Polygamy revelation given to President Taylor in 1886

[Zakuska]

Quote

 

Given to President John Taylor September 27, 1886

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.

 

Any one ever hear of this revelation before?

 

Edited December 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

 

Given to President John Taylor September 27, 1886

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.

Any one ever hear of this revelation before?

 

This is the foundational text of the Fundamentalist Mormon movement.  The LDS Church has taken a variety of positions on the veracity of the revelation, but the most common (which I'm sure someone will post shortly) is that it wasn't canonized so it doesn't matter.

I think pretty much anyone who has studied polygamy or Church history of the period is already familiar with this revelation.

To me the most significant point in it is "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".

I think that this had a lot to do with the manifesto being issued.  Most changes to the Church have come as a result of member agency.

Oh, and it's been discussed on the board frequently.

 

Edited December 17, 2015 by JLHPROF

[volgadon]

It has been discussed here in the past.

[Gray]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 The LDS Church has taken a variety of positions on the veracity of the revelation, but the most common (which I'm sure someone will post shortly) is that it wasn't canonized so it doesn't matter.

 

 

I've heard that as well. But that's a pretty interesting idea given so many of the church's positions are outside of canon (for example, the Proclamation on the Family)

[Glenn101]

The New and Everlasting Covenant is not polygamy, although plurality of wives is part of it. But God can suspend that part at His pleasure.(Jacob 2:27 for example.)

[rpn]

Isn't this the "revelation" that President Taylor didn't share, but that his son said he heard President Taylor receive?  (Which lead to Pres. Taylor's son rejecting the manifesto.)

[Zakuska]

President Taylor was excommunicated for his rejection of the Manifesto.

[Zakuska]

His wives and kids.

https://lifeafterministry.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/polygamy-and-mormon-church-leaders-3-john-taylor.pdf

1 1.28.1833(24) Lenora Cannon (36) 4 kids

2 12.12.1843(35) Elizabeth Kaighan (32) 3 kids Cousin of Lenora Cannon

3 2.25.1844(35) Jane Ballantyne (30) 3 kids Sister of Ann

4 1.7.1846(37) Ann Hughings Pitchforth (38) 0 kids Deserted her husband to marry Taylor (bigamy)

5 1.14.1846(37) Mary Ann Oakley (19)* 5 kids

6 1.17.1846(37) Mary Amanda Utley (24) 0 kids Didn’t go to Utah w/ Taylor

7 1846(37) Annie Ballantyne (26) 0 kids Granted divorce in 1852

8 1.23.1846(37) Mary Ramsbottom (19) 0 kids Didn’t go to Utah w/ Taylor

9 1.30.1846(37) Lydia Dibble Granger (Smith) (55) 0 kids With John Taylor as proxy, sealed to Hyrum Smith 1.30.1846

10 1.30.1846(37) Sarah Thorton (Coleman) (38) 0 kids Another ‘guardianship’ marriage. Divorced 1853.

11 1.23.1846(37) Mercy Thompson (Smith) (38) 0 kids Marriage for time: Taylor proxy for Robert Thompson

12 4.23.1847(38) Sophia Whitaker (22) 8 kids Sister of HarrietEnglish immigrant

13 12.4.1847(39) Harriet Whitaker (31) 3 kids English immigrant

14 1847 (39) Caroline Hooper Saunders Gillian (34) 0 kids

15 9.27.1856 (47) Margaret Young (19) 9 kids Converted to Mormonism at age 14, moved to Utah in 1858.

16 1856 (47) Josephine Elizabeth Rouche (16) 0 kids Married Taylor while in hiding in 1856.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

25 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

President Taylor was excommunicated for his rejection of the Manifesto.

No, his son was excommunicated for his rejection of the Manifesto.

He wasn't the first Mormon to go off the rails because he didn't want to sustain the living prophet.

Nor will he be the last.

 

[Jeanne]

16 hours ago, Zakuska said:

 

 

Any one ever hear of this revelation before?

 

This is new to me! 

[Zakuska]

17 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

No, his son was excommunicated for his rejection of the Manifesto.

He wasn't the first Mormon to go off the rails because he didn't want to sustain the living prophet.

Nor will he be the last.

 

Yes you are correct.  John Taylor was prophet. John W. Taylor the Apostle resigned over the issue.

[hope_for_things]

This revelation makes me think of what David Whitmer recounted Joseph saying after the failed expedition to Canada to sell a copyright for the BoM.  "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil." 

The early church practice of common consent is an interesting concept.  In essence the people would vote on whether the revelations are from God.  But this practice wasn't universally applied, and when it came to what was canonized a vote would take place on the entire book that was edited and amended by leaders, they didn't have the choice to just accept each individual revelation or portion of the revelation.  

Then there is the problem with the word revelation, and the cultural baggage that comes with it.  Does a revelation contain the perfect words of God translated directly into the English language word for word, or is it a much more subtle attempt by mortals to express inspired thoughts filtered through culture and environment.  

For polygamy, what we know is that John Taylor, Brigham, Wilford Woodruff and many other church leaders all believed it would never be revoked.  If you read the history around post manifesto polygamy it was a very messy period of time with confusing direction from church leaders on the subject.  And this confusing period of time is now looked back on by 21st century saints as if a clear divine revelation ended polygamy in 1890, when the history shows anything but that.  No clear revelation received at any point really, just a lot of messy history, response to federal government actions and an abandoning of the practice for survival sake.  I can picture in my mind a God dragging the church out of polygamy, kicking and screaming over the course of multiple decades, at least that's how I see it.  

 

[Russell C McGregor]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

This revelation makes me think of what David Whitmer recounted Joseph saying after the failed expedition to Canada to sell a copyright for the BoM.  "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil." 

I'm sorry. I don't believe Joseph said that.

Incidentally, the original of the so-called Canadian copyright revelation has been found, and (surprise surprise) it turns out to be conditional. Not only that, but the conditions were apparently not met, so there's no need to explain anything away.

[Zakuska]

5 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I'm sorry. I don't believe Joseph said that.

Incidentally, the original of the so-called Canadian copyright revelation has been found, and (surprise surprise) it turns out to be conditional. Not only that, but the conditions were apparently not met, so there's no need to explain anything away.

More on that...

"We anticipated a bombshell,\" Harper said of the revelation's text. Instead, Harper said it was like Joseph's other revelations. \"By which I mean it (contains) terms and conditions upon which certain blessings are predicated.\"In the revelation, the Lord said, \"And I grant unto my servant a privilege that he may sell a copyright through you — speaking after the manner of men — for the four provinces, if the people harden not their hearts against the enticings of my spirit and my word; for behold, it lieth in themselves to their condemnation or to their salvation.\"In other places the revelation predicated blessings \"according to your faith and diligence and uprightness before me.\" The travelers to Canada were told to do their work \"with an eye single to my glory.\" They were also told \"if ye do this ye shall have my spirit to go with you and ye shall have an addition of all things which is expedient in me.\"\"So, those guys will be successful in selling the copyright IF they'll do it with an eye single to the glory of God AND if the people up there harden not their hearts,\" Harper said. \"In Joseph's revelations you find a God who uses his omniscience to preserve individual agency. It's a remarkable theological feature.\"

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705337036/Newly-found-revelation-of-Joseph-Smith.html?pg=all

Edited December 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I'm sorry. I don't believe Joseph said that.

 

Then it was an interesting decision to include the tools in the temple endowment for determining false revelation vs true revelation.  Pretty sure Joseph did teach there are three spirits that influence us.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

No, his son was excommunicated for his rejection of the Manifesto.

He wasn't the first Mormon to go off the rails because he didn't want to sustain the living prophet.

Nor will he be the last.

 

He was just one of almost all the general authorities at between 1890 & 1904 that ignored the manifesto completely.

However, he was one of only two that were disciplined AFTER the 1904 second manifesto was issued.

[Cold Steel]

My understanding of the document is that it's never been substantiated. But even if it isn't canonized, if it is legitimate it ought to be taken seriously. My personal belief is that it wasn't signed, it wasn't in Taylor's journal, so it can't be authenticated. The fLDS groups have been shown to be less than honest in their histories and claims. And they're known to be ruthless, murderous and not too bright. All the intermarriage is causing some serious genetic problems in their communities as well. 

I keep reading Jacob's (brother of Nephi) admonition in Jacob 2. Plural marriages, he said, were not the norm for God's people. "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things." It is somewhat ambiguous in context to some, but if we look at the Nephite society, we don't see plural marriages. The Lord had to pull a gun on the prophet to get him to live it, and then it became so entrenched that people chose excommunication rather than give it up. Did plural marriage raise up seed to the Lord in its early days? Yes, it worked quite well. And it worked for the patriarchs. But after awhile there can be genetic problems unless there's a steady influx of new blood into the community. The upcoming generation of young men also may have a difficult time finding mates if carried to the extreme. So I don't think the church could have sustained the practice, especially if we were to be a missionary and temple building church. 

That's why I question the "revelation" and I think it all worked out for the best. Next to prosperity, polygamy has been the severest trial the church has gone through to date. 

 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

My understanding of the document is that it's never been substantiated. But even if it isn't canonized, if it is legitimate it ought to be taken seriously. My personal belief is that it wasn't signed, it wasn't in Taylor's journal, so it can't be authenticated.

It's been shown to be in President Taylor's handwriting.

Even FairMormon concede "it's probably genuine".

Edited December 18, 2015 by JLHPROF

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

My understanding of the document is that it's never been substantiated. But even if it isn't canonized, if it is legitimate it ought to be taken seriously. My personal belief is that it wasn't signed, it wasn't in Taylor's journal, so it can't be authenticated. The fLDS groups have been shown to be less than honest in their histories and claims. And they're known to be ruthless, murderous and not too bright.   

 

Handwriting analysis easily confirms the revelation was written by President John Taylor. I don't know who signs pages of journal but I think the point that the "revelation" wasn't shared and therefore may have been just a personal revelation or belief, is important to consider.

I bolded this inflammatory section because this could also apply to LDS Mormons. (Honesty in history and claims, ruthless- study up about LDS violence in Missouri/Illinois and early Utah, The "not to bright" is totally subjective)

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I'm sorry. I don't believe Joseph said that.

Incidentally, the original of the so-called Canadian copyright revelation has been found, and (surprise surprise) it turns out to be conditional. Not only that, but the conditions were apparently not met, so there's no need to explain anything away.

I believe they found the 1833 BoC version of this revelation, correct me if I'm wrong and they found a hand written earlier dated version.  With the original revelation first given in 1829, what changes were made from the original 1829 time period until they prepared the revelation for publishing in 1833 is anyone's guess.  

There is other evidence from the early days that conditions began to be placed in revelations only after the original more bold revelations went unfulfilled.  A good example of this is with respect to the development of priesthood and healings that went unfulfilled, see Gregory Prince's book "Power from on High: The Development of Mormon Priesthood".  

[stemelbow]

I would say moreso then than now, "revelation" was a word attributed to presumptuous thoughts.  It still happens, I think, but it was more common 130 years ago.  I can't really fault them for being expectedly weak on these matters.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I would say moreso then than now, "revelation" was a word attributed to presumptuous thoughts.  It still happens, I think, but it was more common 130 years ago.  I can't really fault them for being expectedly weak on these matters.

I wonder if revelation isn't always a combination of presumptuous thoughts and with a measure of inspiration.  However, with all the revelations that time proves to be false, how can we ever have confidence about what is inspired and what's not?  It certainly should require a large dose of humility.   

[stemelbow]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I wonder if revelation isn't always a combination of presumptuous thoughts and with a measure of inspiration.  However, with all the revelations that time proves to be false, how can we ever have confidence about what is inspired and what's not?  It certainly should require a large dose of humility.   

I agree.  Well said.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I believe they found the 1833 BoC version of this revelation, correct me if I'm wrong and they found a hand written earlier dated version.  With the original revelation first given in 1829, what changes were made from the original 1829 time period until they prepared the revelation for publishing in 1833 is anyone's guess.  

CFR please

[hope_for_things]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR please

I've seen this CFR acronym on this board multiple times before, I think it means support your claim, but I don't know what it stands for, would you enlighten me, I couldn't find it when I googled CFR.  

I did a little more digging on JSPP and they say the revelation was dated 1830, approximately in the January to March timeframe.  It doesn't answer by question about the original text for the revelation, as this text is from Revelation Book 1, which was started in approximately March of 1831 with John Whitmer being the scribe.  John Whitmer was copying earlier texts and putting them into Revelation Book 1, many of which aren't extant today.  So this text could have been written any time from March 1831 all the way up to 1833 prior to the BoC being published, even though this revelation was left out of that the BoC publication for whatever reason.    http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/revelation-circa-early-1830?p=1&highlight=copyright

My question was about whether we have an earlier copy of this revelation as it is possible that the text was modified for the BoC.  We have examples of other earlier revelations being modified to fit later narratives, sometimes including anachronisms or changes to the original meaning and context of the revelation.  

Edited December 18, 2015 by hope_for_things
spelling