Messenger

The Authenticity and Meaning of the 1886 Revelation

Posted on 9/20/2008 at 8:51:22 AM

On September 27th, 1886 President John Taylor received what many have called his most controversial revelation. Its existence has been debated since the 1930s, and its standing and meaning have been called into question ever since.

It was written whilst Taylor was in hiding to avoid imprisonment for living plural marriage, and at a time when several Church members were calling upon him to end that practice. These facts are not disputed, even by the document’s critics. Neither have their been any suggestions that the text has been altered in any way, which is as follows:

“My son John: You have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant and 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 commandment, and yet I have borne with them these many years because of the perilous times. And furthermore it is pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in 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.”

Before looking at how this revelation has been differently interpreted, we will examine the evidence for its authenticity, because if it isn’t genuine it may not matter what it means.

Evidence for the 1886 Revelation

The earliest evidence we have of this revelation is at a meeting of the Quorum of Twelve a week prior to the release of the Manifesto, when Apostle John W. Taylor informed his fellow brethren that:

“My father when President of the Church sought to find a way to evade the conflict between the Saints and government on the question of plural marriage, but the Lord said it was an eternal and unchangeable law and must stand.”1

A couple of years later, at a similar meeting, he gave some additional details on how he came into possession of the original copy of this revelation:

“Among my father’s papers I found a revelation given him of the Lord, and which is now in my possession, in which the Lord told him that the principle of plural marriage would never be overcome. President Taylor desired to have it suspended, but the Lord would not permit it to be done.”2

By 1909 a copy of the revelation appeared in the Church Archives under the heading:

“Revelation given to John Taylor, September 27, 1886, copied from the original manuscript by Joseph F. Smith, Jr., August 3, 1909”3

From this we learn of the date of John Taylor’s revelation, and that Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., at the time the Church Historian and a future Church President, believed he had made his copy from the original manuscript. Later, at the trial of John W. Taylor, explained the circumstances behind this:

“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.”4

It was at this meeting that members of the Twelve asked John W. Taylor in detail about the revelation, much of what they discussed had to do with its meaning which we will return to later, but it does give one more evidence to its authenticity:

President Lyman: When did you find this revelation?

J. W. Taylor: I found it on his desk immediately after his death when I was appointed administrator of his estate.5

Here we learn that it was not just amongst President Taylor’s papers, but on his own desk. But what happened to it after that date, before it came into the hands of the Church historian? For this history we are indebted to a member of the LDS Church’s M.I.A. Board, Douglas M. Todd Sr., who in 1934 wrote its history in his journal:

“[After the revelation was received] A copy in President Taylor’s handwriting was taken to the Salt Lake Temple, and when danger of raiding and confiscation increased, it with other sacred records, was turned over to William Salmon to be placed somewhere to be safe. This revelation was delivered to John W. Taylor and for a time was in the custody of Rodney Badger in a deposit box at the Utah National Bank, but was finally returned to John W. Taylor.

Some time before his death, John W. was in business and Ellen Sanberg was his secretary. He married her as his sixth wife. After his death in 1916, Ellen took possession of the document. She went to work for L. N. Stohl at the Beneficial Life and he got the revelation and made photographic copies of it.

Soon after this, Nellie Taylor said one night after his death, John W. came to her with a troubled look on his face, and it was made known to her that he was concerned about this revelation the one given to John Taylor. Nellie went to Mill Creek and Ellen reluctantly surrendered it. Nellie took it to Frank Y. Taylor and asked that he deliver it to the Church Historian. Frank delayed and some inquiry was made about it. Nellie again saw him about it, and Frank decided to surrender it, but instead of taking it to the Historian’s office, he took it to President Grant and asked him if it was genuine and in the handwriting of his father. President Grant said it was. Brother Taylor asked how he could get around it. ‘I am not going to try to get around it,’ replied President Grant.’”6

Yet by the 1930’s the revelation’s authenticity (and the events surrounding it) became such a controversial subject that the First Presidency issued a statement about it, written by J. Reuben Clark. Below is the section of that statement that dealt directly with the revelation:

“It is alleged that on September 26-27, 1886, President John Taylor received a revelation from the Lord, the purported text of which is given in publications circulated apparently by or at the instance of this same [Mormon Fundamentalist] organization.

As to this pretended revelation it should be said that the archives of the Church contain no such revelation; the archives contain no record of any such revelation, nor any evidence justifying a belief that any such revelation was ever given. From the personal knowledge of some of us, from the uniform and common recollection of the presiding quorums of the Church, from the absence in the Church archives of any evidence whatsoever justifying any belief that such a revelation was given, we are justified in affirming that no such revelation exists.”7

As to the accuracy of this statement Mormon scholar Richard S. VanWagoner commented, in his book “Mormon Polygamy”, that “Whether unintentionally so or not, Clark’s statement proved to be incorrect on virtually every point.”8 As we have already read the Church Historian already admitted that there was a copy in the archives, and that he had copies of it from the original.9 Heber J. Grant and other Apostles were also at meetings in which the revelation was discussed in 1890, 1892 & 1911, and so could hardly be justified in denying that such a revelation existed. Yet, so that no future leaders could claim ignorance, “Frank Y. Taylor donated the original handwritten 1886 revelation to the Church”10 the month after the First Presidency letter was written.

What brought about such an attack against this revelation? J. Reuben Clark was the nephew of John W. Woolley, in whose home Taylor had received the revelation in 1886, and Woolley’s son Lorin (his cousin) had been instrumental in distributing the revelation and sharing his story about the events surrounding it. They presented a challenge to Clark’s authority and stance on plural marriage, one which he felt he could not let go unanswered. However, his statement has subsequently been undermined as the evidence of its authenticity has come forward.

How did the Mormon Fundamentalists he refers to come into possession of the revelation? Lorin Woolley claimed to have been at a meeting at which the revelation was presented to a select group of Saints, the earliest mention of this was to Nettie Taylor in 1893 (although he had spoken about related events a couple of years earlier)11

“Lorin said that right next door on the adjoining farm of John W. Woolley, President John Taylor was in hiding the night of September 26, 1886, when he received a revelation concerning the Principle and set men apart to continue it regardless of what the Church might do officially on the matter. Lorin said that he was one of the men set apart.”12

The next introduction was to Byron H. Allred Jr., who related to his son that when he “was a young man of 17 years in St. Charles, Bear Lake County, Idaho, in 1887, when Apostle John W. Taylor visited the Saints there.”:

“He took father aside on that occasion and read the 1886 revelation to him. Apostle Taylor told the writer’s father that the principle of plural marriage would never be done away and would be lived.”13

In line with Clark’s 1933 First Presidency statement, other Apostles took essentially the same position on the revelation when asked about it, although sometimes making some interesting admissions, as Anthony W. Ivins did just a year after the 1933 statement:

“The latter purported [1886] revelation of John Taylor has no standing in the Church. I have searched carefully, and all that can be found is a piece of paper found among President Taylor’s effects after his death. It was written in pencil and only a few paragraphs which had no signature at all.”14

Ivin’s objection to the revelation is intriguing, because, he admits the revelation was found amongst Taylor’s personal papers, and makes the point of adding that it didn’t have Taylor’s signature upon it, although – whilst he may have not realized it – Joseph Smith’s revelations were not signed either.

Later that same year another Apostle, Melvin J. Ballard, in a letter to Eslie Jenson, made a similar statement, with one extra detail of interest:

“The pretended revelation of John Taylor never had his signature added to it but was written in the form of a revelation and undoubtedly was in his handwriting.”15

Although he calls it a pretended revelation he admits it was written in John Taylor’s “own handwriting.” These contradictions were not lost on future scholars, and upon weighing the evidence Dean C. Jesse, a faithful LDS Church scholar “concluded in his study that it is highly probable that such a revelation does exist.’’16 This was cooberated by Dr. Reed C. Durham in 1974, who at the time was both President of the Mormon History Association and Coordinator of the LDS Church’s Seminary and Institute program. At a Stake High Priest’s meeting he stated conclusively that:

“There was a revelation that John Taylor received and we have it in his handwriting. We’ve analyzed the handwriting. It is John Taylor’s handwriting and the revelation is reproduced by the Fundamentalists. … The revelation is dated September 27; that fits the account of the meeting, 1886.”

Yet in that same year Mark E. Petersen wrote in his book, The Way of the Master, that:

“To justify their own rebellion, certain recalcitrant brethren … concocted a false revelation, allegedly given to President John Taylor in 1886.”17

Perhaps Petersen was unaware of the evidence, but this seems to have been the last time a General Authority has denied the revelations authenticity. A couple of year’s later J. Max Anderson, acting under Peterson’s direction wrote an anti-Fundamentalist treatise titled “Mormon Fundamentalism” in which he referred to it as “a little known, but authentic revelation of the Lord to John Taylor,”18 Although this part of his manuscript never made it into print (probably because of Peterson’s influence), it wasn’t long before other Church scholars were concluding that it was a genuine revelation from their own research.

To B.Y.U. Professor of History, D. Michael Quinn, the existence of the 1886 revelation wasn’t a matter of speculation, but of historical fact, to which he gave additional details, in his famous 1985 Dialogiue article, on the background behind the revelation and how Taylor acted after receiving it personally:

“During this 1884-86 period there were numerous appeals by prominent Mormons and friendly non-Mormons for President Taylor to issue a statement or new revelation that would set aside the practice of plural marriage.19 Burdened by his own exile and the sufferings of other Church members, John Taylor ‘asked the Lord if it would not be right under the circumstances to discontinue plural marriages,’ in response to which President Taylor received ‘the word of the Lord to him in which the Lord said that plural marriage was one of His eternal laws and that He had established it, that man had not done so and that He would sustain and uphold his saints in carrying it out.’20 Presently available documents of 1885-86 are silent about this revelation, but much later documentation and commentary identified this revelation as having been received by John Taylor on 27 September 1886.”21/22

Quinn was later asked about the revelation in the question and answer session, following a talk given in 1991, and responded:

“As a historian. I find that there is abundant evidence to demonstrate that the 1886 revelation occurred, that John Taylor was being asked to suspend or end the practice of plural marriage. And in response to a question relating to that, God told him in a revelation, a fairly brief revelation, that that should not occur and that God could not revoke the practice or principle of plural marriage.

… I really find it curious that there has been such a strenuous effort on the part of L.D.S. Church members and leaders to deny the existence of the 1886 revelation, because it makes them vulnerable to denying something that can be demonstrated as having occurred.”23

Professor B. Carmon Hardy, in one of his landmark studies on the subject of plural marriage, “Doing the Works of Abraham”, published in 2007, concurred with Quinn:

“If the location of the original manuscript remains undisclosed, evidence for its existence is nevertheless extensive. Not only have photocopies of the document circulated for years, and not only did contemporaries refer to it, but its content agrees with other statements President Taylor and his colleagues made at the time.”24

Even the Anti-Fundamentalists have had to admit that the 1886 revelation is genuine. Whilst in 1992 Brian C. Hales was still saying “the authenticity of the purported 1886 revelation to John Taylor is still questioned”25 Yet by 2006 he made the following admission:

“One such revelation was written on Monday, September 27, 1886. While some observers have questioned its authenticity, the document, though unsigned, appears to be in John Taylor’s handwriting and seems to be genuine.”26

Although this is not a ringing endorsement, the acceptance that it is probably genuine is quite a concession on behalf of someone trying to defend the Church’s official stance. But the revelation of 1886 has been weighed by Mormon scholars of note and found to be genuine, which puts the Church and its apologists in a precarious position. To this they believe they have found a solution – they have introduced a different interpretation of what the revelation is about.

New Interpretations

As has already been quoted the earliest understanding we have of the 1886 revelation is from John Taylor’s son who recounted that his “father when President of the Church sought to find a way to evade the conflict between the Saints and government on the question of plural marriage, but the Lord said it was an eternal and unchangeable law and must stand.”

John W. was 28 in 1886, and had been called as an Apostle two years earlier. When he made this statement he was in full standing with the Church, and it represents the interpretation accepted by most scholars27 that the revelation:

• Was prompted by a question about plural marriage

• Was speaking about plural marriage as a covenant, law and commandment – and as a practice

• Was considered the word of the Lord, whether or not the Church officially canonized it

• Was intended to be binding whether or not the Church officially presented, voted upon and accepted it

• Says that the practice of plural marriage would continue without abrogation or end

And – it has also been argued – that John Taylor actions (and those of Woodruff and Smith after him) show the results of this revelation or other revelations similar to it. Yet in the last 20 years – as it has become more apparent that the revelation is authentic – alternative interpretations have arisen from apologists for the Church. We will look at five such views and what John Taylor, his contemporaries and other revelations had to say about them.

Arguments regarding the scope of the revelation

1. Was it just a personal revelation applying to Taylor alone?

It would seem that those who argue this point overlook a great deal of references within the revelation itself to God’s people. The revelation begins with a question of “how far it is binding upon my people”, then speaks of “those calling themselves by my name” (an obvious reference to all Latter-day Saints), and the last three sentences all refer to “those who would enter into my glory” (or variations thereof). Would any of us not want to be included in those he is referring to?

Yet the revelation did have an obvious effect on Taylor personally as detailed by one scholar:

“Such a revelation on this date would explain the dramatic change in John Taylor’s personal circumstances and resistance to federal laws against polygamy. Until 1886, John Taylor’s public and private defense against the U.S. government was the argument that he had married his fifteen wives prior to the 1862 Morrill Act, that his last polygamous child had been born in 1881 and therefore all his polygamous children were legitimized by the provisions of the Edmunds Act of 1882, … Yet less than three months after the recording of the 1886 revelation, seventy-eight-year-old John Taylor married as a plural wife twenty-six-year-old Josephine Roueche on 19 December 1886. The ceremony was performed by her father, a high priest, and witnessed by George Q. Cannon and one of the ‘Underground’ guards, Charles H. Wilcken. At the end of 1886, President Taylor had chosen for the first time in his life to specifically violate federal laws on polygamy and unlawful cohabitation, and he lived with his new bride at the Roueche home in Kaysville, Utah, the remaining seven months of his life.”28

2. Was it just applied to the period of Taylor’s presidency?

Was President Taylor asking about eternal principles or temporary problems, and what did the Lord have to say about how far the revelation applied? The text makes it clear that Taylor was asking about an “everlasting covenant.” But what about the language of the rest of the revelation, does it give the impression that it was limited in time and who it applied to? Let us examine a few of its sentences and the implications of limiting their scope to just the couple of years before Taylor died:

“All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name”

Would God ever cease to ask us to obey the commandments? Do we still call ourselves by His name?

“My everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with; but they stand forever.”

How can this only apply to Taylor’s presidency? Could “forever” have stopped when he died?

“I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not”

Is this really a relative statement? Is it the Lord, His word, covenants, and law that have changed or others beliefs about or acceptance of them?

“All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law”

Does this cease to apply if we live at a different time (than in which the revelation was given)?

“I have not revoked this law nor will I”

What part of this sentence is ambiguous? How can it be interpreted in any way to say that the law spoken of has been suspended, or that we are excused for not living it?

3. Was it not binding upon the Church? (Vox Populi, Vox Dei)29

It is argued that as the 1886 revelation supposedly was never presented for the authorities to sustain or approve it that – as they did not have the chance to accept it – we are not obliged to live it. Yet we learn from Nellie Taylor, the wife of Apostle John W. Taylor that:

“When President Taylor received this revelation at the home of John W. Woolley at Centerville, he sent a messenger to Salt Lake asking those of the presidency and twelve who were there to meet him at Centerville. … The revelation was submitted and received.”30

Some have tried to cast doubt on this account by claiming that it was saying that the Apostles were sent for the very same day the revelation was received, and by pointing out that few of them were available at the time. However, there is nothing in the text that precludes the Apostles having been sent for days or weeks later, or them coming over a period of time as they were available. The important point of the story is that they ultimately accepted it. But what if they had not approved, what difference would it have made?

The scriptures give us no indication that a vote was taken to approve God’s revelation to Noah to flood the earth. There may indeed have been people, who may have considered themselves part of the ancient church, who objected to that deluge happening without their approval right up until the point that the water rose above their necks, and left them unable to verbalize their objections any longer. Likewise, one cannot easily imagine the wayward Israelites being asked to sustain the Ten Commandments, or the possibility of Moses going back to the Lord to ask for an easier set of rules, if they rejected them.

Here we must refer again to the question of how far it is binding on God’s people, which is the question the revelation began with. Did God think when He gave His words that they would be of no relevance or importance unless the Church members voted on them? He said His “word” and His “covenants” do not change. Whether they are presented for approval or not will alter what He has said and promised. He already stated that “great numbers of my people have been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandment.” Would these same people be the best to decide if the Lord’s words applied to them?

A faithful member of the Church brought to President George Q. Cannon’s attention that some of the Saints were beginning to take the view that “when Joseph, the Seer, gave a revelation it must be tested in this way – that is, it must first be presented to the High Council or the Twelve Apostles, for their approval,” etc. This was Cannon’s response to that idea:

“It seems nonsensical that the Prophet of God should submit to such a test as this, and not deem the revelations he received authentic until they had the approval of the different quorums of the Church. They were authentic and divinely inspired, whether any man or body of men received them or not. Their reception or non-reception of them would not effect in the least their divine authenticity. …”

Joseph himself had too high a sense of his prophetic office and the authority he had received from the Lord to ever submit the revelations which he received to any individual or to any body, however numerous, to have them pronounce upon their validity.”31

Cannon did admittedly suggest that Church members could vote to see if they consider something binding, but he never proposed that this could have any effect on the authenticity of a revelation itself. Joseph Smith’s revelation on Plural Marriage was not canonized until 1876, yet for over 30 years before men were still commanded to obey it. But what if the Saints as a body did decide to reject a revelation, what would that status of it (and them) be? President B.H. Roberts mused upon this possibility and concluded the following:

“Suppose a law is promulgated before the Latter-Day Saints, and the Church, in the exercise of the liberty which God has conferred upon them, reject it, the question is then asked, what remains? The truth remains. The action of the Church has not affected it in the least.

The truth remains just as true as if the Church had accepted it. Its action simply determines the relationship of the members to that truth; and if they reject it, the truth still remains; and it is my opinion that they would not make further progress until they accepted the rejected truth.”32

Arguments regarding the correct interpretation of the revelation

4. Is it still being fulfilled (by widowers remarrying)?

There are some who believe that the revelation received in 1886 is indeed about plural marriage, but have come up with a novel explanation as to how it is still being fulfilled. They suggest that those men who remarry after their first wives have died are still keeping the law the Lord promised would never be revoked.

In the days when plural marriage was lived with the encouragement of the LDS Church at least one woman similarly wondered whether her husband could live the law if he had dead women sealed to him. She inquired “What is the difference in a man having dead wives sealed to him than living women, so that he has one living wife; will they gain as great an exaltation if they have dead women sealed to them as they would if they had living women sealed to them?” To which the Prophet John Taylor responded:

“This Law pertains more particularly to the living, … You seem to be desirous of having dead women sealed to your husband instead of living ones, where as the law pertaining to these matters does not put things in that shape. We read that the Lord commanded and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife, and it is for wives as well as husbands to perform their part in relation to these matters as explicitly stated in verse 64 [of D&C 132] wherein it is said: If “he teaches unto her the law of my Priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God.”33

Thus President John Taylor made it clear that the law could not be lived without having more than one living woman sealed to a man. Without that the wives would not have the opportunity to perform their part in the law. It might also be argued that without multiple women married to one man at the same time it is neither plural marriage, nor could they and their husband ever learn the lessons and experiences the Lord intended to come only by way of this principle.

5. It isn’t speaking about plural marriage?

The Lord states in the revelation itself that He has “given [His] word in great plainness on this subject” What subject is he speaking about? He uses a couple of different phrases to describe the “law” and “commandment” he is addressing, such as the “new and everlasting covenant” and “the works of Abraham.” Perhaps the most telling line is the one in which the Lord states that “great numbers of my people have been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandment” What law and commandment were so many of the Saints at that time being negligent in keeping?

In early 1886 John Taylor received a letter from an anonymous Latter-day Saint, which reminded him of the negligence most of the Saints were showing towards one particular law. Its author wrote to him:

“You proclaim to the people that there are 2 percent polygamists and 98 percent monogamists, now with half of those in polygamy going back on it, and the other half hiding away, what do you expect to accomplish? … Order an election of all the people and let them say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ without fear or hinderance, and you will see for yourself how they feel, …”34

That this view was widespread is sustained by Professor Glen Vernon of B.Y.U. University, who concluded that: “Even under legal and religiously approved circumstances, only a minority wished to practice polygyny.”35

The “New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage” was first mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants, Section 131, given a few months prior to Section 132 which also uses the phrase “New and Everlasting Covenant” to refer to marriage also. In a revelation on plural marriage received by John Taylor, the Lord told him that:

“This law is a Celestial Law and pertains to a Celestial Kingdom. It is a new and everlasting covenant, and appertains to thrones, principalities, powers, dominions, and eternal increase in the Celestial Kingdom of God.”36

Wilford Woodruff, who knew Joseph well, and learned from him about “the new and everlasting covenant”, made it clear what he believed the phrase to be referring to:

“When a man, according to the revelation, [Section 132] marries a wife under the holy order which God has revealed, and then marries another in the same way, he enters into the New and Everlasting Covenant …”37

“The new and everlasting covenant is marriage, plural marriage – men may say that with their single marriage the same promises and blessings had been granted. Why cannot I attain to as much as with three or four? … It is the eternity of the marriage covenant, and includes the plurality of wives and takes both to make the law.”38

Likewise, the phrase “works of Abraham” is from Joseph Smith’s 1843 revelation on marriage, and his contemporaries, like Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, used it to refer to plural marriage also:

“Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? … this is the religion of Abraham, and, unless we do the works of Abraham, we are not Abraham’s seed and heirs according to promise.”39

“They [Joseph and Hyrum] had to do the works of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in order to be admitted where they are – they had to be polygamists in order to be received into their society.”40

The Lord simply referred to plural marriage as “the Law”:

“God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.”41

John Taylor sustained the view that the law itself was polygamous:

“The question is: What is the Law? The 34th verse says: ‘God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law: and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.’”42

Likewise, President Woodruff taught this same doctrine:

“We declare to all men that the God of heaven commanded Joseph Smith to introduce and practice the patriarchal order of marriage, including the plurality of marriage, including the plurality of wives. And why? Because it was the law given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob …”43

The Lord’s words allow us no “wiggle room” or “get out clause” in which we can overlook, or ignore them. If the revelation means that plural marriage must continue as a practice then this can mean one of only three things:

1. God changed His mind

2. The Church leaders supersede the authority of God

3. It must have continued to the present day

Number three is the only possibility, for otherwise God would have ceased to have been God.44 Some argue that the principle has remained, although the practice has ended. But we have already shown that it was the practice that Taylor was asking about, and what would be the point of God saying it would never end if he was just referring to the principle and not the practice.

After receiving the revelation, President Taylor answered the many letters asking him to give up the practice in unequivocal terms. One of his replies should suffice:

“It is very well to talk glibly about compromising and arranging for dispensing with polygamy, as they call it, but they know nothing of the tremendous consequences that would befall us as a people, or as individuals, if we should follow their suggestions, or allow sympathy, or acquiescence with their views, to have a place in our hearts.”45

The 1886 meeting & the 1886 revelation

If the 1886 revelation is authentic, and is speaking about plural marriage – and this article has already shown that it is – this presents a problem for those who try to disprove the 1886 meeting that they seem to have ignored: Most arguments against the 1886 meeting are the same or similar to those against the 1886 revelation:

1. It wasn’t received / it didn’t happen

2. There isn’t any contemporary journal evidence for it

3. It was made up afterwards

4. Even if it happened it doesn’t matter

All such arguments against the 1886 revelation have proven untrue, and have shown the LDS Church leaders and apologists who proposed them to be mistaken or dishonest. There is no contemporary diary evidence for the 1886 revelation, but no modern scholar disputes it was received on September 27th, the day of the 1886 meeting, and General Authorities and faithful LDS historians have admitted its authenticity. Yet the anti-Fundamentalists still claim that the 1886 meeting couldn’t have happened because of the lack of diary evidence.

If those same journals avoid speaking of President Taylor receiving such a significant revelation, then why don’t they? From this we can conclude that: 1) A lack of diary evidence – either of the revelation or meeting – is no indicator of what happened on that day. At the least it shows that – like many other important spiritual events in Gospel history – we cannot use the fact they were not written down at the time as any indicator of whether they happened or not. 2) It is quite possible that they purposely avoided mentioning what went on that day, which would indicate that something of great importance or of a sacred nature occurred (because the revelation itself would probably not have justified such caution).

Having established that the 1886 revelation is authentic and is about the law of plural marriage, then in order for the Lord’s words to be true and His prophecy to come to pass: God would have had to have ensured that this practice continued, and – considering the Church’s current stance – this must be happening outside of the official auspices of the Church, therefore something like the 1886 meeting would have had to have happened, and as Woolley’s account is the only candidate for this we should consider it seriously – for our exaltation depends upon it having happened.

Footnotes

1. Abraham H. Cannon Journal, 30 September 1890.
2. Abraham H. Cannon Journal, 29 March 1892.
3. Historical Department, LDS Church Archives.
4. John W. Taylor File, February 22 and March 1, 1911.
5. John W. Taylor File, 22 February 1911.
6. Douglas M. Todd, Sr., 1 September 1934.
7. Official Statement, Deseret News, Church Section, 18 June 1933.
8. Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy – A History, 1989, p. 186 (2nd ed.)
9. John W. Taylor also had given a copy to Wilford Woodruff in 1887, which resided in the archives. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. 22 September 1891, Letter of George E. Woolley to Orson A. Woolley, 20 May 1921.
12. Family Kingdom, 1951, Samuel W. Taylor, p. 72.
13. Rulon Allred, The Most Holy Principle, Vol. 4, Sec. 7, 85. See A Leaf in Review, Byron H. Allred, Jr., p. 190.
14. Anthony W. Ivins Letter File, 10 February 1934.
15. 31 December 1934, Marriage – Ballard-Jenson Correspondence, p. 17.
16. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought; Autumn, 1970, pg. 15, footnote 10.
17. Mark E. Petersen, The Way of the Master, 1974, p. 57.
18. J. Max Anderson, Mormon Fundamentalism (unpublished), 1976.
19. D. Michael Quinn, LDS Church Authority and Plural Marriage, Dialogue, 18:1:28-30, Spring 1985. Fn. 88: JD 25:309, 26:7; Deseret Evening News, 23 April, 5 June 1885; Juvenile Instructor 20:136 (1 May 1885), 20:156 (15 May 1885); Abraham H. Cannon Diary, 13 May 1885; Heber J. Grant Journal, 13 May 1885; Clark, Messages of the First Presidenct 3:27; George Q. Cannon Diary, 6 Nov. 1885 etc.
20. Ibid, fn. 89: Statement of John W. Taylor to the apostles in Heber J. Grant, Journal, 30 Sept. 1890, also in First Presidency Office Journal, 2 Oct. 1889, copy in CR 1/48, LDS Church Archives; in Abraham H. Cannon, Diary, 1 April 1892; in Minutes of the Quorum of Twelve, 22 Feb. and 1 March 1911, LDS Church Archives. …
21. Ibid. fn. 90: “Revelation to President John Taylor, September 27, 1886, copied from the original manuscript by Joseph F. Smith, Jr., August 3, 1909,” in Joseph Fielding Smith Papers, LDS Church Archives.
22. Ibid.
23. D. Michael Quinn talk, RCA Building, 11 August 1991.
24. B. Carmon Hardy, Doing the Works of Abraham, 2007, p. 325.
25. Brian C. Hales, The Priesthood of Modern Polygamy, 1992, Chapter 4.
26. Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism, Brian C. Hales, 2006, p. 37.
27. Quinn, Van Wagoner, Hardy … it could be argued that Clark & Peterson had this interpretation or else they would have had no reason for disputing authenticity of revelation.
28. LDS Church Authority and Plural Marriage, D. Michael Quinn, Dialogue, Spring 1985.
29. Latin: “The voice of the people is the voice of God”
30. Douglas M. Todd, Sr. Journal, 1 September 1934
31. George Q. Cannon, Juvenile Instructor, 1 January 1891, vol. 26:13-14.
32. B. H. Roberts, Improvement Era Vol. 8:363-4.
33. John Taylor to Malinda Merrill, 19 January 1883, John Taylor Papers.
34. Taylor papers, Manuscripts, U of U Library.
35. Professor Glen Vernon, BYU, Sociology of Mormonism, p. 209.
36. Revelation to John Taylor, June 25 & 26, 1882, John Taylor papers.
37. Wilford Woodruff to Bishop Samuel A. Woolley, 22 May l888; Wilford Woodruff Letterbook, p. 38.
38. Wilford Woodruff, Quarterly Conference, 3&4 March 1883, Utah Historical Record, p. 271.
39. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:322.
40. Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 4:224.
41. Doctrine and Covenants 132:34.
42. John Taylor to Malinda Merrill, 19 January 1883, John Taylor Papers.
43. Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses 23:131.
44. See Alma 42 & Mormon 9.
45. 2 May 1887, John Taylor to Franklin S. Richards.