Church Catalog releases John Taylor's 1886 Revelation

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You do realize the video says none of that, correct? Was ETB talking in code?

Sort of, he was misrepresenting Chiang Kai-Shek’s actual offer to make it sound more palatable. Either that or he hadn’t really understood what the offer actually was.

1 hour ago, longview said:

I have no idea of what you are talking about. How about some background information and sourcing?

Background: At the end of the Second World War Chiang Kai-Shek was still in charge of the Chinese government but the communists were out there. They had formed a temporary truce to fight the Japanese. At the end of the war an agreement was reached for the British to liberate the southern half of Indochina and China the northern half. At the time China advocated for Vietnamese independence. China then switched gears and encouraged the return of French rule in order to get economic concessions from France in exchange hoping this would aid their fight against Mao. Later Mao won and Chiang Kai-Shek fled to Taiwan with his army and what was left of his government.

Taiwan did not fare well under his administration. Look up the ‘White Terror’ if you want to know how the refugee government treated the people there.

When the Vietnam War broke out Chiang offered to invade Guandong province to take advantage of dissent there and to support the United States and its allies in the conflict in Vietnam. The idea was that this offer would prevent Chinese support of North Vietnam and Chiang Kai-Shek believed his return would create uprisings and he could retake the country. This was probably a pipe dream. Nationalist support in China was largely confined to the economic and political elites (mostly the warlords in the nationalist fold) and they were all dead from the purges after Mao’s victory or had already fled. The common people hated Chiang’s government. Virtually everyone agrees there would be no uprisings.

So this offer was to draw off China. ETB presented it as if they would fill in and help the US directly in Vietnam. I have no idea if he was ignorant or if he was being deceptive. Supporting an invasion of China would have escalated the conflict. It was a dumb plan and the US government didn’t treat it very seriously. This was also the time period when Elder Benson was trying to drum up support to run for President of the United States working with a John Birch Society front organization with (sigh) staunch segregationist Strom Thurmond as his VP. Chiming in on this offer was probably in service of those ambitions.

[longview]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Sort of, he was misrepresenting Chiang Kai-Shek’s actual offer to make it sound more palatable. Either that or he hadn’t really understood what the offer actually was.

Background: At the end of the Second World War Chiang Kai-Shek was still in charge of the Chinese government but the communists were out there. They had formed a temporary truce to fight the Japanese. At the end of the war an agreement was reached for the British to liberate the southern half of Indochina and China the northern half. At the time China advocated for Vietnamese independence. China then switched gears and encouraged the return of French rule in order to get economic concessions from France in exchange hoping this would aid their fight against Mao. Later Mao won and Chiang Kai-Shek fled to Taiwan with his army and what was left of his government.

I made a second query of chatGPT for this (my first is at the bottom):

Quote

thank you. my debate partner also said: "Sort of, he was misrepresenting Chiang Kai-Shek’s actual offer to make it sound more palatable. Either that or he hadn’t really understood what the offer actually was. "Background: At the end of the Second World War Chiang Kai-Shek was still in charge of the Chinese government but the communists were out there. They had formed a temporary truce to fight the Japanese. At the end of the war an agreement was reached for the British to liberate the southern half of Indochina and China the northern half. At the time China advocated for Vietnamese independence. China then switched gears and encouraged the return of French rule in order to get economic concessions from France in exchange hoping this would aid their fight against Mao. Later Mao won and Chiang Kai-Shek fled to Taiwan with his army and what was left of his government."

ChatGPT said:

Your debate partner’s summary of Chiang Kai-shek’s shifting stance on Vietnam after World War II is broadly accurate, but the claim that Ezra Taft Benson misrepresented Chiang’s position would need to be evaluated case by case—especially in terms of what Benson said publicly or privately. Let’s break this down historically:

---

✅ Verified Historical Context:

🔹 Post-WWII Power Dynamics in Vietnam:

• After Japan's surrender in August 1945, Vietnam declared independence under Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh.

• The Allied plan called for British forces to take the Japanese surrender in southern Vietnam (south of the 16th parallel), and Chinese Nationalist troops (under Chiang Kai-shek) to accept surrender in the north.

• The Chinese occupation of northern Vietnam (Sept 1945 – March 1946) was short-term and largely meant to prevent the Viet Minh from taking complete control, while also containing communism and exerting regional influence.

🔹 Chiang’s Strategy:

• Initially, Chiang supported Vietnamese independence in theory, as this would weaken French colonial power and provide leverage.

• But in early 1946, Chiang signed an agreement with the French, allowing French troops to return to northern Vietnam in exchange for French concessions to China (e.g., relinquishing extraterritorial rights and control of railways in China).

• This deal allowed the French to reassert colonial control, setting the stage for the First Indochina War (1946–1954).

---

🤔 Did Ezra Taft Benson Misrepresent This?

There is no clear public evidence that Benson intentionally misrepresented Chiang Kai-shek’s policy toward Vietnam. However, Benson was a staunch anti-communist and often praised Chiang as a heroic bulwark against communism in Asia, especially during the Cold War.

• In Benson’s writings and speeches, especially in the 1950s–70s, he painted Chiang in idealistic terms—as a freedom-loving, anti-communist ally.

• He may have omitted or downplayed the realpolitik elements of Chiang's deals with the French, choosing instead to emphasize Chiang’s role as a friend to liberty.

• If Benson cited Chiang's early support for Vietnamese independence but ignored his later concession to the French, that could be seen as selective presentation, perhaps to bolster Cold War narratives.

Whether that amounts to misrepresentation or oversimplification based on ideological bias is a matter of interpretation.

---

🧠 Summary for Debate:

Claim	Status	Comment
Chiang initially supported Vietnamese independence	✅ True	But for strategic reasons, not purely ideological.
Chiang allowed the French to return to Vietnam	✅ True	In exchange for French concessions to China.
Chiang was trying to contain Mao and communism	✅ True	He saw concessions to France as helpful in that fight.
Ezra Taft Benson misrepresented Chiang’s position	❓ Unclear	He idealized Chiang, may have selectively cited history, but no proven intent to deceive.

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Taiwan did not fare well under his administration. Look up the ‘White Terror’ if you want to know how the refugee government treated the people there.

When the Vietnam War broke out Chiang offered to invade Guandong province to take advantage of dissent there and to support the United States and its allies in the conflict in Vietnam. The idea was that this offer would prevent Chinese support of North Vietnam and Chiang Kai-Shek believed his return would create uprisings and he could retake the country. This was probably a pipe dream. Nationalist support in China was largely confined to the economic and political elites (mostly the warlords in the nationalist fold) and they were all dead from the purges after Mao’s victory or had already fled. The common people hated Chiang’s government. Virtually everyone agrees there would be no uprisings.

So this offer was to draw off China. ETB presented it as if they would fill in and help the US directly in Vietnam. I have no idea if he was ignorant or if he was being deceptive. Supporting an invasion of China would have escalated the conflict. It was a dumb plan and the US government didn’t treat it very seriously.

my third query to chatGPT:

Quote

Your debate partner is, again, mixing accurate historical events with reasoned interpretation, especially regarding Chiang Kai-shek’s Taiwan regime, his Vietnam War proposals, and Ezra Taft Benson’s portrayal of those events. Let’s carefully break down each claim for clarity:

---

🔹 “Taiwan did not fare well under Chiang Kai-shek’s administration. Look up the ‘White Terror.’”

✅ True.

• The White Terror (1947–1987) refers to the period of martial law and political repression under Chiang Kai-shek and his Kuomintang (KMT) government in Taiwan.

• Tens of thousands were imprisoned, tortured, or executed, especially suspected communists, intellectuals, and critics.

• It began with the 1947 February 28 Massacre, in which government forces brutally suppressed an uprising, killing thousands of civilians.

So yes, Taiwan under Chiang was a harsh authoritarian regime, especially in its early decades.

---

🔹 “Chiang offered to invade Guangdong during the Vietnam War to help the U.S.”

✅ Historically accurate in essence, though the exact details and U.S. reception are more complex.

• Chiang Kai-shek repeatedly proposed using Nationalist Chinese forces (from Taiwan) to invade the Chinese mainland—particularly Guangdong province—during moments of Cold War tension, including the Korean War and later during the Vietnam War.

• His hope was to trigger an anti-communist uprising and reclaim China.

• These proposals were usually made to U.S. officials as strategic leverage: “Let us open a second front against Mao while you fight communism elsewhere.”

🇺🇸 The U.S. consistently rejected these offers, fearing:

• Provoking a full-scale war with China.

• That Chiang’s confidence in popular uprisings was misplaced and not supported by intelligence.

• Escalation would undermine containment and increase instability in Southeast Asia.

So your debate partner is correct to call this plan a “pipe dream.” Most U.S. officials, military advisors, and analysts thought the plan was unrealistic and dangerous.

---

🔹 “Virtually everyone agrees there would be no uprisings.”

✅ Widely accepted historical consensus.

• By the 1960s and 70s, Chiang had little to no real support inside mainland China.

• His pre-1949 rule was associated with:

  • Corruption, failed economic policies (hyperinflation),

  • Weak resistance against Japan,

  • And brutal crackdowns.

• Mao’s regime, for all its own brutalities, had consolidated power, and there was no credible sign of large-scale loyalty to the exiled KMT.

So the idea that invading Guangdong would provoke a rebellion against Mao was naïve at best.

---

🔹 “ETB presented it as if they [the Chinese Nationalists] would help the U.S. directly in Vietnam. Was he ignorant or deceptive?”

🤔 This gets into the realm of interpretation and evidence.

• Ezra Taft Benson was an ardent anti-communist and sympathetic to Chiang Kai-shek, whom he saw as a righteous bulwark against communism.

• He may have repeated Chiang’s proposals uncritically in speeches or writings, likely highlighting them as a missed opportunity to fight communism more aggressively.

• He was not a military strategist, nor was he in charge of foreign policy. His framing of such offers may have been ideologically motivated rather than based on practical military analysis.

📌 Unless we have a specific quote or speech by Benson, we can’t say for certain whether he misrepresented the plan. But it’s likely he presented the idea sympathetically, and that the nuance and U.S. rejection were not emphasized.

---

🔍 Summary Table:

Claim	Accuracy	Notes
White Terror under Chiang	✅ True	Widespread political repression and martial law.
Chiang offered to invade Guangdong	✅ True	Proposals were made during Korea and Vietnam wars.
U.S. rejected the proposal	✅ True	Seen as destabilizing and unrealistic.
Common people in China would have risen up	❌ Not supported	No evidence; most scholars agree this was wishful thinking.
Benson may have misrepresented the plan	🤔 Possibly	Ideologically driven, likely presented it uncritically.

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This was also the time period when Elder Benson was trying to drum up support to run for President of the United States working with a John Birch Society front organization with (sigh) staunch segregationist Strom Thurmond as his VP. Chiming in on this offer was probably in service of those ambitions.

I asked chatGPT (my first query):

Quote

You said:

I am in a debate with someone. He claims that Ezra Taft Benson (who was a member of the LDS quorum of the twelve apostles also serving as secretary of agriculture in the Eisenhower administration) attempted to organize a run for U.S. presidency possibly having Strom Thurmond to be VP? Is this rumor or historical fact?

ChatGPT said:

This claim contains a mix of historical fact and plausible but unconfirmed speculation.

✅ Verified Facts:

1. Ezra Taft Benson was indeed:

   • A member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

   • U.S. Secretary of Agriculture under President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953–1961).

   • A strong anti-communist and outspoken political conservative.

2. Strom Thurmond was a U.S. senator and former Dixiecrat presidential candidate in 1948. He was known for segregationist views, especially earlier in his career.

3. Benson was politically active and aligned with right-wing ideologies, especially later in the 1960s and 70s. He was closely associated with the John Birch Society, though not officially a member.

---

🤔 The Presidency Rumor:

There was talk and some media speculation during the late 1950s and early 1960s that right-wing groups wanted Ezra Taft Benson to run for president—either on an independent conservative ticket or as part of a third-party movement.

• In 1966, there were some reports (including from Utah-based sources and some national columns) suggesting that ultra-conservatives hoped Benson might be persuaded to run for president—potentially with Strom Thurmond as a running mate.

• For example, in an article from the Deseret News (or possibly the Salt Lake Tribune) in the mid-60s, Benson is mentioned as someone whose name had been floated by right-wing circles as a candidate.

However, Benson never publicly declared candidacy, and there’s no solid evidence that he himself initiated or endorsed such a plan. The Church also maintains a long-standing policy of political neutrality, and Church leaders at the time (including President David O. McKay) were careful about maintaining distance from political extremism.

---

📚 Supporting Evidence (Sources):

• David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Gregory A. Prince and Wm. Robert Wright — contains detailed accounts of internal Church discussions and Benson’s political activity.

• An Enemy Hath Done This — a collection of Benson's own speeches showing his strong political leanings.

• Articles from Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought and Sunstone have also discussed this topic, especially Benson's ties with the John Birch Society and right-wing activism.

---

🔍 Summary:

• Did Benson run for President? ❌ No.

• Was there a plan or talk among some groups for him to run? ✅ Yes.

• Was Strom Thurmond considered a running mate? ❓ Possibly mentioned, but not confirmed by official plans or public statements.

• Did Benson support the idea? 🤷 Likely aware, but no public endorsement or formal attempt.

 

[webbles]

22 minutes ago, longview said:

I made a second query of chatGPT for this (my first is at the bottom):

my third query to chatGPT:

I asked chatGPT (my first query):

 

In Sheri Dew's biography of Ezra Taft Benson, she writes about discussions between Benson and President McKay on whether he should accept an offer to be a presidential candidate. (page 383)

Quote

It was in October 1965 that he first learned of an organization called the "1976 Committee" - a committee that was to organize in 1966 and function for ten years. Its purpose was to inspire, promote, and guide political action to help restore, maintain, and strengthen the Republic. Among other things, it would promote candidates for U.S. presidential nomination. A spokesman for the committee informed Elder Benson that after three months of research, the committee had determined there were two men best suited to provide the United States with the strong leadership it needed: Ezra Taft Benson and Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Elder Benson was asked if he would be willing to run for president of the United States, with the senator as his running mate.

Elder Benson declined to respond until he had spoken with President McKay. On October 21, he outlined the situation for the prophet. President McKay indicated that Elder Benson had his permission to allow the committee to proceed, but that he should do nothing to either promote or hinder the campaign.

So ChatGPT is a little wrong.  Thurmond was definitely a vice president pick for this ticket.  And Benson definitely knew about it.  He just wasn't allowed to promote or hinder it, per President McKay.

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, longview said:

I made a second query of chatGPT for this (my first is at the bottom):

my third query to chatGPT:

I asked chatGPT (my first query):

 

So am I talking to a person or are you just a sockpuppet for an AI?

[longview]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So am I talking to a person or are you just a sockpuppet for an AI?

the AI gives me permission to say yes.

[ZealouslyStriving]

52 minutes ago, longview said:

the AI gives me permission to say yes.

😆👍🏻

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, longview said:

the AI gives me permission to say yes.

I just asked it if it gave this permission and it said no. It is lying to one of us.

[longview]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I just asked it if it gave this permission and it said no. It is lying to one of us.

If you asked Gemini, then it catered to your hyper-radical social-justice sensibilities. If you asked chatGPT, it would have told you that you smell like over-cooked cabbage.

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, longview said:

If you asked Gemini, then it catered to your hyper-radical social-justice sensibilities.

My what now?

21 hours ago, longview said:

If you asked chatGPT, it would have told you that you smell like over-cooked cabbage.

It is more of an asparagus smell.

[harfad]

The two big mistakes that everyone makes about this revelation is, firstly, that it is not about polygamy; it is about the eternity of the marriage covenant; which is not the same thing. Polygamy is permitted under that law; but the practice of it is not mandatory, nor a requirement for exaltation in the celestial kingdom of God. The only thing that is required for exaltation is eternal marriage with one wife. And the practice of it under that law is permissible and possible under the jurisdiction, authorization, and administration of the LDS Church. It is possible to practice polygamy outside of that divine mandate, as it has been done in many ancient cultures in the past; but to practice it under the New and Everlasting Covenant is possible only under the permission, administration, and authorization of the LDS Church.

This revelation has generated controversy because it has been used by polygamists and other breakaway groups as a justification for the continued practice of polygamy, when in fact that is not what it is all about. It is about the eternity of the marriage covenant, not polygamy.

The second mistake that people generally tend to make about this revelation is that they assume that it is a rare occurrence in the history of the LDS Church, because very few others like it have been published or made public. That is not so. The LDS Church has received hundreds of such (written) revelations since Joseph Smith, and preserved in the archives of the Church. They just haven’t been published or made public—and someday presumably they will be. The reason why this one has gained publicity is because of the controversy surrounding it.

Edited October 21, 2025 by harfad

[harfad]

.

Edited October 21, 2025 by harfad
Duplicate post

[harfad]

.

Edited October 21, 2025 by harfad
Duplicate post

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, harfad said:

The two big mistakes that everyone makes about this revelation is, firstly, that it is not about polygamy; it is about the eternity of the marriage covenant, which is not the same thing. Polygamy is permitted under that law; but the practice of it is not mandatory, nor a requirement for exaltation in the celestial kingdom of God. The only thing that is required for exaltation is eternal marriage with one wife. And the practice of it under that law is permissible and possible under the jurisdiction, authorization, and administration of the LDS Church. It is possible to practice polygamy outside of that divine mandate, as it has been done in many ancient cultures in the past; but to practice it under the New and Everlasting Covenant is possible only under the permission, administration, and authorization of the LDS Church. This revelation has generated controversy because it has been used by polygamists and other breakaway groups as a justification for the continued practice of polygamy, when in fact that is not what it is all about. It is about the eternity of the marriage covenant, not polygamy.

The second mistake that people generally tend to make about this revelation is that they assume that it is a rare occurrence in the history of the LDS Church, because very few others like it have been published or made public. That is not so. The LDS Church has received hundreds of such (written) revelations since Joseph Smith, and preserved in the archives of the Church. They just haven’t been published or made public—and someday presumably they will be. The reason why this one has gained publicity is because of the controversy surrounding it.

Wrong on both counts.  Completely wrong.

Sorry.

Specifically the context of the 1886 revelation makes it clear it's 100% about polygamy. It would make zero sense if it were about eternal marriage alone.

[harfad]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Wrong on both counts.  Completely wrong.

Sorry.

Specifically the context of the 1886 revelation makes it clear it's 100% about polygamy. It would make zero sense if it were about eternal marriage alone.

Wrong on all accounts, 100% wrong. The full text of the John Taylor revelation is as follows:

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

“Thus saith the Lord: All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, for I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever.

“Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years; and this because of their weakness—because of the perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; even so, Amen.”

The revelation is about the New and Everlasting Covenant, which which refers to eternal marriage (and other eternal covenants) exclusively. It has no relevance to polygamy at all. The “New and Everlasting Covenant” is revealed in Doctrine and Covenants section 132, which as the context makes clear, is about eternal covenants of various kinds, including eternal marriage, not polygamy. Polygamy is permitted under that law, but the practice of it is not mandatory, nor a requirement for exaltation in the celestial kingdom of God, as the context makes clear:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng

Edited October 21, 2025 by harfad

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, harfad said:

Wrong on all accounts, 100% wrong. The full text of the John Taylor revelation is as follows:

“My son John, you have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant how far it is binding upon my people.
Thus saith the Lord: All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, for I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever.

“Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years; and this because of their weakness—because of the perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; even so, Amen.”

The revelation is about the New and Everlasting Covenant, which which refers to eternal marriage (and other eternal covenants) exclusively. It has no relevance to polygamy at all. The “New and Everlasting Covenant” is revealed in Doctrine and Covenants section 132, which as the context makes clear, is about eternal covenants of various kinds, including eternal marriage, not polygamy. Polygamy is permitted under that law, but the practice of it is not mandatory, nor a requirement for exaltation in the celestial kingdom of God, as the context makes clear.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng

You ignore both the circumstances that brought abouth the revelation and the underlined highlights above.

As for D&C 132, I suggest you check again.

32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved. 33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham. 34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law;

Seems pretty clear what the law was at that time and in D&C 132.

[harfad]

I repeat what I said, the “law” makes polygamy permissible under the “New and Everlasting Covenant”, but the practice of it is not mandatory, nor a requirement for exaltation in the celestial kingdom of God. The only thing that is required for exaltation is eternal marriage with at least one wife.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, harfad said:

I repeat what I said, the “law” makes polygamy permissible under the “New and Everlasting Covenant”, but the practice of it is not mandatory, nor a requirement for exaltation in the celestial kingdom of God. The only thing that is required for exaltation is eternal marriage with at least one wife.

That may be, but the 1886 revelation concerns polygamy, not eternal marriage. The circumstances amd the portions I highlighted make that clear.

[harfad]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That may be, but the 1886 revelation concerns polygamy, not eternal marriage. The circumstances amd the portions I highlighted make that clear.

Still not correct. Polygamy had become a controversial issue at that time, and the John Taylor revelation became part of that controversial topic, and that is how it became associated with polygamy; but as the context of the revelation makes clear, the revelation itself was not about polygamy, but about the eternal nature of the marriage covenant. It is true, however, that the Church’s response to it initially was somewhat incongruous and erratic, and to that extent it can be said that the Church was somewhat at fault.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, harfad said:

Still not correct. Polygamy had become a controversial issue at that time, and the John Taylor revelation became part of that controversial topic, and that is how it became associated with polygamy; but as the context of the revelation makes clear, the revelation itself was not about polygamy, but about the eternal nature of the marriage covenant. It is true, however, that the Church’s response to it initially was somewhat incongruous and erratic, and to that extent it can be said that the Church was somewhat at fault.

Still continuing to ignore the facts and context. I'll let it go. If it makes you feel better to interpret it that way more power to you.

[Navidad]

On 6/15/2025 at 8:57 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

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

Amen! Thanks for using the F-word instead of the E-word! Ha! 

[Navidad]

On 6/15/2025 at 11:01 AM, JLHPROF said:

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.

😂

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) 

John W Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley were significant and influential apostles in the Mexican colonies. Some years ago I presented a paper at an annual MHA meeting on the Apostles and the Colonies. I don't even remember where it was given; methinks in SLC.

[Navidad]

I haven't read this whole thread in total. Let me just postulate this - what is the little-known factor that so many of the actors in this drama had in common? Their tight connection with the Mexican colonies, where plural marriage clearly continued little-abated into the 1920s - secret codes and all. Let me assure you that there was more to the involvement than turkey hunting on the Lunt family ranch in Pacheco! Anthony Ivins, Joseph F. Smith, Brigham Young, Jr., John W. Taylor, Matthias F. Cowley, Heber J. Grant, George Q. Cannon, J. Reuben Clark, Erastus Snow, Moses Thatcher, George Teasdale, and Abraham O. Woodruff - those are the apostles off the top of my head who had an in-depth engagement with our colonies and who, in not a few cases had a role in the continuation of plural marriage therein  

Edited October 22, 2025 by Navidad

[harfad]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Still continuing to ignore the facts and context. I'll let it go. If it makes you feel better to interpret it that way more power to you.

Talking nonsense again, “ignoring all the facts”. I am only interested in the truth; that is the only thing that “makes me feel better”. At that time polygamy had become controversial, because it had been declared illegal in the US—first by the Morrill Act of 1862, and then tightened further by the Edmunds Act of 1882 (and then tightened further again by the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887). The polygamy revelation of John Taylor was received in 1886, four years after the Edmunds Act of 1882 (and before the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887).

When the Edmunds Act of 1882 was passed, the Church was faced with a dilemma, to ignore or disobey the law of God, as revealed in D&C 132, and obey the law of the land instead; or to disobey the law of the land (and suffer the consequences), but stick with the law of God. The law of God revealed in D&C 132, however, known as the New and Everlasting Covenant, does not make the practice of polygamy mandatory for exaltation in the celestial kingdom of God; it makes it only permissible. The only thing that is mandatory for exaltation is eternal marriage with at least one wife. It appears at that time, in order to resolve the issue, John Taylor had inquired of the Lord if the whole of the New and Everlasting Covenant could be revoked by the Lord (which was not necessary), and to which the Lord said “no”. But that was not necessary anyway, to resolve the issue. The only thing that was necessary was to simply discontinue the practice of polygamy (which was not mandatory under the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage)—and which is what the Church eventually did.

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, harfad said:

It appears at that time, in order to resolve the issue, John Taylor had inquired of the Lord if the whole of the New and Everlasting Covenant could be revoked by the Lord (which was not necessary), and to which the Lord said “no”.

Why would he ask that since it wasn’t necessary to revoke the whole of the Covenant to abide by the law of the land, only to remove the authorization and practice of plural marriage?

[harfad]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Why would he ask that since it wasn’t necessary to revoke the whole of the Covenant to abide by the law of the land, only to remove the authorization and practice of plural marriage?

Good question. I can only assume it was due to confusion in the minds of Church leaders at the time, because, though not mandatory for exaltation, polygamy was nevertheless an integral part of law of the New and Everlasting Covenant, as revealed in D&C 132; and they felt at the time that they could not abandon the polygamy element, without violating that law somehow. And I suppose if you look at it from a purely logical point of view, that would have been a valid concern at the time. But ultimately when they examined all the possible options, and discovered that they were faced with either abandoning polygamy, and keeping Church intact; or keeping polygamy, and losing the Church altogether (which is exactly what would have happened), they decided wisely that giving up polygamy was the better option.

But the most important element, as far as the subject of the present discussion is concerned, is that the John Taylor revelation is not about polygamy. It is about the eternity of the marriage covenant. That is the main element of it. The context of the revelation makes that perfectly clear. Polygamy is permitted under that law; but the practice of it is not mandatory, nor a requirement for exaltation in the Kingdom of God. That is what the New and Everlasting Covenant is all about.

Edited October 22, 2025 by harfad