LDS Freedom Forum

Rather than continuing to post about this topic in another thread, I thought it best to continue posting in a new thread.

I found one of Kingdom of Zion's posts from 2012 that quotes the purported 1886 revelation given to John Taylor, and some supporting material. I already found one contradiction which I will point out in red below, along with other comments.

The 1886 Revelation by John Talor makes it absolutely clear what the Father's opinion was upon CPM being an eternal principle.

REVELATION OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1886
Given Through John Taylor
Centerville, Utah

REVELATION given through President John Taylor on September 26, 1886 in Centerville, Utah. Everlasting covenants stand forever and are not revoked. Men to use their free agency pertaining to God's laws.

1. "My Son John: You have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant and how far it is binding upon my people;

2. "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;

3. "For I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated, nor done away with, but they stand forever.

4. "Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject?

5. "Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my laws and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years; and this because of their weakness, because of the
perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regards to these matters.

6. "Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not,

7. "And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law.

8. "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?

9. "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."
* * * * *

NOTES

NOTE 1. "Tuesday, March 29, 1892. . . John W. Taylor spoke in relation to the Manifesto: `I do not know that thing was right, though I voted to sustain it, and will assist to maintain it; but 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. Pres. Taylor desired to have it suspended, but the Lord would not permit it to be done.' At the close of John W.'s remarks, our meeting adjourned till tomorrow at 10 o'clock. I closed with prayer."
ABRAHAM H. CANNON JOURNAL
March 29, 1892
Page 24

NOTE 2. "September 1, 1934. After reading some expressions in a letter ascribed to A. W. Ivins in which the foregoing revelation (1886) is referred to as an unsigned scrap of paper--a so-called revelation--the words of a man which were never submitted to the people of the Church and are not binding, etc., I went up and talked with my sister Nellie E. Taylor, plural wife of John W. Taylor to learn what she knew about it. She says John W. referred to the circumstances on several occasions and told how his father was in hiding at the home of John Woolley at Centerville the night it was received. That Lorin Woolley was on guard in the next room and witnessed a strange light under Pres. Taylor's door. Next day a message was sent to those of the Apostles then at home to meet Pres. T. at Centerville. Bro. Geo. Gibbs arranged for a sheep wagon well closed in and drove them up. [32] John W. was asked to stand guard in the adjoining room. He said the revelation was submitted and received. The original was brought to the Temple, but as there was danger of the Temple being raided, it and other records were hidden by Wm. Salmon. This copy was later given to John W. who asked his brother-in-law, Rodney Badger, to place it in a safety box at the bank where he worked. It was later returned to John W. Taylor, who kept it in his office. While in this office, Ellen Sanberg was his secretary. He married her as a plural wife.
After John's death Ellen kept the revelation and worked for L. N. Stohl, who persuaded her to let him make photographic copies of it.
Note here that Nellie states that John W. claims to have been standing guard when the revelation was "submitted and received" to some of the apostles. The revelation was then sent to the temple, but then hidden by a Wm. Salmon. This all happens immediately after the revelation is received and John Taylor was still alive, as this author claims the revelation was received Sept. 1886, and John Taylor did not pass away until July 1887. So John Taylor knew about this revelation yet did not present it to the Church for an entire year? And it is apparent that John W knew about it before his father's death. This contradicts what John W. says during his trial. See below...
Nellie says that 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 Ethan 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 Pres. Grant and asked him if it was genuine and in the handwriting of his father. Pres. Grant said it was. Bro. Taylor asked how he could get around it. "I am not going to try to get around it," replied Pres. Grant.

The revelation given to President Taylor Sept. 27, 1886, is as well authenticated as any we have, and is just as sacred and just as true. It is from the Lord and set forth His mind and will at that time. It has been claimed by several that inasmuch as it never was presented to the Church, it is not binding upon the Church. That simply announces that unless we in conference vote to accept a commandment of God, we are not required to keep that particular commandment, which is not true. If God gave a commandment to 100 men and 60 of them rejected it, that would not affect the commandment. Of course, they couldn't obey the commandment till they heard it. This revelation could not be presented to the Church when it was received and by the time it could be presented, we had already acted in a way quite opposite to its injunctions, so it was not presented to the members in conference at all, but that does not change the revelation.

Anyone in the Church who refers to any one of these revelations received by President Taylor or Apostle or President Woodruff as "purported," "so-called," "pretended," or as scraps of paper not binding because they were never accepted by the Church or as being received when an Apostle, is sowing confusion for himself and the Church to reap.
Excerpts from the
JOURNAL OF DOUGLAS M. TODD, SR.
pp. 10-13

NOTE 3. The following excerpts were taken from the trial of John W. Taylor, held in the Salt Lake Temple, February 22 and March 1, 1911:

APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"My father received a revelation which however was never presented to the Church, and I refer to this not because it was a revelation to my father; I don't think a revelation because it came through him was any greater than one receive of through any other president of the Church, but because it seems to pertain to this question."
(The revelation was read by Brother Penrose.)
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"There are two things I am drawing your attention to. I am not in politics and very little in the Church, but I do this as a matter of privilege. This revelation is either true or it is false. Assuming that it is true, it seems to me that it would be better to offer leniency on the side of the Lord if you are going to offer any leniency, than on the side of politics. . . . Brother Lyman, what do you think of the revelation to my father?"
PRESIDENT FRANCIS M. LYMAN:
"If you ask me if I believe in the plurality of wives, I would say that I believe it is true and will always be so, but the Lord may suspend the practice of it, and how much of the responsibility remains with the people and with the government, I don't know. I am living with my wives now all the time, but I don't hold the Church responsible for it but shoulder the responsibility myself . . . . I have no fault to find with the revelation."
APOSTLE CHARLES W. PENROSE:
"Do you understand the free agency referred to in the revelation gives any one the privilege of taking a plural wife?"
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"I take it that it refers to the individual and relieved the Church of the responsibility and placed the responsibility upon the individual."
PRESIDENT FRANCIS M. LYMAN:
"When did you find this revelation?"
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"I found it on his desk immediately after his death, when I was appointed administrator of his estate. . . ." Here John W says he finds the revelation for the first time after his father's death on his desk. So the above story is either made up or he is making this up.
PRESIDENT FRANCIS M. LYMAN:
"Do you think anyone can solemnize plural marriages with authority now?
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"I feel under certain circumstances they could, but it would depend on the circumstances."
PRESIDENT FRANCIS M. LYMAN:
"What conditions?"
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"I fully explained that last time."
APOSTLE CHARLES W. PENROSE:
"What are your views with regard to that revelation?"
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"I am not the one to pass upon that revelation. I think you are the ones to do that."
APOSTLE CHARLES W. PENROSE:
"What I desire to get at is as to how you view the matter, whether you have been guided by that in your case. You brought the revelation to us and it has never been accepted by the Church or presented to it." It is now 1911, and John W. has never presented this revelation to this council until now? Why did he not bring it forth during the time of the manifesto? It appears that he has used this revelation to justify unauthorized plural marriages, and in not needing any authority to do so.
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"I think the only thing to do is to go to the presiding priesthood of the Lord and get his idea on it and get him to inquire of the Lord what His mind is regarding it.
APOSTLE CHARLES W. PENROSE:
"I don't think Brother Taylor should come here and tell us what we need to do. But what I wanted to know is what he thought the President meant by the revelation, whether the man was placed upon his own responsibility by that revelation and the President and Church relieved of all responsibility or not."
APOSTLE ANTHONY W. IVINS:
"Do you know how extensively this revelation has been circulated in times past and has guided people in their actions in this regard?"
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR
"Brother Joseph Robinson came to me and asked for a copy of it upon the suggestion of Brother Cowley and he got it from Brother Badger. Brother Joseph F. Smith, Jr. also got a copy but I don't know how many have got copies from these."
APOSTLE ANTHONY W. IVINS:
"You don't know what inference was placed upon it in early times?"
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"No, I don't know."
APOSTLE ANTHONY W. IVINS:
"I ask this question because I have heard some of the brethren interpret this revelation in this way, and I would like to find out to what extent they had the endorsement of the Church in view of this revelation, and what was the reason these brethren went to Canada and Mexico. Do you know what they based their belief upon; as they seemed to be sincere. Whether it was from this revelation or from the President of the Church or from what grounds were taken that they could come in contact with the law of the land and still win out. I would like to know from Brother Taylor what he knows about this and if they were justified in it."
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"President Smith has come out on numerous occasions with the statement that there have been no marriages of a polygamous nature solemnized with the approval of the Church, since 1890. He stands at the head of this dispensation at this moment and has adopted that policy, and as far as I am concerned I don't want to come in conflict with President Smith on this proposition. I don't know what others have taken from this revelation. If the revelation is true, it would certainly impress me that the Church was relieved of responsibility in this matter and the responsibility placed upon the individual."
APOSTLE ORSON F. WHITNEY:
"Was it not the policy during your father's administration to leave everything to the mind of the individual? I know this was the case with me when I went to inquire if I should take the test oath. I was told to exercise my own judgment. Also there is no authority as far as I can see in that revelation, no authority given to man to exercise such authority in marrying anyone, but the question of whether they should go into the relationship was left with the individual, as in President Young's time men were commanded to go into it." This is a good observation and good question. Who is authorized to marry anyone?
APOSTLE CHARLES W. PENROSE:
"I feel that we should not express our own views on this revelation but should have Brother Taylor's views if he will give them; if not, we can get through with that question."
PRESIDENT FRANCIS M. LYMAN:
"The date of this revelation is September 1886, four years before the manifesto of President Woodruff and I remember at that time that President Taylor and all his brethren were very strongly entrenched in the principle of plural marriage. From [36] 1880 to 1890 men were almost commanded to enter it, especially the officials of the Church. We were all pretty well engaged in this question. The change came in 1890 when President Woodruff felt the necessity that plural marriage should cease and after that he felt just as strong against it, as President Taylor had felt for it before. It was subsequent to this that President Smith made his declaration that the Church took no responsibility for the unlawful co-habitation of those in plural marriage and the performance of plural marriages. I would like to ask if you have encouraged others to take plural wives, or taken them yourself or if you think these brethren who have copies of this revelation have taken it as an encouragement, for instance, Brother Robinson."
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"I will answer that by asking if anyone you have had here before you has ever said that I encouraged him." Dodging the question
PRESIDENT FRANCIS M. LYMAN:
"No one except Wolff, and you admit having encouraged him under the direction of a superior officer."
APOSTLE DAVID O. McKAY:
"I would like to know who the man is that directed you to instruct Brother Wolff to marry a certain party."
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"I would not wish to take issue with the President of the Church or anyone who is at the head of the Church. I went to President Smith's office the other day and had a three and one-half hour talk with him and John Henry Smith and he said that he had never authorized anyone to perform a plural marriage. I am not saying that he is the one to whom I refer, but I do not want to say any more on this point." Dodging the question again, but feeling a need to invoke the name of the President in his defense, for no apparent reason.
APOSTLE HYRUM M. SMITH:
"I would like Brother Taylor to feel that we are not persuading him or any other man to do harm but simply to get at the bottom of these matters. I feel that you are responsible for the circulation of that revelation."
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"I am willing to put in a supplemental answer to the effect that I have never married anyone without the endorsement and authority of the President of the Church and, if you desire, I will give the names of those I have married, but I think this would be unwise. . . ." Again, not addressing the accusation. And this is an apostle!
APOSTLE CHARLES W. PENROSE:
"Under this purported revelation from your father, do you think this authority is given [37] to anyone to perform a plural marriage on their own free agency?"
JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"If a men had been authorized in any way by authority to perform a marriage, under that revelation he would be." I guess here he is saying yes to the question. Looks like he is claiming that this revelation gives anyone the right to enter into a plural marriage relationship, AND anyone the right to perform a marriage? So any priesthood holder? Not really clear is it?
MINUTES FROM SPECIAL MEETINGS
OF QUORUM OF TWELVE
Salt Lake Temple
Feb. 22 & Mar. 1, 1911

The "purported" 1886 revelation is written in John Taylor's handwriting. It is in harmony with other written revelations that both Taylor and Woodruff received at that time. Not all revelations were brought forth and presented to the church. I have no reason to question its authenticity.
However, it is open to interpretation. I do not accept the fundamentalist interpretation. I have also a lot of doubts about Lorin Woolley's story about the circumstances of the reception of the revelation. They are late reminiscences and Lorin started to tell the story only after anyone else who could have confirmed it had died.

inho wrote: ↑June 11th, 2018, 10:49 am The "purported" 1886 revelation is written in John Taylor's handwriting. It is in harmony with other written revelations that both Taylor and Woodruff received at that time. Not all revelations were brought forth and presented to the church. I have no reason to question its authenticity.
However, it is open to interpretation. I do not accept the fundamentalist interpretation. I have also a lot of doubts about Lorin Woolley's story about the circumstances of the reception of the revelation. They are late reminiscences and Lorin started to tell the story only after anyone else who could have confirmed it had died.

I agree that if it is genuine, that it is being misinterpreted by the fundamentalists. Here's a good summary of the misinterpretations:

Did John Taylor receive a revelation on September 27, 1886 that promised that “polygamy would never be abandoned?”
Damned without plural marriage
A FairMormon Analysis of: One Nation Under Gods, a work by author: Richard Abanes
Polygamy absolutely essential to godhood
Author's Claims


One Nation Under Gods, page 316 (hardback and paperback)

The author asserts that John Taylor received a revelation on September 27, 1886 that promised that the practice of plural marriage would never be abandoned.
Author's Sources


Endnote 15, page 587 (hardback); page 585 (paperback)

Fred C. Collier, Unpublished Revelations, vol. 1, 145-146, 180-183.

Other source(s) of the criticism

John W. Taylor—claimed that the revelation read "the Law of Plural Marriage was Eternal." This phrase is not, however, in the revelation. (See diary of Heber J. Grant, 30 September 1890).


Question: Did John Taylor receive a revelation on September 27, 1886 that promised that polygamy would never be abandoned by the Church?
The revelation does not say that the practice of plural marriage will never be abandoned, but that the law of the new and everlasting covenant (which includes monogamous and polygamous marriage) would not be altered or revoked

Note: Some sources consider this revelation to be fraudulent and not from John Taylor at all. If this is the case, then any quote therefrom is moot. This article will presume, for the sake of argument, that the document is from John Taylor, third president of the Church.[1]

The revelation does not say that the practice of plural marriage will never be abandoned: It says that the law of the new and everlasting covenant (which includes monogamous and polygamous marriage) would not be altered or revoked. It enjoins obedience to commandments already received—including the command to practice plural marriage, which had not been rescinded in 1886.
A document that is apparently in John Taylor's handwriting was found among his papers after his death

A document that is apparently in John Taylor's handwriting was found among his papers after his death. It appears to be in his handwriting, and it is probably genuine,[2] though some past Church officials have been skeptical.[3] The text reads:

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 have given 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 covenant cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever.

Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments? Yet I have borne with them these many years, and this because of their weakness, because of the perilous times.

And, furthermore, it is now pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters; nevertheless I, the Lord, do not change, and my word, and my law, and my covenants 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.[4]

John Taylor, so far as is known, did not discuss this revelation with anyone, and it was never canonized as binding upon the Church

John Taylor, so far as is known, did not discuss this revelation with anyone. It was also never canonized as binding upon the Church.

The critics—and "Mormon fundamentalists" who use this document as justification for the continued practice of plural marriage—argue that this document claims that polygamy will never be abandoned by the Church.
The document concerns the new and everlasting covenant, not the practice of plural marriage

However, this is not what the text says. It declares, rather, that "You have asked me concerning the new and everlasting covenant....My everlasting covenant cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever."

It is common for critics to insist that "the new and everlasting covenant" can only refer to plural marriage. But, this is not consistent with LDS scripture:

the Old Testament frequently referred to the "everlasting covenant" which God had established with Noah (), and Israel ().
Hebrews asserts that Christ's sacrifice is the basis of the "everlasting covenant": Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant... (Hebrews 13:20).
in 1830, the Lord declared of baptism into the restored Church: "this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning" (D&C 22:1).

None of these covenants had anything necessarily to do with plural marriage; they certainly did not exclusively refer to plural marriage.
The Doctrine and Covenants frequently refers to the covenant, and it is clear that the reference is generally to the Gospel covenant, not to plural marriage

The Doctrine and Covenants frequently refers to the covenant, and it is clear that the reference is generally to the gospel covenant, not to plural marriage (emphasis added in all cases):

D&C 45 (March 17, 1831)
I came unto mine own, and mine own received me not; but unto as many as received me gave I power to do many miracles, and to become the sons of God; and even unto them that believed on my name gave I power to obtain eternal life. And even so I have sent mine everlasting covenant into the world, to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me (DC 45:8-9).

D&C 49 (March-May 1831)
Wherefore, I will that all men shall repent, for all are under sin, except those which I have reserved unto myself, holy men that ye know not of. Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning (DC 49:8-9).

D&C 66 (October 25, 1831)
Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine everlasting covenant, even the fulness of my gospel....(DC 66:2).

D&C 76 (February 16, 1832)
[Telestial kingdom is those who] received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant....(DC 76:101).

D&C 88 (December 27, 1832)
[In the school of the prophets] Let him offer himself in prayer upon his knees before God, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant....[and say] I salute you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant, in which covenant I receive you to fellowship...through the grace of God in the bonds of love, to walk in all the commandments of God blameless, in thanksgiving, forever and ever.(DC 88:131-133).

D&C 101 (December 16, 1833)
When men are called unto mine everlasting gospel, and covenant with an everlasting covenant, they are accounted as the salt of the earth and the savor of men....(DC 101:39).

Thus, the "everlasting covenant" or "new and everlasting covenant" may refer to the gospel message and its restoration. This phrase is also used, however, in the revelation on plural marriage—we will label this "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" (compare DC 131:).
The new and everlasting covenant of marriage

The revelation on plural marriage (DC 132:) describes a similar idea:

4 For behold, 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.

5 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.

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.(DC 132:4-6)

This "new and everlasting covenant" has a "law" and "conditions thereof," and one must "abide the law." What is the law and conditions?

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead (DC 132:7).

The law and conditions of the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" are that such relationships must be sealed by priesthood authority (vested in one many only, the President of the Church) and the Holy Spirit of promise. This law encompasses both monogamous and polygamous marriage.
It was common for nineteenth century members of the Church to focus on the plural marriage aspect of this covenant

It was common, of course, for nineteenth century members of the Church to focus on the plural marriage aspect of this covenant, since that is what they were commanded to do. Yet, even John Taylor's other revelations were clear that polygamy was not the only aspect of the "new and everlasting covenant."

So far as it [Celestial Marriage] is made known unto men, it is made known unto them as the Gospel is made known unto them and is part of the New and Everlasting Covenant; And it is only those who receive the Gospel that are able to, or capable of, entering into this Covenant.[5]

Thus, "celestial marriage" (used in this document as a synonym for plural marriage) is "part of the New and Everlasting Covenant," but it is not the sum total. As the Church discontinued the practice of plural marriage, leaders began to emphasize this doctrine more extensively. Some have argued that this was a completely novel interpretation, virtually forced upon the Church once it decided to abandon plural marriage.

But, Taylor's 1882 account above clearly disproves this theory—"celestial marriage" is only part of what is referred to as the "new and everlasting covenant." And, this "new and everlasting covenant" cannot be simply "the gospel," since the text indicates that only those who accept the Gospel can accept this covenant: if the covenant and the gospel are the same thing, in this text, the expression is nonsensical.
Applying the analysis to the 1886 document

With this background, we are prepared to better understand the 1886 document.

"You have asked me concerning the new and everlasting covenant and how far it is binding upon my people

To what degree, then, must the Saints keep the new and everlasting covenant? Was monogamy sufficient to fulfill the covenant? (Recall that the covenant includes both monogamous and polygamous marriages sealed by priesthood authority, in both D&C 132 and John Taylor's earlier unpublished revelation.)

"Thus saith the Lord—All commandments that I have given 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 covenant cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever"

All commandments must be obeyed—and the members of the Church had been commanded to practice plural marriage. Furthermore, the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (which includes, but does not exclusively consist of plural marriage) will not be taken from the Church.

"Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments?"

The "law," as we have seen, is that all marriage contracts must be sealed by those with authority, or they are not binding after death. In addition to the law, there was also a commandment to practice plural marriage, which was not embraced by some who could have complied.

Yet I have borne with them these many years, and this because of their weakness, because of the perilous times

The hostility against the Church in general and polygamy in particular made keeping the commandment to practice polygamy difficult.

"And, furthermore, it is now pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters; nevertheless I, the Lord, do not change, and my word, and my law, and my covenants do not."

We again recall that "the law" is that all marriages must be sealed to last beyond the grave. His "word" or commandments had also been given.

"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?"

Abraham's works were to be sealed, to keep all the commandments, and make all the sacrifices which God asked of him—including but not limited to plural marriage (see 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."

Again, we recall that the law is that marriages must be sealed, and obedience to all God's commandments must be observed.

There is, as Brian Hales has noted, no scriptural mention of "the law of plural marriage," nor did Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or John Taylor ever use this term.[6] (In fact, references to "the law" of plural marriage tend to crop up far more frequently in "fundamentalist" writings.) It may be significant that this revelation repeatedly refers to both "the law" and covenants (which will not change) and "commandments" by which one is bound by the covenant (which may change or vary from person to person and time to time).


Notes

For a detailed look at this document, see Brian C. Hales, "An 1886 Revelation to John Taylor," mormonfundamentalism (accessed 14 January 2009).
J. Max Anderson, The Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact (1979), 63-76; D. Michael Quinn, "LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890–1904," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 18 no. 1 (Spring 1985), 29 n. 90. Cited in Brian C. Hales, "An 1886 Revelation to John Taylor."
Hales discusses Anthony W. Ivins' opinion (footnote 25), and Mark E. Petersen (footnote 2; quoting Quinn, 29 n. 90); see Brian C. Hales, "An 1886 Revelation to John Taylor."
Cited in "The Trial of Apostle John W. Taylor." Also in "Revelations in Addition to Those Found in the LDS Edition of the Doctrine and Covenants," New Mormon Studies CD-ROM, (Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates).
Revelation to John Taylor, "Questions And Answers Concerning Celestial Marriage," (25-26 June 1882, Salt Lake City, Utah), in John Taylor Papers, Church Historians Office.

See Hales, c.f. footnote 14. Franklin D. Richard's use in October 1885 (JD 26:243) is the sole use in the Journal of Discourses.

It is easy to do an online search to understand the meaning of "the new and everlasting covenant." As McKonkie points out in Mormon Doctrine, the "New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage" is one specific covenant within the New and Everlasting Covenant.

It is also helpful read sec. 132, and note the difference between the phrases/words "everlasting covenant," "law," "law of the priesthood," and "commandment."

Sarah wrote: ↑June 10th, 2018, 11:18 pm Rather than continuing to post about this topic in another thread, I thought it best to continue posting in a new thread.

I found one of Kingdom of Zion's posts from 2012 that quotes the purported 1886 revelation given to John Taylor, and some supporting material. I already found one contradiction which I will point out in red below, along with other comments.

The 1886 Revelation by John Talor makes it absolutely clear what the Father's opinion was upon CPM being an eternal principle.

REVELATION OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1886
Given Through John Taylor
Centerville, Utah

REVELATION given through President John Taylor on September 26, 1886 in Centerville, Utah. Everlasting covenants stand forever and are not revoked. Men to use their free agency pertaining to God's laws.

1. "My Son John: You have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant and how far it is binding upon my people;

2. "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;

3. "For I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated, nor done away with, but they stand forever.

4. "Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject?

5. "Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my laws and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years; and this because of their weakness, because of the
perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regards to these matters.

6. "Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not,

7. "And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law.

8. "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?

9. "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."
* * * * *

NOTES

NOTE 1. "Tuesday, March 29, 1892. . . John W. Taylor spoke in relation to the Manifesto: `I do not know that thing was right, though I voted to sustain it, and will assist to maintain it; but 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. Pres. Taylor desired to have it suspended, but the Lord would not permit it to be done.' At the close of John W.'s remarks, our meeting adjourned till tomorrow at 10 o'clock. I closed with prayer."
ABRAHAM H. CANNON JOURNAL
March 29, 1892
Page 24

NOTE 2. "September 1, 1934. After reading some expressions in a letter ascribed to A. W. Ivins in which the foregoing revelation (1886) is referred to as an unsigned scrap of paper--a so-called revelation--the words of a man which were never submitted to the people of the Church and are not binding, etc., I went up and talked with my sister Nellie E. Taylor, plural wife of John W. Taylor to learn what she knew about it. She says John W. referred to the circumstances on several occasions and told how his father was in hiding at the home of John Woolley at Centerville the night it was received. That Lorin Woolley was on guard in the next room and witnessed a strange light under Pres. Taylor's door. Next day a message was sent to those of the Apostles then at home to meet Pres. T. at Centerville. Bro. Geo. Gibbs arranged for a sheep wagon well closed in and drove them up. [32] John W. was asked to stand guard in the adjoining room. He said the revelation was submitted and received. The original was brought to the Temple, but as there was danger of the Temple being raided, it and other records were hidden by Wm. Salmon. This copy was later given to John W. who asked his brother-in-law, Rodney Badger, to place it in a safety box at the bank where he worked. It was later returned to John W. Taylor, who kept it in his office. While in this office, Ellen Sanberg was his secretary. He married her as a plural wife.
After John's death Ellen kept the revelation and worked for L. N. Stohl, who persuaded her to let him make photographic copies of it.
Note here that Nellie states that John W. claims to have been standing guard when the revelation was "submitted and received" to some of the apostles. The revelation was then sent to the temple, but then hidden by a Wm. Salmon. This all happens immediately after the revelation is received and John Taylor was still alive, as this author claims the revelation was received Sept. 1886, and John Taylor did not pass away until July 1887. So John Taylor knew about this revelation yet did not present it to the Church for an entire year? And it is apparent that John W knew about it before his father's death. This contradicts what John W. says during his trial. See below...
Nellie says that 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 Ethan 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 Pres. Grant and asked him if it was genuine and in the handwriting of his father. Pres. Grant said it was. Bro. Taylor asked how he could get around it. "I am not going to try to get around it," replied Pres. Grant.

The revelation given to President Taylor Sept. 27, 1886, is as well authenticated as any we have, and is just as sacred and just as true. It is from the Lord and set forth His mind and will at that time. It has been claimed by several that inasmuch as it never was presented to the Church, it is not binding upon the Church. That simply announces that unless we in conference vote to accept a commandment of God, we are not required to keep that particular commandment, which is not true. If God gave a commandment to 100 men and 60 of them rejected it, that would not affect the commandment. Of course, they couldn't obey the commandment till they heard it. This revelation could not be presented to the Church when it was received and by the time it could be presented, we had already acted in a way quite opposite to its injunctions, so it was not presented to the members in conference at all, but that does not change the revelation.

Anyone in the Church who refers to any one of these revelations received by President Taylor or Apostle or President Woodruff as "purported," "so-called," "pretended," or as scraps of paper not binding because they were never accepted by the Church or as being received when an Apostle, is sowing confusion for himself and the Church to reap.
Excerpts from the
JOURNAL OF DOUGLAS M. TODD, SR.
pp. 10-13

NOTE 3. The following excerpts were taken from the trial of John W. Taylor, held in the Salt Lake Temple, February 22 and March 1, 1911:

APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"My father received a revelation which however was never presented to the Church, and I refer to this not because it was a revelation to my father; I don't think a revelation because it came through him was any greater than one receive of through any other president of the Church, but because it seems to pertain to this question."
(The revelation was read by Brother Penrose.)
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"There are two things I am drawing your attention to. I am not in politics and very little in the Church, but I do this as a matter of privilege. This revelation is either true or it is false. Assuming that it is true, it seems to me that it would be better to offer leniency on the side of the Lord if you are going to offer any leniency, than on the side of politics. . . . Brother Lyman, what do you think of the revelation to my father?"
PRESIDENT FRANCIS M. LYMAN:
"If you ask me if I believe in the plurality of wives, I would say that I believe it is true and will always be so, but the Lord may suspend the practice of it, and how much of the responsibility remains with the people and with the government, I don't know. I am living with my wives now all the time, but I don't hold the Church responsible for it but shoulder the responsibility myself . . . . I have no fault to find with the revelation."
APOSTLE CHARLES W. PENROSE:
"Do you understand the free agency referred to in the revelation gives any one the privilege of taking a plural wife?"
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"I take it that it refers to the individual and relieved the Church of the responsibility and placed the responsibility upon the individual."
PRESIDENT FRANCIS M. LYMAN:
"When did you find this revelation?"
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"I found it on his desk immediately after his death, when I was appointed administrator of his estate. . . ." Here John W says he finds the revelation for the first time after his father's death on his desk. So the above story is either made up or he is making this up.
PRESIDENT FRANCIS M. LYMAN:
"Do you think anyone can solemnize plural marriages with authority now?
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"I feel under certain circumstances they could, but it would depend on the circumstances."
PRESIDENT FRANCIS M. LYMAN:
"What conditions?"
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"I fully explained that last time."
APOSTLE CHARLES W. PENROSE:
"What are your views with regard to that revelation?"
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"I am not the one to pass upon that revelation. I think you are the ones to do that."
APOSTLE CHARLES W. PENROSE:
"What I desire to get at is as to how you view the matter, whether you have been guided by that in your case. You brought the revelation to us and it has never been accepted by the Church or presented to it." It is now 1911, and John W. has never presented this revelation to this council until now? Why did he not bring it forth during the time of the manifesto? It appears that he has used this revelation to justify unauthorized plural marriages, and in not needing any authority to do so.
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"I think the only thing to do is to go to the presiding priesthood of the Lord and get his idea on it and get him to inquire of the Lord what His mind is regarding it.
APOSTLE CHARLES W. PENROSE:
"I don't think Brother Taylor should come here and tell us what we need to do. But what I wanted to know is what he thought the President meant by the revelation, whether the man was placed upon his own responsibility by that revelation and the President and Church relieved of all responsibility or not."
APOSTLE ANTHONY W. IVINS:
"Do you know how extensively this revelation has been circulated in times past and has guided people in their actions in this regard?"
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR
"Brother Joseph Robinson came to me and asked for a copy of it upon the suggestion of Brother Cowley and he got it from Brother Badger. Brother Joseph F. Smith, Jr. also got a copy but I don't know how many have got copies from these."
APOSTLE ANTHONY W. IVINS:
"You don't know what inference was placed upon it in early times?"
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"No, I don't know."
APOSTLE ANTHONY W. IVINS:
"I ask this question because I have heard some of the brethren interpret this revelation in this way, and I would like to find out to what extent they had the endorsement of the Church in view of this revelation, and what was the reason these brethren went to Canada and Mexico. Do you know what they based their belief upon; as they seemed to be sincere. Whether it was from this revelation or from the President of the Church or from what grounds were taken that they could come in contact with the law of the land and still win out. I would like to know from Brother Taylor what he knows about this and if they were justified in it."
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"President Smith has come out on numerous occasions with the statement that there have been no marriages of a polygamous nature solemnized with the approval of the Church, since 1890. He stands at the head of this dispensation at this moment and has adopted that policy, and as far as I am concerned I don't want to come in conflict with President Smith on this proposition. I don't know what others have taken from this revelation. If the revelation is true, it would certainly impress me that the Church was relieved of responsibility in this matter and the responsibility placed upon the individual."
APOSTLE ORSON F. WHITNEY:
"Was it not the policy during your father's administration to leave everything to the mind of the individual? I know this was the case with me when I went to inquire if I should take the test oath. I was told to exercise my own judgment. Also there is no authority as far as I can see in that revelation, no authority given to man to exercise such authority in marrying anyone, but the question of whether they should go into the relationship was left with the individual, as in President Young's time men were commanded to go into it." This is a good observation and good question. Who is authorized to marry anyone?
APOSTLE CHARLES W. PENROSE:
"I feel that we should not express our own views on this revelation but should have Brother Taylor's views if he will give them; if not, we can get through with that question."
PRESIDENT FRANCIS M. LYMAN:
"The date of this revelation is September 1886, four years before the manifesto of President Woodruff and I remember at that time that President Taylor and all his brethren were very strongly entrenched in the principle of plural marriage. From [36] 1880 to 1890 men were almost commanded to enter it, especially the officials of the Church. We were all pretty well engaged in this question. The change came in 1890 when President Woodruff felt the necessity that plural marriage should cease and after that he felt just as strong against it, as President Taylor had felt for it before. It was subsequent to this that President Smith made his declaration that the Church took no responsibility for the unlawful co-habitation of those in plural marriage and the performance of plural marriages. I would like to ask if you have encouraged others to take plural wives, or taken them yourself or if you think these brethren who have copies of this revelation have taken it as an encouragement, for instance, Brother Robinson."
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"I will answer that by asking if anyone you have had here before you has ever said that I encouraged him." Dodging the question
PRESIDENT FRANCIS M. LYMAN:
"No one except Wolff, and you admit having encouraged him under the direction of a superior officer."
APOSTLE DAVID O. McKAY:
"I would like to know who the man is that directed you to instruct Brother Wolff to marry a certain party."
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"I would not wish to take issue with the President of the Church or anyone who is at the head of the Church. I went to President Smith's office the other day and had a three and one-half hour talk with him and John Henry Smith and he said that he had never authorized anyone to perform a plural marriage. I am not saying that he is the one to whom I refer, but I do not want to say any more on this point." Dodging the question again, but feeling a need to invoke the name of the President in his defense, for no apparent reason.
APOSTLE HYRUM M. SMITH:
"I would like Brother Taylor to feel that we are not persuading him or any other man to do harm but simply to get at the bottom of these matters. I feel that you are responsible for the circulation of that revelation."
APOSTLE JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"I am willing to put in a supplemental answer to the effect that I have never married anyone without the endorsement and authority of the President of the Church and, if you desire, I will give the names of those I have married, but I think this would be unwise. . . ." Again, not addressing the accusation. And this is an apostle!
APOSTLE CHARLES W. PENROSE:
"Under this purported revelation from your father, do you think this authority is given [37] to anyone to perform a plural marriage on their own free agency?"
JOHN W. TAYLOR:
"If a men had been authorized in any way by authority to perform a marriage, under that revelation he would be." I guess here he is saying yes to the question. Looks like he is claiming that this revelation gives anyone the right to enter into a plural marriage relationship, AND anyone the right to perform a marriage? So any priesthood holder? Not really clear is it?
MINUTES FROM SPECIAL MEETINGS
OF QUORUM OF TWELVE
Salt Lake Temple
Feb. 22 & Mar. 1, 1911

KofZ, just wondering how you explain these two different testimonies as to what John W's knowledge was of this revelataion? Somehow I missed your reponse to me in the other thread and just noticed it, but I plan on responding to your comments over there.

There is only one problem with some of the above. John Taylor was being hounded by the feds and they were trying to serve him with papers as they had an indictment against him for specifically plural marriage or unlawful cohabitation or multiple wives, ( which ever you prefer). So it was plural marriage or the multiple wives portion of the " New and Everlasting covenant" that John Taylor was praying to God about doing away with.... IMO

What an utter mess: polygamy!

Sarah wrote: ↑June 11th, 2018, 11:53 am

inho wrote: ↑June 11th, 2018, 10:49 am The "purported" 1886 revelation is written in John Taylor's handwriting. It is in harmony with other written revelations that both Taylor and Woodruff received at that time. Not all revelations were brought forth and presented to the church. I have no reason to question its authenticity.
However, it is open to interpretation. I do not accept the fundamentalist interpretation. I have also a lot of doubts about Lorin Woolley's story about the circumstances of the reception of the revelation. They are late reminiscences and Lorin started to tell the story only after anyone else who could have confirmed it had died.

I agree that if it is genuine, that it is being misinterpreted by the fundamentalists. Here's a good summary of the misinterpretations:

Did John Taylor receive a revelation on September 27, 1886 that promised that “polygamy would never be abandoned?”
Damned without plural marriage
A FairMormon Analysis of: One Nation Under Gods, a work by author: Richard Abanes
Polygamy absolutely essential to godhood
Author's Claims


One Nation Under Gods, page 316 (hardback and paperback)

The author asserts that John Taylor received a revelation on September 27, 1886 that promised that the practice of plural marriage would never be abandoned.
Author's Sources


Endnote 15, page 587 (hardback); page 585 (paperback)

Fred C. Collier, Unpublished Revelations, vol. 1, 145-146, 180-183.

Other source(s) of the criticism

John W. Taylor—claimed that the revelation read "the Law of Plural Marriage was Eternal." This phrase is not, however, in the revelation. (See diary of Heber J. Grant, 30 September 1890).


Question: Did John Taylor receive a revelation on September 27, 1886 that promised that polygamy would never be abandoned by the Church?
The revelation does not say that the practice of plural marriage will never be abandoned, but that the law of the new and everlasting covenant (which includes monogamous and polygamous marriage) would not be altered or revoked

Note: Some sources consider this revelation to be fraudulent and not from John Taylor at all. If this is the case, then any quote therefrom is moot. This article will presume, for the sake of argument, that the document is from John Taylor, third president of the Church.[1]

The revelation does not say that the practice of plural marriage will never be abandoned: It says that the law of the new and everlasting covenant (which includes monogamous and polygamous marriage) would not be altered or revoked. It enjoins obedience to commandments already received—including the command to practice plural marriage, which had not been rescinded in 1886.
A document that is apparently in John Taylor's handwriting was found among his papers after his death

A document that is apparently in John Taylor's handwriting was found among his papers after his death. It appears to be in his handwriting, and it is probably genuine,[2] though some past Church officials have been skeptical.[3] The text reads:

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 have given 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 covenant cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever.

Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments? Yet I have borne with them these many years, and this because of their weakness, because of the perilous times.

And, furthermore, it is now pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters; nevertheless I, the Lord, do not change, and my word, and my law, and my covenants 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.[4]

John Taylor, so far as is known, did not discuss this revelation with anyone, and it was never canonized as binding upon the Church

John Taylor, so far as is known, did not discuss this revelation with anyone. It was also never canonized as binding upon the Church.

The critics—and "Mormon fundamentalists" who use this document as justification for the continued practice of plural marriage—argue that this document claims that polygamy will never be abandoned by the Church.
The document concerns the new and everlasting covenant, not the practice of plural marriage

However, this is not what the text says. It declares, rather, that "You have asked me concerning the new and everlasting covenant....My everlasting covenant cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever."

It is common for critics to insist that "the new and everlasting covenant" can only refer to plural marriage. But, this is not consistent with LDS scripture:

the Old Testament frequently referred to the "everlasting covenant" which God had established with Noah (), and Israel ().
Hebrews asserts that Christ's sacrifice is the basis of the "everlasting covenant": Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant... (Hebrews 13:20).
in 1830, the Lord declared of baptism into the restored Church: "this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning" (D&C 22:1).

None of these covenants had anything necessarily to do with plural marriage; they certainly did not exclusively refer to plural marriage.
The Doctrine and Covenants frequently refers to the covenant, and it is clear that the reference is generally to the Gospel covenant, not to plural marriage

The Doctrine and Covenants frequently refers to the covenant, and it is clear that the reference is generally to the gospel covenant, not to plural marriage (emphasis added in all cases):

D&C 45 (March 17, 1831)
I came unto mine own, and mine own received me not; but unto as many as received me gave I power to do many miracles, and to become the sons of God; and even unto them that believed on my name gave I power to obtain eternal life. And even so I have sent mine everlasting covenant into the world, to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me (DC 45:8-9).

D&C 49 (March-May 1831)
Wherefore, I will that all men shall repent, for all are under sin, except those which I have reserved unto myself, holy men that ye know not of. Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning (DC 49:8-9).

D&C 66 (October 25, 1831)
Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine everlasting covenant, even the fulness of my gospel....(DC 66:2).

D&C 76 (February 16, 1832)
[Telestial kingdom is those who] received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant....(DC 76:101).

D&C 88 (December 27, 1832)
[In the school of the prophets] Let him offer himself in prayer upon his knees before God, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant....[and say] I salute you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant, in which covenant I receive you to fellowship...through the grace of God in the bonds of love, to walk in all the commandments of God blameless, in thanksgiving, forever and ever.(DC 88:131-133).

D&C 101 (December 16, 1833)
When men are called unto mine everlasting gospel, and covenant with an everlasting covenant, they are accounted as the salt of the earth and the savor of men....(DC 101:39).

Thus, the "everlasting covenant" or "new and everlasting covenant" may refer to the gospel message and its restoration. This phrase is also used, however, in the revelation on plural marriage—we will label this "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" (compare DC 131:).
The new and everlasting covenant of marriage

The revelation on plural marriage (DC 132:) describes a similar idea:

4 For behold, 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.

5 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.

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.(DC 132:4-6)

This "new and everlasting covenant" has a "law" and "conditions thereof," and one must "abide the law." What is the law and conditions?

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead (DC 132:7).

The law and conditions of the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" are that such relationships must be sealed by priesthood authority (vested in one many only, the President of the Church) and the Holy Spirit of promise. This law encompasses both monogamous and polygamous marriage.
It was common for nineteenth century members of the Church to focus on the plural marriage aspect of this covenant

It was common, of course, for nineteenth century members of the Church to focus on the plural marriage aspect of this covenant, since that is what they were commanded to do. Yet, even John Taylor's other revelations were clear that polygamy was not the only aspect of the "new and everlasting covenant."

So far as it [Celestial Marriage] is made known unto men, it is made known unto them as the Gospel is made known unto them and is part of the New and Everlasting Covenant; And it is only those who receive the Gospel that are able to, or capable of, entering into this Covenant.[5]

Thus, "celestial marriage" (used in this document as a synonym for plural marriage) is "part of the New and Everlasting Covenant," but it is not the sum total. As the Church discontinued the practice of plural marriage, leaders began to emphasize this doctrine more extensively. Some have argued that this was a completely novel interpretation, virtually forced upon the Church once it decided to abandon plural marriage.

But, Taylor's 1882 account above clearly disproves this theory—"celestial marriage" is only part of what is referred to as the "new and everlasting covenant." And, this "new and everlasting covenant" cannot be simply "the gospel," since the text indicates that only those who accept the Gospel can accept this covenant: if the covenant and the gospel are the same thing, in this text, the expression is nonsensical.
Applying the analysis to the 1886 document

With this background, we are prepared to better understand the 1886 document.

"You have asked me concerning the new and everlasting covenant and how far it is binding upon my people

To what degree, then, must the Saints keep the new and everlasting covenant? Was monogamy sufficient to fulfill the covenant? (Recall that the covenant includes both monogamous and polygamous marriages sealed by priesthood authority, in both D&C 132 and John Taylor's earlier unpublished revelation.)

"Thus saith the Lord—All commandments that I have given 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 covenant cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever"

All commandments must be obeyed—and the members of the Church had been commanded to practice plural marriage. Furthermore, the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (which includes, but does not exclusively consist of plural marriage) will not be taken from the Church.

"Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments?"

The "law," as we have seen, is that all marriage contracts must be sealed by those with authority, or they are not binding after death. In addition to the law, there was also a commandment to practice plural marriage, which was not embraced by some who could have complied.

Yet I have borne with them these many years, and this because of their weakness, because of the perilous times

The hostility against the Church in general and polygamy in particular made keeping the commandment to practice polygamy difficult.

"And, furthermore, it is now pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters; nevertheless I, the Lord, do not change, and my word, and my law, and my covenants do not."

We again recall that "the law" is that all marriages must be sealed to last beyond the grave. His "word" or commandments had also been given.

"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?"

Abraham's works were to be sealed, to keep all the commandments, and make all the sacrifices which God asked of him—including but not limited to plural marriage (see 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."

Again, we recall that the law is that marriages must be sealed, and obedience to all God's commandments must be observed.

There is, as Brian Hales has noted, no scriptural mention of "the law of plural marriage," nor did Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or John Taylor ever use this term.[6] (In fact, references to "the law" of plural marriage tend to crop up far more frequently in "fundamentalist" writings.) It may be significant that this revelation repeatedly refers to both "the law" and covenants (which will not change) and "commandments" by which one is bound by the covenant (which may change or vary from person to person and time to time).


Notes

For a detailed look at this document, see Brian C. Hales, "An 1886 Revelation to John Taylor," mormonfundamentalism (accessed 14 January 2009).
J. Max Anderson, The Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact (1979), 63-76; D. Michael Quinn, "LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890–1904," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 18 no. 1 (Spring 1985), 29 n. 90. Cited in Brian C. Hales, "An 1886 Revelation to John Taylor."
Hales discusses Anthony W. Ivins' opinion (footnote 25), and Mark E. Petersen (footnote 2; quoting Quinn, 29 n. 90); see Brian C. Hales, "An 1886 Revelation to John Taylor."
Cited in "The Trial of Apostle John W. Taylor." Also in "Revelations in Addition to Those Found in the LDS Edition of the Doctrine and Covenants," New Mormon Studies CD-ROM, (Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates).
Revelation to John Taylor, "Questions And Answers Concerning Celestial Marriage," (25-26 June 1882, Salt Lake City, Utah), in John Taylor Papers, Church Historians Office.

See Hales, c.f. footnote 14. Franklin D. Richard's use in October 1885 (JD 26:243) is the sole use in the Journal of Discourses.

It is easy to do an online search to understand the meaning of "the new and everlasting covenant." As McKonkie points out in Mormon Doctrine, the "New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage" is one specific covenant within the New and Everlasting Covenant.

It is also helpful read sec. 132, and note the difference between the phrases/words "everlasting covenant," "law," "law of the priesthood," and "commandment."

It is easy to do an online search. It is harder to understand that Elder McConkie's word is not doctrine in and of itself. He believed and taught many things that, I'm sorry, simply are not true or scriptural or doctrinal.

More evidence that Douglas Todd's account is false - a drop in the bucket of other evidence that the fundamentalist movement stands on shaky ground.



The Polygamy Story: Fiction and Fact
by J. Max Anderson
Copyright (c) 1979 by J. Max Anderson


Chapter Eight

THE 1886 REVELATION

After that he [John Taylor] 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 (which revelation 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 commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years; and this because of their weakness--because of the perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham's seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; even so, Amen.

After the meeting referred to, President Taylor had L. John Nuttall write five copies of the revelation. He called five of us together: Samuel Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, George Q. Cannon, John W. Woolley, and myself.... He then gave each of us a copy of the Revelation.

There is no mention in President John Taylor's daily journal of him writing copies of the purported revelation1; nor is there any mention of the revelation being received. Copies of such a revelation would obviously be treasured heirlooms and strong evidence for the truth of the Lorin Woolley story. Fundamentalists, however, have never published any such copies, nor even referred to them in their subsequent writings. Where are those copies today, that they may be produced as evidence of the above claim?

If the Lorin Woolley story is true, there should be two copies with the descendants of John and Lorin Woolley, one with the George Q. Cannon family, one with the Charles Wilcken family, and one with the Samuel Bateman family.

One might well suppose that Daniel Bateman would have his father's copy. But the best Daniel Bateman could produce was a copy in his own handwriting. Joseph Musser reported:

Elder Bateman frequently, and with a show of pardonable pride, exhibited his Journal bearing a copy of the 1886 Revelation which he claimed to have copied from the original in Prest. Taylor's own handwriting.2

John W. Taylor is also purported to have had an additional copy, and yet at his trial in 1911 he entered as evidence a copy written in his own hand. Surely L. John Nuttall's copy would have been more convincing--if indeed it ever existed.

Revelation and the Story

There is no mention of this revelation in the 1912 version of the Lorin Woolley story. In fact, Lorin Woolley begins the 1912 account by stating that he does not remember the exact date of the meeting; yet the date of the 1886 revelation was then known as September 27, 1886, through copies that were being circulated among those advocating continued plural marriage. This revelation was apparently added to the story later, and it thus fixed the date of the purported events.

With the incorporation of this revelation into the Lorin Woolley story, Fundamentalists have since assumed that vindication of the revelation would constitute vindication of the Lorin Woolley story. The two, however, are not mutually supportive. Even if the revelation could be proved authentic, the story that was later built up around it could be a complete hoax. However, because of the importance Fundamentalists attached to this revelation, let us examine the various claims in the light of available information on the subject.

Origin of the Document

When the Woodruff Manifesto of 1890 was being discussed by the Quorum of the Twelve following its issuance, Elder John W. Taylor was reported as saying:

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.3

Two years later, in a meeting of the Council of the Twelve, John W. Taylor said, in relation to the Woodruff Manifesto:

I do not know that that thing was right, though I voted to sustain it, and will assist to maintain it; but 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.4

In 1905 John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley resigned their apostleship, and in 1911 both were tried for their fellowship in the Church because of their continued involvement with plural marriage. Elder Cowley was disfellowshiped; Elder Taylor was excommunicated. The revelation of John Taylor in 1886 was referred to in Matthias F. Cowley's trial before the Council of the Twelve:

C.W. Penrose: What do you think of the revelation to President Taylor in 1886?

M.F. Cowley: This would not justify me. He referred to a revelation to President Woodruff [presumably the revelation of 1889], which he took to President Smith and read it to him and he said if it had not been for President Woodruff's strength in that principle we would have had worse than the Manifesto, and explained what certain diplomatic brethren thought was best to do. In view of this revelation [1889?] thought the brethren really felt that they were not justified in stopping it and that is all the effect it had on my mind and the Taylor revelation had very little effect. I thought I should receive my instructions from the living oracles.5

The 1886 revelation to John Taylor was the main topic of discussion at John W. Taylor's trial before the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Excerpts follow:

Taylor: My father received a revelation which, however, was never presented to the Church, and I refer to this not because it was a revelation to my father; I don't think a revelation because it came through him was any greater than one received through any other President of the Church, but because it seems to pertain to this question. The revelation was read by Brother Penrose.

President Lyman: When did you find the revelation?

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

A. W. Ivins: Do you know how extensively this revelation has been circulated in times past and has guided people in their action in this regard?

Taylor: Brother Joseph W. Robinson came to me and asked for a copy of it upon the suggestion of Brother Cowley and he got it from Brother Badger. Brother Joseph F. Smith, jr., also got a copy, but I don't know how many have got copies from these....

J. F. Smith, jr: 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.6

The letter file of President John Taylor for 1886 contains a typewritten copy of the purported revelation with the following heading: Revelation given to John Taylor, September 27, 1886, copied from the original manuscript by Joseph F. Smith, Jr., August 3, 19O9.7

Official Statement

Since many of those unwilling to cease polygamous activity after the issuance of the Woodruff Manifesto based a defiant stand in opposition to the course of the Church on the strength of this revelation, President Heber J. Grant met the situation with the following statement:

It is alleged that on September 26-27, 1886, President 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 organization (Fundamentalists).

As to this pretended revelation it should be said that the archives of the Church contain no 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.

Furthermore, so far as the authorities of the Church are concerned and so far as the members of the Church are concerned, since this pretended revelation, if ever given, was never presented to and adopted by the Church or by any Council of the Church, and since to the contrary, an inspired rule of action, the Manifesto, was (subsequently to the pretended revelation) presented to and adopted by the Church, which inspired rule in its terms, purport, and effect was directly opposite to the interpretation given to the pretended revelation, the said pretended revelation could have no validity and no binding effect and force upon Church members, and action under it would be unauthorized, illegal, and void.8

Following the issuance of this official statement in 1933 denying that the archives contained the revelation, apparently a more thorough search was initiated. Anthony W. Ivins, counselor in the First Presidency, revealed the following in a letter to the wife of Rulon C. Allred, a leader of Fundamentalism, who with her husband was then investigating Woolley's claims:

The latter purported revelation of John Taylor [the 1886 revelation] 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. It was unknown to the Church until members of his own family claimed to have found it among his papers. It was never presented or discussed as a revelation by the presiding authorities of the Church.

The fact is that neither of these pretended revelations [1880 and 1886] has any purport whatsoever so far as the Church is concerned. They were never published or presented to the body of the Church for approval, and consequently if such statements were made they have never been in force.9

Status of Official Acceptance

Fundamentalists recognized from the above comments that if the 1886 revelation were to enjoy status as a doctrinal revelation it would have had to be presented to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve and approved and accepted by them. Joseph Musser wrote:

You also say the revelation was never submitted by President Taylor to his associates in the Presidency or to the Twelve. It is a matter of record that one of his counselors, George Q. Cannon, was present with President Taylor at the time and had a perfect knowledge of the revelation. The other counselor, Joseph F. Smith, was in the Hawaiian Islands at the time, but was sent for, and the revelation explained to him by President Taylor shortly before the latter's death. Later, I am reliably informed, the revelation was discussed in meetings of the Quorum of Twelve, but was neither accepted as a revelation to the Church nor rejected. I believe there are members in your own Quorum now that can inform you on this subject in accordance with my understanding.10

But the only "record" that George Q. Cannon "had a perfect knowledge of the revelation" is, of course, Lorin Woolley's 1929 statement given some forty-three years after the alleged occurrence. To date, no "record" has been found that vindicates the incident reported by Woolley.

Another account, written by Douglas M. Todd, Sr., pretends to supply additional information concerning acceptance of the 1886 document by the Council of Twelve:

September 1, 1934. After reading some expressions in a letter ascribed to A. W. Ivins in which the foregoing revelation [1886 document] is referred to as an unsigned scrap of paper a so-called revelation--the words of a man which were never submitted to the people of the Church and are not binding, etc., I went up and talked with my sister Nellie E. Taylor, plural wife of John W. Taylor, to learn what she knew about it. She says John W. referred to the circumstances on several occasions and told how his father was in hiding at the home of John Woolley at Centerville the night it was received. That Lorin Woolley was on guard in the next room and witnessed a strange light under Pres. Taylor's door. Next day [27th] a message was sent to those of the Apostles then at home to meet Pres. T[aylor] at Centerville. . . . George F. Gibbs secured a sheep wagon and took them up in the evening. John W. Taylor was asked to stand guard in the front room and was not with them, but understood that the purpose of the meeting was to receive the revelation. To have presented this revelation in open conference in times like those in 1886 would have been fatal.11

Todd made his statement after reading Anthony W. Ivins's letter, cited above, which was published in a pamphlet authored by Joseph Musser and J. Leslie Broadbent in 1934. This pamphlet goes on, however, to preclude the claims made by Todd:

When God revealed his word to President John Taylor, on the night of September 26-27, 1886, it doubt less did not occur to him that he should also visit other Church officials and reiterate his message to them, in order that it should not be denied by them in years to come!12

Todd Claims Analyzed

Let us examine the various claims made by Douglas Todd, which he attributed to John W. Taylor.

The account alleges that a message was sent "to Salt Lake City asking those of the First Presidency and Twelve who were there to meet him at Centerville." The First Presidency at this time was composed of John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith. President Smith was in Hawaii presiding over the Sandwich Islands Mission, and President Taylor and President Cannon were staying at John Woolley's home in Centerville, so it would hardly have been necessary to send a messenger to Salt Lake City to ask the two men to meet with themselves at Centerville.

The message was purportedly sent on Monday, September 27. It is not clear from the account, however, which day the apostles are supposed to have arrived--on September 27, or on the following day. The account simply states: "George F. Gibbs secured a sheep wagon and took them up in the evening."13 A check on members of the Quorum of the Twelve for those two days reveals their locations as follows:

Lorenzo Snow: Penitentiary

Erastus Snow: Mexico City

Brigham Young, Jr.: Arizona

Moses Thatcher: Mexico

Francis M. Lyman: Idaho

George Teasdale: Mexico14

The five remaining apostles were locally available. Private journals supply the following information as to what these five were doing on the two days in question:

Wilford Woodruff had been in hiding in St. George during this period, but had returned to Salt Lake City on a short visit. He arrived on September 21 and remained secreted at the home of a friend in the Farmer's Ward south of the city. On September 23 he wrote to President Taylor and President Cannon, announcing his arrival. On September 27 he recorded in his journal:

I wrote 3 letters to J. Jacques, Teasdale and Bulah. I received 6 letters from Jacques, Hall, Wilford, Beatie, J. D. T. McAllister & Lot Smith. I met Owen in the evening.

On September 28 he reported:

I wrote 2 letters to J. D. T. McAllister and Thomas Cottam.

There is no mention in his journal of a visit with President Taylor at Centerville as claimed by Todd--merely a mention of letter communication between them.

John Henry Smith, Heber J. Grant, and Franklin D. Richards were in Salt Lake City. On Monday evening, September 27, Elder Smith and Elder Grant attended a "meeting of the Home Insurance Company at the City Hall, where the articles of incorporation were read and after some few changes were passed."15 Franklin D. Richards spent Monday, September 27, at the office working. That evening he reported: "Jane and Charles came down [from Ogden] and with Manie and Pearl I attended Pinafore' at [the] theater. We slept at the office."16 Tuesday evening, September 28, John Henry Smith "attended a director's meeting of the Co-op Furniture Co., at which it was decided to secure a place of business on Main St. if possible."17 On September 28, after attending to business and ordinance work with Elder Smith and Elder Grant, Elder Richards reported: "I took. . . the 5 p.m. freight [and] arrived [in Ogden] at 8 p.m. Brother Anson Call stayed all night with us--enroute for Logan."18

John W. Taylor Involvement

John W. Taylor kept no journal that is extant, and there is no account of his activities in the available journals of others, so we are reliant on other sources for a report of his activities. On the dates in question he apparently was at his home in Salt Lake City awaiting arraignment at Blackfoot, Idaho, on a charge of "inciting to acts of lawlessness." His letter file contains a letter written to John Taylor dated September 8, and another letter dated September 30. He reported to President Taylor and President Cannon: "I am spending most of my time in arranging my business affairs for while I hope for the best I am preparing for the worst."19

John W. Taylor was reported in Todd's journal as being at the John Woolley home with the other apostles, but "was asked to stand guard in the front room and was not with them, but understood that the purpose of the meeting was to receive this revelation." One wonders why, after going to all the trouble of getting him there under such hazardous circumstances to be made aware of such a revelation, he would be asked to miss the whole important event by standing guard while the meeting was in progress. Available journals show that the regular guards were at the Woolley home at the time mentioned. Surely they would have been the obvious ones chosen to stand guard.

Having John W. Taylor stand guard makes neither good sense nor plausible history. If John W. Taylor were "stand[ing] guard in the front room," where was the meeting purportedly taking place? Since John Taylor's private room opened off the "front room," and if the meeting were held there, might not the door have been left open so that John W. Taylor could listen to the meeting while standing at his post?

The 1911 trial of John W. Taylor referred to above supplies even more cause for doubt. Elder Taylor's first line of defense would logically have been to point out the fact that his father had received the revelation, and that three of those present accompanied him to the John Woolley home, where they were personally informed of the revelation by President Taylor. How does one forget such a singular event?

Elder Taylor's defense would logically have continued with a rehearsal of all the details of the Lorin Woolley story. Most pertinent to his case would have been a description of the setting apart of a select group of men to perpetuate plural marriage independent of the Church. After all, this perpetuation was the very thing he was accused of doing, and a reminder of others especially set apart to do the same thing (some of whom were his accusers) would have been a most important part of his defense. Yet we look in vain for such an argument at his trial. Could it be that he knew of no such action?

If Joseph F. Smith had the whole episode rehearsed to him by President Taylor prior to his death, as is alleged, why did he permit the trial and investigation to take place at all? If the trial proceeded without his sanction, why did he not step forth and vindicate John W. Taylor? Surely, if Fundamentalist claims are true, President Smith would have suppressed the whole matter to protect the workings of a higher priesthood body of which he was allegedly a member.

In comparing Todd's account with B. Harvey Allred's version (referred to in chapter 1), more questions present themselves. Allred claimed that two apostles were present On September 26 and 27 at the time the meetings were supposedly being held. He did not name these two apostles, and a question arises as to their identity. If they were present, why did they need to return shortly (as indicated in Todd's account) to have rehearsed to them the very things they supposedly witnessed firsthand a day or two previously? Clearly, details of the various versions are hopelessly at variance with each other.

Terminating the Practice

As to content, the 1886 revelation merely reiterates the instructions of the original revelation of 1843 (see D&C 132); it adds nothing new to its requirements. It is similar to other revelations on plural marriage received by John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff during this same period.20 The revelation indicates the Lord as saying: "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.... I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting." The Lord never does revoke an eternal principle or law, but he can and has revoked the practice of a principle when it has been imprudent for his Church to continue its practice.

The Lord apparently did not authorize the practice of plural marriage among the Nephites, but declared that the principle would be valid for that people if he commanded it:

Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.21

Francis M. Lyman stated at John W. Taylor's trial:

Up to the issuance of the Manifesto it was never taught that it [plural marriage] would be given up, I didn't think it would for a minute, still I believed the Manifesto of President Woodruff was from the Lord. The law will stand forever, but the practice was discontinued.22

In October 1891, Joseph F. Smith gave the following testimony before the Master in Chancery:

Q: Do you believe that God has revoked it (the practice of polygamy)--changed it as a true principle?

A: I believe that he has suffered it to be revoked, that is so far as the practice of it is concerned.

Q: I am speaking of the principle of plural marriage?

A: I do not think he has revoked the principle.23

The Lord may declare the principle or law inviolate, and may also terminate its practice when circumstances militate against it.

Authority Not Mentioned

There is no language in the 1886 revelation that would have altered the doctrines on eternal marriage or the authority of the sealing power or the succession of that authority. In fact, the revelation does not even mention the authority required to perform plural marriages. This was clearly expressed by Orson F. Whitney at John W. Taylor's trial:

There is no authority as far as I can see, in that revelation, no authority given to man to exercise such authority in marrying anyone, but the question of whether they should go into the relationship was left with the individual, as in President Young's time when men were commanded to go into it.24

Is it not strange that a revelation allegedly designed to perpetuate the practice of plural marriage would fail to mention the means of perpetuation purportedly given at the same time--that is, the pretended organization of a super priesthood presidency? The analysis made in this book suggests that the story is a presumption built up around what is at best an obscure revelation. Even if the revelation were proved authentic, that fact would offer not one iota of proof of the validity of the story that Lorin Woolley built up around it.

1. Although its authenticity has not been established, for convenience the document concerned is referred to in the text of this book as the 1886 revelation.

2. Truth, vol. 8, no. 1 (June 1942), p. 14.

3. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, vol. 13, September 30, 1890.

4. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, March 29, 1892. This document was later circulated among early Fundamentalists. In Truth Magazine of October, 1938, Joseph Musser reproduced "A Facsimile Copy of the Revelation" which was so poor, how ever, that it was difficult to read. Because of the poor quality of the photograph, later Fundamentalist writers have taken the liberty of tracing over the photograph to make it reproduce more legibly. In the pamphlet, 1886 Revelation, one can see the results of this endeavor. Still another pamphlet, The Four Hidden Revelations, shows an additional retracing effort.

5. Matthias F. Cowley File, May 10, 1911, Church Archives, Salt Lake City. Note that Elder Cowley laid more emphasis on President Woodruff's 1889 revelation than on President Taylor's 1886 document.

6. John W. Taylor File, February 22 and March 1, 1911. For additional quotations from the trial, see 1886 Revelation. Joseph Musser obtained a copy of the minutes from the Church Archives.

7. This agrees with the testimony cited in John W. Taylor's File above.

8. Official Statement, Deseret News, Church Section, June 18, 1933. This statement reiterated the judgment of John W. Taylor at his trial in 1911: "His construction upon it [the 1886 revelation] is very mischievous and against the position and discipline of the Church by the living oracles."

9. Anthony W. Ivins Letter File, February 10, 1934, Church Archives, Salt Lake City. (Although emphasis is added here, it conforms to emphasis found in other sources: Musser and Broadbent, Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, p. 15.)

10. Joseph W. Musser, Marriage, 1934, pp. 44-45.

11. Excerpts From the Journal of Douglas M. Todd, Sr. (Salt Lake City, 1972), pp. 10-12.

12. Musser and Broadbent, Supplement to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, p. 70.

13. A Fundamentalist publication indicates that September 28, 1886, was the day that is meant in this passage. For further information, see The Most Holy Principle: A History Problem, vol. 3 (Murray, Utah: Gems Publishing Company, 1971), p. 231.

14. Information derived from private journals, the Journal History of the Church, and The Historical Record.

15. See journals of John Henry Smith and Abraham H. Cannon for September 27, 1886

16. Franklin D. Richards Journal, September 27, 1886, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.

17. See journals of Abraham H. Cannon and Franklin D. Richards, September 28, 1886.

18. Franklin D. Richards Journal, September 28, 1886.

19. John W. Taylor Letter File, September 30, 1886.

20. See the Annie Taylor Hyde collection, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.

21. Jacob 2:26-27, 30.

22. John W. Taylor File.

23. Deseret News Weekly, October 24, 1891, pp. 572-8 1.

24. John W. Taylor File.

I'm not sure what the point of all of this is about the ongoing controversy about this revelation. It doesn't change anything for anybody. Modern 21st century polygamists continue to polyg, and they haven't been part of the Church now for many many decades. Mainstream Church members continue to live monogamously, because we follow the prophet.

Anyone that joins the Church from any outside group must do ordinances for their dead, so polygamists that cease to be polygamists and join the Church will do the work for their dead like anyone else, because anyone that lived outside of the Church had no valid ordinances while they were alive. The Church will not bring back polygamy without a major revelation, and without societal acceptance of the practice. So, for all intents and purposes, the 1886 revelation is of no value to Mormons, even if it is a historical curiosity. Because Mormons only will look to new revelation for any change in the way things are now. People that apostatize may look to the 1886 revelation as justification for their actions, but nothing but new revelation will really change anything. So it really is not of much value except for historical curiosity.