Church Catalog releases John Taylor's 1886 Revelation

[Calm]

Another page summarizing the lack of evidence John C Woolley was involved in anything but believing plural marriage should be allowed to continue within the Church.

Quote

Reportedly John was the first man to served as God’s prophet and not be the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Lorin stated that John had been the senior member of the Council of Seven Friends for many years before his 1928 death, though precisely when the sealing keys reportedly left the Church to reside in his keeping is a point of confusion.

Regardless, when John W. Woolley was excommunicated in 1914, he made no claims to an 1886 ordination or asserted that he was a member of a secret Priesthood Council and was actually in charge of all priesthood in or out of the Church. One follower recalled: “John W. Woolley would not preside in any meeting outside of his own home.”[3] John attempted to keep his Church membership and was distraught over his excommunication. His actions show that he respected President Joseph F. Smith as the presiding priesthood leader on earth, even though Joseph F. Smith started the process through which John was cut off. After President Smith’s death, John appealed to Heber J. Grant’s authority to be reinstated. Nothing in John Woolley’s behavior suggested that he held the lofty position Lorin would later claim for him. John himself was a 

Makes sense that Lorin would use his father as a figurehead rather than take the initial spot himself given his father was very well connected, well known, and respected as far as I can tell.  Lorin was a sometime mail carrier and body guard for church leaders, but besides being a missionary twice (total 16 months) and a Seventy for a Centerville quorum, wiki doesn’t list any church callings for him.  Apparently he talked a lot as a kid when called as an elder at age 17 and was given the nickname “noisy”, so not a shy character it seems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorin_C._Woolley

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

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

Do they accept the 1886 revelation?

[webbles]

30 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

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

Don't they trace their authority through the "mighty and strong one"?  Kind of like a restoration of keys given to one of the LeBaron's and then kept in the family?

[webbles]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

In those years, polygamous groups weren't very organized.  I have a family ancestor (brother of a direct ancestor) who entered polygamy around the 1920s and their story of finding someone willing to do the sealing was interesting.  It was more or less whispered in the grape vine that there were people with authority and if you asked carefully, you could find a person.  So, the council could have existed in those days with very little written evidence.  But I don't think it could be considered an "organization".  More like a loose affiliation of like minded individuals.

[Notatbm]

On 6/15/2025 at 11:53 AM, JLHPROF said:

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.

This didnt age well: 

He added, “We would have to say, as two apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning, there has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/apostles-answer-questions-about-standards-doubts-during-ysa-face-to-face?lang=eng&source=post_page---------------------------

 

[Duncan]

29 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

This didnt age well: 

He added, “We would have to say, as two apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning, there has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/apostles-answer-questions-about-standards-doubts-during-ysa-face-to-face?lang=eng&source=post_page---------------------------

 

so you think that this 1886 revelation was just discovered? or you have proof that the leaders of the Church covered it up? People have been talking about it since it happened. Copies of it have been floating around forever

Edited June 18, 2025 by Duncan

[Notatbm]

33 minutes ago, Duncan said:

so you think that this 1886 revelation was just discovered? or you have proof that the leaders of the Church covered it up? People have been talking about it since it happened. Copies of it have been floating around forever

They just now published the original copy which they have  had since before you and I were born. I learned long ago this “prophesy” was not true. Now we find out it is via the church making a random posting in the library of the original. With no commentary. Yes the church hid it and lied about it. IMHO. 

Edited June 18, 2025 by Notatbm

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

They just now published the original copy which they have  had since before you and I were born. I learned long ago this “prophesy” was not true. Now we find out it is via the church making a random posting in the library of the original. With no commentary. Yes the church hid it and lied about it. IMHO. 

"they" meaning the archives, not individuals in the church and out, who used it in various publications for decades and decades now, so no the church did not hide and lie about it-if they did we wouldn't have heard about it or know anything about it.

[Notatbm]

31 minutes ago, Duncan said:

"they" meaning the archives, not individuals in the church and out, who used it in various publications for decades and decades now, so no the church did not hide and lie about it-if they did we wouldn't have heard about it or know anything about it.

Please post the church’s current statement on why they just now decided to authenticate the doc? Any use by anyone other than the church is not deemed correct or disclosed with any kind of authority until the church itself did so.
 

process was nearly the same for the 1832 first vision account.
 

Their silence speaks volumes. They have a problem with telling the truth. 

Edited June 18, 2025 by Notatbm
Typo

[Duncan]

11 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Any use by anyone other than the church is not deemed correct or disclosed with any kind of authority until the church itself did so.

says who?

I find it so odd that you say the church hid it and lied about it for years yet you magically knew "long ago" that this "prophesy" was not true

let me introduce you to something called logic

people have been writing about this for decades and decades, yet you think this is "silence"? How is that even possible?

 

[Duncan]

19 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Please post the church’s current statement on why they just now decided to authenticate the doc?

Here you go

"Revelation about the new and everlasting covenant as written by John Taylor. File includes John Taylor's 1886 handwritten copy and a handwritten copy by a Taylor family member. Also includes an 18 July 1933 memorandum from J. Reuben Clark Jr. about the provenance of the copy in John Taylor's handwriting, a 1909 typescript copy of the revelation by Joseph Fielding Smith, and additional typescript copies. Also available in electronic format."

perhaps more is coming

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/3aec2ea6-fdeb-4866-9529-47e27f9cd3b9/0/0?lang=eng

have you ever used an archives before or know how they work or?

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

lease post the church’s current statement on why they just now decided to authenticate the doc

According to Reed Durham it was apparently authenticated at least by 1974.  Michael Quinn had a chance to study in in 1971.

See one the earlier posts of mine and weebles for quote and links

I would not be surprised to hear they authenticated it again given the better techniques, but perhaps not since the provenance seems well established and it is not inconsistent with previous statements, etc from Pres. Taylor.

What I am reading suggest the revelation itself is what it claims to be itself; what it’s not is all the stuff that got dumped on it by the storytelling of Lorin C Woolley (the more exaggerated stuff, I can see a meeting the next day to discuss it, just not the over the top affair Woolley claims).  It’s understandable imo that some leaders were skeptical considering the baggage LC Woolley attached to it in the late 20s.  If he had kept his mouth shut and not attempted to use it and his father to turn himself into a hero, perhaps there wouldn’t have been such a negative reaction.

Edited June 18, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

It is interesting that Frank Taylor had so little interest in the revelation, he didn’t even remember he had it apparently…or at least that was the impression he gave to Pres Grant it appears.

Quote

July 1 8 , 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 President John Taylor’s death and was written by President Grant on July 17, 1933.

[signature] JRC

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

my italics

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Here you go

"Revelation about the new and everlasting covenant as written by John Taylor. File includes John Taylor's 1886 handwritten copy and a handwritten copy by a Taylor family member. Also includes an 18 July 1933 memorandum from J. Reuben Clark Jr. about the provenance of the copy in John Taylor's handwriting, a 1909 typescript copy of the revelation by Joseph Fielding Smith, and additional typescript copies. Also available in electronic format."

perhaps more is coming

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/3aec2ea6-fdeb-4866-9529-47e27f9cd3b9/0/0?lang=eng

have you ever used an archives before or know how they work or?

There is no explanation why they just now published it. They just explain what it is. Not to mention no press release, just a Friday night dump when no one is looking. Why not tell us all why all the storytelling despite it being allegedly well known to be legit for fifty ish or more years? They need to come clean on tons of stuff. The only reason they don’t is they have control over vast majority of the membership in the form of “don’t criticize your leaders, even if the criticism is true.”

[Calm]

I was curious about Mark E Peterson’s very emphatic statement about the revelation and what he might have as opportunities to learn firsthand from apostles who were alive in 1933 when the revelation was given to the Church by Frank Taylor.

Peterson became an apostle in 1944, more than a decade since the First Presidency statement and the likely discussion among church leaders of the reception of the original.

There were 7 apostles from 1933 who were still alive in 1944, but none of them were alive by 1974 when Elder Peterson made his comment, so noe one who was there to advise him on the facts at that time (obviously could have earlier).  There might have been other potential sources still alive, but unless he had asked about the revelation in his earlier years as an apostle, he may have missed out except for David O McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith, the only ones who lasted to the 70s (all the rest died prior to 1960).

This is not intended to prove anything.  Just filling in some timeline context gaps for myself I thought others might be interested in.  Others have done a lot of the work collecting the names for 1886 to 1933, I will put that together tomorrow.

[Duncan]

5 hours ago, Notatbm said:

There is no explanation why they just now published it. They just explain what it is. Not to mention no press release, just a Friday night dump when no one is looking. Why not tell us all why all the storytelling despite it being allegedly well known to be legit for fifty ish or more years? They need to come clean on tons of stuff. The only reason they don’t is they have control over vast majority of the membership in the form of “don’t criticize your leaders, even if the criticism is true.”

that doesn't make any sense

it's been publicly available long enough for you to know that it wasn't true

it's a massive leap of logic to talk about what the church archives does to not criticizing the leaders of the church

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, Duncan said:

so you think that this 1886 revelation was just discovered? or you have proof that the leaders of the Church covered it up? People have been talking about it since it happened. Copies of it have been floating around forever

It's not the addition of the text that is news. It's the addition of the original document in John Taylor's own handwriting.

As opposed to Petersen's statement that: "To justify their own rebellion recalcitrant brethren devised a scheme which they hoped would frustrate the stand of the Church on plural marriage. They concocted a false revelation, allegedly given to President John Taylor in 1886".

Nobody concocted it. That's the news. It's an authentic revelation to John Taylor that was never accepted or canonized by the Church.

There are quite a few authentic revelations to the prophets that haven't been legitimized by the Church.  Apparently Matthew 4:4 doesn't really mean EVERY.

Matt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Nobody concocted it. That's the news. It's an authentic revelation to John Taylor that was never accepted or canonized by the Church.

Claiming that it is an authentic revelation is going beyond what we have.  It's an authentic document written by John Taylor and that has been known for decades.  Even at that time, the apostles would present revelations they received to the quorum and have it voted on whether or not it was a revelation (for example, Wilford Woodruff did that with a revelation he received in Arizona about how polygamy can't be stopped).  Taylor apparently didn't tell anyone in the quorum or 1st presidency other than maybe George Q Cannon who was there.  And Cannon apparently didn't see it as important because he didn't tell anyone about it when Woodruff brought up the Manifesto.  We know that Cannon talked about using concubinage to continue polygamy after the Manifesto but he doesn't mention anything related to the 1886 revelation.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, webbles said:

Claiming that it is an authentic revelation is going beyond what we have.  It's an authentic document written by John Taylor and that has been known for decades.  Even at that time, the apostles would present revelations they received to the quorum and have it voted on whether or not it was a revelation (for example, Wilford Woodruff did that with a revelation he received in Arizona about how polygamy can't be stopped).  Taylor apparently didn't tell anyone in the quorum or 1st presidency other than maybe George Q Cannon who was there.  And Cannon apparently didn't see it as important because he didn't tell anyone about it when Woodruff brought up the Manifesto.  We know that Cannon talked about using concubinage to continue polygamy after the Manifesto but he doesn't mention anything related to the 1886 revelation.

Do you think that any prophet of the Church was in the habit of inventing revelations?  I don't.

The legitimizing process is about whether or not a revelation was applicable or binding to the body of the Church IMO.

I don't believe that process has any effect at all on whether God spoke to Pres Taylor.  I believe President Brigham Young for instance likely had dozens of revelations throughout his life but only one made it into the D&C.  They're still authentic revelations.

[CV75]

Ooops, I thought this was the Coinbase thread

Edited June 18, 2025 by CV75

[Senator]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

  We know that Cannon talked about using concubinage to continue polygamy after the Manifesto 

Wait, what??

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't believe that process has any effect at all on whether God spoke to Pres Taylor.  I believe President Brigham Young for instance likely had dozens of revelations throughout his life but only one made it into the D&C.  They're still authentic revelations.

How do you know they are?

The D&C contains instructions for excommunicating the President of the Church, for heaven's sake. I don't think the prophets are in the habit of inventing revelations but if we don't believe in prophetic infallibility (and we don't!) then that must extend not only to the contents of a revelation but also the source of the revelation. I'm thinking specifically of confusing one's strong personal convictions with the Spirit of the Lord and thus getting a "false positive," an error I have personally made and which I suspect Brigham Young made at least once (race and the priesthood). 

In this case, President Taylor didn't even try to go through the proper channel for getting these things recognized, so as far as I'm concerned its a null result.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

opposed to Petersen's statement that: "To justify their own rebellion recalcitrant brethren devised a scheme which they hoped would frustrate the stand of the Church on plural marriage. They concocted a false revelation, allegedly given to President John Taylor in 1886".

I would like to know if Elder Petersen viewed the ordinations and claims of a higher priesthood as separate or as part of the revelation, not just the text that was floating around.  After all, wouldn’t it require revelation to receive this new and quite novel doctrine as well as the instructions on how to perform the ordinations?  There is actually no mention of such new secret authority in the John Taylor revelation we have, no mention of a new sealing authority, so there must have been more revealed for this to have occurred (unless of course it was made up by LC Woolley)..  Seems one has to look on the new information as its own revelation received the next day or as a continuation of the 9/26/1886 revelation.  Either way, there is no documentation of for it outside of LC Woolley, which is very odd if authentic and expected if he made it up, using the actual revelation as the hook to sell his scam (it was a scam imo even if he believed it was for a good purpose, which I think he likely did).

If Elder Petersen was aware of the actual text, he would know there was no mention of secret authority to continue plural marriages, so perhaps he was referring to that alleged revelation shared in the reported meeting the next day.  If he was not aware of the actual text (which seems unlikely, but possible if he was only concerned about the effects and was dismissive of something he saw as purely a creation of a rebellion/apostacy), he probably assumed there was some mention of secret authority, which would invalidate the alleged revelation in his view.

the full quote:

https://bhroberts.org/records/fbkJxk-nM9pwj/mark_e_petersen_disputes_the_authenticity_of_the_1886_john_taylor_revelation

Quote

To justify their own rebellion recalcitrant brethren devised a scheme which they hoped would frustrate the stand of the Church on plural marriage. They concocted a false revelation, allegedly given to President John Taylor in 1886, in which pretended secret authority was given to continue plural marriages.

My bold

And imo, the revelation about the higher priesthood and ordaining members to it is a false revelation concocted by Lorin Woolley.  Now whether that was what Elder Petersen was talking about either on its own or in conjunction with the actual revelation of the previous day, I don’t know.

Edited June 18, 2025 by Calm

[webbles]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Do you think that any prophet of the Church was in the habit of inventing revelations?  I don't.

The legitimizing process is about whether or not a revelation was applicable or binding to the body of the Church IMO.

I don't believe that process has any effect at all on whether God spoke to Pres Taylor.  I believe President Brigham Young for instance likely had dozens of revelations throughout his life but only one made it into the D&C.  They're still authentic revelations.

I don't think any prophet is in the habit of inventing revelations.  But there is a process to make sure that it was an actual revelation.  And others of his time followed that process.  The revelation that Wilford brought to the quorum wasn't also binding to the body of the Church but he still had it validated by the quorum.

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Senator said:

Wait, what??

Quinn says (page 55 here)

Quote

On 5 April 1894, George Q. Cannon told the temple meeting of the Presidency and apostles, "I believe in concubinage, or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred
ordinances and vows until they can be married," to which President Woodruff responded, "If men enter into some practice of this character to raise a righteous posterity, they will be justified in it."

The source is Abraham Cannon's diary on April 5 1894.  I can't find that diary online so I can't link to it.

Edited June 18, 2025 by webbles