Church previously denied a John Taylor revelation on polygamy now admits it

[Rivendale]

Another example of the church obfuscating information that casts a bad light on one of the worst doctrines in Mormonism. Decades of claiming it wasn't Taylors handwriting while fundamentalists insisted it was. This is probably why Oaks introduced the "temporary commandments" which is a sly way of covering a prophets radical revelation. https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org ... U_TRKmsx4g

Lindsay Hansen Park commented on why this transparency is important today.

The 1886 Revelation has long been a cornerstone for Mormon fundamentalist groups, who have cited it to justify their continued practice of polygamy after the LDS Church’s 1890 Manifesto officially renounced new plural marriages. The revelation declares that God’s everlasting covenants including plural marriage, “cannot be abrogated,” and insists that those who wish to enter into divine glory “must do the works of Abraham.”

By quietly validating the document’s historical existence, the Church is not re-endorsing polygamy, but it is conceding a critical point: that one of its own prophets did, in fact, receive and write a revelation contradicting the eventual policy reversal. For generations, this tension has been dismissed, minimized, or discredited. Today, it is simply… catalogued. And reaffirms something those of us in this space already know. John Taylor believed and taught and revelated that the practice was never to leave the earth.

This matters because it reshapes the narrative. It exposes the messiness of prophetic authority and institutional adaptation. It confirms what historians and fundamentalist communities have long asserted: that early Mormon leadership faced an unresolvable theological crisis between divine command and legal survival, and not everyone agreed on how to proceed.

[drumdude]

Just another piece of evidence in the long list that demonstrates the Mormon prophets are not, in fact, led by God.

[Morley]

Just another piece of evidence in the long list that demonstrates the Mormon prophets are not, in fact, led by God.

Or, if those prophets are indeed led by God, that that God is an ass. He arbitrarily makes absolutist pronouncements that he's going to end up walking back in a couple of years.

"Lady, you need to leave your husband and become the polygamous wife of another man to get into heaven. Oh, never mind, that was last year's commandment. Today we're going after ear piercings and porn shoulders."

[drumdude]

Just another piece of evidence in the long list that demonstrates the Mormon prophets are not, in fact, led by God.

Or, if those prophets are indeed led by God, that that God is an ass. He arbitrarily makes absolutist pronouncements that he's going to end up walking back a couple of years.

"Lady, you need to leave your husband and become the polygamous wife of another man to get into heaven. Oh, never mind, that was last year's commandment. Today we're going after ear piercings and porn shoulders."

And now the porn shoulders, too, turned out to be an unnecessary source of shame for women for decades.

The Mormon “prophets, seers, and revelators” are about as accurate as your local weatherman trying to predict the rain a year from now.

[MsJack]

I saw Cristina Gagliano (Rosetti) posted about this.

It was always known that the document existed, and people with no dog in this fight knew Taylor wrote it. It's the LDS church's cover-up that's relevant. I'm wondering what prompted this quiet admission of legitimacy.

As far as apologetics goes, in my opinion the Taylor revelation poses Book-of-Abraham levels of difficulty. Taylor said he was visited by Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith when he received the revelation. Whatever explanation one uses to dismiss his visitation and revelation can be equally applied to Joseph Smith and the First Vision.

[Doctor Scratch]

As far as apologetics goes, in my opinion the Taylor revelation poses Book-of-Abraham levels of difficulty. Taylor said he was visited by Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith when he received the revelation. Whatever explanation one uses to dismiss his visitation and revelation can be equally applied to Joseph Smith and the First Vision.

I agree 100% with this. Had this appeared 20 years ago, it would have been absolutely devastating and it would have provided many days’ worth of entertainment on the old boards as the Mopologists scrambled to explain it away.

Now, though? I doubt any of the major outlets will even touch it.

[MsJack]

I agree 100% with this. Had this appeared 20 years ago, it would have been absolutely devastating and it would have provided many days’ worth of entertainment on the old boards as the Mopologists scrambled to explain it away.

Now, though? I doubt any of the major outlets will even touch it.

This was predominantly of interest to fundamentalist Mormons, and I could be remembering wrong, but I don't think apologists have engaged fundamentalists much. The fundamentalists aren't culturally respectable and they tend to be anti-intellectual, so they can be safely ignored, even though---in the case of 19th c. LDS leaders saying polygamy would never, ever go away---they happen to be correct.

But it's a big problem if one understands the stakes. There is no good argument that can be articulated for why Joseph Smith's First Vision should be heeded and John Taylor's polygamy visitation ignored. Plus Heber J. Grant calling it a made-up revelation when he knew perfectly well it came from Taylor is a really bad look.