1886 John Taylor Revelation

[ZealouslyStriving]

was added to the Church History catalog.

Is this proof that the Church acknowledges it's authenticity?

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/3aec2ea6-fdeb-4866-9529-47e27f9cd3b9/0?view=browse&lang=eng&fbclid=IwQ0xDSwK6kjdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHtnKRDFRlEiyZxP6y5b_syyNNqHaANAfKVzefPGsw1vhIFOiDaomGuassLBa_aem_DWf2_RuuwQ9xt1Q5eVqNWQ

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

was added to the Church History catalog.

Is this proof that the Church acknowledges it's authenticity?

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/3aec2ea6-fdeb-4866-9529-47e27f9cd3b9/0?view=browse&lang=eng&fbclid=IwQ0xDSwK6kjdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHtnKRDFRlEiyZxP6y5b_syyNNqHaANAfKVzefPGsw1vhIFOiDaomGuassLBa_aem_DWf2_RuuwQ9xt1Q5eVqNWQ

I would say “no”.  Don’t they collect even antimormon materials? 
 

Also accepted or purchased Hofmann documents when their authenticity was unknown.

Though the description does not include the controversy for some reason….so evidence, but not proof imo.  Proof would be an official statement accepting it.

Quote

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.

Just noticed this popup:

Quote

The Church History Library collects materials by or about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members. These materials come from a wide spectrum of sources and represent numerous points of view. Users of the catalog should not assume that the Church or the Library endorses every item in the collection.

Catalog users may encounter outdated language and/or concepts in descriptions of collections. We are working to make our descriptions more accurate and representative of the diversity of God’s children. We will evaluate and address feedback using professional and Church History Department standards.

So downgrade the acceptance from the slight upgrade from the no controversy mentioned description  

Edited June 15, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I would say “no”.  Don’t they collect even antimormon materials? 
 

Also accepted or purchased Hofmann documents when their authenticity was unknown.

Though the description does not include the controversy for some reason….so evidence, but not proof imo.  Proof would be an official statement accepting it.

Just noticed this popup:

So downgrade the acceptance from the slight upgrade from the no controversy mentioned description  

https://mormonr.org/qnas/vFgD6f/john_taylors_1886_revelation?fbclid=IwY2xjawK7G39leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHi2gtzfvDLgOSwbxaaundOPlncALIcfHZgb_cZwVJUUvoaAAg5aDUd3Qmwkn_aem_J2bnUVAbYODoYHigfVR1RQ

 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

was added to the Church History catalog.

Is this proof that the Church acknowledges it's authenticity?

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/3aec2ea6-fdeb-4866-9529-47e27f9cd3b9/0?view=browse&lang=eng&fbclid=IwQ0xDSwK6kjdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHtnKRDFRlEiyZxP6y5b_syyNNqHaANAfKVzefPGsw1vhIFOiDaomGuassLBa_aem_DWf2_RuuwQ9xt1Q5eVqNWQ

Pretty cool that we can now look at it.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

https://mormonr.org/qnas/vFgD6f/john_taylors_1886_revelation?fbclid=IwY2xjawK7G39leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHi2gtzfvDLgOSwbxaaundOPlncALIcfHZgb_cZwVJUUvoaAAg5aDUd3Qmwkn_aem_J2bnUVAbYODoYHigfVR1RQ

 

Good to know, thanks

[webbles]

15 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

https://mormonr.org/qnas/vFgD6f/john_taylors_1886_revelation?fbclid=IwY2xjawK7G39leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHi2gtzfvDLgOSwbxaaundOPlncALIcfHZgb_cZwVJUUvoaAAg5aDUd3Qmwkn_aem_J2bnUVAbYODoYHigfVR1RQ

 

I missed that Saints talks about the revelation.

[Calm]

Quote

Joseph Fielding Smith[BIO] makes a copy of the Taylor revelation for the Church Historian's Office.[8]

Did Joseph Fielding originally go by Joseph F, Jr?

Quote

Revelation given to John Taylor, September 27, 1886, copied from the original manuscript by Joseph F. Smith, Jr. August 3, 1909," typescript copy, April 25, 1972, John Taylor Papers, MS 50, Box 1, Folder 20, Special Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah

And how did it end up at the UoU if it was originally in the Church Archives and not JFS or someone else’s personal possession?  Anyone know?

Why does Mormonr say it was for the Church Historian’s Office?  Why couldn’t it have been a personal copy?  There is nothing on the document indicating the purpose or destination of the copy? (This is asked out of curiosity and a desire to have the known facts accurately described without assumptions.  I don’t want to misrepresent what happened or tilt it favorably towards the Church where it’s uncertain….well, maybe a little, but I try to overcome that inclination; but I want to know what I can and cannot rely on and what is assumption when I do construct in my head my ‘most likely scenario’.

Edited June 15, 2025 by Calm

[longview]

Is it possible to accept both the 1886 revelation and the 1890 Manifesto as simultaneously true? Many Church members, from 1890 to the present, understand the following: (1) the 1890 Manifesto did not revoke any plural marriage sealings performed prior to its issuance—Church leaders and others continued living with their plural wives; and (2) the practice of plural marriage continued in a limited way. In mortality, a male member may be sealed to only one living wife at a time, but he may also be sealed to additional spouses who are deceased—before or after his current spouse—which does not violate legal standards.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, longview said:

Is it possible to accept both the 1886 revelation and the 1890 Manifesto as simultaneously true? Many Church members, from 1890 to the present, understand the following: (1) the 1890 Manifesto did not revoke any plural marriage sealings performed prior to its issuance—Church leaders and others continued living with their plural wives; and (2) the practice of plural marriage continued in a limited way. In mortality, a male member may be sealed to only one living wife at a time, but he may also be sealed to additional spouses who are deceased—before or after his current spouse—which does not violate legal standards.

I see that as a reasonable interpretation 

[Duncan]

On 6/15/2025 at 4:10 PM, Calm said:

Did Joseph Fielding originally go by Joseph F, Jr?

And how did it end up at the UoU if it was originally in the Church Archives and not JFS or someone else’s personal possession?  Anyone know?

Why does Mormonr say it was for the Church Historian’s Office?  Why couldn’t it have been a personal copy?  There is nothing on the document indicating the purpose or destination of the copy? (This is asked out of curiosity and a desire to have the known facts accurately described without assumptions.  I don’t want to misrepresent what happened or tilt it favorably towards the Church where it’s uncertain….well, maybe a little, but I try to overcome that inclination; but I want to know what I can and cannot rely on and what is assumption when I do construct in my head my ‘most likely scenario’.

until his father died, Joseph Fielding Smith, used to go by Joseph F. Smith Jr.

[The Nehor]

On 6/15/2025 at 7:04 PM, longview said:

Is it possible to accept both the 1886 revelation and the 1890 Manifesto as simultaneously true? Many Church members, from 1890 to the present, understand the following: (1) the 1890 Manifesto did not revoke any plural marriage sealings performed prior to its issuance—Church leaders and others continued living with their plural wives; and (2) the practice of plural marriage continued in a limited way. In mortality, a male member may be sealed to only one living wife at a time, but he may also be sealed to additional spouses who are deceased—before or after his current spouse—which does not violate legal standards.

A little hard to do. The 1886 revelation implies that plural marriage is mandatory for exaltation.

I take a bit of issue with the 1886 revelation:

“Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject?”

No, not really God. Even in this revelation you are talking around the subject and speaking in what seem to be euphemisms for plural marriage. In Section 132 you talk around the subject forever before getting to the point so that people think the whole thing isn’t about plural marriage despite you explicitly saying it is at the start. Need to work on that plainness thing really.

[ZealouslyStriving]

23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A little hard to do. The 1886 revelation implies that plural marriage is mandatory for exaltation.

I take a bit of issue with the 1886 revelation:

“Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject?”

No, not really God. Even in this revelation you are talking around the subject and speaking in what seem to be euphemisms for plural marriage. In Section 132 you talk around the subject forever before getting to the point so that people think the whole thing isn’t about plural marriage despite you explicitly saying it is at the start. Need to work on that plainness thing really.

I believe Doctrine and Covenants 132 is very plain- in an attempt to be as loyal as possible, I have just learned to leave it alone.

[Tacenda]

On 6/19/2025 at 10:23 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

I believe Doctrine and Covenants 132 is very plain- in an attempt to be as loyal as possible, I have just learned to leave it alone.

Like a very active believing friend said the other day, you just put it on a shelf, not to me specifically but those around me. Which was surprising because in my lifelong membership I'v never heard that phrase until my faith crisis and only from others like myself expressing things that break the shelf. Now believing members have that shelf to deal with, I guess it's because the church has become more forthright with this history. 

Edited June 20, 2025 by Tacenda

[ZealouslyStriving]

56 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Like a very active believing friend said the other day, you just put it on a shelf, not to me specifically but those around me. Which was surprising because in my lifelong membership I'v never heard that phrase until my faith crisis and only from others like myself expressing things that break the shelf. Now believing members have that shelf to deal with, I guess it's because the church has become more forthright with this history. 

To me to "put something on the shelf" implies having doubts or questions- that is not what I am doing. I don't question certain "Pioneer Era" teachings- I just think that perhaps the Church has been a little excessive in marginalizing them- but I sustain the keys, keep my mouth shut, and imperfectly do my duty "with a heart full of song".

[Stargazer]

On 6/18/2025 at 5:52 PM, The Nehor said:

A little hard to do. The 1886 revelation implies that plural marriage is mandatory for exaltation.

I've gotten into this particular argument before on this board. To the great disgust of certain other posters. 

The reason for the disgust is that I have stated my belief concerning exaltation, which is that more women than men will be worthy of exaltation. If that is the case, then some women who were otherwise worthy of exaltation would be unable to be raised up to it due to all the exaltation worthy men being already sealed to an eternal wife. In this situation a man who refused to accept an additional sealing would be denying a worthy woman the opportunity for exaltation. If he is going to be so selfish as to deny a worthy woman the opportunity of eternal marriage, it seems that that would make him unworthy of it himself. This belief of mine really winds some people up because the very idea of plural marriage being a divine law is anathema to them. 

That's just my understanding of the matter. I haven't bothered to read the 1886 revelation (so far), and since it is not part of canon I confess to a certain amount of disinterest in it.

On 6/18/2025 at 5:52 PM, The Nehor said:

I take a bit of issue with the 1886 revelation:

“Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject?”

No, not really God. Even in this revelation you are talking around the subject and speaking in what seem to be euphemisms for plural marriage. In Section 132 you talk around the subject forever before getting to the point so that people think the whole thing isn’t about plural marriage despite you explicitly saying it is at the start. Need to work on that plainness thing really.

LOL. Speaking in too much plainness is what gets people assassinated. Not that anyone is going to assassinate God, but they're sometimes pretty eager to assassinate His messengers. I wonder if what John Taylor got was much more "to the point," and he larded it up with more equivocation for just the reason why we are all having a cow about it now.