A New (?) Revelation on Polygamy

Happy Sunday, everyone. Hope you're all doing wonderful. Greetings from a podunk motel in New Hampshire.

Normally, I record these musings three months ahead of time. I've got a buffer at any given time of three months' worth of weekly musings. But then occasionally something happens in the news that requires or deserves a prompter response rather than a general discussion. That is certainly the case with what happened last weekend. Last Saturday, there was an announcement of a new/old new revelation on polygamy. New for many people, new for the church to give its imprimatur, its stamp of approval on. But it's an old one. We're going to talk about that. And so I thought I'd record this and get it out promptly while everyone's first hearing about this and wondering what this is.

Now, the first thing I want to observe is that typically, not always, but typically when an organization has something that it is required to release or thinks it should release, but it wants as little attention and scrutiny as possible, typically, what happens is it gets released on a Friday afternoon in corporate PR. That is like standard MO for anything you want to bury, or over the weekend. Right. Because people are distracted. They're with their families. They're not on social media as much. And so this was released on a Saturday, or at least all I could verify was that it was first discovered on a Friday by a historian who's been following this closely. But also, from what I could tell, it was released online on Saturday. I don't know exactly. The point is, word broke last Saturday. And so here we are.

Before we dig into this revelation, which has a lot of implications for the church today, I want to give some quick historical context so that we can unpack this a little bit. Now, the revelation in question is 1886. So we're going to rewind a little bit first. Of course, it was at the 1852 special conference where Brigham Young had Orson Pratt announce publicly the doctrine of plural marriage for the first time to the general membership, to the world. The announcement was printed the following day in the Deseret News. This was the first public sanction of polygamy after the purported, and I emphatically italicize and underline the word *purported*, revelation that was said to have been received by Joseph Smith in 1843, later added to the Doctrine and Covenants as Section 132, which is what it is today. That was in like 1876 and then the 1880 printing of the Doctrine and Covenants. We're going to talk about that just a little bit later because it is relevant for this discussion about the revelation. But that was 1852. Brigham Young and the Saints say, hey, you know, we're doing this polygamy thing. What was in whispers and quietly being done furtively is now out in the open in 1852.

It was only a decade later that the federal government responded with the Moral Anti-Bigamy Act, Morrill, M-O-R-R-I-L-L, named for the congressman who was involved in this. So the Moral Anti-Bigamy Act. This criminalized plural marriage or bigamy in the U.S. territories, of which Utah was one. Utah, of course, did not have statehood until decades later. So it criminalized plural marriage. It limited the amount of property that any church could own in those territories to like $50,000 at the time in 1862. So that's probably several million dollars today. The law disincorporated the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It annulled any territorial laws that purported to or aimed to shield the practice of polygamy. So that was 1862. The feds cracked down with this new law. Of course, many people disobeyed that law. And there was a point there was conflict, the military, all the things, you know, all the stories. But I want to fast forward to 1879. This is when the Supreme Court of the United States rules in the case of Reynolds versus United States. George Reynolds, a Latter-day Saint, was set up intentionally as a test case to challenge this Moral Anti-Bigamy Act. And so he was charged under the act. His conviction was unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court. This is the ruling from which we get the statement: Laws are made for the government of actions. And while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices. We talked about this a handful of weeks ago in the musing on religious freedom. So this is that case. 1879. Unanimous agreement. The Supreme Court justices are saying that believe whatever you want. But as it pertains to religious practices, the government can regulate and even ban them, as is the case with plural marriage. So they uphold the criminalization under the Moral Anti-Bigamy Act.

One year later, John Taylor becomes president of the church. Brigham Young had died in 1877. The Quorum of the Twelve governed for the space of some three years. John Taylor was the president of the Quorum of the Twelve. But 1880, he becomes the president. Two years after that, 1882, we get the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act. This declared polygamy a felony in federal territories. It also criminalized unlawful cohabitation. Living with, you know, more than one woman as if you were married. Making that a misdemeanor. This was done because it was hard to prove polygamy. Because spouses are not required to testify against one another. And so no one's going to rat out one another. Especially when you've got Mormon law enforcement officers and Mormon judges. And so the feds were like, this is a mess. How do we actually prosecute this? That's why they outlawed cohabitation. Because that's easier to prove. Oh, you shacked up with so-and-so. We have a witness that says that you both went in at night and came out in the morning. It's easier to prove that from witnesses and evidence that you're cohabiting. Versus, hey, are you married to this person? And the key witnesses are the married couple themselves. So that's 1882.

In that same year, we get a revelation. This is not the primary one we're going to talk about momentarily. This is prior to that from John Taylor, a revelation that he receives. And I put that in air quotes for reasons that we'll shortly discuss. Primarily, this so-called revelation dealt with church organizational matters. So it called, you know, three men to fill various vacancies in church leadership. It was shared at a meeting with the Quorum of the Twelve, stake presidents, their counselors. And in this revelation, one Seymour Young is called to fill a vacancy for the 70. And so in addition to calling some of these other church leaders, the revelation informs Seymour Young that he must, quote, "The law in question, of course, is the law of plural marriage." The idea here that only those who preside over the priesthood should be those who are entering into this law of marriage. In that same meeting, President Taylor explained, quote, "A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher law." In other words, in plain English, polygamists should not be ruled by non-polygamists. That's brass tacks what he's saying. If you are going to rule over others in the church and church governance, you have to be living the higher law, which is polygamy. President Woodruff added, quote, "The leading men of Israel who are presiding over stakes will have to obey the law of Abraham or they will have to stop." So clearly the message very explicitly in this meeting is, hey, all of you 70s, hey, all of you stake presidents, there were only like, I think, two or three dozen stakes at the time, plus their counselors. So there's this meeting with all these guys and it's like, hey, you have to enter into plural marriage. There was a lot of resistance. There was a lot of people who weren't doing this despite being badgered into it, especially in church leadership. So this revelation is using Seymour Hersh as an example to say, if you want to be in church leadership, you have to enter into the higher law or polygamy. President Taylor decided to publish this document as a three-page pamphlet before the end of the year. So again, that's 1882. And therefore, he was directly linking the legitimacy of church leadership to the adherence of the law of plural marriage. No qualms, no bones, no nothing. Very explicit. Church leaders must be polygamists. That's it.

Okay, so then we get some additional context. In that meeting, George Cannon gives a talk. He records that talk in his diary. This is the very same meeting. George Cannon is the first counselor in the first presidency. He's working directly under John Taylor. And he says the following: "If you notice in the revelation, reference is made to Brother Seymour B. Young. It is said that he shall be placed as one of the presidents of 70s if he will submit and receive the law of God and carry it out. What is meant by that? It means the law of celestial marriage, which Brother Seymour B. Young has not up to the present time obeyed. I know there is a difference of opinion among the brethren in regard to this law. Some of the brethren think that when a man has taken one wife, that is all that is required of him, unless it comes round without any effort on his part to take another wife. But that law is laid down in this revelation with great plainness. That Brother Seymour B. Young cannot be ordained to fill that vacancy unless he expresses a willingness, not only his belief in, but his willingness to obey that law which God has revealed and which is binding upon the priesthood in this church. It is not binding alone upon Joseph Smith. It is not binding alone upon the twelve to whom he revealed the law, but it is binding upon the entire body of the priesthood in this church. And more especially upon those who occupy the position, which we do today. Every man in this room, I suppose—keep in mind this is a talk to these fellow leaders—there may be one or two exceptions, but the great bulk of the men who are present in this room today are high priests in the church of Christ, after the order of the Son of God, after the order of Melchizedek, and that law is binding upon all. That law is binding upon every one of you and upon me and upon everyone who occupies positions such as we do occupy. Not merely to say we believe in this law, not merely to do that, but to practically, as we can, as opportunity is given unto us by the Lord, carry that principle out in our lives, for it is the law of God unto this people, binding upon this people. Now that law is given unto us. And as I understand this revelation, Brother Seymour B. Young cannot be ordained to that position until he has expressed to the presiding authority, the first presidency and the twelve apostles, his willingness to carry into practical effect that law. So it is with every one of you. God requires it at your hands, and you have never had a revelation to that effect before. Now you have it. It is the mind and will of God to me individually, to you presidents of stakes, to you as counselors, to your men who are here in this room today, in whose hearing this revelation has been read. I know this by the revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ and can bear testimony of it."

Okay, so after his talk, Cannon writes in his diary, "Brother Joseph F. Smith followed, after which President Taylor had George Reynolds read several extracts from the revelation on celestial marriage. This is section 132. And then addressed the meeting. A number of brethren also spoke, namely Brigham Young, this is Junior, Erastus Snow, President Woodruff, J.R. Murdoch, Moses Thatcher, Lorenzo Snow. A solemn, most solemn feeling prevailed." All right. So he's reporting firsthand his talk, his, you know, what happened after that, his observations that like, there's no wiggle room anymore. You can't just say, I believe. You have to express vocally to the first presidency a willingness to obey that if you encounter a woman or God presents you with the circumstance, you have to do it. You have to be willing. You can't just say, I believe the law. I believe the revelation.

So one week later, because again, here's Cannon in his journal saying, again, "It seems to me that they, the stake presidents and their counselors must either obey this law or resign their position." One week later in his journal, George Cannon records the following: "Have been engaged busily today in getting out the revelation in print for the use of the 12 and the presidents of stakes. Brother D.H. Peary, president of the Weber stake of Zion, tendered his resignation in writing to President Taylor. He felt that others were better qualified to hold that position than he, as he had not obeyed the revelation on celestial marriage and did not like, he said in conversing with me, to take a wife in order that he might hold an office. I regretted this step because it left his action open to the inference that he did not intend to obey the revelation." All right. So, you know, what's interesting here is this revelation, quote unquote, this 1882 revelation linking polygamy to church leadership was included in the Swedish edition of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1888 as section either 137, 138. Over the course of the next four decades, this revelation gets included in many other European editions of the Doctrine and Covenants as well. Three German editions all the way up until 1920, a Danish edition in 1900, a 1928 Swedish edition. It was later removed from all these places because it was never officially canonized. But this 1882 revelation was being passed off as official and part of the canon throughout Europe.

OK, so this is still 1882. Things are heating up under the Edmunds Act, again, criminalizing cohabitation. There's persecutions. There's arrests. And then now we go to back to John Taylor, the president of the church, 1885, one year before this new/old revelation we're going to talk about. So in 1885 in January, John Taylor travels throughout several states, particularly down into Arizona to visit Latter-day Saint communities down there. Here's a report from B.H. Roberts, historian for the church, talking about this. He says, "President Taylor went to St. David in the extreme southeast corner of Arizona near Benson, where he met with the presidents of the four stakes in that territory: Jesse N. Smith, Christopher Layton, Alexander F. MacDonald, Lott Smith. He found the saints in a lamentable condition. They had been set upon in the most ruthless manner by their enemies. Nearly all the forms of law had been abandoned in dealing with them, and outrages had been heaped upon them under the pretext of executing the law that were well nigh unendurable. Those who had been convicted and sentenced had been shipped off to Detroit a distance of 2,000 miles, notwithstanding there was a good available prison at Yuma within the territory. Under these circumstances, President Taylor thought it better for the brethren to evade the law. And in order that those who were being hunted might find a temporary place of refuge, he sent two parties down into Mexico to find a suitable place for the settlement of those who had to flee from this unhallowed persecution." All right. So this is discussing what is now called or has been called the colonies. These are Mormon colonies in Mexico specifically created so that during this era, polygamous leaders, because most members weren't doing this, but the polygamous leaders could get out of Dodge and, you know, live in peace and not persecution.

So John Taylor then goes to L.A. He goes to San Francisco. Here's what B.H. Roberts records about being in San Francisco: "While in San Francisco, John Taylor received dispatches to the effect that it would not be safe for him to return home as his arrest had been determined upon. Notwithstanding this information, he immediately started for Salt Lake City, where he arrived on Tuesday, January 27th, 1885. The Sunday following, February 1st, he preached his last public sermon. In it, he related the principal incidents of his late mission into Arizona, described the wrongs inflicted upon the people there, and told the counsel he had given them." So this is February 1st, John Taylor's last public speech. It's days after he returns to Utah, despite being warned that the feds were hunting him, trying to find him. He's in the tabernacle to give his last speech before he goes on the underground and hides in various members' homes. In that speech, among other things, again, B.H. Roberts says that he was describing the wrongs inflicted upon the people there and told the counsel he had given them. He's relating now that counsel that he told to the saints in Arizona to flee into Mexico, to hide, to whatever. Here's the quote from John Taylor: "What? Won't you submit to the dignity of the law? Well, I would if the law would only be a little dignified. But when we see the ermine bedraggled in the mud and mire and every principle of justice violated, it behooves men to take care of themselves as best they may. That is what I have told people while I have been in the South, to take care of their liberties, to put their trust in the living God, to obey every constitutional law, and to adhere to all correct principles. But when men tamper with your rights and with your liberties, it is no longer a land of liberty, and it is certainly no longer a land of equal rights. And we must take care of ourselves as best we may, and avoid being caught in any of their snares."

Okay, so he gives this sermon. He says, John Taylor, February, goes into hiding. He stays in hiding until he dies in July of 1887, two and a half years. He continued to lead the church from secret locations, face, you know, hardship, separated from his family, other church leaders. They're not able to hold, you know, meetings because the presiding authority is hiding.

Okay, it's in that environment, while John Taylor is hiding, that we get this 1886 revelation that you may have heard about over the past week. This was given, received, written September 27th, 1886. And in it, Taylor, or the Lord, if you believe it's a revelation, says that polygamy was an everlasting covenant that can never be revoked, which is kind of awkward since four years later, it was reportedly revoked. Here is in full the short so-called revelation: "My son John, you have asked me concerning the new and everlasting covenant and how far it is binding upon my people. This is, of course, polygamy. 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 have I borne with them these many years, and this because of their weakness, because of the perilous times? And furthermore, it is pleasing to me that the 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." All right. This is the much-discussed over the last week, 1886 revelation saying from God, apparently, we're never, I'm never revoking this. It's an everlasting covenant. I never will revoke the law. It's everlasting, and those who want to enter my glory must obey its conditions, namely, engage in polygamy. Of course, it doesn't say polygamy. It says new and everlasting covenant. These are all synonyms. Of course, it talks about revoking it. Like, polygamy is the only thing on the table that possibly, you know, discussing revoking. They use these synonyms and other terms for it, but it's clearly polygamy that they're talking about. I mean, look at that 1882 revelation. All throughout the 1880s, they're using new and everlasting covenant, especially as the synonym of choice.

All right. Here's where things get interesting. So, John Taylor is hiding. There's no meeting of fellow quorum members. He writes this down on a piece of paper. He dies the following year. John W. Taylor is his son, who, since the age of 26, has been an apostle. I think I'm going to do a musing in upcoming weeks or months about church leadership nepotism kind of stuff and how much of this is all in different families. And Brigham Young appointing Brigham Young Jr. And here's John Taylor appointing his son at the age of 26, John W. Taylor. We'll save that for later. And John W. Taylor had taken more wives. He was still marrying other people—polygamy—after 1890. And so this prompted the church in 1904 to issue a second manifesto. Remember that Wilford Woodruff did the 1891. And he's like, hey, for these political reasons, we're going to stop. Most people did. Some people didn't stop. John W. Taylor did not stop, in part because he felt that his dad, John Taylor, had with this revelation that, you know, hey, this has never been—it's never going to be

Revoked, whatever. Like we're kind of winking and nodding to the federal government. But you can still be polygamous and still marry people polygamously. John W. Taylor keeps it up. 1904, second manifesto, telling members that they have to stop this for good. John W. Taylor refuses. He resigns from the Quorum of the Twelve in 1905. He gets caught solemnizing plural marriages after that. He's brought in for trial for excommunication.

And at the trial, he produces this purported revelation from his father from 1886 years prior and said that it is his father's executor of his estate. When his father died, he found it in his papers and it matched the penmanship. And like every historian that's looked at it, there's no dispute that this is a forgery than it is from John Taylor. So John W. Taylor furnishes this at his excommunication trial to say, look, my dad got this revelation. Here's what God said. It's everlasting. Your manifestos notwithstanding. I'm following God's law. Well, he got excommunicated anyways. 1911. He died in 1916, just a few years later.

Now, this is important. 1911 at the excommunication trial was not the first time that leaders of the church became aware of this revelation. I've seen some people online talk about, oh, John W. Taylor. And, oh, he presented this. But the context was bad because he was being tried for excommunication. And it was a last-ditch effort to blah, blah, blah. Like I've seen people try and sidestep the legitimacy of this revelation based on John W. Taylor bringing it up at his excommunication hearing. That was not the first time that church leaders had access to this. In fact, two decades prior, in the 1890s, this—again, I'll stop doing air quotes, but every time I call this a revelation, you can imagine that—for reasons that I'll touch on at the end, in the 1890s, it was discussed in quorum meetings, as recorded by Heber Grant and Abraham Cannon in their private journals. So it was discussed two decades prior before John W. Taylor trots it out. Joseph Fielding Smith, who is a church historian in 1909, makes a copy of it, two years prior to John W. Taylor furnishing it, the original copy, at his excommunication trial. This then results two decades later in what is called the third manifesto.

So after years of disputes, the first presidency issued a memo in June of 1933 reaffirming the threat of excommunication to anyone who continued to practice plural marriage. And in this memo, they dismissed rumors of an 1886 John Taylor revelation. They denied the document existed. They warned of a, and this is a quote, “a secret and oath-bound organization of misguided individuals who are seeking to lead the people to adopt adulterous relations under the guise of a pretended and false polygamous or plural marriage ceremony.” So in this lengthy statement, 1933, from the first presidency, they then continue with the following: “The members of this secret organization make many false allegations, two of which, as being those without which all others they must make must necessarily fall, may be noted here by way of cautioning the membership of the teachings and practices of this organization.” So there's two main arguments that all the others rest on. It is alleged, they continue, “that on September 26th, 27th, 1886, President John Taylor received a revelation from the Lord, the purported text of which is given in publications circulating apparently by or at the insistence of this same 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 revelation was given, we are justified in affirming that no such revelation exists.” Wow.

So that is the first argument that's made. Hey, John Taylor got this revelation in 1886. They're talking about this secret combination that's trying to continue polygamy, right? And they use the secret combination term. But this was true. There was a group of men who were making this argument. Number one, that John Taylor got this revelation that polygamy can't be done away with. And then number two, which I won't talk about here, but the second allegation that they were referring to in the statement is that John Taylor had secretly ordained several men to perpetuate polygamous marriages as some sort of like clandestine priesthood council. Okay, so the first presidency at the time, 1933, is Heber Grant, Anthony Ivins, J. Reuben Clark. Clark apparently wrote the statement, but Heber Grant, Anthony Ivins. They're saying, we've never heard of this. All of us leaders have never heard of this. This is new to us. We know of no document, no record of anything. Nobody knows anything. This is a pretended revelation. This didn't happen. Okay.

So then, remember, John W. Taylor is dead at this point. He died almost, you know, like, whatever, 15 years earlier. So, his polygamous wife, one of his polygamous wives, had the letter in his effects because he got it from his dad, John Taylor, in his effects when he died. So then the polygamous wife gives it to Frank. Frank is John W. Taylor's half-brother. So, another polygamous wife. So, Frank Taylor now gets the document. And he gave it to the first presidency in July. July 15th. So, this is like 28, 29 days after the first presidency has issued their statement. Written by J. Reuben Clark. Signed on by the whole first presidency, including Heber Grant, Anthony Ivins. So, like, 28-ish days later, Frank Taylor comes and says, uh, you're saying you don't know of anything existing. Like, here's this document. It's about one month. And there was a photograph taken of that letter, presumably prior to handing it over to the first presidency. And it's that photo that got handed down through the Taylor family, through this secret cabal of all the FLDS type polygamous sects. Right? This was, like, their proof for decades and decades and decades that, look, this record existed once upon a time. This letter from John Taylor. Look, it's its handwriting. And so, this is, like, what they're latching onto to try and say, we, the FLDS or the whoever polygamous sect, are right because God told John Taylor it would always continue and never be revoked. Okay.

So, the problem, of course, is that it can never be verified because the document had been given to the LDS church and put in the first presidency vault and locked away. Which leads us to the church conspiracy. So, this 1933 statement, by the way, it didn't say that the, you know, the archives contained no original copy of the record. Like, they were semantically, whatever, trying to wiggle around it. They didn't say that. They just said there's no record. There's no knowledge. There's no recollection. They weren't trying to plausibly deny and say, oh, there's no original record because that's in the hands of Frank Taylor or John W. Taylor's wife. They weren't talking about the original record. They had a copy. There was a record. Again, 1909, Joseph Fielding Smith created a copy for the archives 24 years prior to the statement being made. And then remember that 1911 excommunication trial for John W. Taylor. We know historians of, you know, it's known that John W. Excuse me, that in the excommunication trial for John W. Taylor, Heber Grant is present. He's president of the church in 1933 when they issued that memo saying none of us have ever heard anything about this. He was in the room where the document was furnished, where it was read aloud. Apostle Charles Penrose read it, the 1886 revelation allowed to those present at the excommunication trial. Who else was present? George Richards, David McKay, Anthony Ivins, who becomes Grant's second counselor years later during that 1933 memo disavowing any knowledge. It's Heber Grant, Anthony Ivins, and both of them were present in the meeting. And then years later, they're saying, oh, none of us know anything about this. You know, and the church could have just said, oh, this document from John Taylor isn't binding, and here's why. They could have addressed it head on and said, oh, we don't think it's binding because it didn't follow proper protocol. Or, you know, he wasn't here to explain it because he had died or what. Like, they could have done that, but they didn't. They just buried it and lied about it. Like, I don't know of any other way to say it than that. Because these people were present in the meeting, and there were records in the church.

And look, let's be charitable for a moment. Let's say that they forgot about the 1909 Joseph Fielding Smith copy. Let's say they had poor memories and they didn't remember it being read in the 1911 trial. Right? Let's remember that they all forgot about the 1880s when it was being discussed in court meetings. Let's be charitable and say that in 1933, in June, when they released this memo saying, We know nothing about this. Let's be charitable and say that let's concede all of those things. Poor memory, poor recollection. They weren't aware the copy was in the records. So they make this statement, this big public statement. But then 28-ish days later, they get the letter. They are now shown evidence that, oh, this revelation, this claim is valid. Here's this document that John Taylor's son Frank is now providing to us. They could then have corrected the assertions in their memo issued just one month prior. They could have said, oh, hey, actually, we do have this now. So let's talk about it. Or again, they could have said, oh, here's why it's not a revelation or here's why it's not binding. They could have dealt with it in whatever way they would. But they didn't even acknowledge it. One month later after they issued this statement, again, if we're just assuming they forgot, they didn't know, which I think is just ridiculous. But if let's concede that in 1933, they're like, oh, we don't know anything about it. And then one month later, they are made aware of it. Again, assuming that they'd forgotten everything. They're made aware of it one month later. They didn't say mea culpa. There's no acknowledgement. There's no retraction. No, nothing. They just bury the revelation in the vault, which leads us to one week ago when the revelation, so-called, quietly appeared in the church history library's catalog. What was also released is a memo from J. Reuben Clark, again, counselor on the first presidency in 1933, where he outlines the provenance or chain of custody of the document. Right? Like, oh, John W. Taylor and then one of his wives and then gave it to Frank and then Frank gave it to the church. And so has the memo as well from Clark talking about how they got this letter and then they filed it away. So he wrote the 1933 denial saying we know nothing of it. And then weeks later, he's writing a memo outlining the chain of custody of this letter that he gets. Again, nothing retracted. Nothing changed. So that is the revelation. How do we deal with that?

Let's wrap up with a few concluding thoughts. Let's go to the anesthesiologist Brian Hales first. For whatever reason, Brian Hales has become an authoritative source as a lay historian for the church talking about polygamy. He's written several books about it. He helped write the church's essay, gospel topics essay on polygamy. And so he has a chapter where he in which he addresses this. Here's the quote. He says, “While apparently constituting a genuine personal revelation to Taylor, the document was never presented to church leaders or to a church conference for a sustaining vote, which could have given it the status of scripture like that found within the doctrine of covenants.” Now, if you've got your thinking cap on, you see multiple things wrong with that statement. First of all, he dismisses it as a personal revelation that despite being the so-called the prophet and president of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and therefore having authority over these things and being troubled with the fact that many church leaders and members aren't complying with it. And four years prior, he says, no, to be a church leader, you got to be a polygamist. And all these things pertain to the governance of the church. So, too, with the question he has in 1886 of like, hey, how far binding is this law? And then he documents this revelation in response. This is all about the church. It's all about the church membership. It's not a personal revelation. And yet Brian Hales is trying to just compartmentalize and say, oh, it's just this little personal curiosity that John had that was never meant for the church. That's problem number one. Problem number two is like, why would we throw it out just because it was never presented for a sustaining vote? Is that the the litmus test for all revelation? I mean, there's order in the church and there's common consent and I get that. And yet, how many times throughout scripture has there been a revelation or a miracle or whatever that like didn't go through the proper vetted process? Something can be something is either a revelation or it's not. Now, you might say, well, it's too common consent that it becomes binding on the church, whatever, whatever. But to dismiss it and say it's not a revelation because it didn't get a sustaining vote is foolish because something was either revealed from God or not. And look, people can refuse consent to something that's an actual revelation. You can have people apostatize and refuse to consent just because they don't give their consent doesn't mean it wasn't a revelation. If God says, thus saith the Lord X, Y, Z, that is a revelation, whether the people accept it or not.

And there's another problem with Brian Hill's statement. And that is the utter hypocrisy because section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants was never presented the way that Hales is talking about. Oh, if only the 1886 revelation would have presented to church leaders or to a church conference for a sustaining vote, which could have given that the status of scripture like that found within the Doctrine and Covenants. That's again from Hales. And yet section 132 has the status of scripture. It is found within the Doctrine and Covenants, but was never presented to a church conference for a sustaining vote, nor was it in Joseph's handwriting like the 1886 revelation was in John Taylor's handwriting. That's not the case with the 1832 purported revelation. The Joseph, excuse me, the John Taylor so-called revelation was in his handwriting and it was consistent with what he had been saying throughout his life. So there's no dispute that John Taylor was not involved in and the source of producing this thing. Yet section 132 is not in Joseph's handwriting and it's totally inconsistent with everything Joseph said during his life. And yet, you know, people like Brian Hales and all his like-minded pals will say that the 1886 John Taylor revelation that we're talking about is non-binding or it's pretended, just like they said in 1933 in that memo, this pretended revelation. These words will be used to dismiss this revelation that was consistent with what Taylor was saying. It was in his own handwriting, right? But then for section 132, they'll say, oh, it's authentic. It's obligatory. It is a revelation, like this total double standard, right?

And why was the 1886 document revelation never codified? Why was it never presented to the church? John Taylor was in hiding. There were no quorum meetings. The quorum of the 12 did not meet until after Taylor's death. By that point, they get the 1890 manifesto that purports to stop polygamy, which makes the 1886 thing irrelevant. But you see how at odds they are. If the 1886 document says, I will never revoke this. It's an everlasting law. And then 1890, they're like, oh, just kidding. We'll talk about that in just a moment. Another point I want to raise. John Taylor trying to write up an inspired document and pass it off as a revelation. Um, does not mean that it is right. Wilford Woodruff writing up the end. Well, with the lawyers and whatnot, the political folks talk writing up this manifesto does not mean that it was divine. So just because John Taylor was, in fact, he never called it a revelation. It doesn't say in there, here's a revelation that I got. He didn't tell John W. Taylor, here's a revelation. It was just discovered as a paper. And clearly, like from the context and the person receiving it and writing it, it's clear that he was doing so as a revelation. You know, in the language of God, my son, John, and all this stuff. Like, it's clear that it's in the mind of John Taylor. It is a revelation. So we have a problem then. That either the LDS church has, at the time back then, was defying a direct command from Jesus. If we assume that the 1886 revelation is true and accurate and from God, then the LDS church was directly defying that by doing the manifesto and walking back polygamy, etc., etc. Or it's presidents of the church who are sustained as prophets can fabricate, can produce revelations that are not such. They can hold things out to be from God when it, in fact, isn't. Because either it was an authentic revelation from God, and then the church violated it later when they refused to comply with it anymore. This, you know, pretended revelation, so-called. Or John Taylor writing that down, even though it's his handwriting and consistent with what he said in the 1882 revelation, everything else, those weren't actually from God. It's kind of like this either-or, this mutual exclusion. And what does this mean then for Latter-day Saint authority if revelations, if revelators are fallible and are purporting to produce or producing a purported revelation that is not actually so? Because, again, if it's a revelation, it's from God, whether it's been accepted by common consent or it's been put in the Doctrine and Covenants or whatever. Like, if it's from God, then it's from God, regardless of the process that it's gone through. So the question is, is what John Taylor did from God or not? If it is, the church is in a bind for defying it and upending polygamy for political reasons. And if it's not, then that has implications for what does it mean to be a president of the church producing this stuff, and when else has that happened? That raises some provocative questions.

You know, Elder Uchtdorf has the quote before where he says, like, truth is true even if nobody believes it. Again, you don't need common consent for something to be a revelation. It is either revealed from God or it is not, regardless of whether people agree with it or agree to officially adopt it and canonize it. Like, if God spoke, then God spoke, right? Now, it's interesting that this document was denied for so long, and now it's just, like, quietly released, right? Nothing's said about it. There's been no statement as of this recording from the church, no commentary, no acknowledgment. It was just cataloged. Like, here it is in our archives after so long of putting it there. It reminds me, I've shared this quote before from Elder Ballard at that 2017 YSA event. Check this out. “This idea that the church is hiding something, which we would have to say as two apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the church and know the integrity of the first presidency in the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning of time. There has been no attempt on the part in any way of the church leaders trying to hide anything from anybody. Now we've had the Joseph Smith papers. We didn't have those to where they were in our hands now, and so we're learning more about the prophet Joseph. It's wonderful we are. There's volumes of it. There's so much of it in those books now in my bookshelf. Maybe you've read them all, but I haven't got them. I'm a slow reader. Much. Just trust us wherever you are in the world, and you share this message with anyone else who raises the question about the church not being transparent. We're as transparent as we know how to be in telling the truth. We have to do that. That's the Lord's way.” So the question then as we wrap is, is the silent publication—by silent I mean no commentary, no context, no official statement, etc.—is that being as transparent as we know how to be? On the one hand, you could say, well, it's transparent. They're publishing the document. It's no longer in the first presidency. And to that I say, good. You know, supposedly next year we're going to get the William Clayton journals and, right? More transparency with the production of original documents. Great. And to that, I applaud the church and its effort for transparency. But I don't know that that is being as transparent as we as rational humans know how to be. Because transparency in this case would require talking about why this document was denied. Its existence was denied for so long. Why leaders in 1933 lied about their knowledge about it. Why they failed to correct the record when given the actual document just weeks later. Why for decades and decades. Now it's clear why. It was cowering to the political process. They desired statehood. They wanted to remain good global citizens. They didn't want the federal government to come against them. They didn't want to relive the battles of the late 1800s. They wanted to kiss the ring and submit to Caesar and all the stuff. And so that's why those choices were made.

To completely deny the existence of this document. Now, if those of you watching this knew, right? I think the 1843 revelation that's now in section 132 is bogus. I don't think that's from God at all. I don't think Joseph Smith was a liar. I think Clayton and others around him and Brigham and others were doing this behind Joseph's back and without his knowledge and consent. And after he died, they pinned it all on him and claimed that he had been secretly teaching it and talking about his ceilings as if they were marriages and confusing people and all the rest.

I think this whole thing is bitter fruit from a corrupt tree. And so the 1890 manifesto and the 1886 revelation, like because I don't think God is the author of polygamy, in fact, quite the opposite. Everywhere in the scriptures, it's whoredom and abomination. And when you look at the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, every edit he makes to the polygamous kings, David and Solomon, these guys, he's more strongly condemning it and clarifying that God is condemning this stuff, not justifying it, not saying it's okay. In every case, Joseph is saying this is bad.

And so because I believe Joseph and don't think that section 132 was ever a valid revelation and that polygamy is this corrupt product of fallible men who had sexual lust they were trying to spiritually justify, I therefore also don't think that the 1882 revelation from John Taylor is valid in which he said church leaders must be polygamous. Nor do I believe that this document is actually from God in which he purports to have received a revelation saying, polygamy is this eternal law and I will never revoke it. And of course, then they revoke it in 1890 and all the rest.

So this is provocative. It is controversial because it compels us to figure out what is revelation. What is actually from God? If John Taylor is sitting down and writing something that becomes a revelation that leads all these break-off sects to claim that that's from God and thereby guide their activities for generations to live in polygamous unions, these things have massive ramifications, right? And so we need to have some type of account, some type of ability to wrap our heads around what is actually from God and what is from men passing it off as God. That is a big problem.

Again, there's a bind here. Either John Taylor actually got the revelation and later church leaders were doing the wrong thing or John Taylor was making it up, in which case that raises other questions. Very curious to hear what you think in the comments. This is sure to spark a lot of conversation around this topic. I don't think the issue is going away. I think more and more people, as they review these historical sources and these documents, they begin to increasingly question the official narrative. They begin to look more critically at the claims being made. They wonder why would the first presidency lie in 1933 when they had direct knowledge that this record and revelation so-called existed. That raises all kinds of questions.

Now, one challenge with that is oftentimes people can't answer those questions themselves. They struggle with this. They try and figure out what does that mean for the church? What does it mean for priesthood? What does it mean about, you know, is God real? And blah, blah, blah. Like Joseph Smith. Like people often struggle to process these questions or hold on to them and try and think them through.

So my invitation and challenge to you is don't let this be any type of sudden alarm or straw that broke the camel's back. This is not a new thing. This document has been known for some time. It is part of a much broader conversation we need to have about what revelations have actually post-Joseph come from God versus not. What does it mean today? What does that say about us? Not to condemn the church or condemn church leaders, but what does that say about us as a people? Moroni writes at the end of the Book of Mormon that if miracles are done away with and all this thing, like woe unto you because you're without faith. To me, this is a much broader condemnation of us as church members, of our culture, of our community, than the few leaders that arise out of that community to govern us. They're, in a sense, culpable. We're, in a sense, culpable. It's a much broader conversation that, oh, the church isn't true, or, oh, leaders are, you know, misguiding us. Like, this is much bigger than that. And we are a part of that conversation, and it has implications about our beliefs and what we do.

So, you know, if this is new, if this is unsettling to you, just sit with it for a while. Know that there are plenty of us who are active in the church, continue to believe, recognize that people throughout scriptural history have made mistakes, have been fallible, have been corrupt, have embraced apostasy, idolatry, etc. And yet, the gospel is still true. And yet, you know, you can still continue to worship. And yet, the priesthood can still be utilized. The Holy Ghost can still communicate. Prayer still exists. All the rest, right? This is not a reason to abandon the church or to abandon the gospel or to whatever, right? This is just another data point and a frank conversation I think we need to have about better understanding the implications of modern revelation and church governance and how these things are handled for political or PR reasons.

I hope that the church issues a statement. I don't know that I'll agree with all of it if Brian Hales is busy, you know, writing something for the church to use or whatever. But I hope there is a discussion. I hope it's more than just a quiet, you know, release on a Saturday morning. If we want to be as transparent as we know how to be, I think that requires us having a discussion about the past. In a sense, publishing this online is a little bit of institutional repentance, which we've talked about in the past where leaders like Oaks especially are like, oh, the word, you know, apology does not exist in the scriptures and we don't apologize for anything. And that's like generally the narrative for church leaders and the church itself. But I see this publication as a little bit of institutional repentance, walking back the idea, the claim that this does not exist. We don't know anything about it. Like this is a good step. But you can't just correct the mistake. You got to, I think, apologize. You have to have a conversation. You have to communicate. So I hope the church does. We'll see if they do.

Nonetheless, this is an important conversation. It has really ultimately nothing to do with polygamy. I mean, these are much broader discussions and observations about the gospel and us as individuals. So happy to engage with you in the comments. Let me know your thoughts. Are you struggling with this? Are you curious about it? Is there something I missed that you're aware of? See you guys in the comments and I'll see you next week. Thank you.