In the complex history of Mormonism, few documents expose the tensions between prophetic revelation and institutional survival quite like John Taylor’s 1886 revelation. This revelation, written in Taylor’s own hand, declared that the divine commandment of plural marriage would not and could not be revoked. Yet for over a century, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints denied its existence—and only recently, and quietly, acknowledged its authenticity by posting it to the archives.
Revelation about the new and everlasting covenant as written by John Taylor. File includes John Taylor’s 1886 handwritten copy and a handwritten copy by a Taylor family member. Also includes an 18 July 1933 memorandum from J. Reuben Clark Jr. about the provenance of the copy in John Taylor’s handwriting, a 1909 typescript copy of the revelation by Joseph Fielding Smith, and additional typescript copies.
John Taylor revelation, 1886 September 27
https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/3aec2ea6-fdeb-4866-9529-47e27f9cd3b9/0/8
This troubling episode highlights a pattern of institutional dishonesty and historical manipulation at the highest levels of the LDS Church.
A Revelation Buried
John Taylor, the third president of the LDS Church, allegedly received the revelation in 1886, during a period of intense federal pressure to end the practice of polygamy. At the time, Latter-day Saints viewed polygamy not as a peripheral belief, but as a central, divinely mandated doctrine. According to the 1886 revelation, that doctrine was eternal, inviolable, and could not be set aside—not even by the church president himself.
After Taylor’s death, the document was discovered by his son, John W. Taylor, while settling his father’s estate. Though not publicly distributed, the revelation circulated quietly among those who felt the church had erred in later abandoning polygamy. When Wilford Woodruff issued the 1890 Manifesto formally discontinuing plural marriage, many were left in confusion. How could a new revelation override the direct commandment given just four years earlier?
A Legacy of Secrecy
Following the 1890 Manifesto, and again with the more forceful “Second Manifesto” in 1904, church leaders claimed to have ended polygamy. Yet in practice, some church leadership continued to authorize and perform plural marriages in secret. Many of these sealings involved apostles and other general authorities. The tension between public renunciation and private practice led to internal conflict, culminating in the excommunication of John W. Taylor in 1911. His offense? Refusing to stop performing plural marriages—even after church leadership had publicly forbidden them.
During his disciplinary council, Taylor presented his father’s 1886 revelation as justification for his continued polygamous activity. He read the full revelation, and the council acknowledged that it was in John Taylor’s handwriting. They did not, however, acknowledge it as a revelation to the church. How could they? They’d already issued multiple contrary revelations and manifestos!
It is of special note that present at this disciplinary council were both Heber J. Grant, and Anthony W. Ivins. J. Reuben Clark was not a member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles in 1911, so he was not present.
Official Denial
For decades, the First Presidency denied that any such revelation existed. They had seen it with their own eyes during John W. Taylor’s disciplinary council. In 1933, the First Presidency issued an Official Statement in which they described this revelation as a “pretended” revelation. The even stated that “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.” So the revelation was a pretense. It did not exist, though two in the first presidency had seen it over twenty years prior.
The First Presidency have recently received letters making inquiry concerning the position of the Church regarding the contracting of polygamous or plural marriages. It is evident these letters, a well as from certain published material—some of it distributed during our last General Conference—that a secret and, according to reputation, an oath-bound organization of misguided individuals is seeking to lead the people to adopt adulterous relations under the guise of a pretended and false polygamous or plural marriage ceremony.
While the position of Church since 1893 has been repeatedly set forth, namely that polygamous or plural marriages are not and cannot now be performed, yet in order that there may be no excuse for any Church member to be misled by the false representations or the corrupt, adulterous practices of the members of this secret and (by reputation) oath-bound organisation (of which the history of the Nephites and Lamanites show so many counterparts), it is deemed wise again to set out the position of the Church on this matter, at the same time tracing the outlines of the historical facts lying behind the Church’s position, of which many young Church members might not be fully aware.
Official Statement from the First Presidency,” Deseret News, June 17, 1933 (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, J. Reuben Clark)
https://bhroberts.org/records/fbkJxk-WrhUBb/first_presidency_heber_j_grant_anthony_w_ivins_j_reuben_clark_publish_official_statement_denouncing_the_practice_of_plural_marriage_in_the_church
What About Joseph Smith’s Secret Polygamy?
They denounced any who continued to practice polygamy as corrupt members of oath-bound organizations or secret combinations. Ironically, they accuse secret polygamists of being misguided, corrupt, and adulterous. This is the exact same type of polygamy that Joseph Smith practiced, namely, secret and two-faced. Joseph Smith lied about having plural wives. He repeatedly stated publicly that he had but one wife, but the church officially admits today that at the time of his death, he had between 30 and 40 wives. The reason we still don’t have an exact count is due to the secretive nature of these marriages and the lack of records. Detractors made the same charges against Joseph Smith at the time. Oliver Cowdery himself called Joseph’s womanizing adulterous and was excommunicated for it. The Nauvoo Expositor called him corrupt and was destroyed for it.
No Such Revelation Exists, But…
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.
Furthermore, insofar as the authorities of the Church are concerned, 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.
Official Statement from the First Presidency,” Deseret News, June 17, 1933 (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, J. Reuben Clark)
https://bhroberts.org/records/fbkJxk-WrhUBb/first_presidency_heber_j_grant_anthony_w_ivins_j_reuben_clark_publish_official_statement_denouncing_the_practice_of_plural_marriage_in_the_church
Strangely, they hedged their bets by stating that even if the revelation had been given, it would be “unauthorized, illegal, and void.”
This contradiction raises immediate questions: If no such revelation existed, why speculate about its hypothetical invalidity? Why not simply dismiss it entirely?
The answer became apparent just weeks later. In July 1933, the church quietly obtained the original handwritten document from Nellie Taylor, one of John W. Taylor’s plural wives. Despite acquiring the very document they had just publicly denounced, the church made no correction to their earlier statement. Instead, they maintained public silence and quietly archived the revelation, hidden away from members and scholars alike for nearly a century.
A Revelation Rediscovered
It wasn’t until June 14, 2025—93 years later—that the LDS Church quietly acknowledged the document’s existence by posting scans in its online History Catalog. There was no announcement, no explanatory statement, no apology for decades of denial. Just a quiet upload, as if the matter had never been in question.
This long history of denial followed by silent acknowledgment places church leadership in a deeply compromised position. Their initial denial was not a simple oversight—it was a public declaration of falsehood. And rather than correct the record once the revelation was in their possession, they chose concealment.
What Does This Say About the Church?
The 1886 revelation stands in direct contradiction to the 1890 Manifesto. One states that polygamy is eternal and unchangeable. The other proclaims its end through prophetic revelation. Both cannot be true. Either John Taylor’s revelation was divinely mandated and the church betrayed it—or the Manifesto was inspired and John Taylor was in error. But if John Taylor, as prophet, could falsely claim revelation—or if later prophets could contradict God’s will—then what does that say about prophetic authority as a whole?
The church’s treatment of the 1886 revelation is not an isolated incident. It reflects a broader institutional pattern: deny uncomfortable truths, suppress contradictory documents, and revise the narrative only when necessary—and always quietly. As long as the church’s foundational claims remain under scrutiny, its leaders seem trapped in a catch-22: to admit the truth would be to unravel the very claims that give the institution its authority.
No wonder church leaders make baffling, almost confessional statements like “we are as honest as we know how to be.” That’s not the language of divine confidence—it’s the language of bureaucratic damage control.
The Cost of a False Narrative
The church cannot be open or honest because it must maintain its own myths. The 1886 revelation is just one crack in the edifice—but it’s a revealing one. If church leadership had been honest in 1933, or even in 1911, the story of Mormonism might look very different today. But institutional preservation took precedence over prophetic integrity.
And once a lie becomes foundational, honesty becomes impossible. The church cannot admit that there was no First Vision as described today. It cannot admit that the priesthood restoration story evolved over time. It cannot afford to acknowledge the contradictions because doing so would call into question every “truth claim” it has made for nearly two centuries.
To preserve the illusion of divine guidance and unbroken prophetic authority, the church must continue to obscure, deflect, and distort. The dishonesty is not the disease—it’s a symptom. The disease is a dependence on a false narrative, a manufactured history that must be protected at all costs.
Until that changes, moments of truth—like the silent admission of the 1886 revelation—will continue to haunt the church’s legacy.
When the Narrative Crumbles
For many of us who were raised in the LDS Church, discovering these kinds of historical contradictions creates deep dissonance. We were taught that the church’s leaders are inspired men of God, that its history is divinely guided, and that its truth claims are unimpeachable. When we begin to uncover moments like the suppression of the 1886 revelation—when we realize the extent to which the church has misled its members—it can feel like the ground beneath us is giving way.
This unraveling is not just intellectual. It’s emotional, spiritual, even existential. We may feel betrayed, disoriented, or angry. For some, it sparks a crisis of faith. For others, it opens a door to deeper truth, to personal growth, and to a more authentic life—one not built on inherited narratives, but on examined experience. If you’ve felt this dissonance—if your shelf has broken under the weight of unanswered questions—you’re not alone. The church is facing a crisis of truth.
At wasmormon.org, we’re collecting the stories of those who have walked this path. Stories of doubt, discovery, reconciliation, and change. Your story matters. Whether you’ve left the church, redefined your faith, or are still sorting through the pieces, we invite you to share your journey. By doing so, you help others see that they’re not alone—and that there’s hope and clarity on the other side of confusion. Visit wasmormon.org/profiles to read others’ stories or wasmormon.org/login to share your own.
More reading:
- John Taylor’s Hidden 1886 Polygamy Revelation
- https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/3aec2ea6-fdeb-4866-9529-47e27f9cd3b9/0/8
- https://bhroberts.org/records/fbkJxk-WrhUBb/first_presidency_heber_j_grant_anthony_w_ivins_j_reuben_clark_publish_official_statement_denouncing_the_practice_of_plural_marriage_in_the_church
- https://mormonr.org/qnas/vFgD6f/john_taylors_1886_revelation
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Reuben_Clark
- https://religionnews.com/2025/06/16/the-lds-historical-department-just-published-an-1886-polygamy-revelation/