Church Catalog releases John Taylor's 1886 Revelation

[Senator]

57 minutes ago, webbles said:

Quinn says (page 55 here)

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.

The early church was a hoot.  😅

Fun times!

[Stargazer]

FWIW, here's a video about this put out by Benjamin Park, who seems to be the current president of the Mormon History Association.

 

[Teancum]

On 6/15/2025 at 3:42 PM, JLHPROF said:

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.

Ah what a tangled web of suppression and deceit by top LDS leaders of historical facts and documents that cause problems for their prophetic claims. It certainly does not inspire confidence that these men have any special access to some sort of divine guidance more than anyone else.

[ZealouslyStriving]

I think the revelation given to Wilford Woodruff, and printed in European versions of the Doctrine and Covenants, would be more of an issue had not Pres. Woodruff seemingly contradicted himself with a press release just a short time later.

It's kind of funny the Church thought they could quietly add this 🤞🏻ing it wouldn't blow up.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

Quinn says (page 55 here)

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.

More info:

Quote

Chapter 11 entitled “Concubinage,” seemed at first to be a random chapter thrown in for completeness. But in fact, it contains argumentation that a man and a woman could be married, with the woman as a concubine, simply by making covenants with each other. This would obviate the need for the “one” man with the sealing keys and make moot questions of how much authority the five men received or whether the ordinations even happened.

Briney quotes ever popular statements from Wilford Woodruff and George Q. Cannon on April 5, 1894, in a meeting of the First Presidency and Twelve. Cannon, a counselor in the First Presidency, stated: “I believe in concubinage, or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred ordinances and vows until they can be married. Thus our surplus girls can be cared for, and the law of God to multiply and replenish the earth be fulfilled. There is the danger of wicked men taking license from such a condition.” In the same meeting Lorenzo Snow commented: “I have no doubt but concubinage will yet be practiced in this Church, but I had not thought of it in this connection. When the nations are troubled good women will come here for safety and blessing, and men will accept them as concubines.” Church President Wilford Woodruff seemingly agreed: “If men enter into some practice of this character to raise a righteous posterity, they will be justified in it.”[11]

As the one man holding the keys of sealing, Wilford Woodruff was the only person in the conversation that could definitively declare whether such behavior would have been proper during his tenure as the keyholder and Church President. However, none of these comments could be used to justify two individuals coming together without an official ceremony. Heber C. Kimball taught on December 21, 1847: “There has been a doctrine tau[gh]t–if a man & woman makes a Cov[enan]t. they have a right to connect themselves–[but] this is wrong…”[12]

https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/review-of-drew-brineys-book/#:~:text=The elder Woolley had numerous opportunities to,but no such accounts have been found.&text=Cannon%2C a counselor in the First Presidency%2C,and vows until they can be married.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It's kind of funny the Church thought they could quietly add this 🤞🏻ing it wouldn't blow up.

I highly doubt they thought it wouldn’t blow up.  They would have to be oblivious of the last 2? 3? more? decades to think that and I don’t think they are.

My guess is they knew it would blow up whatever they did and this was the simplest solution (not saying it was the best, I am not in the position to make that judgment).

Edited June 19, 2025 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

12 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

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.

Ironic since our entire religion and Church is based on several revelatory visions to a teenage boy with no witnesses, no Apostolic approval, and no common consent vote.

Using your argument the first vision and appearance of Moroni should be considered null.  Or you have a double standard for revelations.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

FWIW, here's a video about this put out by Benjamin Park, who seems to be the current president of the Mormon History Association.

 

Pretty good rundown.

I like how he acknowledges the argument that the “new and everlasting covenant” can be spun to be about monogamous sealings or serial sealings with only one wife alive at a time but is clear that that is not how it would be taken by John Taylor or other people at the time and the clues are that it doesn’t mean that.

The argument that ancient prophets/sages/mystics/whatever spoke in coded truths whose meaning has been lost goes back to at least Stoicism and heavily influenced how Christians dealt with the Old Testament. It is weird seeing arguments in real time that God was communicating to John Taylor but that John Taylor misunderstood it or hid the truth for some reason. It is silly. It also suggests that God is really really bad at communicating…..which actually would explain a lot.

[webbles]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Ironic since our entire religion and Church is based on several revelatory visions to a teenage boy with no witnesses, no Apostolic approval, and no common consent vote.

Using your argument the first vision and appearance of Moroni should be considered null.  Or you have a double standard for revelations.

There are several things done in the early days of the Church that would not be accepted today.  For example, being given the priesthood before baptism, having the 3 witnesses ordain apostles, sealings outside of temples, baptism of the dead outside of temples.  They were allowed because the Church wasn't fully setup.  But by 1886, we had practices and teachings on how revelation is supposed to be ratified.  The quorum and 1st presidency was following those practices by 1886.  This revelation didn't follow any of the practices of that time.

[Tacenda]

On 6/18/2025 at 3:25 PM, Teancum said:

Ah what a tangled web of suppression and deceit by top LDS leaders of historical facts and documents that cause problems for their prophetic claims. It certainly does not inspire confidence that these men have any special access to some sort of divine guidance more than anyone else.

They're only human, so there ya go. Lately I'm not bothered, got more important things like this world we live in to worry about now. I wish all I had to worry about was church history. If only!  

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, webbles said:

The quorum and 1st presidency was following those practices by 1886.  This revelation didn't follow any of the practices of that time.

Again that only means that the revelation was never accepted by or presented to the Church organization. 

It doesn't change whether or not the Lord actually spoke to John Taylor or not. It either happened or didn't.  It was very much a personal revelation to John Taylor.

[BCSpace]

Looks like yet another big nothing burger. The New and Everlasting Covenant still stands as official doctrine, and the plural marriage aspect of it is still governed by D&C 132:38 and Jacob 2:30.

Edited June 20, 2025 by BCSpace

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, webbles said:

There are several things done in the early days of the Church that would not be accepted today.  For example, being given the priesthood before baptism, having the 3 witnesses ordain apostles, sealings outside of temples, baptism of the dead outside of temples.  They were allowed because the Church wasn't fully setup.  But by 1886, we had practices and teachings on how revelation is supposed to be ratified.  The quorum and 1st presidency was following those practices by 1886.  This revelation didn't follow any of the practices of that time.

Revelation isn’t ratified. It is accepted or rejected. Rejecting a revelation from the prophet is not a good thing. The body of the Church is not a collection of sages convened to determine if it is actually revelation through careful study and prayer. They don’t know. They can reject it which is basically saying we won’t live by this revelation.

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Looks like yet another big nothing burger. The New and Everlasting Covenant still stands as official doctrine, and the plural marriage aspect of it is still governed by D&C 132:38 and Jacob 2:30.

The plural marriage part of it is all of Section 132. Making the first part about marriage sealings in general is a recent revision that really doesn’t make sense in context.

Also the Saints didn’t follow Section 132. They were marrying lots of non-virgins.

[Notatbm]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The plural marriage part of it is all of Section 132. Making the first part about marriage sealings in general is a recent revision that really doesn’t make sense in context.

Also the Saints didn’t follow Section 132. They were marrying lots of non-virgins.

Don’t forget about polyandry. That is straight up adultery and many early church leaders practiced it.  One of my ancestors when he left his mission in England took some married woman (not divorced, just took off) with kids back to the states with him, yep he married her. My family acts like he’s some kind of hero for the church. I’m like isn’t that adultery? Answer:: nope it was hard to get a divorce in england so they didn’t bother. In some place I’m sure it is too hard to get a divorce these days. I can’t see the church openly supporting marrying an already married woman if getting a divorce is a hassle. 

Edited June 20, 2025 by Notatbm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

Don’t forget about polyandry. That is straight up adultery and many early church leaders practiced it.  

Why would polyandry be anymore adultery than polygyny?

Edited June 21, 2025 by Calm

[webbles]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Again that only means that the revelation was never accepted by or presented to the Church organization. 

It doesn't change whether or not the Lord actually spoke to John Taylor or not. It either happened or didn't.  It was very much a personal revelation to John Taylor.

In 1880, Wilford Woodruff received a revelation.  It has never been presented to the Church.  But he did present it to the Quorum.  You can read the revelation in his journal at https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/documents/f9c4ddb9-e338-4942-840c-909d3d269391/page/efed2219-7214-41da-b542-b02b8e0c8949.  It is fairly long, from page 67 to page 75.

I'm not sure if the Lord spoke to John Taylor here.  Yes, it appears to be his handwriting but he told absolutely no one about it.  His secretary, L. John Nuttall (who records most of John Taylor's revelations), has journal entries for these days and he is there with John Taylor but writes nothing about any revelation.  George Q. Cannon, 1st Counselor to John Taylor, is also there and has journal entries and also writes nothing about a revelation.

I don't have a problem with the content of the revelation.  It is very similar to others that were presented to the quorum (both before and after) so it isn't something out of the ordinary.  I just have a hard time with the fact that no one knew about it at the time.  Those who were there had no reason to hide the revelation at the time as it wasn't a new or unique idea.

[webbles]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Revelation isn’t ratified. It is accepted or rejected. Rejecting a revelation from the prophet is not a good thing. The body of the Church is not a collection of sages convened to determine if it is actually revelation through careful study and prayer. They don’t know. They can reject it which is basically saying we won’t live by this revelation.

I'm not talking about the body of the church.  I'm talking about Quorum of 12 Apostles ratifying it.

[Notatbm]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why would polyandry be anymore adultery than polygyny?

Apparently god id ok with it. Dc 132 specifically prohibits marrying women who already have a husband. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Apparently god id ok with it. Dc 132 specifically prohibits marrying women who already have a husband. 

Verse 41 seems to suggest women can be married to more than one husband in the new and everlasting covenant if and only if God has appointed the second sealing/covenant.  If it was always adultery, then why would the bolded section be required?

Quote

1 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

 

Edited June 21, 2025 by Calm

[Notatbm]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Verse 41 seems to suggest women can be married to more than one husband in the new and everlasting covenant if and only if God has appointed the second sealing/covenant.  If it was always adultery, then why would the bolded section be required?

 

Looks like some women needed to be destroyed along with JS. Problem with all this is 132 miraculously materialized about halfway into JS marrying spree in order to shut Emma down. JS didn’t even have the nerve to present it himself. That’s a real prophet right there.
 

There is a reason there wasn’t a published revelation until much later and there’s a reason JS continually lied about it and did it behind Emma’s back. It is because he is an adulterer. 

[webbles]

3 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Looks like some women needed to be destroyed along with JS. Problem with all this is 132 miraculously materialized about halfway into JS marrying spree in order to shut Emma down. JS didn’t even have the nerve to present it himself. That’s a real prophet right there.
 

There is a reason there wasn’t a published revelation until much later and there’s a reason JS continually lied about it and did it behind Emma’s back. It is because he is an adulterer. 

Many of the later revelations in Joseph Smith's day aren't revelations like his earlier ones.  For example, we do not have any revelation about baptism of the dead before the first baptism happened.  Nor are there any revelations before the first eternal sealing.  And section 132 was given because Hyrum asked for it and it was because Hyrum thought it would convince Emma.  Joseph didn't think it would work because Joseph had already presented polygamy to Emma before and she possibly did accept it for a short time.  The Partridge sisters (who said that Emma knew of their sealings) were sealed in March 1843 and section 132 was written down in July 1843.

[ZealouslyStriving]

14 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Apparently god id ok with it. Dc 132 specifically prohibits marrying women who already have a husband. 

Does it though? 🤨

"41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed."

** I see Calm beat me to it ... You go girl! **

Edited June 21, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Notatbm]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

Verse 41 seems to suggest women can be married to more than one husband in the new and everlasting covenant if and only if God has appointed the second sealing/covenant.  If it was always adultery, then why would the bolded section be required?

 

I suppose we then have to consider whether or not god appointed the women to Joseph despite them already being married to some other dude. I’m sure joseph would insist they were. He also insisted he only had one wife. 
 

I seriously doubt 11 men were ok with Joseph marrying and having sex with their wives. If they were then what kind of gospel is this. And other men were ok with other leaders marrying their wives too???
 

I don’t buy a bit of it. What a sick bunch.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

I suppose we then have to consider whether or not god appointed the women to Joseph despite them already being married to some other dude. I’m sure joseph would insist they were. He also insisted he only had one wife. 
 

I seriously doubt 11 men were ok with Joseph marrying and having sex with their wives. If they were then what kind of gospel is this. And other men were ok with other leaders marrying their wives too???
 

I don’t buy a bit of it. What a sick bunch.

Where is the evidence that Joseph had sex with any of them?

Google: Ugo Perego