Tens of thousands of Mormon Fundamentalists believe that in 1886 Joseph Smith came to John Taylor and instructed him to set apart a group of men to keep alive plural marriage even when the Church should reject that principle.

Just like the visitation of God to Joseph Smith there were no visual means to record what happened, and although - like the visit of Moroni to show the gold plates - there were witnesses, they also didn’t record it or share what had happened until after the event, as is the case with many of the greatest scriptural and spiritual events.

However, this does not mean that there are no indications of the truthfulness of what went on at that time. God has given us principles by which to judge the truth, history gives us precedents so we can see what is possible, and Prophets foretell the future, so that when it comes to pass we can know it is from God. Using these tools we can judge what someone claims, to see if it contradicts principle, follows precedent, and fulfills prophecy. By seeking the Spirit as we study we can also obtain a divine confirmation.

With these standards in mind let us look into how this story of God providing a way to keep plural marriage alive meets these tests.

Principles

1 – Plural Marriage

“He then put each person under covenant that he or she would defend the principle of Celestial or Plural Marriage, and that they would consecrate their lives, liberty and property to this end, and that they personally would sustain and uphold that principle.”

If Plural Marriage was just a temporary practice, without eternal consequences for not living it or celestial blessings for fulfilling it, then we could easily understand God allowing it to end. Whatever temporal benefits it might have provided and despite the difficult adjustments for some that giving it up might create, there would be no everlasting harm in letting it go.

But if it were an eternal and unchangeable law, necessary for exaltation, required for maintaining Priesthood keys, and if God had promised to keep it on the earth, then we would expect Him to ensure that it continued, despite what course others might take, or what opposition against it there might be. We might also hope that He would explain this through his prophets and the revelations He gave them.

So let us look at the scriptures on this subject and see what they have to say. In Section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants we are told that:

“There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated – And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.”1

This would seem to indicate that God determined before ever sending us to earth that certain laws would lead to definite blessings, and that – as this is irrevocably decreed – these laws would never change, and the blessings would always be available to the righteous. This conforms to what Joseph taught on this subject:

“Ordinances instituted in heaven before the foundation of this world in the Priesthood for the salvation of man, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved upon the same principles.”2

Is it possible that one such law could be plural marriage? At the beginning of Joseph Smith’s 1843 revelation on the subject, the Lord tells us:

“I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.”3

Some may assume that the Lord here is only speaking about eternal monogamous marriage, but the Lord later clarifies what type of marriage he is talking about. Firstly, he states that he is now going to reveal this eternal law:

“I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was.”4

He reminds us that he is the author of this law, that it is a law of the Priesthood, and that it was determined even prior to the earth’s creation. And what is this 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.”5

Celestial Marriage, as the first verse we quoted tells us, comes with conditions, and the fulfillment of those promises (spoken about in the verse above) comes through keeping the commandment to live plural marriage as Abraham did. It is interesting to note that this is the only revelation to Joseph Smith that speaks of exaltation6, and that the Lord states fourteen times that this law is necessary to celestial glory.7

President John Taylor was once asked if a woman might obtain exaltation with her husband without taking additional wives, referring to these passages, this was his reply:

“You seem desirous to take part of the Law and reject the other part, but it is plainly stated as above quoted, that they were ‘to do the works of Abraham, and that if ye enter not into my Law, ye cannot receive the promise of my Father which was made unto Abraham.’ It is further said: ‘God commanded Abraham and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife, and that the reason why she did it was because it was the Law.’ It is evident therefore from the whole of the above that other wives were included in this Law as well as the one.”8

In a revelation subsequently given to John Taylor the Lord stated even more clearly:

“This law is a Celestial law and pertains to a Celestial Kingdom. … and appertains to thrones, principalities, powers, dominions, and eternal increase in the Celestial Kingdom of God.”9

2 – Authority

“John Taylor set the five mentioned apart and gave them authority to perform marriage ceremonies, and also to set others apart to do the same thing as long as they remained on the earth; and while doing so, the Prophet Joseph Smith stood by directing the proceedings.”

Most Latter-day Saints understand the basic principle that in order to perform saving ordinances it is necessary that you hold the proper Priesthood authority, however, having and exercising the proper Priesthood authority is also dependent upon living certain laws. One is not ordained before being baptized, and a person does not get set apart for a calling without keeping at least the law of chastity or tithing.

This is just as true for a deacon as it is for the prophet. As the Lord reminded Joseph, the keys he held were dependent on him fulfilling certain essential obligations:

“the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom shall not be taken from my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., through the means I have appointed, while he liveth, inasmuch as he obeyeth mine ordinances.”10

After Joseph received the sealing keys of Elijah in the Kirtland temple he explained that those keys were dependent upon not only receiving ordinances, but also performing them:

“The spirit, power, and calling of Elijah is, that ye have power to hold the key of the revelation, ordinances, oracles, powers and endowments of the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood and of the kingdom of God on the earth; and to receive, obtain, and perform all the ordinances belonging to the kingdom of God, …”11

Could plural marriage have been amongst the ordinances the Lord and Joseph Smith speak of? In this matter we have the words of Joseph himself, who told one of his wives,

“I put it [entering plural marriage] off and put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish that principle upon the earth, I would lose my position …”12

Lorenzo Snow related how Joseph had also told him of the same angelic warning:

“Yet the Prophet hesitated and deferred from time to time, until an angel of God stood by him with a drawn sword, and told him that, unless he moved forward and established plural marriage, his Priesthood would be taken from him …”13

Did this only apply to Joseph Smith though or to all those who might hold the keys of the Priesthood? In this area we are not left to speculate either. “Heber [C. Kimball] was told by Joseph that if he did not do this [take another wife] he would lose his Apostleship.”14 This requirement applied to all of the Apostles, as John Taylor recalled:

“When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church, that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them and given to others.”15

This was not a temporary test though, but an eternal principle revealed by the Lord later to John Taylor himself:

“Thus saith the Lord to the Twelve, and to the Priesthood and people of my Church: … You may appoint Seymour B. Young to fill up the vacancy in the presiding quorum of Seventies, if he will conform to My law: For it is not meet that men who will not abide My law shall preside over My Priesthood;”16

Subsequently Seymour took another wife.17 John Taylor explained why living this law was so necessary to holding and presiding over the keys of the Priesthood:

“If we do not embrace that principle soon, the keys will be turned against us. If we do not keep the same law our Heavenly Father has kept we cannot go with him. A man obeying a lesser law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher law.”18

Those who do not live the law of plural marriage cannot preside over those who do, and are not worthy to hold the keys of the Priesthood at all. In fact, if they had those keys but didn’t embrace that principle, the keys would be turned against them, and “taken from them and given to others” as Joseph Smith warned they could be.

Precedent

1 – Priesthood & Church

“Among many other things stated by President Taylor on this occasion was this: “I would be surprised if ten per cent of those who claim to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood will remain true and faithful to the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, at the time of the seventh president, and that there would be thousands that think they hold the Priesthood at that time, but would not have it properly conferred upon them.”

The Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood were restored prior to the organization of the Church.19 Likewise, baptisms were performed, revelations were received, and missionaries were sent out prior to the Church existing.20 These events were not put to a vote of common consent, nor were they recorded upon any official records. God did not wait upon the Church organizing before beginning the restoration, and Joseph wasn’t prevented from being a prophet prior to there being members to sustain or reject his actions.

What about after the Church was organized – did every ordination wait upon arms raised to the square before it was valid, did every revelation wait until it was printed before being acted upon? Were there ever times when the will of the Lord and the actions of His prophet conflicted with the official rules and policies of the Church? Which took precedence and what was valid in such cases?

Perhaps the most pertinent example of one such conflict was between Church policy and divine principle on the law of plural marriage. It was first revealed by God in 1929, prior to the organization of the Church, whilst Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon21, and was again mentioned in an unpublished 1831 revelation, which was also unknown to Church members.22

Oliver Cowdery, acting in Joseph’s absence, in 1835 made plural marriage against the rules and policies of the Church, in a statement on marriage accepted for publication in the Doctrine and Covenants, where it remained for decades afterwards. It declared “we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband.”23 It was sustained by Church members and canonized by the Church, and yet was in direct conflict with the actions of Joseph Smith (who had not long married his first plural wife) and the revelations given by God to him.

What was Joseph to do? He had two choices – disobey God or the Church. If he believed he derived his authority to perform or enter marriages came from the Church he could not have continued to perform and practice plural marriage against its laws. Doing so could lead to his excommunication24, and – as it was also against the law in the states in which he lived25 – it could also lead to his imprisonment.

It was certainly a difficult decision, one which he did not take lightly. In fact, he hesitated for several years until the Lord sent an angel with a drawn sword who told him:

“Joseph, unless you go to and immediately teach that principle and put the same in practice, [you] should be slain. For thus saith the Lord, that the time has now come that I will raise up seed unto me as I spoke by my servant Jacob as is recorded in the Book of Mormon26, therefore, I command my people.”27

This revelation left him in no doubt as to what the Lord’s will was, despite the rules of the Church, he was commanded to practice plural marriage and to share that principle with his trusted allies, so that the Lord’s choicest spirit children might be raised up on earth.

The Church was a divine organization, and Joseph was the earthly head of it, but he presided over the Priesthood before he ever was sustained President of the Church, and although plural marriage was against the laws of the Church and state, the Lord revealed to him in 1843 that plural marriage was a law of the Priesthood itself:

“I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was.”28

By this same authority Brigham Young carried on this law, which was only accepted officially by the Church in 1852.29 However, if the Saints had wanted another man as Church President, would Brother Brigham and the other Apostles have accepted that man as his Priesthood head? President Young faced this prospect when Sidney Rigdon wanted to become the guardian of the Church, and this is what he had to say then:

“If the people want President Rigdon to lead them, they may have him. But I say unto you that the quorum of the Twelve have the keys of the kingdom of God in all the world. They stand next to Joseph and are the Presidency of the Church, and hold the keys and would have to ordain any man unto that appointment that should be chosen. You cannot appoint any man at our head. … But if you want any other man to lead you, take him, and we will go our way to build up the kingdom in all the world. … Don’t put a thread between the Priesthood and God.”30

President Young said he didn’t “care who leads the church”31 because he held the keys. But if the Church had chosen someone else to lead them, it would have led to a division between the Church and Priesthood, with the Apostles going elsewhere to build up the kingdom. But this would not have been the first time it had happened in Gospel history:

“Why have they [the Jews] wandered so far from the path of truth and rectitude? Because they left the Priesthood and have had no guide, no leader, no means of finding out what is true and what is not true. It is said the Priesthood was taken from the Church, but it is not so; the church went from the priesthood, and continued to travel in the wilderness, turned from the commandments of the Lord, and instituted other ordinances.”32

If that happened in our day who would be the prophet and preside over the keys? Would it be the Church President or the head of the Priesthood? On this issue Brigham Young also gives us an important insight:

“Joseph presided over the church by the voice of the Church. Perhaps it would make some of you stumble, were I to ask you a question – Does a man’s being a prophet in this Church prove that he shall be president of it? I answer, no! A man may be a prophet, seer and revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being the president of the Church. Suffice it to say that Joseph was the president of the Church, as long as he lived. The people chose to have it so. He always filled that responsible station, by the voice of the people. Can you find any revelation appointing him the president of the Church? The keys of the priesthood were committed to Joseph, to build up the Kingdom of God on the earth, and were not to be taken from him in time or in eternity; but when he was called to preside over the Church, it was by the voice of the people; though he held the keys of the priesthood independent of their voice.”33

So the people chose to have Joseph as Church President, but he held the keys independently, whether or not the Church members wanted it that way. Fortunately for them they did sustain Joseph and later Brigham, because if they had not done so they would have only separated themselves from the authority and revelation necessary for their exaltation.

2 – Higher Quorums & Ordinations

“After that he talked for about an hour and then sat down and wrote the revelation which was given him by the Lord upon the question of Plural Marriage. Then he talked to us for some time, and said, “Some of you will be handled and ostracized and cast out from the Church by your brethren because of your faithfulness and integrity to this principle, and some of you may have to surrender your lives because of the same, but woe, woe, unto those who shall bring these troubles upon you.”

We learn from the Joseph Smith Translation of Exodus that Moses originally offered the fullness of the Gospel to the Israelites, but upon finding them to have departed so far from the Lord’s laws when he returned from the mount, this offer was revoked and a lesser law put in its place. Thus the Lord informed them:

“I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst …”34

Thus the higher Priesthood ordinances were not available to them, yet they continued to function – albeit in a lesser capacity – as the Lord’s Church and people, whilst a few carried on living the Gospel fully, such as the 70 elders of Israel, who did go to the mount and there saw God. However, the majority of the people either did not want or did not qualify for those blessings:

“Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God; But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory. Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also.”35

The “holy order” the Lord took away from the children of Israel exited in the days of Alma as can be seen from the thirteenth chapter of the book of his name:

“Now they were ordained after this manner – being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end – … and it was on account of their exceeding faith and repentance, and their righteousness before God …”36

We are generally only acquainted with two degrees of the Melchizedek Priesthood – the Aaronic (or Levitical Priesthood) and the general Melchizedek Priesthood offices available in the Church. But at the beginning of this dispensation it was prophesied by Moroni that a higher degree of Priesthood would be restored:

“Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.”37

In partial fulfillment of this - the keys of this Priesthood were restored in April 1836 (it is worth noting that this was the year after the ordination of the Quorum of Twelve and the formation of the First Presidency):

“After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us, and said: Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi – testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come – … Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors.”38

That the Kirtland Temple did not complete the process of this higher Priesthood being fully restored can be seen from a revelation to Joseph Smith in 1841 in which he was commanded to:

“Build a house to my name, for the Most High to dwell therein. For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.”39

As we quoted earlier, Joseph made it clear that this “fullness of the Priesthood” was obtained through the keys and ordinances restored by Elijah:

“The spirit, power, and calling of Elijah is, that ye have power to hold the key of the revelation, ordinances, oracles, powers and endowments of the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood and of the kingdom of God on the earth.”40

Those holding the fullness of this Priesthood are called “Kings and Priests” in the scriptures41, Joseph Smith calls this the “last law”42 and set out the requirements for obtaining it:

“If a man gets a fullness of the priesthood of God he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord.”43

The Prophet taught that it was the highest of the “three grand orders of Priesthood.”44 It was not an optional blessing that some might experience, but a requirement for exaltation, as he told the Saints, “you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, …”45

In 1842 he began giving the initiatory ordinances of this Priesthood to a faithful few, and in doing so set apart an ancient Priesthood Council:

“I spent the day … instructing them in the principles and order of the Priesthood, … and so on to the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood, … by which any one is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessings which have been prepared for the Church of the Firstborn … In this council was instituted the ancient order of things for the first time in these last days.”46

After this higher Church of the Firstborn was restored, Joseph finally felt that he could entrust a few men with a knowledge of the principle of celestial plural marriage, but doing so did not come without suspicion and opposition, as the Prophet’s scribe recorded:

“Conversed with Heber C. Kimball concerning a plot that is being laid to entrap the brethren of the secret priesthood by Bro. H. and others.”47

However, this secret Priesthood continued, despite such plots and betrayals, and in the Autumn of 1843, the ordinance and ordination required for the fullness of the Priesthood and admittance into its holy order were given in full, as Joseph Smith’s diary records:

“Baurak Ale [code name for Joseph48] was by common consent, and unanimous voice chosen president of the quorum, and anointed and ordained to the highest and holiest order of the priesthood (and companion).”49

The History of the Church just records this as “By the common consent and unanimous voice of the council, I was chosen president of the special council.”50 It was amongst men ordained to this order, that higher doctrines were taught and plural marriages performed, outside of the auspices of the Church, and the knowledge of the majority of its members.

A couple of months earlier, as he was anticipating being made head of a higher Priesthood organization, Joseph felt as if he could leave the running of the Church in the capable hands of his brother Hyrum, said He, “Hyrum should be the prophet;” but, the Church History adds, he “did not tell them he was going to be a Priest now, or a King by and by;”51 Referring to the higher organization he was involved in. The Saints did not take this news well, however, as they did not fully understand that he was talking about higher Priesthood and offices. He recalled in his journal that:

“Last Monday morning, certain men came to me and said, ‘Brother Joseph, Hyrum is no Prophet - he can’t lead the Church. If you resign, all things will go wrong; you must not resign; if you do, the Church will be scattered.’ I felt curious and said, “Have you not learned the Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, which includes both Prophets, Priests, and Kings?”52

Upon Joseph’s death, Brigham Young even considered keeping alive this Priesthood more important than the lives of the Twelve Apostles being taken:

“I know there are those in our midst who will seek the lives of the Twelve as they did the lives of Joseph and Hyrum. We shall ordain others and give the fullness of the priesthood, so that if we are killed the fullness of the priesthood may remain.”53

Even though these were ordinations sometimes outside of the Quorum of twelve and without public knowledge, he was determined at all costs that the Fullness of the Priesthood should remain upon the earth. It was under its authority that celestial plural marriages and the ordinances of the temple were carried out, and by 1852 – when plural marriage was officially accepted by the Church – this higher Priesthood and the Church were able to act in harmony in keeping these laws alive.

However, by 1886 it had become apparent that much of the Church would no longer sustain higher laws, nor were worthy of higher Priesthood, and so – as Joseph did in 1843 – John Taylor set men apart as he had been to keep these laws alive, so that when it was again against the choices and policies of the Church, the authority would continue – in secret if necessary – as it had before 1852.

Prophecy

1 – Plural Marriage Would Not End / Would Continue

“He then set us apart and placed us under covenant that while we lived we would see to it that no year passed by without children being born in the principle of plural marriage. We were given authority to ordain others if necessary to carry this work on, they in turn to be given authority to ordain others when necessary, under the direction of the worthy senior (by ordination), so that there should be no cessation in the work.”

If plural marriage was merely a temporary practice, then we might expect God to say so either at its beginning or end. If it was a harmless tradition that didn’t lead to conflict with the world then we might understand the Lord not saying anything about it. But the Lord, as we have already seen, declared it an eternal law, and essential to exaltation. In light of this what did the Lord’s prophets have to say about how long it would continue, or if it could ever end?

Joseph Smith: “It is an eternal principle, and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.”54

Brigham Young: “For so God help us, we will never give up that holy law that noble prophets laid down their lives to maintain. … The powers of hell will do their utmost to get this people to give up that holy law which God designs to maintain.”55

John Taylor: “It is an eternal part of our religion, and we will never relinquish it - We cannot withdraw or renounce it - He has promised to maintain it.”56

Wilford Woodruff: “We wont quit practicing plural marriage until Christ shall come.” “The Lord will never give a revelation to abandon Plural Marriage.”57

Lorenzo Snow: “Though I go to prison, God will not change His law of celestial marriage.”58

Joseph F. Smith: “There are, however, enough witnesses to these principles to establish them upon the earth in such a manner that they never can be forgotten or stamped out. For they will live; … they are bound to prevail, because they are true principles.”59

The test of a true prophet is whether their prophecies are fulfilled. If plural marriage has continued then we can place confidence in their callings and words, but if not then we “lay the axe to the root of the tree” that we as Latter-day Saints reside on the branches of. Perhaps some might argue that they couldn’t have anticipated what was going to happen. Would they say the same of our heavenly Father - Did He expect plural marriage to end in 1890, or to continue to our day? In 1886 he gave a revelation to John Taylor which left us in no doubt as to what His will was:

“Thus saith the Lord … 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.”60

With these words, the Lord promised that he would never revoke (end, repeal or withdraw) the law of celestial plural marriage. John Taylor was in hiding because of the persecution that arose due to this law, and God left him and us in no uncertainty of His intention to keep this law alive, and never remove it.

2 – Another People

“President Taylor said that the time would come when many of the Saints would apostatize because of this principle. He said “one-half of this people will apostatize over the principle for which we are now in hiding, yea, and possibly one-half of the other half” (rising off the floor while making the statement). He also said the day will come when a document similar to that (Manifesto) then under consideration would be adopted by the Church, following which “apostasy and whoredom would be rampant in the Church.”

Did God change His mind? Was He taken by surprise? Or did He anticipate what might happen and let His servants know what they should do in such a situation? Did God’s prophets also warn about the results of the Church giving up the principle? Did they ever imagine it could ever do so? Did they ever inform the Saints what they should do in such a situation? Or how the Lord would accomplish His plans without the involvement of the Church?

From the beginning of this dispensation the Lord has warned that he would be willing to bypass the majority of the Saints and select a few willing to keep His laws, if the rest would not honor them, as Joseph Smith warned -

“His word will go forth, in these last days, in purity; for if Zion will not purify herself, so as to be approved of in all things, in His sight, He will seek another people …”61

As we have quoted earlier, the Elders of the Church (General Authorities) were cautioned after plural marriage was revealed to them that “if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them and given to others.”62 In John Taylor’s day the same warning was repeated to the Apostles that:

“If we do not embrace that principle soon, the keys will be turned against us.”63

This did not mean, however, that the Lord would abandon those Saints who would be faithful, or that he would remove His Priesthood authority entirely. As Brigham Young promised:

“The Lord Almighty will not suffer His Priesthood to be again driven from the earth, even should He permit the wicked to kill and destroy this people… God will preserve a portion of this people, of the meek and the humble, to bear off the kingdom to the inhabitants of the earth, and will defend his priesthood, for it is the last time, the last gathering time.”64

Thus we see that the Lord would not allow a complete apostasy in this dispensation, but would rather preserve a portion of His people with the priesthood necessary to carry out his purposes. However, the Saints prior to the Manifesto cannot claim ignorance of the results of the majority of them not living plural marriage and many of them fighting against it. They were told in no uncertain terms what the result of their actions would be. As an official Church publication warned them five years prior to the Manifesto:

“The entire Church and all of its Priesthood, with the Presidency at the head of it might motion and vote against this principle until doomsday with just one effect, (namely) to vote themselves away from the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, from the possession of their Priesthood, and to find themselves very speedily outside the Church and Kingdom of God; while he would raise up others that would honor and observe his law.”65

These warnings were not only to the general membership but also to any leaders who would not live and perpetuate this law. Yet the First Presidency officially and publicly admitted that this is what the membership of the Church and some of its leaders chose to do:

“We formerly taught to our people that polygamy, or celestial marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right; that it was a necessity to man’s highest exaltation in the life to come. That doctrine was publicly promulgated by our President, the late Brigham Young, forty years ago, and was steadily taught and impressed upon the Latter-day Saints up to a short time before September, 1890.

To be at peace with the government and in harmony with their fellow citizens who are not of their faith, and to share in the confidence of the Government and the people, our people have voluntarily put aside something which all their lives they have believed to be a sacred principle.”66

However, others kept this law alive, including many of the leaders of the Church from Wilford Woodruff to Joseph F. Smith.67 But the Lord set apart others to carry on His laws, so that the actions of subsequent Church Presidents could not stop this principle or it’s practice, as John Taylor promises:

“If God has introduced something for our glory and exaltation, we are not going to have that kicked over by an improper influence, either inside or outside of the Church of the living God. …”68

As we illustrated earlier - this is not a new situation, it happened in the days of Moses, when the majority preferred a lesser law (even though it was not capable of exalting them), whilst the few who were willing to do all the Lord asked of them carried on regardless:

“The kingdom of God is to be enjoyed by the Saints - those who are righteous, not those who are wicked. If we prove unworthy, Zion will have to be redeemed by our children, who may be more worthy, while we may be kept, like the ancient children of Israel, wandering in the wilderness, enduring hardships, persecution and trials, until we shall have suffered the penalty of neglected, not to say broken and unfulfilled covenants.”69

Yet, in the end it is those who live the laws of God who will be exalted, and God has made a way for them to be lived, despite the actions of the Church and nation. Those who still wander about in the wilderness may yet emerge to fulfill their covenants and become part of the Lord’s higher purposes, but whatever their course; this principle, God’s priesthood, and those people who honor them will continue to fulfill the prophecies given by Him and receive the promises made to them.

Summary

We have established that:

• Celestial plural marriage is an eternal principle and practice.
• Holding the Priesthood keys is dependent upon living this law.
• There is higher priesthood that can act separately from the Church.
• God and his prophets prophesied that this law would never end.
• God intended to set apart “another people” if the Church rejected it.

The question now remains – how do we respond to these truths? Do we trust the words of God and of the early prophets? Do we believe their prophecies are being fulfilled by those set apart to keep these principles alive? Will we ignore what God expects of us, or will we sustain God in His plans and seek to further them?

Spiritual Confirmation

While examining the last window, and feeling greatly agitated, a voice spoke to me, saying, “Can’t you feel the Spirit? Why should you worry?”

We may be wondering why we have not seen these things before. Perhaps this study has opened up for us possibilities we have never seen if we had not looked more deeply. Prior to reading these things our preconceptions may have kept us from accepting that God might have worked in this way. Now we can consider these principles with a more open mind and willing heart, that the Lord can work with more easily.

When Lorin Woolley was checking the outside window of President John Taylor’s room to see if someone had forced entry, the Spirit whispered to him, “Can’t you feel the Spirit? Why should you worry?” Many have felt that same Spirit reading his account of how the Savior came to Taylor, giving him a revelation stating “I have not revoked this law [of plural marriage], nor will I”, and they have gained a spiritual witness for themselves that Joseph Smith oversaw Taylor ordaining several men so that “no year would pass by without children being born into this principle.”

We may never have physical evidence in this life of Moses parting the red sea, of the Savior appearing to the brother of Jared, or of Elijah coming to the Kirtland temple, but we can have a spiritual witness of these events. We can know for ourselves if they happened, and if we can trust in God’s words and the prophets that relate them.

Footnotes

1. Doctrine & Covenants 130:20-21.
2. Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 308.
3. D&C 132:4-5.
4. D&C 132:28
5. D&C 132:34 (see 29-37)
6. D&C 132:17,19,22-23,26,29,37,39,49,57 & 63.
7. D&C 132:3,4,6,17,19,20,24,25,27,32,37,54 & 64.
8. John Taylor to Malinda Merrill, 19 January 1883.
9. Revelation to John Taylor, 25-26 June 1882, Unpublished Revelations 80:21-22.
10. Doctrine & Covenants 64:5.
11. History of the Church 6:251, Teachings, p. 337.
12. Zina Huntington, 23 December 1894, Collected Discourses, Vol. 5.
13. Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, Ch.13, p.69-70.
14. Life of Heber C. Kimball, Orson F. Whitney, p. 336 (1888 edition).
15. John Taylor, 7 June 1866, Journal of Discourses 11:221-222.
16. Revelation to John Taylor, October 13th, 1882.
17. He married Abbie Corrila Wells on 28th April 1884.
18. John Taylor, October 10th, 1882, Life of Wilford Woodruff, Matthias F. Cowley, p. 542.
19. Joseph Smith – History 1:68-72.
20. See Doctrine & Covenants, Sections 2-19.
21. Brigham Young, Journal of Charles Walker, 26th July 1872. See Joseph B. Noble testimony, June 1886.
22. Revelation to Joseph Smith, 17th July 1831. See W.W. Phelps letter to Brigham Young, 12th August 1861.
23. Doctrine & Covenants 101:4 (1835 Edition).
24. William Clayton’s Journal, 19th October 1843.
25. Illinois state bigamy law, enacted 12th February 1833.
26. Jacob 2:30.
27. Joseph Lee Robinson Journal, Fall 1841.
28. Doctrine & Covenants 132:28.
29. 29th August 1852, Journal of Discourses 1:53.
30. 8th August 1844, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 2:436-37.
31. History of the Church 7:230.
32. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 12:69.
33. Brigham Young, Contributor 10:3, Journal of Discourses 11:333.
34. JST Exodus 34:1.
35. Doctrine & Covenants 84:23-25.
36. Alma 13:8-11.
37. Doctrine & Covenants 2:1; Joseph Smith – History 1:38.
38. Doctrine & Covenants 110:13-14.
39. Doctrine & Covenants 124:27-28.
40. History of the Church 6:251
41. Revelations 5:10; Doctrine & Covenants 76:56.
42. History of the Church 5:554-556.
43. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 308.
44. History of the Church 5:554-556.
45. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 346.
46. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 237.
47. William Clayton diary, 23 May 1843, George D. Smith, An Intimate Chronicle; The Journals of William Clayton, p. 105.
48. Doctrine & Covenants 103:22 (Pre-1981 editions)
49. Joseph Smith, Diary, 28 Sept. 1843, LDS Church Archives.
50. History of the Church 6:39.
51. History of the Church 5:512.
52. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 318
53. Brigham Young, History of the Church 7:230.
54. Contributor 5:259; History of the Church 6:280; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 94.
55. Life of Mosiah Hancock p. 48. See Journal of Discourses 9:36.
56. Millennial Star 47:708, 9 November 1855. See Journal of Discourses 23:240-41 & 26:151-53.
57. John Henry Smith Journal, see Heber J. Grant Journal, 17 May 1888 & Minutes of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, 12 December 1888.
58. Millennial Star 48:110-11; History of Utah, Orson F. Whitney, 1879.
59. Journal of Discourses 21:10, 7 December 1879.
60. 27 September 1886, Revelation to John Taylor, Church History Office; Unpublished Revelations 88:1, 9.
61. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 18.
62. John Taylor, 7 June 1866, Journal of Discourses 11:221-222.
63. John Taylor, 10 October 1882, Life of Wilford Woodruff, Matthias F. Cowley, p. 542.
64. Brigham Young, Contributor 10:362. see Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 6:125.
65. Deseret News, Editorial, 1 April 1885.
66. Petition for Amnesty, First Presidency, 19 December 1891, Contributor 13:197.
67. See Solemn Covenant, B. Carmon Hardy; Post-Manifesto Plural Marriages, D. Michael Quinn; or Mormon Polygamy, Richard S. VanWagoner for extensive documentation.
68. John Taylor, 7 June 1874, Journal of Discourses 25:310.
69. Joseph F. Smith, 2 April 1877, Journal of Discourses 19:26.

Was this just his opinion or was he revealing a hitherto hidden truth?  It must be remembered that at the time he was neither Church President, nor speaking in General Conference, nor did he claim any inspiration for his views.  A closer review of his words might help us to understand why he said what he did.

The idea that this world was the only one wicked enough to crucify Jesus seems to have been taken from two different verses of scripture.  One from the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, and the other from the Book of Mormon:

In the first of these passages the Lord tells Enoch that “among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren.” (2)» It does not mention the Savior, and it is unclear whether God is speaking of the workmanship of his hands related to this earth, or whether he is including other earths he had populated in the past.

The second verse, written several thousand years later, does relate to Jesus, and prophecies that he “should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world;” speaking specifically about one tribe and one period of time on our earth, at which point “there [was] none other nation on earth that would crucify their God.” (3)»

If we combine these passages together we could perhaps end up with the impression that this was the only earth wicked enough to crucify a Savior, yet neither passage teaches this.  We may suppose then that Brother Smith, who was speaking to a small audience and not the whole Church, perhaps misremembered these verses, and was merely expressing a personal opinion based on that.

This might have been the end of this concept if it were not for Brother Smith’s son-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie.  Perhaps presuming that his father-in-law was teaching a divine doctrine, Elder McConkie expanded upon this idea in his book Mormon Doctrine.  However, he used a new argument in favor of this teaching and expanded its extent to the whole universe.

To Bruce R. McConkie it seemed that any atonement that didn’t cover every earth was less than infinite, and he believed that when the ancient prophets spoke of an “infinite atonement” (4)» that this must have been what they meant:

“When the prophets speak of an infinite atonement, they mean just that. Its effects cover all men, the earth itself and all forms of life thereon, and reach out into the endless expanses of eternity. … the atonement of Christ, being literally and truly infinite, applies to an infinite number of earths.” (5)»

However the Lord tells us Himself that when the word “eternal” is applied to Him it is only figurative when it refers to a period of time:

“Endless is my name, wherefore eternal punishment is God’s punishment, endless punishment is God’s punishment.” (6)»

Hence endless punishment does not last for an endless period of time, but it does come from an being who is - in some sense - endless.

Likewise “there is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal” (7)» , He is a being who has (as far as we are concerned) infinite power, who traverses and comprehends infinity, therefore anything he does is infinite in its origins and effects, but this does not mean it encompasses everything that ever was or ever will be

Christ’s atonement was infinite in the sense that God is infinite - he will always be our God, Christ will always be our Savior, and their works and sacrifices will have continue throughout eternity and endless space.  It was not that act of a finite mortal, but an infinite God.

“it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice … that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.” (8)»

If we were to believe that Jesus atoned for everyone who ever lived on every earth then this would mean that he atoned for His own heavenly Father, and for endless planets, whose history he has not been part of.  Besides this logical problem, there are several doctrinal problems with the idea that Jesus was the Savior of other worlds, which we will examine:

1) It is not substantiated directly by revelation – there has been no word of the Lord saying it is so.

2) It is an idea which contradicts other established doctrines.

3) It contradicts teachings made by several prophets and presidents of the Church.

Let us look a these points in detail -

1) If Jesus was the Savior of other worlds why do the scriptures not say so?

One passage of scripture has been cited by proponents of this theory as being evidence for it:

“For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father – That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.” (9)»

Some assume from this that all worlds were created by Christ, and all of their inhabitants were made sons and daughters of God through Him.  Why could not it be referring to the worlds within our solar system, and the only world we know that is inhabited amongst those worlds - our earth?

It could also be theorized that the other planets in our solar system may yet hold human life in the form of the eventual telestial and terrestrial kingdoms.  For if the Lord, as he tells Isaiah, “created … not in vain” the earth, but “formed it to be inhabited” (10)» could this not also be said about the other planets that orbit the same Sun?

2) The idea that Jesus performed an atonement for other earths contradicts other established scriptural doctrines

i. The scriptures repeatedly state the Christ is the Savior of this world -

“And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.” (1 John 4:14) (11)»

ii. That he would take away the sins of this world -

“I do know that Christ shall come among the children of men, to take upon him the transgressions of his people, and that he shall atone for the sins of the world; for the Lord God hath spoken it.” (Alma 34:8) (12)»

iii. That he is the redeemer of this world -

“I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord; yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world.”  (D&C 19:1) (13)»

iv. That he atoned for Adam’s children -

“he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam.” (2 Nephi 9:21) (14)»

The last of these points is perhaps the strongest, as if he atoned for Adam’s fall and its effects and for Adam’s children, then why would he be responsible for other children of other Gods on other planets, whose son or brother he is not?

3) The view that Jesus saved those on other earths contradicts the teachings of the prophets -

Those trying to substantiate this pseudo-doctrine point to an 1843 poem titled “the Vision” that has since been attributed to Joseph Smith.

“He’s the Savior and only begotten of God;
By him, of him, and through him, the worlds were all made,
Even all that career in the heavens so broad.
Whose inhabitants, too, from the first to the last.
Are sav’d by the very same Saviour of ours;
And, of course, are begotten God’s daughters and sons
By the very same truths and the very same powers.” (15)»

There are several problems, however, with the idea that Joseph Smith authored all 312 lines of this poem.  Mormon scholar Michael Hicks argues that it is the work of William W. Phelps, writing as if he were Joseph Smith poetically paraphrasing his 1836 Kirtland vision. (16)»

Let us for arguments sake assume that Joseph did write or agree with the poem.  It doesn’t say that all worlds ever made were made by Christ, but only the worlds that ‘career’ (or orbit) in our heavens were – presumably the solar system. (17)»

Notably it says that the inhabitants of such worlds were begotten children by the very same truths and powers – not necessarily the same being, but by a being – whoever that might be – with the same truths and powers.  Whoever their Savior is, he must be the same as ours in qualities, abilities and purpose.

Conclusion

It was revealed by Joseph Smith that we were witnesses in our pre-mortal lives to our Savior’s appointment and personally approved of it.

“At the first organization in heaven we were all present, and saw the Savior chosen and appointed and the plan of salvation made, and we sanctioned it.” (18)»

Do we suppose that other spirit children from other worlds would not have the same opportunity?

Perhaps no prophet has spoke so simply on this subject as Brigham Young has, who taught that “every earth has its Redeemer” (19)» and “there never was any world created and people nor never would be but what would be redeemed by the shedding of the blood of the Saviour of that world.” (20)»

In his remarks he left no room for his words to be reconciled with those who believe that Jesus is the Savior of other earths.  Every earth has its own redeemer and savior, no exceptions, and no ambiguity.

No matter how much we might admire Bruce R. McConkie’s scholarship in other areas, no matter how popular this idea has become, if it contradicts the scriptures and the prophets there is no doubt that it is wrong and can be discarded.  However, knowing the truth we are obligated to not allow such misunderstandings to go uncorrected.

Footnotes

1. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., The Signs of the Times, Lesson 1, 14 October 1942.
2. Moses 7:36.
3. 2 Nephi 10:3.
4. 2 Nephi 9:7, 25:16 & Alma 34:12.
5. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Atonement of Christ.
6. Doctrine and Covenants 19:10-12.
7. Doctrine and Covenants 20:17
8. Alma 34:10,14.
9. Doctrine and Covenants 76:23-24.
10. Isaiah 45:18.
11. See John 4:42, 1 Nephi 10:4, 13:40, D&C 42:1, 43:34, 66:1.
12. See Alma 5:48, 36:17, 39:15, D&C 35:2, 42:1.
13. See Helaman 13:6.
14. See 1 Corinthians 15:22, Mosiah 3:16, Mormon 3:20, 9:12.
15. Times and Seasons 4/6 (1 February 1843): 83, stanzas 19-20.
16. “Joseph Smith, W. W. Phelps, and the Poetic Paraphrase of The Vision”, Journal of Mormon History 20/2 (1994): 63–84.
17. Perhaps referring to this George Q. Cannon taught that “under certain unknown conditions the benefits of the Saviour’s atonement extend to our entire solar system.” (Abraham H. Cannon, 23 June 1889) Benjamin F. Johnson said that “[Joseph Smith] gave us to understand that there were twelve kingdoms, or planets, revolving around our solar system, to which the Lord gave equal division of His time or ministry;” (Autobiography of Benjamin F. Johnson) and John Taylor in 1845 wrote of “successive visits of the Lord to twelve different kingdoms.” (Editorial, Times & Seasons, 1845)
18. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 181.
19. Sermon of Brigham Young, 12 May 1867.
20. Sermon of Brigham Young, 10 July 1870.

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