Church Catalog releases John Taylor's 1886 Revelation

[Calm]

On 6/15/2025 at 1:52 PM, JLHPROF said:

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

Do we know if JFS had shared the information he had made a copy?  I keep flashing back to the placement of the one version of the First Vision in the Church Historian’s safe****.  He (or whoever did it) apparently didn’t tell anyone at that time as far as we know. Do we know he did not do that with his copy of the revelation?  From his testimony, it doesn’t sound like he did this in front of people or as part of a meeting, but privately.

Quote

During John W. Taylor's membership trial in 1911, Joseph Fielding Smith acknowledged copying the revelation from the original provided by a "Brother Rodney Badger":

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

As far as wiki notes, Brother Badger was not in any official capacity at the time and may have still be practicing plural marriage, so it doesn’t seem necessary that this was more than a personal visit.  Added:  Badger was John W. Taylor’s brother-in-law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_C._Badger

****https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/first-vision-accounts-faq/04-was-the-1832-account?lang=eng

Edited June 16, 2025 by Calm

[helix]

59 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

How can they claim not to know it existed?  The Quorum new before that event.
...
1890 Pres. Grant writes in his journal that he was informed about the revelation

Let's look at that part of the 1890 journal entry. It discussed the new manifesto from Woodruff that discontinued plural marriage.

>JOHN W TAYLOR, Said that when he had read the Manifesto he felt "damn it". He said that [he] rememberd 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 word 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 no done so and that he would sutain [sic] 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 marriages.

>I know that the Lord has given this manifesto to Prest. Woodruff and he can take it away when the time comes or he can give it again. I feel all right now and am glad that I do.

Grant heard of its supposed existence. But it was not presented to them. Despite John W Taylor arguing it meant plural marriage should be eternal, Grant immediately wrote afterward that he believes the Lord gave Woodruff that 1890 manifesto. Grant heard John W Taylor's comment and immediately rejected it in the next paragraph. 
 

59 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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

That's not Grant.

59 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Let's quote from that excommunication trial, where those in the room were quite skeptical of John W Taylor:

>John W Taylor: 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 the responsibility remains with the people and the government, I don't know....In 1900 President Snow said there was no more authority to perform plural marriages. You were present when President Snow was sustained as President of the Church and he made the statement there should be no more plural marriages performed with the permission of the President of this Church, and a short time later published to the world through the Deseret News. Have you (to Brother Taylor) been authorized since President Snow's presidency to perform or authorize any plural marriages?

>John W. Taylor: That I would prefer not to answer, as it would lead to something else. My view is that the Lord was anxious to put everybody upon his own responsibility and take the responsibility from the church.

> President Francis M. Lyman: ...I believe the manifesto of President Woodruff was from the Lord. The law will stand forever, but the practice was discontinued.. . . . I believe the Lord expects us to keep our word with the government and with the people...

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

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

>President Francis M Lyman: When did you find this revelation?

> John W Taylor. I found [it] on his desk immediately after his death when I was appointed administrator of his estate.

Doesn't sound like ringing endorsement that they believed it was a bona fide, authentic revelation. Especially with John W Taylor advocating that plural marriage is no longer for the church to control but for each individual member to make that decision, something that puts him directly in conflict with other church leaders' arguments at the meeting. They just plain didn't believe John W Taylor.

 

Edited June 15, 2025 by helix

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, helix said:

Let's look at that part of the 1890 journal entry. It discussed the new manifesto from Woodruff that discontinued plural marriage.

>JOHN W TAYLOR, Said that when he had read the Manifesto he felt "damn it". He said that [he] rememberd 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 word 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 no done so and that he would sutain [sic] 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 marriages.

>I know that the Lord has given this manifesto to Prest. Woodruff and he can take it away when the time comes or he can give it again. I feel all right now and am glad that I do.

Grant heard of its supposed existence. But it was not presented to them. Despite John W Taylor arguing it meant plural marriage should be eternal, Grant immediately wrote afterward that he believes the Lord gave Woodruff that 1890 manifesto. Grant heard John W Taylor's comment and immediately rejected it in the next paragraph. 
 

That's not Grant.

Let's quote from that excommunication trial, were those in the room were quite skeptical of John W Taylor:

>John W Taylor: 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 the responsibility remains with the people and the government, I don't know....In 1900 President Snow said there was no more authority to perform plural marriages. You were present when President Snow was sustained as President of the Church and he made the statement there should be no more plural marriages performed with the permission of the President of this Church, and a short time later published to the world through the Deseret News. Have you (to Brother Taylor) been authorized since President Snow's presidency to perform or authorize any plural marriages?

>John W. Taylor: That I would prefer not to answer, as it would lead to something else. My view is that the Lord was anxious to put everybody upon his own responsibility and take the responsibility from the church.

> President Francis M. Lyman: ...I believe the manifesto of President Woodruff was from the Lord. The law will stand forever, but the practice was discontinued.. . . . I believe the Lord expects us to keep our word with the government and with the people...

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

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

>President Francis M Lyman: When did you find this revelation?

> John W Taylor. I found [it] on his desk immediately after his death when I was appointed administrator of his estate.

Doesn't sound like ringing endorsement that they believed it was a bona fide, authentic revelation. Especially with John W Taylor advocating that plural marriage is no longer for the church to control but for each individual member to make that decision, something that puts him directly in conflict with other church leaders' arguments at the meeting. They just plain didn't believe John W Taylor.

 

Thank you for that honest breakdown. I always appreciate an honest approach to historical events.  I dislike prevarication.

I think your analysis here is pretty accurate. And to be clear my post of this news was about the Church being willing to admit to the provenance of the revelation with John Taylor as author VS previous statements that it didn't exist or it was made up.

The content and application of this revelation is an entirely different topic of discussion.

For now it's sufficient that the Church has made it available to read and acknowledged that President Taylor wrote it and it exists.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour 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.

 

Again, Heber J. Grant was present when the revelation was read by Apostle John W. Taylor at his disciplinary council. He knew the revelation existed.

[Calm]

Posted in other thread by mistake.

Quote

Joseph Fielding Smith[BIO] makes a copy of the Taylor revelation for the Church Historian's Office.[8]

Did Joseph Fielding originally go by Joseph F, Jr?
 

Quote

Revelation given to John Taylor, September 27, 1886, copied from the original manuscript by Joseph F. Smith, Jr. August 3, 1909," typescript copy, April 25, 1972, John Taylor Papers, MS 50, Box 1, Folder 20, Special Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah

From primary source on Mormonr 

And how did it end up at the UoU if it was originally in the Church Archives and not JFS or someone else’s personal possession?  Anyone know?

Why does Mormonr say it was for the Church Historian’s Office?  (Added: Oops, forgot about the comment from the trial where he said he filed it in the CHO).  Why couldn’t it have been a personal copy?  There is nothing on the document indicating the purpose or destination of the copy? (This is asked out of curiosity and a desire to have the known facts accurately described without assumptions.  I don’t want to misrepresent what happened or tilt it favorably towards the Church where it’s uncertain….well, maybe a little, but I try to overcome that inclination; but I want to know what I can and cannot rely on and what is assumption when I do construct in my head my ‘most likely scenario’.

added:  ignore the parts asking about why the CHO, can anyone say how it got from being filed with the CHO to the UoU library?

Edited June 15, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

I find the spin that the revelation was referring to eternal marriage in general, and not to plural marriage... Interesting.

If it so obviously referred to the general principle, why the need to bury it away and deny it until recently?

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I find the spin that the revelation was referring to eternal marriage in general, and not to plural marriage... Interesting.

If it so obviously referred to the general principle, why the need to bury it away and deny it until recently?

There are enough things in the text of the revelation that it couldn't reasonably be construed to refer to eternal/temple marriage.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I find the spin that the revelation was referring to eternal marriage in general, and not to plural marriage... Interesting.

If it so obviously referred to the general principle, why the need to bury it away and deny it until recently?

I agree it most likely was understood by those reading it as plural marriage.  Whether that was what God wanted it understood as (whether initially or eventually) I don’t think we can be as secure.  

[helix]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I think your analysis here is pretty accurate. And to be clear my post of this news was about the Church being willing to admit to the provenance of the revelation with John Taylor as author VS previous statements that it didn't exist or it was made up.

How about this for a timeline

1886: John Taylor pens the revelation

1887: John Taylor dies. His son John W Taylor finds the revelation but doesn't alert the church. He reads it and believes strongly that it means plural marriage can never end.

1890: Woodruff pens the manifesto ending plural marriage. John W Taylor is conflicted, he recalls the 1886 revelation. He starts trying to reconcile it.

1890: Grant hears of this Taylor revelation. But since John W Taylor never gave it to the FP and Twelve directly, he discounts it and goes with Woodruff's manifesto.

After 1900: John W. Taylor creates a new internal doctrine for himself. Plural marriage is ok to enter into, but so long as it's the individuals choice, not the church's. He secretly engages in this.

1909: Grant never saw the document that Joseph Feilding Smith had.

1911: Grant hears about it again at John W Taylor's excommunication. Given that the original 1886 document still wasn't presented to the Twelve, and that John W Taylor is openly defiant towards the 1900 statement that plural marriage must no longer be entered into, Grant doubles down about the 1886 revelations authenticity. He doesn't trust the source.

June 1933: Grant issues a statement that the revelation doesn't exist as something authentic, he's never seen it in church archives.

July 1933: Grant tells Frank Y. Taylor that he's never seen it. But then Frank Y. Taylor has a persuasive conversation that the revelation existed after all. 

...

2000s: The church slowly comes around to accepting the validity of it

2020: The church knows of its existence and referred to it in Saints

2025: The church publishes what is purported to be an original copy (though still no statement yet from the church directly confirming its authenticity)

That timeline seems to harmonize with the evidence.

 

 

Edited June 15, 2025 by helix
Fixed 1886 manifesto

[Calm]

Does anyone know if the issuing of the Manifesto corresponded to a drop or raise in first time/monogamous sealings at that time?  Wondering if there was a ripple effect or not.

[ZealouslyStriving]

12 minutes ago, helix said:

July 1933: Grant tells Frank Y. Taylor that he's never seen it. But then Frank Y. Taylor has a persuasive conversation that the revelation existed after all.

August 1933: Grant doesn't issue a statement retracting the denial of it's existence from the previous month, but lets the previous misleading statement stand.

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, helix said:

he recalls the 1886 manifesto

Revelation I think you mean

Quote

The church knows of its existence and referred to it in Saints

I would write that as acknowledges its existence because given the previous and ongoing public discussion it was known before, though perhaps not yet authenticated as Pres Taylor’s handwriting though?  Do we know when that was determined for certain?

Edited June 15, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, helix said:

Given that the original 1886 document still wasn't presented to the Twelve,

Did they hear the whole text even if they didn’t receive that actual document (just filling in details for myself, not making a point)?

[Calm]

AI’s response to my query of where were the church archives in 1933…it guessed, so hardly definitive.

Quote

In 1933, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) archives were likely housed in the 

Church Administration Building in Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Here's why:

• The Genealogical Society of Utah (GSU), which housed the origins of the FamilySearch Library and is linked to the Church's historical collections, resided in the Church Administration Building from 1917 to 1933.
• While the current Church History Library is the primary archive, it was established much later in 2009. The Church Historian's Office, the precursor to the modern Church History Department, professionalized its functions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with those appointed as Church Historians transitioning from solely historical writers to librarians and archivists. 

Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that in 1933, the LDS Church's historical archives were located within the Church Administration Building in Salt Lake City, Utah, as part of the Church Historian's Office. 

Wiki picks it up later:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_History_Library

We know stuff was lost for decades in the archives, so I wonder how organized or even if it was centralized.  Did apostles and others keep treasured items in their own offices or did everything…or at least almost everything (cough….First Vision…..cough )get sent to designated rooms?

Quote

A new archives building was originally planned in 1960, as an 11-story home for the offices and libraries of the Church Historian and Recorder and the Genealogical Society of Utah. The need for such large facilities diminished due to advances in modern document preservation, as well as with the 1963 completion of the Granite Mountain Records Vault, which had vast storage for genealogical materials.[1] Following the completion of the Church Office Buildingin 1972, the church's Historical Department resided in the four floors of the east wing.[2]

 

Edited June 15, 2025 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, helix said:

How about this for a timeline

1886: John Taylor pens the revelation

1887: John Taylor dies. His son John W Taylor finds the revelation but doesn't alert the church. He reads it and believes strongly that it means plural marriage can never end.

1890: Woodruff pens the manifesto ending plural marriage. John W Taylor is conflicted, he recalls the 1886 manifesto. He starts trying to reconcile it.

1890: Grant hears of this Taylor revelation. But since John W Taylor never gave it to the FP and Twelve directly, he discounts it and goes with Woodruff's manifesto.

After 1900: John W. Taylor creates a new internal doctrine for himself. Plural marriage is ok to enter into, but so long as it's the individuals choice, not the church's. He secretly engages in this.

1909: Grant never saw the document that Joseph Feilding Smith had.

1911: Grant hears about it again at John W Taylor's excommunication. Given that the original 1886 document still wasn't presented to the Twelve, and that John W Taylor is openly defiant towards the 1900 statement that plural marriage must no longer be entered into, Grant doubles down about the 1886 revelations authenticity. He doesn't trust the source.

June 1933: Grant issues a statement that the revelation doesn't exist as something authentic, he's never seen it in church archives.

July 1933: Grant tells Frank Y. Taylor that he's never seen it. But then Frank Y. Taylor has a persuasive conversation that the revelation existed after all. 

...

2000s: The church slowly comes around to accepting the validity of it

2020: The church knows of its existence and referred to it in Saints

2025: The church publishes what is purported to be an original copy (though still no statement yet from the church directly confirming its authenticity)

That timeline seems to harmonize with the evidence.

 

 

mormonr says Quinn viewed the original manuscript in 1971 in the archives.  And says Elder Peterson stated "They concocted a false revelation, allegedly given to President John Taylor in 1886, in which pretended secret authority was given to continue plural marriages." in 1974.  So by the time Elder Peterson made that statement, the Church Historian's office knew that they had the original manuscript.  Though, Elder Peterson seems to be talking more about the story around the revelation (the one that Lorin Woolley describes after 1912) since the manuscript has nothing to do with "secret authority".

I wonder how much of the denial is more around the story that Lorin Woolley told vs what the actual manuscript contains.

[longview]

Is it possible to accept both the 1886 revelation and the 1890 Manifesto as simultaneously true? Many Church members, from 1890 to the present, understand the following: (1) the 1890 Manifesto did not revoke any plural marriage sealings performed prior to its issuance—Church leaders and others continued living with their plural wives; and (2) the practice of plural marriage continued in a limited way. In mortality, a male member may be sealed to only one living wife at a time, but he may also be sealed to additional spouses who are deceased—before or after his current spouse—which does not violate legal standards.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Is it possible to accept both the 1886 revelation and the 1890 Manifesto as simultaneously true? Many Church members, from 1890 to the present, understand the following: (1) the 1890 Manifesto did not revoke any plural marriage sealings performed prior to its issuance—Church leaders and others continued living with their plural wives; and (2) the practice of plural marriage continued in a limited way. In mortality, a male member may be sealed to only one living wife at a time, but he may also be sealed to additional spouses who are deceased—before or after his current spouse—which does not violate legal standards.

1) Many Church leaders, including the vast majority of the Quorum of the 12 either married additional plural wives between 1890 & 1904 or performed plural marriages. We have to ask how the leaders of the Church viewed the Manifesto to understand it.

2) As far as accepting 1886 revelation AND the 1890 Manifesto as both true and valid we'd need to understand God's purpose in revealing both and the actions of those who received both documents from the Lord. Because they would understand the intent better than we do.

Edited June 16, 2025 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

9 hours ago, rpn said:

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. 

While that is possible, the man was 78 years old and had been through some very hard times in his life.  Death at that age would not be unusual or the least unexpected.  

Or maybe his life was protected until he could receive and record that revelation and only then did the Lord allow his mission to end.

If one starts using death as a sign that a prophet was making a misstep, why not assume Joseph had when the Lord had protected him before and since him every other president made it to their mid 70s and most late 80’s, early 90s, I believe?

Just pointing out the problems with that line of reasoning.  I do not actually believe Joseph was taken because he made a misstep and while I assume it is a possibility God did shorten some lives, but just saying it’s going to be our personal bias that will indicate who is most likely as age is an unlikely indicator given they lived longer than expected lives if one goes by typical stats for those who make it to their 20th birthday I am guessing…I have looked into it in the past but don’t have details at hand to demonstrate this, but AI puts a likely additional 35-40 years if one had made it to 20 up to 1950s.

Edited June 16, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

22 hours ago, helix said:

1886: John Taylor pens the revelation

1887: John Taylor dies. His son John W Taylor finds the revelation but doesn't alert the church. He reads it and believes strongly that it means plural marriage can never end.

 

Questions popping up for me….

Why didn’t Pres John Taylor share the revelation with his son if it was in response to a question by him?  John W stated he didn’t know about the revelation until after his father’s death, which would have been at least 7 months after receiving the revelation if it was received in 1886 as he died in July 87.  Seems like plenty of time if Pres Taylor was confident in the revelation.

Text introducing revelation:

Quote

My son John, you have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant how far it is binding upon my people.

——-

I just realized that Woolley’s name was also John, even John W, but only the John is needed.  Was Woolley taking advantage of that similarity to make himself the hero of his story or was it common for Pres. Taylor to call him his “son”.  Are there those who believe the “My son John” referred to is him?  Was that foundational to his claim?

Of all the other men Woolley claimed to be involved that night, did any of them have ever say anything to support Woolley’s claims?  Seems like something would have been said.  Nuttall, the one who allegedly made copies that night, died in 1905.  He was also secretary for Woodruff in 1890.  He could have spoken up to support John W surely?  Seems like Woodruff would have at least asked him if he knew something even if Nuttall was not at the 1890 meeting.  George Q Cannon was claimed by Woolley to be entrusted with 5 copies.  Cannon was Woodruff’s counsellor and as an apostle, was likely at the 1890 meeting.  And yet he didn’t support John W.’s claims. 

 Woolley was tight with high church leaders, best buds with Joseph F. Smith, respected by leaders (called as a patriarch in 1912 according to wiki).  He was uncle to Pres Kimball and stepfather to BH Roberts, gave opening prayers for General Conference.  I had not realized he was so socially connected within the Church even if he never held a calling above the stake level.

So why did he go off the rails, I  wonder.

Found this pretty damning appraisal (if his details are accurate) of Woolley’s claims.  Is there anyone here who sees any possibility of Woolley’s claims being true (which is completely separate from the discussion about John W. Taylor’s interaction with church leaders over this)?

https://web.archive.org/web/20080610001852/https://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/questions_concerning_the_1887.htm

There appear to be some who are making the assumption that if the revelation actually exists, then Woolley’s account is accurate.  Doesn’t seem that logical to me, especially if Woolley’s story fundamentally changed after the revelation was made public.

This details the events…first a report on the event in 1912 by Lorin C Woolley, though it’s written as there was discussion among the family before.  Do we only have reports on these or are there journals in the family discussing such that have been authenticated to have been written before 1912?

https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/1886-Revelation-article.pdf

This has one comment from a half brother critical of LCW’s claims, but is it just critical of the new ones or all of them?

 

——

I was wondering about the handwriting.  It was apparently authenticated awhile ago.

Quote

 Reed C. Durham, an unorthodox and sometimes controversial historian as well as former director of the Institute of Religion, is the subject of a quotation which, it has been claimed, was delivered at a high priests' quorum meeting on 24 February 1974. The quotation, cited in "1886 on Trial" by Drew Briney, says that:

There was a revelation that John Taylor received and we have it in his handwriting. We've analyzed the handwriting. It is John Taylor's handwriting and the revelation is reproduced by the fundamentalists. That's supposed to prove the whole story because there was indeed a revelation. The revelation is dated September 27; that fits the account of a meeting, 1886.[9]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1886_Revelation

Quote

Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn investigated an envelope prepared by John W. Taylor, which contained an unpublished revelation to his father on 19 November 1877 concerning the settlement of the Brigham Young estate. J. W. Taylor's handwritten note is dated to 22 October 1887 and claims that the envelope holds a number of other documents in addition to the 1877 revelation. The younger Taylor presented these documents, which supposedly included the 1886 revelation, to Wilford Woodruff in 1887. This envelope wound up in the Joseph F. Smith Papers within the Church Historian's Office, where Quinn had studied them in 1971. Quinn argues that the younger Taylor might have received back the original 1886 revelation document after leaving the Quorum of the Twelve, as they were later in the possession of his brother Frank Y. Taylor, who sent it to the First Presidency on 18 July 1933.[10]

Bold:  Is this accurate?

Italics:  I am wondering where these were kept within the CHO.

Edited June 16, 2025 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I just realized that Woolley’s name was also John, even John W, but only the John is needed.  Was Woolley taking advantage of that similarity to make himself the hero of his story or was it common for Pres. Taylor to call him his “son”.  Are there those who believe the “My son John” referred to is him?  Was that foundational to his claim?

Of all the other men Woolley claimed to be involved that night, did any of them have ever say anything to support Woolley’s claims?  Seems like something would have been said.  Nuttall, the one who allegedly made copies that night, died in 1905.  He was also secretary for Woodruff in 1890.  He could have spoken up to support John W surely?  Seems like Woodruff would have at least asked him if he knew something even if Nuttall was not at the 1890 meeting.  George Q Cannon was claimed by Woolley to be entrusted with 5 copies.  Cannon was Woodruff’s counsellor and as an apostle, was likely at the 1890 meeting.  And yet he didn’t support John W.’s claims. 

 Woolley was tight with high church leaders, best buds with Joseph F. Smith, respected by leaders (called as a patriarch in 1912 according to wiki).  He was uncle to Pres Kimball and stepfather to BH Roberts, gave opening prayers for General Conference.  I had not realized he was so socially connected within the Church even if he never held a calling above the stake level.

So why did he go off the rails, I  wonder.

It is Loren Woolley that makes the claims.  There is very little evidence that John Woolley (his father) ever supported the claims that Loren made.  And all the claims from Loren occurred after 1912, so most people who Loren claims to have been there are dead.  Some who he claimed were there (like his sister) did not support his statements.

Also, I've never heard that the revelation was given through John Taylor to John Woolley.  I've only heard it reference John Taylor.

John W Taylor, at his excommunication, also makes no references to anything that Loren Woolley and others later said happened.  There is a much later story (I think it is from the 1920s or 1930s) that has John W Taylor being there at the meeting after the revelation and standing guard.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There appear to be some who are making the assumption that if the revelation actually exists, then Woolley’s account is accurate.  Doesn’t seem that logical to me, especially if Woolley’s story fundamentally changed after the revelation was made public.

I think what happened was that the fundamentalists knew the revelation existed and so if the church is lying about its existence, then they must be lying about the rest of what happened.

I find it interesting is that Wilford Woodruff received a revelation in 1880 that included the statement "And I say again wo unto that Nation or House or people, who seek to hinder my People from obeying the Patriarchal Law of Abraham which leadeth to a celestial Glory which has been revealed unto my Saints through the mouth of my servant Joseph for whosoever doeth those things shall be damned saith the Lord of Hosts" (https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/documents/f9c4ddb9-e338-4942-840c-909d3d269391/page/3e5ee3d2-665c-4e77-a152-12512ef9fe2a).  Plus there quite a few statements from apostles in the 1880s about how the church can't give up polygamy or else it would have to give up everything else.  I've never seen those revelations, statements, etc used by fundamentalists to argue for the continuation of polygamy.  I think the claims from Loren is what made the 1886 revelation the linchpin.  Because if the church is lying about it, there must be more that they are hiding.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

It is Loren Woolley that makes the claims.  There is very little evidence that John Woolley (his father) ever supported the claims that Loren made.  And all the claims from Loren occurred after 1912, so most people who Loren claims to have been there are dead.  Some who he claimed were there (like his sister) did not support his statements.

Also, I've never heard that the revelation was given through John Taylor to John Woolley.  I've only heard it reference John Taylor.

John W Taylor, at his excommunication, also makes no references to anything that Loren Woolley and others later said happened.  There is a much later story (I think it is from the 1920s or 1930s) that has John W Taylor being there at the meeting after the revelation and standing guard.

I think what happened was that the fundamentalists knew the revelation existed and so if the church is lying about its existence, then they must be lying about the rest of what happened.

I find it interesting is that Wilford Woodruff received a revelation in 1880 that included the statement "And I say again wo unto that Nation or House or people, who seek to hinder my People from obeying the Patriarchal Law of Abraham which leadeth to a celestial Glory which has been revealed unto my Saints through the mouth of my servant Joseph for whosoever doeth those things shall be damned saith the Lord of Hosts" (https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/documents/f9c4ddb9-e338-4942-840c-909d3d269391/page/3e5ee3d2-665c-4e77-a152-12512ef9fe2a).  Plus there quite a few statements from apostles in the 1880s about how the church can't give up polygamy or else it would have to give up everything else.  I've never seen those revelations, statements, etc used by fundamentalists to argue for the continuation of polygamy.  I think the claims from Loren is what made the 1886 revelation the linchpin.  Because if the church is lying about it, there must be more that they are hiding.

Thank you, I just haven’t been that interested in fundamentalism in terms of plural marriage due to the gap in actually establishing groups. If it was that crucial, surely we would have seen evidence of them being established at the same time as the first Manifesto appeared.

Edited June 17, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Questions popping up for me….

Why didn’t Pres John Taylor share the revelation with his son if it was in response to a question by him?  John W stated he didn’t know about the revelation until after his father’s death, which would have been at least 7 months after receiving the revelation if it was received in 1886 as he died in July 87.  Seems like plenty of time if Pres Taylor was confident in the revelation.

Text introducing revelation:

——-

I just realized that Woolley’s name was also John, even John W, but only the John is needed.  Was Woolley taking advantage of that similarity to make himself the hero of his story or was it common for Pres. Taylor to call him his “son”.  Are there those who believe the “My son John” referred to is him?  Was that foundational to his claim?

Of all the other men Woolley claimed to be involved that night, did any of them have ever say anything to support Woolley’s claims?  Seems like something would have been said.  Nuttall, the one who allegedly made copies that night, died in 1905.  He was also secretary for Woodruff in 1890.  He could have spoken up to support John W surely?  Seems like Woodruff would have at least asked him if he knew something even if Nuttall was not at the 1890 meeting.  George Q Cannon was claimed by Woolley to be entrusted with 5 copies.  Cannon was Woodruff’s counsellor and as an apostle, was likely at the 1890 meeting.  And yet he didn’t support John W.’s claims. 

 Woolley was tight with high church leaders, best buds with Joseph F. Smith, respected by leaders (called as a patriarch in 1912 according to wiki).  He was uncle to Pres Kimball and stepfather to BH Roberts, gave opening prayers for General Conference.  I had not realized he was so socially connected within the Church even if he never held a calling above the stake level.

So why did he go off the rails, I  wonder.

Found this pretty damning appraisal (if his details are accurate) of Woolley’s claims.  Is there anyone here who sees any possibility of Woolley’s claims being true (which is completely separate from the discussion about John W. Taylor’s interaction with church leaders over this)?

https://web.archive.org/web/20080610001852/https://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/questions_concerning_the_1887.htm

There appear to be some who are making the assumption that if the revelation actually exists, then Woolley’s account is accurate.  Doesn’t seem that logical to me, especially if Woolley’s story fundamentally changed after the revelation was made public.

This details the events…first a report on the event in 1912 by Lorin C Woolley, though it’s written as there was discussion among the family before.  Do we only have reports on these or are there journals in the family discussing such that have been authenticated to have been written before 1912?

https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/1886-Revelation-article.pdf

This has one comment from a half brother critical of LCW’s claims, but is it just critical of the new ones or all of them?

 

——

I was wondering about the handwriting.  It was apparently authenticated awhile ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1886_Revelation

Bold:  Is this accurate?

Italics:  I am wondering where these were kept within the CHO.

I believe it the Lord addressing Pres. Taylor as "son"- not Pres. Taylor addressing either his son or John Woolley.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

There is very little evidence that John Woolley (his father) ever supported the claims that Loren made. 

This seems pretty damning.

https://rsc.byu.edu/champion-liberty-john-taylor/administration-underground

Did John W Woolley actually start a group or was it his son?  Or did he more reactively take a lead after his son promoted his status through Lorin’s claims about ordination?  While there were rogue sealings going on, it doesn’t apparently appear as if it was organized by anyone

Quote

Importantly, historical records from the 1904 to 1920s period demonstrate conclusively that the scattered plural marriages occurring after the second manifesto were freelanced by the individuals involved. No evidence has been located to support the existence of a formal organization dedicated to the perpetuation of plural marriage during that time. Most significantly, no individuals asserted themselves as leaders, presiding over the sealing activities or claiming special authority in or out of the Church.

IOW John Woolley was excommunicated in 1914.  Lorin Woolley gave an account of the revelation in 1912, but that doesn’t seem to have been used to justified creating a separate line of authority until 1922 when he added the story of 5 men being ordained.  His father was alive until 1928 and as far as I know never contradicted Lorin, but didn’t confirm it either….it’s all rather odd unless John W. had dementia or something and nothing I am reading says anything like that except he was hard of hearing…but surely he could have read and written a response to questions if spoken communication was an issue for him.  

John W was allegedly a founding leader of a group called Council of Friends, but how active/organized/well known was it before 1928 when JW Woolley died?  He was 82 when excommunicated 14 years earlier.  Is there any evidence the Council (unnamed at the time if it existed at all) even existed until after everyone was dead who was part of the alleged leadership except Lorin Woolley?  Hales says there was no mention of the Council till 1932, but if Lorin Woolley was ordaining men to be apostles in 1928, was there any evidence of an organization involved?  And if not, it would seem the claim that John W Woolley was an actual founder is based on claims of his son unless I have missed some crucial details.

I just read a little on John W Woolley, just curious if anyone knows more about him.  I am wondering if Lorin was actually the sole prime mover with this. And  Lorin Woolley seems to have gotten quite carried away with his extravagant claims rendering anyone he claims highly suspect imo.  I am kind of shocked he was seen as a leader at all.

https://mormonfundamentalism.com/history/post-1904-polygamy/

Edited June 17, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I believe it the Lord addressing Pres. Taylor as "son"- not Pres. Taylor addressing either his son or John Woolley.

Of course.  The “my people”.  While Pres Taylor might have used that phrase to describe the community he led and cared for, it fits much better with the Lord saying it. My bad to not register that before.  Thanks.  Seeing the “John”, knowing his son’s name was also John and it being separated from the “Thus saith the Lord” made me think it was an afterwards added intro from Pres. Taylor.

Edited June 17, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

This seems pretty damning.

https://rsc.byu.edu/champion-liberty-john-taylor/administration-underground

Did John W Woolley actually start a group or was it his son?  Or did he more reactively take a lead after his son promoted his status through Lorin’s claims about ordination?  While there were rogue sealings going on, it doesn’t apparently appear as if it was organized by anyone

IOW John Woolley was excommunicated in 1914.  Lorin Woolley gave an account of the revelation in 1912, but that doesn’t seem to have been used to justified creating a separate line of authority until 1922 when he added the story of 5 men being ordained.  His father was alive until 1928 and as far as I know never contradicted Lorin, but didn’t confirm it either….it’s all rather odd unless John W. had dementia or something and nothing I am reading says anything like that except he was hard of hearing…but surely he could have read and written a response to questions if spoken communication was an issue for him.  

John W was allegedly a founding leader of a group called Council of Friends, but how active/organized/well known was it before 1928 when JW Woolley died?  He was 82 when excommunicated 14 years earlier.  Is there any evidence the Council (unnamed at the time if it existed at all) even existed until after everyone was dead who was part of the alleged leadership except Lorin Woolley?  Hales says there was no mention of the Council till 1932, but if Lorin Woolley was ordaining men to be apostles in 1928, was there any evidence of an organization involved?  And if not, it would seem the claim that John W Woolley was an actual founder is based on claims of his son unless I have missed some crucial details.

I just read a little on John W Woolley, just curious if anyone knows more about him.  I am wondering if Lorin was actually the sole prime mover with this. And  Lorin Woolley seems to have gotten quite carried away with his extravagant claims rendering anyone he claims highly suspect imo.  I am kind of shocked he was seen as a leader at all.

https://mormonfundamentalism.com/history/post-1904-polygamy/

The LeBaron fundamentalists (mostly independent patriarchal families) don't accept Woolley's claims.