The LDS Church Denied THIS For 100 Years...Until Now

John Taylor

On June 14th of 2025, the LDS church quietly released this document on their website. It's a revelation given to John Taylor, the third president of the LDS church in 1886. And it seems to say that polygamy is an unrevocable law necessary for exaltation. But is that true? In this video, I want to investigate what this revelation is actually saying, its history, the controversy surrounding it, and a little bit of why Latter-day Saints seem so interested in it right now. But before we get to all of that, let's go ahead and look at the text of the Revelation. September 27th, 1886. My son John, you have asked me concerning the new and everlasting covenant, 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 ever everlasting, and my everlasting covenants cannot be abregated, 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 commandments. And yet have I born with them these many years, and this because of their weakness, because of the perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that 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 heretofores 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. So, what is this revelation actually saying? I think there are four major points that he hits on here. First, John Taylor asked God about the new and everlasting covenant.

Just how binding of a thing was this? Second, God responded to him saying commandments must be obeyed unless they are revoked. But how can a covenant be revoked? Well, it can't be because God is eternal and unchanging and therefore he cannot revoke his word, his laws, or his covenants. Third, this law has not been revoked, nor will it. And fourth, if people are to enter into glory, they must obey this law. If people want to be the seed of Abraham, they must do the works of Abraham. The million-dollar question here, which is being discussed a lot right now, is what exactly is he talking about? Mormon fundamentalism, that is splinter groups who continue the practice of plural marriage.

They argue and have argued for over a century that this revelation is fundamentally about polygamy. If they're correct, it would seem to indicate that what John Taylor is being told is that polygamy cannot be rescended because God is eternal. Polygamy should be eternal. And that at least raises the question as to the validity of the manifestos, the two statements which officially ended polygamy in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1890 and then in 1904. Since the documents release, some Latter-day Saints have been arguing that this is not essentially about plural marriage. It's rather about eternal marriage, the principle of sealing a husband and wife for time and all eternity.

So I want to evaluate that claim a little bit. Is this statement about polygamy or is it about eternal marriage? First thing that is really important to note is that this revelation mirrors the language of the doctrine and covenant section that's about celestial marriage DNC section 132. That section reads, "Verily, thus saith the Lord, unto you, my servant Joseph, that in as much as you have inquired of my hand, to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David, and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines." So just a pause to explain.

Joseph Smith

Joseph Smith is seeking clarity about the doctrine of many wives and concubines. Section 132 goes on to say, "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant. And if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned. Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law, ye cannot attain to this glory. Go ye therefore, and do the works of Abraham. Enter ye into my law, and ye shall be saved. God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law. Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abodeed in my law.

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood, if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified. So you see the similarities of language there. Obedience to the new and everlasting covenant is required for entering into God's glory, as is doing the works of Abraham. It is worth noting that this section also talks about ceilings, the power and authority to bind together a man and his wife for time and all eternity. Because DNC 132 talks about this, some people are claiming that the language of the new and everlasting covenant in John Taylor's revelation is speaking about ceilings, not polygamy.

If they're right about that, then this 1886 revelation is not dealing with polygamy at all. I personally think it's most likely that John Taylor's revelation is speaking about plural marriage for these four reasons. First, DNC 132 was historically seen as a revelation about plural marriage. The language of the new and everlasting covenant and celestial marriage at that time usually referred to polygamy. The language of the works of Abraham in the context of other DNC 132 language seems to be most likely referring to his works of obedience to plural marriage. Third, the historical context seems to strongly support this being about polygamy.

Fourth, when the revelation was brought up during John W. Taylor's trial, LDS leaders didn't seem to debate that it was dealing with polygamy. We'll get to that more in just a little bit. It really does seem like premanifesto Latter-day Saints understood the language of the new and everlasting covenant to be about polygamy. One author says this, "Celestial marriage was applied to and equated with plural marriage until the late 19th century." There's one story in history of the church volume 5 where it kind of depicts this conversation between Joseph Smith and Hyram Smith. They're talking about plural marriage and Joseph Smith is seemingly discouraged that his first wife Emma Smith is not accepting the principle of plural marriage.

Here's what history of the church reads. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyram said to Joseph, "If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it and read it to Emma." This is when DNC 132 was recorded. Notice they're talking about plural marriage and Hyram says, "If you write down the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it to her and try and convince her." At that time, Emma Smith was unconvinced by plural marriage. And so, Joseph writes down this revelation about celestial marriage in order to convince her. So, it seems like this is linking together celestial marriage and plural marriage.

They were talking about plural marriage and they wrote down this revelation about celestial marriage that includes details about the new and everlasting covenant. This really supports the idea that these two labels were far more synonymous at that time. Eldius scholar Steven Smoot tends to agree. He said in the religious lexicon of pre-1890 Mormonism, new and everlasting covenant almost always meant plural marriage. There are a few exceptions, but most of the time that's how the term was intended. Almost certainly that's also the intention in this revelation. It really does seem that after the manifestos this seemed to change.

He J Grant wrote this. Celestial marriage that is marriage for time and eternity and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonymous terms. Monogamous marriages for time and eternity solemnized in our temples in accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the church are celestial marriage. Okay. But one of the points that I think is most convincing is that the historical context of this revelation really seems to support the idea that it is talking about polygamy. As early as 1862, the moral act was passed in the US, effectively banning plural marriage and overriding local laws about it.

It even threatened to disinccorporate the LDS church if they had property that was valued over $50,000 because of the practice of plural marriage. In 1882, four years before the revelation, the government passed the Edmunds Act. It declared that polygamy was a felony. Someone convicted of it could spend up to 5 years in prison. Just a year after the revelation was given, the Edmonds Tucker Act was passed. This was a very aggressive act which disinccorporated the LDS church. That means it essentially abolished its legal status in the US and it authorized the government to seize LDS church property.

All of these acts were because of the LDS church's practice of plural marriage. The LDS church website notes, "Between 1885 and 1889, most apostles, stake presidents, and other church leaders were in hiding or in prison, and many aspects of church government were severely curtailed. The manifesto issued by Wilfford Woodruff in 1890 effectively ended these challenges and eventually led to the end of plural marriage." So when the beginning of the revelation says, "My son John, you have asked me concerning the new and everlasting covenant, how far it is binding upon my people." What does it seem most likely that John Taylor was asking about?

With the immense political pressure and the threat of jail time or even the threat of the federal government seizing church property, it seems very reasonable to conclude that John Taylor was thinking about polygamy when he was asking God about this. John Taylor is in hiding when this revelation is given. Why would he be asking about sealing power for time and all eternity? What reason would he have to question if that was binding upon the people at that time? So, I do think that this revelation is about polygamy. If that's true, then it is exceedingly awkward that Wilfrid Woodruff just four years later releases the first manifesto which officially ends polygamy in the LDS church, though it persisted for a number of years after.

In fact, before the first manifesto was given, records show that the leadership of the LDS church was talking about this John Taylor revelation. Hebrew J. Grant, who at that time was an apostle, recorded this. He also remembered finding among his father's papers the words 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. He said that this was given to his father in answer to prayer in which he had asked the Lord if it would not be right under the circumstances to discontinue plural marriage. The 1886 revelation really poses I think three problems.

The first is just about the ending of plural marriage. The second is the relationship between a revelation and what is officially received by the LDS church. We'll talk about that a little bit later on in this video. And the third issue is the one I want to talk about right now. The acknowledgment of this revelation seems to perhaps indicate that there was some deception on the part of church leaders. Let's take a look at that. When Wilfrid Woodruff publicly ended the practice of plural marriage in 1890, John W. Taylor, that's the son of John Taylor, continued to believe that the practice was legitimate.

In fact, after the first manifesto was issued, he went on to marry three additional women. One of those women he was actually married to after the second manifesto was given in 1904. If you're not familiar with the first manifesto in the second manifesto, the first manifesto kind of publicly ended the practice of plural marriage, but there were still Latter-day Saints that were a part of the institutional LDS church that were being sealed married to multiple women up until 1904 with the second manifesto where it actually ended the practice of plural marriage. Since that point, the LDS church has not officially sanctioned any plural marriages.

A year after the second manifesto, John W. Taylor resigned from his position as an apostle and just a few years later in 1911 he was excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As a part of his excommunication trial, John W. Taylor actually appealed to his father's revelation, the 1886 revelation. And actually just a couple years earlier in 1909, Joseph Fielding Smith, who would go on to be 10th president of the LDS church, he actually copied down the handwritten revelation. And here on screen, you can see a copy of that. In the trial, John W. Taylor asked this, "Brother Lyman, what do you think of the revelation to my father?" Brother Lyman was the president of the quorum of the twelve apostles.

President Lyman, if you ask me if I believe in the plurality of wives, I would say that I believe it is true and will always be so, but the Lord may suspend the practice of it. Apostle Charles Penrose said in that, "You brought the revelation to us, and it has never been accepted by the church or presented to it." I think it's actually rather notable that in the trial, no one ever questions that this revelation was about polygamy or even really that it was genuine. The grounds with which they rejected is first they trust the living prophet rather than past prophets and second it was never received by the church as a binding or authoritative revelation.

And this is actually pretty much what Latter-day Saints are still arguing even today. A couple of decades later in 1933 after Mormon fundamentalism was kind of in full swing. He J Grant leading the first presidency as president of the church issued this statement. It is alleged that on September 26th through 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 instance of the same organization. He's making reference to the fact that early Mormon fundamentalism circulated the copies of this revelation, claiming that that's why they should continue to practice plural marriage.

Anyways, the statement goes on 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. It's worth noting this is the same Hebrew J Grant who recorded that they were discussing this revelation prior to the first manifesto in 1890.

Joseph Feling Smith had a typed copy of this in 1909, a month after this statement. John W. Taylor's widow actually gave the original handwritten document to the church. This is the same document that was released on June 14th, 2025. The same document that we're talking about now. So, they had it in their possession and yet they never corrected their statement that this was a pretended revelation and they had no knowledge of it. As late as 1979, LDS Apostle Mark E. Peterson was still denying the existence of this revelation. To justify their own rebellion, Raquelatrant brethren devised a scheme which they hoped would frustrate the stand of the church on plural marriage.

President Taylor

They concocted a false revelation allegedly given to President John Taylor in 1886 in which pretended secret authority was given to continue plural marriages. Brian C. Hales, who's an LDS expert on the issue of plural marriage, even says this. The greatest significance of the 1886 revelation is that the church tried to suppress its existence. The question is why? Why try and suppress this document? Why deny its existence? In 1912, there was a man named Lauren Woolly who signed and submitted this statement to the church historian's office. It recorded this event that happened to John Taylor back in 1886.

Soon after 9:00, I heard the voice of another man engaged in conversation with President Taylor, and I observed that a very brilliant light was illuminating the room occupied by the president. The conversation was carried on all night between President Taylor and the visitor, and never discontinued until the day began to dawn, when it ceased, and the light disappeared. As the president entered the room, he remarked, "I had a very pleasant conversation all night with the prophet Joseph." At the time President Taylor entered the room, his countenance was very bright and could be seen for several hours after.

The brethren were considerably agitated about this time over the agitation about plural marriage, and some were insisting that the church issue some kind of edict to be used in Congress concerning the surrendering of plural marriage, and that if some policy were not adopted to relieve the strain, the government would force the church to surrender. Much was said in their deliberations for and against some edict or manifesto that had been prepared. I heard President Taylor say, "Brethren, I will suffer my right hand to be cut off before I will sign such a document." This account by Woolly was actually later expanded in 1929 to include some details that are pretty dramatic.

And it's probably these extra details that precipitated the first presidency statement in 1933. What Woolly went on to say is that this was the occasion at which the 1886 revelation was given and that as a part of this event, five men were secretly given authority to continue plural marriage even if the church at large ceased the practice. Several fundamentalist groups still argue that their authority to continue to perform polygamous marriages is rooted in this meeting back in 1886. It was these claims that resulted in the first presidency statement where Heberj Grant denied the existence of the revelation itself.

What was probably going on is he was rejecting all of these claims. The whole ball of wax here and the revelation was kind of the the the lynch pin, the hinge, the thing that everyone was pointing to. And so even though the story is broader than just the revelation, this revelation really became key in the disagreement between the mainline LDS church and Mormon fundamentalists, which is, I think, probably why they continued to deny its existence for so long. So why does this matter? I think it matters for three major reasons. First reason, it raises major questions about the legitimacy of the manifestos.

If John Taylor was right, and this was a legitimate revelation from God, then Wilfford Woodruff was wrong and he was led astray. If Wilfford Woodruff is correct, then John Taylor was wrong and he was led astray. Either John Taylor was led astray or Wilfrid Woodruff was led astray. To say, "Thus sayaeth the Lord," and be wrong, carries with it major consequences in the Bible. Some people are saying John Taylor didn't know if this was a legitimate revelation. He never presented it to the church. If John Taylor is a prophet and he's writing things down and he's saying, "Thus sayaith the Lord," I have a hard time seeing how that would not be a claim to revelation.

That that language that thus sayeth the Lord language is historically in in the Bible used of prophetic revelation and even Joseph Smith uses it in the Doctrine of Covenants all over the place. The second issue, this raises a major question as to the nature of deception within Mormonism. There's a long history of LDS denial of public practices or beliefs that are actually true. Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage in Kirtland in Nauvoo is probably the prime example of this. It seems like Hebrew J. Grant, who I think probably knew about the revelation, used deception to cast doubt on the claims of Mormon fundamentalists when they were actually at least partially correct about this.

The New Testament warns about things like this. There will be false apostles, deceitful workmen disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. He tells of false teachers who will be devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared. Satan is called the father of lies. To use lies and deception publicly to cast doubt on something that's actually true is definitionally bad fruit. And I think my LDS friends acknowledge this. Again, I just want to be clear. It is conceivable that Hebrew J. Grant was not intentionally being deceptive.

Perhaps he forgot about the earlier discussion that he recorded and perhaps he wasn't aware of Joseph Fielding Smith's copy written down in 1909. It seems unlikely to me, but I have to acknowledge it's at least possible. Even still, once that original document was given to him, he should have retracted his statement. The third issue speaks to the whole issue of officiality. I just released a video on this a little bit ago. I'll link that video at the end of this one if you're curious to watch it. But the question is this. If this was a legitimate revelation, should it matter if it was received by the church?

When Doctrine and Covenant section 132 was recorded in 1843, it was not known by most members in the LDS church. And yet, it was believed and practiced because it was a revelation from God. It wasn't until the 1870s when it was accepted by common consent of the church. And yet LDS leaders saw it binding well before the church ever accepted it. How is this revelation categorically different? If you think about this from the perspective of Mormon fundamentalists, how is this revelation any different from the one given in 1843 from DNC 132? a revelation given to a president about plural marriage that the wider church might not know about, but that a small select group recognizes and obeys because it's a revelation from God.

If this was a legitimate revelation, should it matter if it was received or accepted by the church? If God legitimately speaks, it is irrelevant who accepts that revelation. In the Old Testament, the prophets would speak, "Thus sayaith the Lord." And like no one in Israel believed them. They hated the prophets. They killed them. It didn't matter that people didn't accept it. It didn't matter that the revelation was rejected. If God says it, it is binding irrespective of how it is received. I think that the reason that this revelation has caused so much stir online is because my Latter-day Saint friends know that it's an issue in their conscience.

not talking about all the ways that we rationalize and figure out how to deal with this. I mean, when you hear about this and it seems like LDS church leaders have been deceptive and there's language about polygamy going on forever, people know in their hearts, in their consciences that this is not right. This is bad fruit. Don't dull your conscience to these things. If you feel bothered by this, don't suppress that. Don't push that down. The Bible warns about searing your consciences. In fact, the verse that I read earlier about liars whose consciences are seared. When people buy into lies that they know are lies, when people do something immoral and they suppress that gut reaction against it, when they dull that part of themselves, it's damaging.

1 Timothy 5

Sin has an effect. So, I would just appeal to you if you're wanting to look at this and just say, "It's not an issue. It's not an issue." and push down that reaction you get. Don't do that. The Bible warns about that. I want to end by reading just this verse from 1 Timothy chapter 5. I think it's helpful. It says, "The sins of some people are conspicuous going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later." What he's saying here is that some people's sins are very obvious at first glance, but in other cases, it takes time. And God in his sovereignty and his providence will reveal the sins of others so that we can make right judgments about them.

I think things like this is exactly what 1 Timothy 5 is talking about. The sins of LDS church leaders are being revealed here. And it is the duty of all people when they hear this and they know in their hearts that it's problematic to not suppress that but reject them as false prophets.