The Authentic 1886 Revelation

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

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

“My son John:  You have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant and how far it is binding upon my people.

Thus saith the Lord:  All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant; For I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with; but they stand forever.

Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandment, and yet I have borne with them these many years because of the perilous times.  And furthermore it is pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in these matters.

Nevertheless I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not. And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph:  All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law.  And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory they must do the works of Abraham.

I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so, Amen.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It is true I obtained a copy of this revelation from brother Rodney Badger.  He let me take the original and I made a copy and filed it in the historian’s office.  This was but a short time ago.”(4)

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

President Lyman: When did you find this revelation?
J. W. Taylor: I found it on his desk immediately after his death when I was appointed administrator of his estate.(5)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to the accuracy of this statement Mormon scholar Richard S. VanWagoner commented, in his book “Mormon Polygamy”, that “Whether unintentionally so or not, Clark’s statement proved to be incorrect on virtually every point.”7  As we have already read the Church Historian already admitted that there was a copy in the archives, and that he had copies it from the original.8  Heber J. Grant and other Apostles were also at meetings in which the revelation was discussed in 1890, 1892 & 1911, and so could hardly be justified in denying that such a revelation existed.  Yet, so that no future leaders could claim ignorance, “Frank Y. Taylor donated the original handwritten 1886 revelation to the Church”9 the month after the First Presidency letter was written.

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

How did the Mormon Fundamentalists he refers to come into possession of the revelation? Lorin Woolley claimed to have been at a meeting at which the revelation was presented to a select group of Saints, the earliest mention of this was to Nettie Taylor in 1893 (although he had spoken about related events a couple of years earlier)(10)

“Lorin said that right next door on the adjoining farm of John W. Woolley, President John Taylor was in hiding the night of September 26, 1886, when he received a revelation concerning the Principle and set men apart to continue it regardless of what the Church might do officially on the matter. Lorin said that he was one of the men set apart.”(11)

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

“He took father aside on that occasion and read the 1886 revelation to him. Apostle Taylor told the writer’s father that the principle of plural marriage would never be done away and would be lived.”(12)

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

“The latter purported [1886] revelation of John Taylor has no standing in the Church.  I have searched carefully, and all that can be found is a piece of paper found among President Taylor’s effects after his death.  It was written in pencil and only a few paragraphs which had no signature at all.”(13)

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

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

“The pretended revelation of John Taylor never had his signature added to it but was written in the form of a revelation and undoubtedly was in his handwriting.”(14)

Although he calls it a pretended revelation he admits it was written in John Taylor’s “own handwriting.”  These contradictions were not lost on future scholars, and upon weighing the evidence Dean C. Jesse, a faithful LDS Church scholar “concluded in his study that it is highly probable that such a revelation does exist.’’(15)  This was cooberated by Dr. Reed C. Durham in 1974, who at the time was both President of the Mormon History Association and Coordinator of the LDS Church’s Seminary and Institute program.  At a Stake High Priest’s meeting he stated conclusively that:

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

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

“To justify their own rebellion, certain recalcitrant brethren … concocted a false revelation, allegedly given to President John Taylor in 1886.”(16)

Perhaps Petersen was unaware of the evidence, but this seems to have been the last time a General Authority has denied the revelations authenticity.  A couple of year’s later J. Max Anderson, acting under Peterson’s direction wrote an anti-Fundamentalist treatise titled “Mormon Fundamentalism” in which he referred to it as “a little known, but authentic revelation of the Lord to John Taylor,”(17)  Although this part of his manuscript never made it into print (probably because of Peterson’s influence), it wasn’t long before other Church scholars were concluding that it was a genuine revelation from their own research.

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

“During this 1884-86 period there were numerous appeals by prominent Mormons and friendly non-Mormons for President Taylor to issue a statement or new revelation that would set aside the practice of plural marriage.(18 ) Burdened by his own exile and the sufferings of other Church members, John Taylor “asked the Lord if it would not be right under the circumstances to discontinue plural marriages,” in response to which President Taylor received “the word of the Lord to him in which the Lord said that plural marriage was one of His eternal laws and that He had established it, that man had not done so and that He would sustain and uphold his saints in carrying it out.”(19) Presently available documents of 1885-86 are silent about this revelation, but much later documentation and commentary identified this revelation as having been received by John Taylor on 27 September 1886.(20/21)

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

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

… I really find it curious that there has been such a strenuous effort on the part of L.D.S. Church members and leaders to deny the existence of the 1886 revelation, because it makes them vulnerable to denying something that can be demonstrated as having occurred.”(22)

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

“If the location of the original manuscript remains undisclosed, evidence for its existence is nevertheless extensive.  Not only have photocopies of the document circulated for years, and not only did contemporaries refer to it, but its content agrees with other statements President Taylor and his colleagues made at the time.”(23)

Even the Anti-Fundamentalists have had to admit that the 1886 revelation is genuine.  Whilst in 1992 Brian C. Hales was still saying “the authenticity of the purported 1886 revelation to John Taylor is still questioned”24  Yet by 2006 he made the following admission:

“One such revelation was written on Monday, September 27, 1886.  While some observers have questioned its authenticity, the document, though unsigned, appears to be in John Taylor’s handwriting and seems to be genuine.”(25)

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

Footnotes

1. Abraham H. Cannon Journal, 30 September 1890.
2. Abraham H. Cannon Journal, 29 March 1892.
3.
4.
5. 22 February 1911
6.
7. Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy – A History, 1989, p. 186 (2nd ed.)
8. John W. Taylor also had given a copy to Wilford Woodruff in 1887, which resided in the archives.  Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10.
11.
12. Rulon Allred, The Most Holy Principle, Vol. 4, Sec. 7, 85.  See A Leaf in Review, Byron H. Allred, Jr., p. 190.
13. Anthony W. Ivins Letter File, 10 February 1934.
14. 31 December 1934, Marriage – Ballard-Jenson Correspondence, p. 17.
15. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought; Autumn, 1970, pg. 15, footnote 10.
16. Mark E. Petersen, The Way of the Master, 1974, p. 57.
17. J. Max Anderson, Mormon Fundamentalism (unpublished), 1976.
18.
19. Orig. fn. 89  Statement of John W. Taylor to the apostles in Heber J. Grant, Journal, 30 Sept. 1890, also in First Presidency Office Journal, 2 Oct. 1889, copy in CR 1/48, LDS Church Archives; in Abraham H. Cannon, Diary, 1 April 1892; in Minutes of the Quorum of Twelve, 22 Feb. and 1 March 1911, LDS Church Archives. …
20. Orig. fn. 90  “Revelation to President John Taylor, September 27, 1886, copied from the original manuscript by Joseph F. Smith, Jr., August 3, 1909,” in Joseph Fielding Smith Papers, LDS Church Archives. …
21.
22. D. Michael Quinn talk, RCA Building, 11 August 1991.
23. B. Carmon Hardy, Doing the Works of Abraham, 2007, p. 325.
24. Brian C. Hales, The Priesthood of Modern Polygamy, 1992, Chapter 4.
25. Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism, Brian C. Hales, 2006, p. 37.