Did John Taylor Have Revelation To Continue Polygamy?

[MormonMason]

Gee whiz, MormonMason -- it seems like you can't tell a genuine revelation from a phony one, except by trying to analyze the handwriting that it was written in.

Seems that you know me not, then. Oh well. I said there were many reasons why I reject the document. Handwriting is only one of several reasons. Just to give you an example, I knew the Salamander letter and Josiah Stowell letters were forgeries before I studied their handwriting and stylistic considerations. Prayer revealed they were both fakes in addition to the physical evidence I saw before the forensics people got done with them. That should be a key to it.

[seishido01]

The Church has the original. It's in John Taylor's handwriting. LDS leaders such as Heber J. Grant and Melvin J. Ballard have admitted that it's certainly in President Taylor's handwriting.

See?

Here's a transcription:

From a meeting of the Twelve on February 22, 1911:

The new and Everlastin Covenant is Celestial Marriage, plural Marriage is for lack of better words, an afterthought in D&C 132. It is an aplication of the Covenant with more than one woman, not part of the covenant itself. The church has never taught that plural Marriage was necessary for Exhaltation, and it is utterly inconsistent with reason and the history of all Cannon. There have been countless prophets who have only had one wife, and it would be silly to think they would be held back because of it. If the letter is indeed a revelation (which has certainly not been proven), it in no way points directly to plural Marriage. Only to the Celestial Marriage covenant itself.

Before anybody cries foul I know full well the revelation came about due to a question about the plurality of wives. Reason should dictate that the LORD would have to go over the whole subject to make sense in his explanation to Joseph. That does not mean that Celestial Marriage with 2 + wifes is a "higher" law than the same with 1.

[Jessicka]

Here is an example showing the two forms of the letter M John Taylor writes:

Doesn't this second M look like the first character of the second to last line on the second page? I'm no graphoanalyst, but they look pretty close to me....

[MormonMason]

Doesn't this second M look like the first character of the second to last line on the second page? I'm no graphoanalyst, but they look pretty close to me....

Close but not quite the same. The 'm' in the second to the last line is a lower-case 'm' whereas the 'M' in the known sample is an initial and capital letter M. In addition, take a close look at the slants, the letter y and the various points that differ in Taylor's second initial and capital M from the lower case 'm' on the second to the last line.

In the example on the white background we have a break at the beginning of the third flourish, no loop between the first and second parts where the two strokes connect, and no abrupt turn to form the next letter as there is in the other document. If you look carefully you will see other examples of differences.

What is unfortunate is that I do not have a clearer copy to work with and the resolution is rather poor. Differences and similarities would be much more readily apparent.

[erichard]

Gee whiz, MormonMason -- it seems like you can't tell a genuine revelation from a phony one, except by trying to analyze the handwriting that it was written in.

As a connoisseur of fine revelation (which always remain bright and get better over time), I find the September 27, 1886 John Taylor revelation very authentic. It goes well with all other John Taylor revelations that I have found.

I also recommend the Wilford Woodruff revelations-- which are certain to be authentic as they are found in his famous pioneer Journal.

I certainly do not believe that the September 27, 1886 John Taylor revelation, or any of his revelations, prove in any way the Lorin Wooley claims. When the above mentioned book, "The Polygamy Story" by J Max Anderson first came out in 1972 I read it, and have always recommended it to anyone looking into the Mormon polygamy groups. It examines the Lorin Wooley story step by step and brings out historical evidence against it.

The LDS mormonfundamentalism.com website by Brian C. Hales, admits that the John Taylor revelations are authentic, but also maintains that they do not support the Wooley claims.

Two of the John Taylor revelations in the pdf file I linked to above are found in the church accepted book, Messages of the First Presidency. Three of the JT revelations were put into European editions of the Doctrine and Covenants, but later taken out. I can give you quotes from ldsces.org that mention several of John Taylor's revelations if someone is interested. Several are also mentioned in this website list of John Taylor Papers at the University of Utah.

Richard

[seishido01]

After reading the text multiple times it seems suspect to me in the way it reads, regardless of handwriting. I admit here that I am basing this on the way the lord sounds to me in the other revelations I've read. So it is just a feeling more than something I can prove especially since I'm not a linguistics expert. Still, had Pres Taylor actually recieved this as a revelation he would have said something about it before his death. And once again plurality of wives is NOT part of the "New and Everlasting Covenent" It is simply its applicaiton to more marriages than one. Finally, in the manifesto it nowhere states that the lord had changed a doctrine. He was instead ending a practice of application of the doctrine where it could no longer be beneficial.

There are many instances where the LORD has commanded something to be done and then changed his command when the situation no longer required it or the people messed it up and needed a new command. (the second set of commandments from mount Sinai comes to mind among many others)

No doctrine in the church has ever changed. Only the way we practice it as commanded by the LORD.

I think I'm getting off subject here.

Anyway, I can't see how anything in these writings are problematic for either the veracity of the Church, the prophet Joseph Smith (or John Taylor for that matter) or the New and everlasting Covenant.

It is interesting discussion though.

[All-Seeing Eye]

I see no conflict. The concept of the Everlasting Covenant is still alive and well. The plural marriage part has changed in application for the time being (one spouse has to die first) but the Lord never revoked his word. The manifesto simply put a stop to polygamy where both wives are alive.

Is it your position, then, that the Manifesto did not put a stop to forms of polygamy where only one wife is alive at a time? Is it still "polygamy" if only one wife is alive at a time? If not, why not just say that the Manifesto put a stop to polygamy, period? Alternatively, if so, then would you agree that the church still practices a form of polygamy today?

[All-Seeing Eye]

Seems that you know me not, then. Oh well. I said there were many reasons why I reject the document. Handwriting is only one of several reasons. Just to give you an example, I knew the Salamander letter and Josiah Stowell letters were forgeries before I studied their handwriting and stylistic considerations. Prayer revealed they were both fakes in addition to the physical evidence I saw before the forensics people got done with them. That should be a key to it.

OK. Since you apparently have god's ear, please tell us what your prayer reveals to you about this document allegedly from Taylor.

[MormonMason]

OK. Since you apparently have god's ear, please tell us what your prayer reveals to you about this document allegedly from Taylor.

Even if I told you the answer, you would never believe it. Why bother?

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Yes, of course it's still Polygamy All seeing eye.

IF one TRUELY believes in the eternal nature of both the soul and the marriage covenant, then there IS NO WIGGLE ROOM. It is Polygamy, straight and simple. It was only the practice of two wives on earth at the same time that has stopped.