No, that’s not a headline pulled from one of today’s newspapers. It describes LDS President John Taylor in 1886. He was at that time busy dodging US federal officials who were actively seeking to find and apprehend LDS polygamists such as Taylor. John Taylor was born in England in 1808, emigrated to Canada in 1832, joined the early LDS Church in 1836, then moved to Far West, Missouri in 1838, where he was ordained an apostle. Taylor became a US citizen in 1849. Taylor led the Church from 1877 to his death in 1887, first as President of the Quorum of the Twelve (1877-80), then as President of the Church (1880-87). In those days, the First Presidency was not immediately reorganized following the death of the previous President.
The revelation in question is a long-disputed purported revelation received by Taylor in 1886, often referred to as “the 1886 revelation.” The gist of the short revelation is that the command for Latter-day Saints to practice plural marriage will never be revoked. God, speaking through Taylor, says, “I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting …”. The revelation was written down, but the document was never presented to and adopted by LDS leaders or the body of the Church as an acknowledged and canonized revelation. Having publicly ceased endorsing the practice of plural marriage in 1890 and *actually* ceased endorsing it and contracting new plural marriages by around 1910, the LDS Church and its leaders never accepted the 1886 revelation and even denied its existence or authenticity. However, in what became known as “LDS fundamentalist” circles, the 1886 revelation was both accepted and celebrated. And that’s where things more or less stood for over a century.
Jump forward to June 2025. Sometime last month (today being July 1) the LDS Church quietly acknowledged that it holds the apparently original copy of the 1886 revelation in its archives. Furthermore, it publicly posted a facsimile of the document. Yeah, wow. This raises a variety of questions, doesn’t it? Expect a dozen presentations on this at LDS conferences for the next few years, as well as articles in LDS journals.
I’m not really the one to attempt any early statement about “what this means.” For a few initial observations on the topic, go read a Q&A with LDS historian Benjamin Park at KUER, titled “An 1880s LDS polygamy revelation raises ‘awkward questions’ today, says historian.” But let me do a quick estimate of how various LDS groups will react to the news and the now-released document:
- LDS leadership: We didn’t want to do this, but we did anyway. [And they deserve some credit for this decision.]
- LDS membership: Huh?
- LDS religion teachers: Let’s wait for official direction from LDS leadership before we teach anything at all about the 1886 revelation.
- LDS fundamentalists: Doing cartwheels.
- LDS critics: Yeah, we always knew they were still hiding stuff in the LDS archives.
- LDS bloggers: Wow, I can get at least a half dozen posts out of this!
.
Wheat & Tares 
Well, the FLDS had copies all along, even before the main church hid it and denied they had it. The FLDS think Taylor sent them into hiding and told them to continue polygamy no matter what because as long as some Mormons were practicing it, that revelation was in effect. They actually think the main LDS agreed to the split so God wouldn’t have a fit that they stopped polygamy and that the 12 under Taylor knew good and well that was the plan to have some members hiding in Mexico, Canada, and southern Utah that still practiced and would not stop. Some FLDS may have decided the main LDS were in apostasy for stopping, but my friend belonged to a group that believe that our general authorities know they are given permission to continue, but for legal reasons have to pretend to excommunicate polygamists. It is a conspiracy the main church is in on.
And Nelson and Oaks believe believe in eternal polygamy as they are sealed to two women, so it isn’t like they think that hidden revelation wasn’t in effect all along and polygamy isn’t an eternal principle. They just wanted to kind of hide polygamy from modern Mormon women. Pretend like we don’t believe in it anymore when really we never stopped believing it. We just sort of stopped practicing it openly in *this* life. But all along we thought that polygamy will never really be taken from the earth, because as long as the fundies we’re doing it we could keep our temple and our wealth. But men have *always* been able to be sealed to more than one woman. They just can’t live with more than one at a time. Divorced men can remarry a second wife without losing the sealing to the first. It is only women who have to go through crap to get a sealing canceled before they can be sealed again. So, really, we never stopped polygamy. We just pretended. See, my friend is correct that the main LDS are in on keeping polygamy going.
Let it trickle out and hope most the members don’t notice and keep their heads buried in the manuals. Then when the critics come barking, “you’re hiding stuff” you can disingenuously say, “no we’re not. Neener, neener.”
It is extremely arrogant to believe that a group of individuals can be explicitly authorized to create lasting structures in the afterlife like we do when we tie people’s next-life fates together through sealings of spouses, servants, and children.
It is harmless at first – creating rituals to anchor certainty of family against a nomadic life of going from Kirkland to Nauvoo to Utah.
But it ends up looking like marking territory that belongs to the judgement of God because we want to – without considering whether everyone really wants to be linked in that way for forever (or even should be).
It would be interesting to survey active members of the Church with one simple question: “do you believe plural marriage will be part of the Celestial Kingdom Experience?”. I would sincerely like to know what members actually think is going to happen and how they reconcile this with their beliefs.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Anna, I’m sure the FLDS and other fundamentalists have a variety of stories. With the latest disclosure, those stories will probably get a second look by LDS historians.
joshua h, I think the average mainstream Mormon is about as excited about practicing polygamy as they are about practicing child sacrifice. Which, I suspect, is why those mainstreamers who eventually stumble across discussion of the 1886 revelation (it’s certainly not going to be in the Church News or posted on LDS.org) will give it a big shrug.
Tsk tsk, Dave B. Can’t you see that this is just more evidence of divinely Providential mind-changing-ness – just like the priesthood/temple ban, “Mormon” good, now bad, pox, and countless other examples of faith-promoting divine mind-changing? Clearly, you lack the faith to trust the Brethren to quietly tell you “trust me bro, nothing to see here,” and move on with your life. You’re better than this, Dave B. (*in case it didn’t jump off the screen, sarcasm intended*).
I see three ways the Church could handle this:
1. As many of you have noted, the most likely response is to ignore it and assume that the members who learn about it will just shrug.
2. If ignoring it doesn’t work, they could simply reinterpret it. I see nowhere in the document where it explicitly mentions plural marriage–only the New and Everlasting Covenant and the “works of Abraham”. We have already reinterpreted the New and Everlasting Covenant as eternal marriage without reference to polygamy, so extending that interpretation to this document should be smooth sailing. And by “works of Abraham”, we never understood that to mean all of his works. Like we don’t take our sons out to be sacrificed and we don’t offer up our wives to hostile rulers. So we just add plural marriage to the list of works of Abraham that we don’t do.
3. Least likely, but what I would love to see them do, it put it to a vote. Something along the lines of “As you may know, we found a previously unpublished revelation in our archives. In the spirit of the law of common consent, we now place it before the membership to determine whether the Church will accept this revelation as the mind and will of the Lord.” Then call for a standing vote. When none of the Q15 stands in favor, everybody who did stand will quickly sit down, the motion will fail, and it need never be mentioned again.
So what is revelation? and who speaks the will and mind of the Lord? Let’s be plain: while we sustain the president of the church as prophet, seer, and revelator, we cannot believe that everything that he says and does is the will of the Lord. See the parable, given to Joseph Smith in 1832-1833, at D&C 88:51-61. The Lord has many laborers. He was with Joseph Smith, I believe, and got things rolling. No problem. But then the Lord left that servant to visit a second servant, and then a third, and so on until the twelfth. Joseph Smith and his successors are the first servant working in one part of the master’s field.
I sustain the current president as the successor of J.S. with the title of president of the church and of prophet, seer, and revelator. I also recognize, per the parable, that we may not always enjoy “the light of the countenance of the Lord,” and certainly not 24/7/365. At times, the master leaves his servants alone to work as best as they can while he visits other servants elsewhere. And while the master is away, his servants can err. John Taylor may have erred when he wrote this putative revelation. Was it a revelation? from God? or was it written by a man to help the saints stay the course in tough political times? The proclamation on the family was certainly written for political reasons–is it revelation from God, or was it written by committees of men to help the saints stay the course in tough political times?
I think the early saints at Berea had it right, and Paul and Luke certainly thought so. Most members of the church today, and leaders, would disavow Taylor’s revelation as the word of God. Brigham Young taught some doctrines that we reject today. I don’t know what Heber J Grant said about old age pensions, but apparently he didn’t like them, though most American members are at peace with social security, and many other countries have similar programs. President Nelson has told us that we need to know how to receive revelation if we are to survive perilous times ahead. This might include revelation to know when the leaders are speaking the will of the Lord. All leaders at all levels can err, and sometimes do. We should not ignore Taylor’s revelation (lastlemming’s #1); we should use it to help us see that leaders are fallible: well-intentioned, but fallible. That should not weaken or destroy anyone’s testimony.
lastlemming,
I agree with much of what you say in your second paragraph. Though, as per my own sensibilities, I take it a step further and view the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage as the principle of eternal marriage–without respect to the number of wives–and polygamy as a principle that is appendaged to it. In other words, when the Lord commands his people to practice polygamy it must be under the rubric of the New and Everlasting Covenant.
As to the fact that polygamy is never mentioned in the revelation: I’m open to the idea that the Lord– who sees the beginning from the end–sometimes will say what needs to be said in the moment while leaving the door open for a broader interpretation of his words in the future. I think Section 19 is a good example of that notion.
I have found that most believers have no problem in saying and acknowledging that the leaders are fallible. That is and has long been a non-issue. Where they often have a problem is in describing how the leaders are fallible. Believers like to think of fallibility as something such as the leaders accidentally getting an insignificant fact wrong in a talk, or getting grumpy at someone. Where they don’t like to acknowledge fallibility is on the question of larger lies. Did current leaders cover up inconvenient information about polygamy? Yes they did. Do they regularly gaslight in their conference talks and give talks that are insincere? Yes. Do they withhold damning information? Yes. Are they financially honest? Not always. Did Joseph Smith lie about plural marriage? Yes. Was his libido a major driver in his plural marriage? I have every reason to believe so. Did he make up revelations? Of course.
To the LDS church, the word “revelation” has so many possible meanings that the word is meaningless. Two specific observations:
(1) Every change in the church program is deemed “revelation” regardless of how the change plays out. Consider the “Ministering” program – a higher and holier way to care for fellow members. By the numbers, ministering is a flop. Personally, I was home taught and I went home teaching far more than I have “ministered”. When I look up who is to minister to me I am usually surprised to see it is very active brothers. The “Ministering” program has flopped so badly these good men don’t even acknowledge to me they are my “ministering brothers.” Why? I have ideas but the basic observation is the “Ministering” program flopped.
(2) The churches response to the 2020 Pandemic began with two churchwide calls to Fast & Pray for God’s deliverance. And then the world stayed shutdown. In August 2021 the First Presidency sent out its famous letter where deliverance from the Pandemic would actually be realized by following government and “experts”. I invite anyone to square these two responses. Was the 1st one a “Revelation”? Was the 2nd one a better “Revelation”? Why did God not deliver the church from the lockdowns and death of the pandemic as requested by Faith in Spring 2020?
Observe that the church’s pandemic experience was so lacking in positive stories that the church leaders simply don’t talk about it – those were strange, miserable years. Occasionally we get a general authority griping that the members were not obedient to the August 2021 letter. They NEVER talk about the March / April 2020 Fasting & Prayers. That part of the story has been completely dropped from the narrative.
The remarkable thing is LDS history is full of unfulfilled prophecies. What is the Doctrine & Covenants other than documentation that the Saints failed to build promised Zion? What is so remarkable about the LDS church is we know any leadership decision may be a hit or miss but we so badly want to believe it will be a hit. So maybe revelation in the LDS church is better described as wishful thinking.