The 1886 John Taylor "Revelation" on Polygamy

[_Who Knows]

I was reading on the FLDS website, and saw a page on the 1886 John Taylor revelation, basically saying polygamy would never be discontinued from the earth. Here's the link:

http://www.fldstruth.com/1886Revelation.php

Does anyone have any information. on this? Or know what the LDS apologetic is?

[_Black Moclips]

I believe the apologetic is that it wasn't discovered in his personal papers until after his death. Since it was never presented to the church as a revelation, its not considered legitamate. He might of just been doodling on scratch paper for all the church knows.

[_RockHeaded]

I believe the apologetic is that it wasn't discovered in his personal papers until after his death. Since it was never presented to the church as a revelation, its not considered legitamate. He might of just been doodling on scratch paper for all the church knows.

If that is so that is very interesting, funny how they can pick and choose what to consider legitamate. For instance, they consider the 'King Follet' discourse as something coming from Joseph Smith. It was written down how many years after Josephs death? From memory? I believe it was 15 years (someone correct me if I am wrong). So the church doesn't want to accept something that could be in John Taylors handwriting as lagitamate but will accept something as lagitamate that was writen down several years later from memory? lol

[_The Dude]

Why would the LDS need an apologetic quip to explain away the true words of a prophecy? Polygamy hasn't left the earth! When the apostate polygs are exterminated, then they LDS will need an apologetic.

[Reflexzero]

If that is so that is very interesting, funny how they can pick and choose what to consider legitamate. For instance, they consider the 'King Follet' discourse as something coming from Joseph Smith. It was written down how many years after Josephs death? From memory? I believe it was 15 years (someone correct me if I am wrong). So the church doesn't want to accept something that could be in John Taylors handwriting as lagitamate but will accept something as lagitamate that was writen down several years later from memory? lol

William Clayton, Thomas Bullock, Willard Richards and Willford Woodruff all took notes. Bullock made a kind of recreation from his notes and those of Clayton and it was published in the Times and Seasons just a few months after the sermon was given.

The version most people are familiar with was a reconstruction done from all of the notes about 10 years later (I believe).

[_rcrocket]

I am away from my library, so forgive me for possible oversights of some detail, but this is what I recall.

Fred Collier has been the best source of information. He is (can't remember if he is alive) a fundamentalist.

The "revelation" was "discovered" by John A. Taylor (apostle son) in John Taylor's personal papers at a time when John A Taylor was out of harmony with the Q12 over the continued practice of polygamy. Although apparently in Pres. Taylor's handwriting, Collier points out that that the version everybody relies upon appears to be somebody else's hand-traced copy of on original. So, the original autograph is missing. And, it was never signed, nor presented to the Q12, which it needed to be. So, even Collier points out the flaws with this document.

Theory 1: John A. Taylor made it up by tracing words in other docs of his father's. John A. Taylor was later excommunicated.

Theory 2: Pres. Taylor presented it to the Lord for ratification and it wasn't.

Theory 3: It is a real revelation but never made it to the Q12 for approval; as such, it isn't binding. I don't really buy this one given the purported date.

[_rcrocket]

I believe the apologetic is that it wasn't discovered in his personal papers until after his death. Since it was never presented to the church as a revelation, its not considered legitamate. He might of just been doodling on scratch paper for all the church knows.

If that is so that is very interesting, funny how they can pick and choose what to consider legitamate. For instance, they consider the 'King Follet' discourse as something coming from Joseph Smith. It was written down how many years after Josephs death? From memory? I believe it was 15 years (someone correct me if I am wrong). So the church doesn't want to accept something that could be in John Taylors handwriting as lagitamate but will accept something as lagitamate that was writen down several years later from memory? lol

I think there are many members of the Church who don't believe the KFD is doctrine (at least in all respects) for the very problems you identify. I am one of them, but I am probably in the minority given the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on the subject.

The KFD was never stenographically recorded, unlike many other sermons. It was pieced together from conflicting recollections by men who were not prophets.

[_Sethbag]

Bob, just a couple of comments. First, a few lines from the purported revelation:

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

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

I HAVE NOT REVOKED THIS LAW, NOR WILL I...

This is in the first person, with the speaker being God (or, possibly more likely, Jesus). If the document were authentic in the sense that John Taylor actually did write it, then we have a situation where the man sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator of the church put down on paper words that he believed to be from God himself.

Either God himself actually spoke those words to John Taylor, or he didn't. If he did, then the Q12 have exactly what input in the matter? Is not God's authority higher than theirs? If they rejected something that God had said, would they not be in rebellion against him? Is not obedience to God's word the first law of heaven?

If God said that polygamy would never be repealed, then he must have meant it, and whether the Q12 approved of the revelation or not, the truth would remain that God would never repeal polygamy. The Q12 would be in open rebellion. Or do you argue that even if God actually said he would never repeal polygamy, if the Q12 refused to acknowledge that, it would then be perfectly fine for God to reverse his proclamation at a later date, because God's original word wasn't "binding"?

The alternative situation is that God didn't actually say those words, and John Taylor was just making it all up. I think that situation is even worse for the LDS church, because it calls into question their Prophets' very credibility as the mouthpieces and spokesmen for God. If John Taylor could invent revelations straight from God, or if he could be deceived into falsely believing that his revelation came from God while it in fact came from elsewhere (his own subconscious, the Devil, a bottle of whisky, etc.), then how can we believe anything else he (or any other similar "Prophet") ever revealed in the name of the Lord?

[_BishopRic]

Bob, just a couple of comments. First, a few lines from the purported revelation:

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

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

I HAVE NOT REVOKED THIS LAW, NOR WILL I...

This is in the first person, with the speaker being God (or, possibly more likely, Jesus). If the document were authentic in the sense that John Taylor actually did write it, then we have a situation where the man sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator of the church put down on paper words that he believed to be from God himself.

Either God himself actually spoke those words to John Taylor, or he didn't. If he did, then the Q12 have exactly what input in the matter? Is not God's authority higher than theirs? If they rejected something that God had said, would they not be in rebellion against him? Is not obedience to God's word the first law of heaven?

If God said that polygamy would never be repealed, then he must have meant it, and whether the Q12 approved of the revelation or not, the truth would remain that God would never repeal polygamy. The Q12 would be in open rebellion. Or do you argue that even if God actually said he would never repeal polygamy, if the Q12 refused to acknowledge that, it would then be perfectly fine for God to reverse his proclamation at a later date, because God's original word wasn't "binding"?

The alternative situation is that God didn't actually say those words, and John Taylor was just making it all up. I think that situation is even worse for the LDS church, because it calls into question their Prophets' very credibility as the mouthpieces and spokesmen for God. If John Taylor could invent revelations straight from God, or if he could be deceived into falsely believing that his revelation came from God while it in fact came from elsewhere (his own subconscious, the Devil, a bottle of whisky, etc.), then how can we believe anything else he (or any other similar "Prophet") ever revealed in the name of the Lord?

Yes, it seems that the only real question is whether it is an authentic document. If it can be shown to be his handwriting, there is really no way to argue the contents -- everything else is classic spin to justify the doctrinal conflicts.

[_The Nehor]

How does this relate to plural marriage?

The new and everlasting covenant is defined in the D&C as the 'fulness of the Gospel'.

Abraham is also scattered throughout the D&C with admonitions to 'do the works of Abraham'.