How do we make sense of John Taylor’s 1886 revelation, in the light of the Church’s stance that monogamy is the rule and polygamy is an exception? My response is that, first, one needs to keep in mind that dictated revelations (like the 1886 revelation, or even those in the Doctrine and Covenants), are not the unfiltered word of God. Second, one part of the process of weighing the validity of a revelation is the canonization process (a process that the 1886 revelation has not passed). Third, the text of the revelation is more ambiguous than it seems at first glance, and can be interpreted in similar ways to those I outlined in earlier posts in the series. Between these three points, Latter-day Saints are in a position to not see the 1886 revelation as binding on them to continue the practice of plural marriage.
First, the nature of revelations are imperfect. There are two components to the process of recording revelatory texts. First, there is the revelation itself, a process Joseph Smith described through statements like “you must study it out in your mind,” rather than simply asking with no thought beforehand (D&C 9:7-8), and that understanding comes “by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). Joseph Smith also described in one discourse that “Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure inteligence” and that it works by “expanding the mind enlightening the understanding & storeing the intellect with present knowledge.” Further, the “Spirit of Revelation” was characterized by “pure Inteligence flowing into you” and “sudden strokes of ideas.”[1] These are an indication of a mental engagement with the Spirit to discern the will of God rather than a word-for-word dictation by the Lord, whispered in the revelator’s ear. Then, in the second part of the process, the revelator works to capture the revelation that God disclosed to them in words through a written document, which is only an approximation of the revelation itself. I’ve covered this aspect of Joseph Smith’s revelations elsewhere in more detail (and watch for the next issue of Element for my article on the subject), as have other scholars, like Steven Harper. The implications of this is that the dictated revelations are filtered through human minds and bear the influence of that filter.
There is the story of Joseph Smith’s early 1830 revelation to obtain the Canadian copyright for the Book of Mormon that, while apocryphal, gets at the point I’m trying to explain. Joseph Smith and the early Latter Day Saint movement was under pressure for cash, and he hoped that they would be able to sell the copyright to get money. The missionaries went out, in accordance with the revelation, but were unable to secure the copyright. After their failure and return, David Whitmer recalled that Joseph Smith recorded another revelation that explained the failure by stating “Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.”[2]
The same might be said of the 1886 revelation of John Taylor. President Taylor was caught between a rock and hard place, believing that plural marriage was a divine commandment he had a mandate to continue, while facing up to the hard reality that the institution of the Church would be destroyed if they continued to do so. I’m very sympathetic to the stress and pain that leaders of the Church like John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff experienced in that situation. I also believe that the revelations they recorded in the 1880s on the subject were heavily influenced by that difficult situation. Because of that, it is my belief that these revelations were not entirely of God, but were revelations that were “of man” as they did their best to work through their cognitive dissonance. The fact that the Church did, in the end, cease the practice of plural marriage is testament that the revelations did not hold up to the test of time. If God truly wanted them to continue the practice, He would have provided a way to do so as a Church, and He did not.
Second, the fact that “some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil,” has led the Church to put in place guardrails of common consent and quorum agreement to limit the ability of a charismatic leader guiding the Church astray. In the Doctrine and Covenants, it is stated that “And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith” (D&C 26:2; 28:13). The ability of Latter-day Saints to receive revelation and then manifest whether they feel that the revelations of Church leadership is the word of the Lord is a safeguard in the Church’s structure that increases the likelihood that any document being accepted as binding is genuinely inspired. As J. Reuben Clark put it, “The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.”[3]
When it comes to accepting new texts into the canon, this process has generally been followed. For example, in 1835, a group of Church leaders gathered to examine the Doctrine and Covenants and concluded that it was “necessary to call the general assembly of the Church to see whether the book be approved or not by the authorities of the church, that it may, if approved, become a law unto the church, and a rule of faith and a practice unto the same.” At a conference on 17 August 1835, the book was presented by Oliver Cowdery to the general assembly of the Church, then voting proceeded by quorums and groups, followed by the entire Church membership present.[4] Likewise, President Joseph F. Smith stated that: “No revelation given through the head of the church ever becomes binding and authoritative upon members of the church until it has been presented to the church and accepted by them.”[5] We see this being followed in the procedures used to canonize the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, the Pearl of Great Price and additional sections of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1880, the addition of two accounts of visions to the scriptures in 1976, and both Official Declarations.[6]
Likewise, among the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency, consensus is required for something to be accepted as policy or official doctrine to prevent any individual prophet, seer, and revelator from going rogue. For example, in the 1860s, when Orson Pratt and Brigham Young clashed over doctrinal ideas, the First Presidency issued a proclamation that stated, “No member of the Church has the right to publish any doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, without first submitting them for examination and approval to the First Presidency and the Twelve.”[7] And in the 1950s, when Joseph Fielding Smith was pushing anti-evolution rhetoric on members of the Church, President J. Reuben Clark responded indirectly in a talk at BYU, where he stated that “only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church.” He added that even then, “There have been rare occasions when even the President of the Church in his preaching and teaching has not been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’” His observation was that this was best detected when “a subsequent President of the Church and the people themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’”[8] Because of this very concern, Elder Neil Andersen taught that “There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many.”[9]
The 1886 revelation has not passed these tests. As the First Presidency observed in 1933,
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 term, 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.[10]
The revelation never received approval from church leadership as a group, subsequent prophet-presidents, or the general membership of the Church. Because of this, it is not a document that should be treated as authoritative by members of the Church for guidance in leading their lives or institution.
Third, even if we accept the revelation as valid and worthy of following for guidance, the text of the revelation is more ambiguous than it seems at first glance. Rather than explicitly stating “plural marriage” or “polygamy,” the revelation obliquely refers to “the New and Everlasting Covenant”, “observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments”, and states church members “must do the works of Abraham.”[11] As I discussed in my reflections on sections 131 and 132, “Even though the contexts in which these documents emerged and were canonized were ones in which plural marriage was treated as the commandment from God, the wording is ambiguous and easily applicable to eternal monogamous marriages as well as plural ones.” And, as I stated in my reflections on some of John Taylor’s other revelations,
Given that monogamy is the rule today, the statement that church leaders must “conform to My law” would have the opposite meaning when it comes to marriage status that it did in the 1880s. The same could be said about what it means to be “keeping the commandments,” as required for exaltation according to Section 76. Today, monogamous marriage is the commandment that must be kept to receive exaltation rather than plural marriage.
Thus, the wording of John Taylor’s 1886 revelation is open to interpretation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while John Taylor’s 1886 revelation has been cited by some as a mandate for the continuation of plural marriage, a careful evaluation shows that it need not—and indeed should not—be seen as binding on Latter-day Saints today. Recognizing the inherently human element in receiving and recording revelations reminds us that not all revelatory texts are direct, unfiltered words from God. Furthermore, the lack of canonization and the absence of Church-wide acceptance through the established processes of common consent underscore that the 1886 revelation never attained the status of official, authoritative doctrine. Finally, the revelation’s ambiguous wording allows for interpretations that align with the Church’s current emphasis on monogamous marriage as the norm. Together, these points provide faithful, doctrinally sound reasons for understanding the 1886 revelation as a historical artifact rather than a continuing obligation.
Footnotes:
[1] Joseph Smith Sermon, June 27, 1839.
[2] David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, MO: By the author, 1887), 31.
[3] Clark, J. Reuben. “When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?,” in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Vol. 12, No. 2, 68-81, https://prophetsseersandrevelators.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/when-are-church-leaders-words-entitled-to-the-claim-of-scripture-by-j-reuben-clark-jr/.
[4] See “Minute Book 1,” p. 98, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed September 6, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minute-book-1/102.
[5] Joseph F. Smith in the Reed Smoot Trial, 1904, cited in Richard S. Van Wagoner, Steven C. Walker, and Allen D. Roberts: “The ‘Lectures on Faith’: A Case Study in Decanonization,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, v. 20, No. 3, p. 74, https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N03_73.pdf.
[6] See “Minute Book 1,” p. 98, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed September 6, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minute-book-1/102; Deseret Evening News, 11 Oct. 1880, p. 2, col. 4, https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=23172309; See N. Eldon Tanner, “The Sustaining of Church Officers,” CR April 1976, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1976/04/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng; See https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng. See also https://archive.timesandseasons.org/2020/09/come-follow-me-and-the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/index.html.
[7] 1865 Proclamation of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, Millennial Star Vol. 27 (Oct. 21, 1865), 663, https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/MStar/id/8488/rec/2.
[8] Clark, J. Reuben. “When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?,” in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Vol. 12, No. 2, 68-81, https://prophetsseersandrevelators.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/when-are-church-leaders-words-entitled-to-the-claim-of-scripture-by-j-reuben-clark-jr/.
[9] Neil Andersen, “Trial of Your Faith,” in Conference Report, October 2012, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng.
[10] Published in the Deseret News, Church Section, June 17, 1933. See also Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. James R. Clark (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft Inc., 1971), 5:315-330.
[11] “Revelation given to John Taylor, September 27, 1886, copied from the original manuscript by Joseph F. Smith, Jr., August 3,1909,” John Taylor Papers, Church History Library.
Leave a Reply