Church members, and action under it would be unauthorized, illegal, and void.

 

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, helix said:

Gotcha. The 1886 document has been considered authentic for years. Seems the big news is that we likely have the source of it.

The big news is that it has been provided by the Church (who claimed not to have it) AND it is in John Taylor's handwriting which proves authorship.

Quote

In 1933, the First Presidency apparently did not know it existed as someone searched the archives and couldn't find it:

😂

You really believe that?

Heber J. Grant, George F. Richards, David O. McKay, Anthony W. Ivins, and Joseph Fielding Smith were present when John W. Taylor had the revelation read during a meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve on February 22, 1911. During the following meeting on March 1, 1911, Joseph Fielding Smith said “It is true I obtained a copy of this revelation from Brother Rodney Badger. He let me take the original and I made a copy and filed it in the Historian’s Office, this was but a short time ago.” (Doctrine of the Priesthood vol. 4 no. 1 “The Trials of Apostles John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley” <1987> pages 7–8, 12) 

[helix]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

😂

You really believe that?

This discussion is going downhill, fast.

 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, helix said:

This discussion is going downhill, fast.

 

I mean no denigration but speaking historically the only thing about the 1886 revelation to the then prophet John Taylor that the Church has ever been honest about is that it was never presented to the Church and so is not binding.

But other than that they have not been up front.  That's historical fact.

[helix]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I mean no denigration

Yes you did, that's why you placed a mocking emoji. These games are already getting old.

Quote

but speaking historically the only thing about the 1886 revelation to the then prophet John Taylor that the Church

Where in the historical record did President Grant know of the document?  You're implying President Grant knew and deliberately lied.
 

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But other than that they have not been up front.  That's historical fact.

The church mentioned it in the 2020 Saints book. 

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, helix said:

Where in the historical record did President Grant know of the document?  You're implying President Grant knew and deliberately lied.

Heber J. Grant, George F. Richards, David O. McKay, Anthony W. Ivins, and Joseph Fielding Smith were present when John W. Taylor had the revelation read during a meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve on February 22, 1911.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

1886 Revelation - Church Catalog

The LDS Church has officially acknowledged the 1886 revelation to President John Taylor instructing the continuation of plural marriage by providing it in President Taylor's own handwriting.

While this changes nothing in Church teachings on polygamy this is very significant. The Church has at times denied its existence, called it bogus, and while never presented for acceptance this marks a reversal of position on its historical existence.

Nice to see you again 

[Calm]

Zealously also posted this yesterday in In The News with a link to Mormonr (my go to site for primary document information now).

They have a useful timeline.

https://mormonr.org/qnas/vFgD6f/john_taylors_1886_revelation?

Edited June 15, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

[Calm]

From the same link:

Quote

Doesn't this mean Church leaders in 1933 were lying?

Possibly, though the document was not in the official Church archives at the time of the official statement, copies did exist in various Church-related libraries.[53] The First Presidency’s description of it as a "pretended revelation" likely reflected doubts about its authenticity, as Heber J. Grant and Anthony W. Ivins expressed skepticism based on earlier quorum discussions.[54]

Pres Grant obviously knew something Pres Taylor’s son was claiming as a revelation from his dad existed. Apparently multiple copies of it were in the Church’s possession, but not the actual original document.  Perhaps Grant believed it wasn’t Pres Taylor’s handwriting, but the son’s who was censured for continuing plural marriage, a forgery in other words.  They didn’t have the tools back then to make a definitive determination as far as I am aware and Pres Grant’s personal bias could have led him to inflate the likelihood of it being a fake.

The Church official statement:

”It is alleged that on September 26-27, 1886, President John Taylor received a revelation from the Lord, the purported text of which is given in publications circulating apparently by or at the instance of this same organization. As to this pretended revelation it should be said that the archives of the Church contain no such revelation; the archives contain no record of any such revelation, nor any evidence justifying a belief that any such 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 revelation exists. Furthermore, insofar as the authorities of the Church are concerned, since this pretended revelation, if ever given, was never presented to and adopted by the Church or by any council of the Church, and since to the contrary, an inspired rule of action, the Manifesto, was (subsequently to the pretended revelation) presented to and adopted by the Church, which inspired rule in its term, purport, and effect was directly opposite to the interpretation given to the pretended revelation, the said pretended revelation could have no validity and no binding effect and force upon Church members, and action under it would be unauthorized, illegal, and void.

First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, J. Reuben Clark) publish official statement denouncing the practice of plural marriage in the Church.”

The bolded part seems highly problematic as they did have copies at least in the Church’s possession in the Historian’s Office. Where would this likely be stored?  Perhaps in the safe there (where JFS kept the First Vision description written by Joseph himself iirc), so technically it and other copies weren’t in the archives, if that name was only applied to a very specific space and not considered anywhere the Church stored documents at the headquarters.

If technically correct, it’s not lying, but my opinion is it seems deceptive, intended to give an inaccurate picture of the provenance of the alleged revelation (alleged because while it’s authentic in Pres Taylor’s handwriting, one can claim it hasn’t been confirmed as a true revelation from God by the Church), I see intended deception as morally equivalent to lying (meaning I don’t consider all lying or intentional deception as morally wrong; if one lies to protect those who deserve protection, I might not condemn it as immoral, but I might see it as unwise or not needed or counterproductive, making things worse, not better even with the best intentions).  

I also view deception as inherently manipulative, which I see as a less desirable element in a relationship, but can easily understand why some resorts to it in difficult situations where reasoning may not be effective.  I have, for example, deceived my grandparents about my health by telling them everything is fine because I didn’t want them to worry.  I recognized it was manipulating them as much for my own benefit as theirs because I did not want the out of date advice they would offer out of concerned and be upset if I didn’t follow it.  We allowed my mother in her last years to continue to think my daughter was a believer because she didn’t want the fussy attention and possibly tears that would have brought on due to Mom’s dementia (Mom’s reaction to family members losing faith when she was healthy was very inclusive and supportive though like me, somewhat obsessive, but dementia turned her responses into one dimensional, shallow fixations that wouldn’t register explanations and my daughter was not in a state to handle such attention at that time).

Deception by an organization such as the Church which is a moral standard for its members and others takes on extra issues though than deception done by an individual to protect family or friends.  The numbers involved alone create many more opportunities for such deception to backfire.  Since I am not that familiar with the struggles of that time period, I am not going to judge the choice to downplay the significance of the revelation and refusal to publicly accept it as possibly Pres. Taylor’s work.  I don’t know what other workable options they might have had or the costs/benefits resulting from various possible choices.

I believe the years where the Church has used the “the new and everlasting covenant” for primarily plural marriage***  has softened the impact of accepting the revelation as authentic or even binding if it got that far.  Just as the Word of Wisdom can be given clarification of what hot drinks applies to, clarification can be used with this revelation if it were ever to become binding.

I think the baggage though and the presence of other revelation that address eternal marriage/familiy sealings render it unnecessary and undesirable to present the revelation to be canonized.

***that this even occurred is an assumption by me, I am wondering if accurate as baptism was referred to as at least a new and everlasting covenant by Brigham Young iirc; eternal marriage/sealings whether monogamous or plural have certainly been given the same label quite early and the Gospel itself iirc has been referred to as the New and Everlasting Covenant, but I don’t know when this first occurred and by whom

Edited June 15, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, helix said:

In 1933, the First Presidency apparently did not know it existed as someone searched the archives and couldn't find it:

Except that it is in record that John W. Taylor read it to the Q12 during a disciplinary hearing in 1911(?) a meeting at which Heber J. Grant would've been present, having been ordained an Apostle in 1882.

 

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Except that it is in record that John W. Taylor read it to the Q12 during a disciplinary hearing in 1911(?) a meeting at which Heber J. Grant would've been present, having been ordained an Apostle in 1882.

 

It's also in the record that Joseph Fielding Smith placed the revelation in the Church Archives in 1909.  

This is a direct contradiction to the 1933 First Presidency statement.

Almost all of the 1933 statement is contradicted by the historical record.

Hopefully the public catalog publication of the original in John Taylor's own handwriting means an end to denials of its existence by the Church.

Edited June 15, 2025 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Hopefully the public catalog publication of the original in John Taylor's own handwriting means an end to denials of its existence by the Church.

Do you not see the info in the Saints volume, an official publication, as marking the end of denials about existence at least?

From the timeline footnote:

Quote

After the death of his father, President John Taylor, John W. had found a purported revelation about marriage among the prophet’s papers. The revelation, dated September 27, 1886, seemed to suggest to John W. that the commandment to practice plural marriage would never be revoked. Although the revelation had never been presented to the Quorum of the Twelve or accepted as scripture by the Saints, John W. believed that it was the word of God to his father.

Not sure what is meant here by “not presented” to the Quorum….maybe meaning an official presentation for acceptance by the President of the Church as a revelation as Pres Taylor certainly never presented it himself, not having the opportunity, and that would have been the correct procedure.

This is a fuller citation:

Quote

John W. Taylor, Said that when he had read the Manifesto he felt "damn it" He said that he remembered the Revelation that Prest. Woodruff had had from the Lord which was read to us some time ago in which he told us that He would sustain us in carrying out the law of plural marriage. He also remembered finding among his father's papers the words of the Lord to him in which The Lord said that plural marriage was one of His eternal laws and that he had established it, that man had not done so and that he would sustain and uphold his saints in carrying it out. He said that this was given to his father in answer to prayer in which he had asked the Lord if it would not be right under the circumstances to discontinue plural marriage.

https://mormonr.org/qnas/vFgD6f/john_taylors_1886_revelation/research#re-fbkJxk-TpHrzg

Edited June 15, 2025 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you not see the info in the Saints volume, an official publication, as marking the end?

From the timeline footnote:

 

As I said, the Church is being more open now.  But there are still the fuzzy statements:

• "John W. had found a purported revelation"
• "seemed to suggest"
• "the revelation had never been presented to the Quorum of the Twelve" (the timeline you posted said it was presented to the Quorum as early as 1890).

I don't know why the urge to cage history in so much ambiguity. But I appreciate the improvement over "we are justified in affirming that no such revelation exists" and "the interpretation given to the pretended revelation, the said pretended revelation".

Baby steps in the right direction.

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

t's also in the record that Joseph Fielding Smith placed the revelation in the Church Archives in 1909.  

Was the Church Historian’s Office considered the Church Archives?

Quote

J. F. Smith Jr.: It is true I obtained a copy of this revelation from Brother Rodney Badger. He let me take the original and I made a copy and filed it in the Historian's Office, this was but a short time ago

https://mormonr.org/qnas/vFgD6f/john_taylors_1886_revelation?fbclid=IwY2xjawK7G39leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHi2gtzfvDLgOSwbxaaundOPlncALIcfHZgb_cZwVJUUvoaAAg5aDUd3Qmwkn_aem_J2bnUVAbYODoYHigfVR1RQ

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Was the Church Historian’s Office considered the Church Archives?

https://mormonr.org/qnas/vFgD6f/john_taylors_1886_revelation?fbclid=IwY2xjawK7G39leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHi2gtzfvDLgOSwbxaaundOPlncALIcfHZgb_cZwVJUUvoaAAg5aDUd3Qmwkn_aem_J2bnUVAbYODoYHigfVR1RQ

I'm sure that such semantics is how they justified the 1933 statement.

The same as Pres. Woodruff in 1890 

"We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory."

You and I both know better.

[helix]

After the June 1933 statement:

 

Quote

July 18, 1933.

This paper came into the possession of the First Presidency in the following manner:

After the issuance of the Official statement of June 17, 1933 by the First Presidency, covering the matter of pretended polygamous or plural marriages, President Ivins stated to Presidents Grant and Clark that a report had come to him that Sister Nellie Taylor, one of the plural wives of John W. Taylor, was affirming that she had found among the papers of her husband, John W. Taylor, after his death, a paper on which was something written in the handwriting of President John Taylor. Sister Taylor stated that she had turned over this paper to Brother Frank Y. Taylor.

President Grant spoke to Frank Y. Taylor about the matter, and the latter stated that he had no recollection of ever having seen the paper but that if such a paper existed and had been given to him, he could easily find it as he knew just where he would have placed it.

About July 15, 1933, Frank Y. Taylor brought to President Grant the attached paper encased in the envelope which is attached to the paper.

The date written on the back of the second sheet is the date of John Taylor's death and was written by President Grant on July 17, 1933.

https://bhroberts.org/records/fbkJxk-rD6Snk/memorandum_from_j_reuben_clark_explaining_how_the_first_presidency_acquired_the_1886_revelation

Sounds to me like they weren't lying in June. They genuinely didn't believe it existed.

 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

don't know why the urge to cage history in so much ambiguity.

Seems like it is less ambiguity and more insistence on specifics to me.   The “seems to suggests” points out the revelation does not have to be read as pertaining to plural marriage.***. The “purported” signifies it has not been confirmed as an actual revelation.  It didn’t go through the typical procedures of new revelations as far as I am aware  and I believe that’s is the point the Church is making in Saints.

“Presented” to me has an official connotation and I see it as the same as presenting the revelation to the full Church, where there would be a raising of the hands in acceptance of such things.  It does not sound like there was anything official about Elder Taylor introducing it to the Twelve.  He did not ask for a vote on accepting it as revelation as far as I am aware.

This may be the nitpicker in me and it would not necessarily have occurred to me to interpret “presented” this way without the controversy attached to it though.

***It makes sense given the struggles of the Church at the time that it is referring to plural marriage, but revelations may be for more than a specific moment in time and the Lord may have taken the opportunity to teach about the full new and everlasting covenant, which is the gospel I believed but might have been referring to eternal marriage given the reference to Abraham, but not just plural marriage.  What percentage of the membership had taken advantage of the temple and endowment houses to be sealed since the opportunity became available again (there was a massive effort in Nauvoo, was there anything like that in Utah)?

[rpn]

Seems to me that it is not an unreasonable interpretation that when John Taylor wrote the revelation and died soon thereafter and Wilford Woodruff received the Manifesto eliminating plural marriage, God took John Taylor  home because he wasn't hearing what God wanted.   (Hence when son John W. Taylor won't let it go, he gets excommunicated.)   Our leaders are mere mortals after all.   Sometimes they make mistakes and taking them home in death is a solid way to stop the obstruction, so that the right teachings can move forward. 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, helix said:

After the June 1933 statement:

 

https://bhroberts.org/records/fbkJxk-rD6Snk/memorandum_from_j_reuben_clark_explaining_how_the_first_presidency_acquired_the_1886_revelation

Sounds to me like they weren't lying in June. They genuinely didn't believe it existed.

Except the timeline shows:

1890 Pres. Grant writes in his journal that he was informed about the revelation.

1909 Joseph Fielding Smith states he put a copy in the Historians Office 

1911 John W. Taylor presented the revelation to the Quorum of the 12

THEN the post 1933 statement Frank Taylor event you referenced.

How can they claim not to know it existed?  The Quorum new before that event.