Let me briefly introduce you to Elder John W. Taylor, son of President John Taylor. John W. Taylor was ordained by his father as an apostle and member of the Quorum of the Twelve at the age of 26. Two years later, his father wrote a revelation that fundamentalist groups consider scripture. The infamous 1886 Revelation was (allegedly) given by President Taylor, and witnessed by several leading authorities, including apostle George Q. Cannon. Its purpose: to ensure the continuance of plural marriage, in the face of persecution and formal censure. In 1890, President Woodruff produced the manifesto ending the practice of polygamy in the church. However, plural marriages continued to be performed for several years afterward—by church leaders. Elder John W. Taylor was one such leader who married polygamously post 1890.

In 1903, apostle Elder Reed Smoot was elected by Utah as a US Senator. Immediately thereafter, Smoot was met with scrutiny over his position in the church and the practice of polygamy. Congressional hearings were conducted over his appointment, polygamy being a central issue. Near the beginning of these hearings, President Joseph F. Smith produced the Second Manifesto, further renouncing the church’s practice of polygamy. Pres. Smith also gave testimony in Smoot’s defense. John W. Taylor was subpoenaed, but did not show—instead fleeing to Canada. Pres. Smith testified that since the 1890 manifesto, “there has never been, to my knowledge, a plural marriage performed in accordance with understanding, instruction, connivance, counsel, or permission of the presiding authorities of the church, or of the church, in any shape or form.” This was patently false, as several plural marriages had been authorized and performed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve—including John W. Taylor—since 1890.

The Second Manifesto—published shortly after Smith’s testimony to Congress—cracked down on plural marriages. Furthermore, it extended the ban worldwide—not just within the US. Until 1904, the church had encouraged post-Manifesto polygamist settlements in Mexico and Canada. In the wake of the Smoot Hearings and Second Manifesto, several church leaders who had taken plural wives post-1890 were pressured to resign from their posts. Among these were apostles Matthias F. Cowley and John W. Taylor. Both resigned from the Quorum of the Twelve in 1905.

Taylor remained a member in good standing but disputed with the Quorum of the Twelve over plural marriage for years after his resignation. In 1911, Taylor claimed to discover the 1886 Revelation among his father’s papers. Taylor was excommunicated in the same year. John W. Taylor produced a copy of the revelation—not the original—written in his own hand. That said, photographs of the original document exist, but the document itself is not extant. Examinations of these photographs have suggested that the document is indeed written in President John Taylor’s handwriting.

In 1912, ordained seventy Lorin C. Woolley claimed that five copies of the revelation had been made and entrusted to a council of five men: George Q. Cannon, Lorin C. Woolley, John W. Woolley, Samuel Bateman, and Charles H. Wilcken (Pres. Taylor’s bodyguard). Through John and Lorin Woolley and the 1886 Revelation, many present-day fundamentalist polygamous groups claim their rights of authority. They believe they are keeping the New and Everlasting Covenant alive while the LDS church has fallen out of order by rejecting plural marriage. John W. Woolley was excommunicated in 1914 for performing plural marriages. Lorrin C. Woolley was excommunicated not until 1924 after accusing Pres. Heber J. Grant and apostle James E. Talmage of taking plural wives “in the recent past.” Pres. Grant denied this later in 1931.

It is obvious that the 1890 and 1904 manifestos were both written in response to public pressure. Specifically, the Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887) and desire for Utah statehood, and later the scrutiny of the Reed Smoot hearings and the desire to have an apostle in the Senate. Indeed, pressure had been mounting against the Mormons in Utah ever since polygamy was acknowledged publicly in 1852. It’s no coincidence that James Buchanan won the 1856 election against a Republican Party platform that included the promise “to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism: polygamy and slavery.” It is also probably no coincidence that the period of the Mormon Reformation—during which Brigham Young recommitted the Utah Saints to the church through fiery sermons that included such topics as blood atonement and a doubling down on the principle of plural marriage—began in this same year.

In 1862, President Lincoln signed into effect the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, which was the first major legislation to target the church’s practice of polygamy. However, Lincoln refused to enforce the act as part of a truce he had informally negotiated with Brigham Young, out of a fear that Utah—where slavery was legal—would secede from the Union and join with the Confederates. Said Lincoln, “You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone.” Thus it wasn’t until the Poland Act in 1874 that the Mormons began to really experience meaningful legal consequences over polygamy, when federal authorities began to imprison church leaders for the practice.

It was in this context that Pres. John Taylor’s First Presidency put forward George Reynolds—a secretary to the office of the president of the church—as a defendant in a case before the United States Supreme Court: Reynolds vs United States. The hope was to challenge the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act under the protections of the First Amendment regarding religious liberty. The effort failed miserably, resulting in the first restrictions on First Amendment rights as pertaining to religion, and paving the way for the Edmunds Act (1882) and Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887), which significantly turned up the heat on the church to abandon polygamy. Throughout all of this, however, President John Taylor remained a fierce proponent of plural marriage, even though it meant he spent the last two and a half years of his life leading the church “in exile” as he hid from federal authorities. It was in this context that the 1886 Revelation is said to have been received.

For myself, I have many thoughts and questions about these stories. John W. Taylor and several other leaders continued to take plural wives well after 1890. It seems they did not consider the first Manifesto to be a serious end to polygamy—just a cover to divert the public eye. This follows in the tradition of public denials of polygamy despite privately practicing plural marriage that reaches through the Utah territorial period all the way back to Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. It seems very unlikely that Pres. Woodruff or Pres. Smith were ignorant of their own apostles adding to their plural families. Most pre-1890 plural marriages required clearance from a higher authority. Did they know of the 1886 Revelation? Did they encourage these marriages? Surely they knew that plural marriages continued in Mormon settlements in Mexico and Canada that had been established explicitly for this purpose.

John W. Taylor’s pressured resignation must have been a terrible personal blow and felt like a betrayal. His father was a zealot when it came to defending and preserving plural marriage in the face of personal risks and intense legal pressure. I imagine he felt similarly passionate. Likewise, his excommunication and discovery of the 1886 Revelation in the same year seems too amazing to be a coincidence. What are we to make of this? There are reasons to see the revelation as credibly authentic, whatever you make of the Woolleys and their later claims. Don’t get me wrong—I’m not cheerleading for John W. Taylor here, he was a deeply problematic person. That said, it’s interesting to consider his story from what may have been his perspective.

Importantly, how do these details change how we view our Mormon fundamentalist cousins? We shouldn’t ignore the horrible abuses taking place in these communities. However, understanding their history makes it easier to understand how they got to be as they are today. They exist as they do because of the LDS church. Not just because of D&C 132 or Brigham Young, but because of a complicated history in which the LDS church abandoned those who were living their faith as they had been taught to do by their church leaders—who later threw them under the bus. What responsibility does the present-day church—leaders and members alike—have for cleaning up the mess they left with plural marriage? Whose problem is it to solve, and how are they to solve it? As much as it tries, can the church ever truly eschew its polygamous past?