Episode #189: The Release Of The 1886 Revelation W/Cristina Gagliano

0:26 The you're listening to the Mormon Renegade podcast. Well, you tried to retire, which I, I respect. I respect I, I, I do I, I throw mad respect your way anytime I get a chance, and I can respect trying to retire. But Mormon fundamentalism, it'll drag you back in. You don't have a choice. Once you're in, you're in. And what A and what a, what a way, right? I, I retired thinking what could possibly happen and what and what it's like 5-6 months and all of a sudden like the moment I've been waiting for my whole career.

1:16 I knew it was good. I knew it was good when I got the message from you saying I'm coming out of retirement and you should take a look at this. So I'll I'll tell you exactly like we were doing the most Mormon thing ever. When when I got your text, me and the girls jumped in the truck. I was like, let's go to Adam on Diamond and I haven't been to Hans Mill yet, so let's go there. Right. Like the only thing I was missing is like if I just would have loaded up a hand cart and went with that. But nonetheless, we were there and we had just, we had just gotten done at Hans Mill. When, when when I got your message and I was like, oh, and I was like, OK, so actually I was like dictating the message because I was driving and I was having my, my wife in the front seat, who was Amber.

2:00 I was at that time I was like, OK, you need to text your back. And and she's like, well, what do you want to say? I was like, I got to see if I can get her to come on the program. And Amber goes, she retired. I'm like, it's different. You'll get it. It's different, different, right? Like I got, I got to see. And so like I'm, I'm, I'm dictating the messages. She's like typing away. And so, yeah, no, I was. Had you? Had you told her what happened at this point? No, because I was like, I, I was like, I was trying to figure it out all myself, right? Because look, there's two parts of this thing that are huge. 1 is that the church actually admits that this was a thing now and then. The second is that we have evidence now that this was kind of deep sixed intentionally, right?

2:46 It's it wasn't like, oh, what, you know, I must have left that revelation in my other vault. And so it, it was I, I was like, I, I was just ecstatic, right. And I'm, you know, as I'm want to do, I'm trying to think of, OK, where are the ramifications of this and going down the line. So I was super glad when you said you would you'd be willing to come back on and come out of retirement. Yeah, it was AI mean. It was a wild moment because, you know, I started asking about this years ago. Like, I believed it was in there like everyone. And I never let it go. Like I'll be everyone's favorite gentile who doesn't know how to let things go. And so I just kept asking about this. And it's like, you know, Saturday, I'm with my husband at the library, just having a normal day, and I get a text that says, I hope you're sitting down. And then the follow up text is a link that has no preview. And, and I was like, and I, it said the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints or whatever, and, or church history library. And you know, in my mind, I'm like, nothing is going to excite me.

4:01 Like I'm so done with this field. Like there's nothing that I can click here that is going to make me like, you know, whatever, I don't care. And I click it. And the way that my jaw hit the floor and my husband looks at me and I like get like teary eyed and I'm just like kind of looking around frantically because I'm sitting in the middle of the library in like rural Tennessee, Like no one cares. And, and I'm just like freaking out. My husband's like what's going on? And I was like, I knew it. And I was like, it's the 1886 revelation. And I turned the computer and of course I'm like rehashing this whole story of like 1886.

4:43 And he's, and he's very familiar with the history. Of course he is at this point. And also, yeah, probably the only Anglican priest who in Quebec who like really knows this history. And and then I, I started, I didn't know what to do. I asked if I could share it and I impulse Facebook posted it. But then I immediately started messaging all the fundamentalists I know. And I posted in fundamentalist groups that like the one that that I like, used to moderate with Jacob. Like I started posting everyone. I was like y'all were right. Yeah, yeah. Well, and, and, and that's, you know, look, the fact that it's legit doesn't surprise anybody in in the community at large, right?

5:28 We all knew. We all knew, right? It was, it was a foregone conclusion. But the and, and we'll get there. We'll get there in this conversation. But the fact it's out in public now and the LDS Church recognizes it as legit, that's a different animal. And the implications of this I think are huge now, right? And we'll discuss those later. But before, before we get there, let's because I do have a large segment of the of the audience who is active members of the LDS Church. And a lot of this they do not quite understand yet. So, real quick, let's break down what the 1886 revelation is.

6:10 Sure. So I want, I always kind of note that the 1886 revelation is actually not unique or special, like John Taylor to paint a picture of this man, 3rd president of the church. Ride or die for polygamy. Like this man. If there ever was a Mormon prophet who was going to die for this, it was going to be him. I mean, Brigham Young, of course, during the Mormon reformation especially. Like really enthusiastic about polygamy. I I know this is since I've retired, this has become controversial. Joseph Smith starts it. I know, I'm sorry. I had no idea. When I my shock when I realized this has become a controversial statement at this point, Joseph starts it. Brigham Young really expands it, certainly, but John Taylor is willing to die for it.

7:04 Like John Taylor is a ride or die. And the reason why that is so significant is that John Taylor is promoting plural marriage at the height of government persecution and prosecution. By the time of this writing in 1885, the Edmonds Act has been put into place. This disenfranchises Mormons. You don't get to vote now. You don't get to hold state office. There's kind of looming concern that they're going to disincorporate the LDS church. They're going to seize temple property. They're going to seize church property. And I mean, if the, I mean, we can all imagine, I mean, LDS fundamentalists alike, if the government comes in and takes your temples, like your marriages are gone, your endowments are gone, everything is gone. And you have kind of two options in light of this. You can either cave to the federal government or you can double down.

8:01 And our boy John Taylor, would you believe he double s down that? Dude was gangster. I'm sorry, if you're a prophet that has a wanted poster, you're straight up gangster. I don't know how else to put it. That's awesome. He's like he is. I mean, I early in my career I started referring to him as the last of the bad ass prophets. Yeah, because he like, I mean, he was kind of what you imagine as a wild, blessed rugged. Like if bolo ties had been a thing, he would have worn one. Like he he was, I mean, he was he was English. So it's also that kind of like throws the wrench in the vibe, but just in terms of the aesthetic of the wild rice. But but he he really believed and that was that really matters. So he's in hiding because like when we say that like The Wanted post for everything, he's in hiding in Centerville, UT, in the home of a man named John West Woolley. And that is going to be an important part of the story. And while he's in hiding, everyone around him is like, what are we going to do?

9:05 And kind of me, I don't really know what they obviously would have thought he would have done, but certainly some people might have wondered. Maybe he'll cave. And on September 27th, 1886, he kind of goes to pray. He kind of secludes themselves for prayer. And we can talk about what the later narratives look like, but at the time the only thing we know is from that a document emerges and the document becomes colloquially known and fundamentalism as the 1886 revelation. And it is a significant revelation for two reason.

9:45 For one really big reason. Like I mentioned, John Taylor had been into polygamy forever. In 1882, he writes A revelation about like he loves the new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage. Like he is so invested in it. This is different because 1886 opens with. Thus sayeth the Lord. Right. And that creates a situation like none of the other documents about polygamy that John Taylor produces, that any of them produce, say thus saith the Lord. So this has a weight to it that other polygamy revelations do not have. And now the interesting thing, and as we talked about the history, it is kind of a difficult thing to piece together because the revelation is produced. And then, to make it very complicated, John Taylor proceeds to die the next year.

10:38 Yep. And there is no explainer, there's no diary entries about it, there's no commentary about it. It pretty much vanishes. Now what we do know about the, and I mean even when the when the George Buchanan Diaries were released, many people, myself included, like ran to the date September 27, 1886 to try to see George Buchanan mentions it. No one mentions it. The only thing we know is that one month after the revelation, John Taylor takes a plural wife. That is the case.

11:23 We also know that John W Wooley, whose home he was in, he also takes a plural life. The problem with that, of course, there's no causal connection. Like none of them are plurally sealed and say this is because of the 1886 revelation, but that's it. So from 1886 until 1889 we actually have nothing about the document. Wow. At all. And it's actually not until Samuel Woolley in his diary in 1889, he just kind of very casually says John Taylor was at John W Taylor was at dinner, mentions his dad received a revelation. But we have really nothing about it for years.

12:08 Right. And so is the reason that revelation isn't brought forward for for years. In your estimation, do just simply because of the nature of his life at that time that he's running house to house, dodging the feds, trying to to evade capture? Yeah. I mean, one of the things I've seen a lot online is a lot of people have commented that, you know, this was never brought before anyone for kind of sustaining vote. This is never kind of been canonized. And that's true. It didn't have to be though. Polygamy was already part of the religion, right? So, so it is true that John Taylor does not bring this forward to canonize it.

12:52 He does not bring it to the apostles. He doesn't do that. Why it it? It wouldn't have made a difference. Polygamy 132 was stood. I mean 1890 the the manifestos that will eventually happen have not happened yet. So if he brings forth 1886 revelation and says thus saith the Lord, we have to do polygamy, people are going to hear that and say we know. Right, right. Like. Yeah, it, it's, it's not, I'll, I'll be honest as, as and please correct me if I'm wrong. You've, you've done your research and, and you know, you got PhD behind your name. I want to give you that grad there. So, so please, if I, if I frame this wrong, let me know. But Christina, as I look at this, sometimes I feel like this is as much a revelation to the leadership as it is to the general membership, right?

13:44 It's the leadership that's struggling with us 'cause if I'm not mistaken, at one point short, and I believe it comes out of one of Quinn's books. But right before he has this revelation, George Buchanan does deliver to him what could be kind of like a forerunner to the manifesto, right? And at which point I think that's when the prayer really starts is, OK, is this something I should do? So to me, sometimes I look at the 1886 revelation, and I think it's far more about the men who were leadership at that time than it was the entire membership. Because like you said, the membership would be like, well, duh. Because they weren't Privy to these arguments or these discussions that were being had.

14:26 Is that a fair assessment there of that, Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think especially in light of the political climate and the government climate, I think this revelation was simply or not simply a reaffirming of we cannot cave to this, right? I, I don't, it wasn't new, it wasn't new information, it wasn't novel information. And the revelation itself, it's short, it's not actually that exciting, but the revelation is God affirming to John Taylor that I do not revoke eternal commandments. And so it is a reiteration of God has said something. We cannot back down on it. It is that that's really what it is. It is him reaffirming.

15:11 This is who we are. This is what we do. We're going to the grave with this. Which does of course make it a bummer that it's like 4 years later. Yeah, yeah, no, I get it. I I do want to cover something because I've heard especially for, for my active LDS folks, they're, they're a little confused on, on what this is really talking about. And that's because like any language, Mormon has a Mormonism has a verbiage, right? And that verbiage has changed over the years from group to group. And, and I do want to read just a portion out of this because I think this is important, especially for for those who don't have a real good handle on on what this revelation is about. And in in the first verse, he says, my son John, you have asked me, considering 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're revoked by me or by my authority. Now the thing I want to point out there is the term the new and everlasting covenant that has gone through some change right now.

16:17 What? What is that referring to in the 1800s during John Taylor's time? Yeah, new and everlasting covenant was polygamy. Right. I mean, 132 uses this language and I I realize in the LDS church contemporarily and and the contemporary kind of shift really was in 1933. It's not until 1933 that we really see this kind of movement of language, especially I think even more than new and everlasting covenant. So the idea of celestial marriage that phrase the phrase celestial marriage really kind of is reimagined as monogamy in the 19 in 1933 under Heber J Grant. But prior to that new and everlasting covenant in celestial marriage really were polygamy in 1933.

17:04 Hebrew J Grant is the first to say celestial marriage that is an LDS people will hear this as kind of true to their experience. Hebrew J Grant says celestial marriage, that is marriage for time and eternity, and polygamous or plural marriages are not, are not synonymous terms. And that was a novel when he says that, because previously, I mean, if you look at the language of 132, if you look at the language of how ceilings worked, this idea was that. I mean, even the idea of eternal marriage, like the problem with removing 132 from the Canon is if you remove the polygamy revelation, you remove the idea of eternal marriage. This is a sticky situation.

17:48 Eternal family's eternal marriage is something so near and dear to LDS people's heart that moving 132 would be, I mean, that would be a devastation. And so there was from the very beginning a deep enmeshment of the idea of an eternal marriage and a polygamous marriage. And so when John Taylor says noon everlasting covenant, I've heard many people say, you know, this includes all covenants, this includes your baptism, this include, and maybe I mean it, I guess it is true that baptism is a everlasting covenant. But in the context John Taylor was writing in hiding being asked specifically to go to the Lord about polygamy with who John Taylor was with his previous polygamy revelations.

18:38 If you take this document in the whole of its context, John Taylor's talking about polygamy. Yeah, and I wanted to draw that out cuz. And I understand having been in both worlds, right? When, when I, I was getting questions like, well, how does this deal with polygamy, right? I don't, I don't see the word celestial plural marriage any, anywhere. And I'm like, OK, you got to understand the context. And then you also have to understand verbiage, right? The verbiage has changed in, in the mainstream church now. And so it, I, I understand why people come from so, so Taylor has the revelation. He double s down. Yeah, so John Taylor double s down really hard. And I mean, I one the interesting thing is like, that's kind of it.

19:20 It just kind of like fades into the mist. And so for that reason, the story that I find most compelling is like, how does the how does the church get it? Like how, when do they get it? Like that really is. And I mean, we learned that from the documents that were released last weekend. And we'll talk about that. We, we do, we do get a picture that we we knew the history, but now we have the hard copy documents that kind of show the history. I mentioned. Samuel Woolley kind of briefly says, hey, John W Taylor notes something. The grand irony, I think, is that shortly before the 1st manifesto in 1890, we do have one other person that makes reference to the existence of a revelation in his diary. Really.

20:08 He and it's, you know, it's, it's a private, it's just private. It's he just notes I have heard about this revelation and that's our boy Heber J Grant. So as early as 1890, Heber J Grant. So he at this time, to be clear, Heber J Grant hasn't seen it necessarily. He hasn't seen copies necessarily. But as early as 1890, Heber J Grant is noting that there is the existence of a revelation from John Taylor about polygamy or about the new and everlasting covenant. So I think that's kind of interesting. We also have Abraham H Canon in 1892. He notes that John W Taylor has referenced A revelation from his dad, but that's it.

20:58 So we have Samuel Woolley, we have Hebrew J Grant, and we have Abraham Canon. After Abraham Canon's diary entry in 1892, we do not hear a single thing about this again until the turn of the century until 19 O 9. Now that leaves a lot of room for grand stories to emerge about it. And we will talk about kind of the lore around it and how especially Lauren Woolley kind of really constructs a really fantastic narrative that Lauren Woolley has a lot of stories, but most of the stories about the 1886 revelation, most of the narrative is an is after the fact. What I just relayed.

21:43 This kind of like bare bones revelation happens, two guys get married a month later, and then there's three diary entries. That is all we know contemporarily. So the, so the, the that revelation, the 1886 revelation, it's not well known amongst it's not in the the zeitgeist I guess of Mormonism at that point for your average lay member people. For anyone, I mean, we have many Diaries. No one is talking about it. And I mean, there's many reasons for that is, or potential reasons. The first, which I can't stress enough, it's not novel.

22:24 John Taylor has said this so many times. So like in, in some people's mind, it would be fair to say like, what's one more time that John Taylor's going off on this? You know, for some people, whatever, it's just another moment. For other people, that's a bad look. The Edmunds Act went into effect in 1885 and now your guy is saying we're never abandoning it. Probably not a great time to be like shouting it from the rooftops. Another kind of significant thing. People keep Diaries. People put, people put challenging things in their Diaries. People write. Most people don't write criminal activity in their Diaries. Right, right, right. The other thing is, again, they're under persecution, right? I mean.

23:09 Yeah, I mean, I, I have read Joseph Muster's Diaries front to back, shout out we are publishing them through signature books. So that'll be a big moment for people. And he is reticent to write criminal activity. Like he doesn't. I mean, he writes some embarrassing things. I think my favorite account that Joseph Muster writes is when his when his wife Ellis is leaving him and he writes Ellis is leaving. She finds my work obnoxious. And I'm like, man, And so people will do that. But like, you're not going to write things that will incriminate the man that you believe is the mouthpiece of God in your diary when the government has now created a situation where they could seize your diary for a criminal investigation. Like you're not, you're just not going to do that. And so we don't see anything, and we don't really kind of see much until John Taylor's son comes on the scene. And John Taylor's son, John W Taylor, is a big part of the story because he's the one that starts kind of saying, hey, my dad said something in 1886.

24:24 The 1890 manifesto happens. Wilford Woodruff says it doesn't end polygamy, but he puts on a good show about the end of polygamy. I mean nineteen O 4 because of the Reid Smoot hearing. It's also kind of a good show, but he puts on a good show. And John W Taylor believes his dad, like of course he does. And I'm actually consistently surprised that within the fundamentalist movement we have a lot of figures that emerge like Lawrence C Woolly, John W Woolly. I'm actually always surprised that like a kind of folk cult of John W Taylor never emerged of like stories about, well, he ordained me too, you know, because he's so believable to have done something like that.

25:09 But he didn't to our knowledge, to what we know. But John W Taylor starts kind of talking, telling people. My dad had this revelation in in 19 O 7. Things start to heat up a bit because John West Woolley starts to perform plural marriages. Now, John West Woolley, this is the house John Taylor was in. John West Woolley's son becomes a prominent figure in the later fundamentalist movement. John West Woolley is, you know, close to John Taylor and he starts to perform plural marriages. The problem again is he doesn't say why.

25:50 Like he never mentions. John Taylor told me he never mentions 1886, but he does mention he does to start to perform plural marriages. And that's interesting given the timeline of what happens next. But two years later in 19 O 9, Joseph Fielding Smith, the president who becomes the president of the oldest church that Joseph Fielding Smith, he obtains the revelation and he makes a copy. Why does he make a copy? He makes a copy for the church historians office. Now this is a interesting question for so this is interesting for two reasons.

26:37 The 1st is Joseph Feeling Smith. If you're handed something fake, are you going to make a copy to put it in the archive? No. I don't know. I don't, I don't know. This is my speculation. I don't think so. I think that he always believed it was in John Taylor's hand, because why else is he putting it in the archive of the church? The other reason why I think this is interesting is that from the time I started studying fundamentalism, people speculated that Joseph Fielding Smith was in on it and that he had obtained keys from John Taylor to perform plural marriages. Now, I don't think that happened because there's no record of that. But Joseph Fielding Smith and Joseph like he was, he was kind of in this story for a long time now. I think this was just because he was part of the quorum. He, you know, John W Taylor's starting to talk about this story and claiming this is in my dad's hand. John W Taylor is an apostle.

27:40 Assumably, we we trust him as an honest narrator of his dad's life. So Joseph Fielding Smith makes a copy of the document. Who sees it at that point? Who sees the original? We don't know it. I believe that. I believe it would make sense that the other members of the Quorum would have like known he would have talked about it. So we can safely kind of assume that at the time. Heber J Grant and others, we would have maybe seen it, but we don't know. It is safe to assume, but we don't know.

28:20 But in 1911, and this is where things kind of heat up in terms of what we found, what was released on Saturday in 1911, John W Taylor comes up for excommunication. And John W Taylor, his defense, which is a good defense, He's allowed to present a case for why should we keep you? And he brings out a copy of his dad's revelation and is able to say, because my dad said so, that's a bold move. And he looks at the council and he says, you have a choice right now to side with the government or to side with the Lord.

29:05 What are you going to do? And the Church excommunicates him. And Matthias Cowley as well, if I'm not mistaken, right? And Matthias Cowley, who is also a figure that I'm surprised never got kind of like a cult following. Now, that's what a bold move. So in 1911 he does this. A detail of the excommunications in this period that I think are so significant that is worth mentioning. We are not at a point where there is a fundamentalist movement in the LDS church. This is 1 religion and nineteen O 9.

29:49 Joseph Musser. He goes up for his first disciplinary hearing and nothing happens, which is very interesting and nothing happens for Musser because at the time Musser is small potatoes compared to like John W Taylor. Musser isn't. Muster is getting sealed polygamously, but he's not doing them himself. And Muster is also not like standing on the pulpit being like we need to defy the government. So in short, the differences between John W Taylor and Joseph Muster in this period is that John W Taylor has a level of authority and standing in the church that is different.

30:31 And John W Taylor is embarrassing. Right. Because and he's doing the ceilings. So this is an important distinction is that really prior to the 1920s, if you are being sealed polygamously by someone, if you like, find a guy to do it for you, you're not going to get in trouble. You are going to get in trouble if you're doing them. And this is especially true John W Wooley. The reason he gets in trouble is there's a lot of wild, like most plural ceilings at the time. I mentioned this on a different interview, but when all these people think of ceiling, they have this vision of you come out of the temple and everyone's clapping. Plural ceilings in this time.

31:15 They're happening in cars and they're happening in houses. And like your stake president is doing it like it's or your patriarch. The reason why John W Willey gets in trouble is he decides to just keep doing them in the Salt Lake Temple. Well, there's a case to be made for being bold. I mean and. So he's, he's his own vibe. He's going to be, he's going to get in trouble. But the reason why these discipline hearings are so wild to me is that 1911 to paint this picture, 1911, John W Taylor is called into a disciplinary hearing. And in his hand is his dad's revelation. And he is being stared down by Heber Jay Grant, who will later go on to deny polygamy by and who is the last man to be an LDS prophet who was a polygamist himself. And we also have Anthony Ivins, who most people would kind of maybe know the name Ivins, UT like, you know, Anthony Ivins, he, he was an apostle.

32:18 But what most people don't know about Anthony Ivins is, out of anyone in the post manifesto polygamy period, he did the most plural ceilings out of anyone. And he was sitting in that room prepared to excommunicate John W Taylor for doing this, for doing something even lesser than what he was doing. You know, I had Michael Ness on here. I'll say it was a year ago, might be a little more. I don't know. At at 190 episodes, these things are starting to run together. So forgive if I mess up the time frame, but we did A5 part series on the Life and Times of John W Taylor because you in in my estimation, John W Taylor is kind of like Joseph Muster in that he is a witness to pioneer Mormonism turning into modern day Mormonism, right?

33:12 Also, if you're into like cloak and dagger spy thrillers, you're going to love this section of history, right? Because what, because like Taylor at times doesn't even I, I think to myself, how did he know who to trust, right? Because you did not have a united quorum, right. And so it it's a fascinating thing. But Ivans is a huge player through all of this, right? When, when they're ride and die together, right. I mean, you got guys like setting up hotel rooms, you know, when they travel in each other's names to throw off the, I mean, it's, it's bonkers. And so and, and look, that's been something I thought about with, with Grant a lot, right?

33:53 Let's not forget Grant was a polygamist himself, right? So how, how do you go from, yeah, bro, I got your back ride and die forever to sorry, dude, I got to cut you, right? I mean, it's a massive shift and tragic on a lot of levels. Oh, yeah. I mean, and what you said about things being divided, this what that is absolutely like, it cannot be stressed enough that the quorum was deeply divided on what to do about this issue. A lot of them, you know, have plural wives still. A lot of them are, I mean Joseph F Smith. The Reed Smoot hearings are a nightmare because Joseph Smith's plural wife has a baby during the hearings, while Joseph F Smith is like there's no polygamy anymore. Right.

34:37 What and so this is a nightmare. But I mean, I remember with with Joseph Messer, he goes to his first disciplinary hearing and instead of leaving with kind of like this sense of remorse of I must amend my ways, whatever he writes in his diary, he's like, I'm left. He says, like, what I'm left with from the disciplinary hearing is the realization that the quorum is not united and that I'm willing to lay down my life for this. And so like these disciplinary hearings also aren't helping the situation because, and I mean, this remains the case, and I've said this quite a bit, and I've also talked to leaders in the LDS Church about this, that you excommunicate someone for being a fundamentalist Mormon, you're taking their Mormonism to an 11. Yeah.

35:32 Because all of their heroes had that happen to them. Like, what are you doing? Like don't. If you don't want to draw attention, don't make a martyr. Yep. And so John W Taylor is axed. And then, of course, during this meeting, he discusses the revelation. And it is his wife, his plural wife, Nelly, who ultimately brings her husband's copy to the church historian's office. But it's again, she brings her husband's copy, which now we have seen. But in 19 O 9, a copy was already in there from Joseph Fielding Smith. So before the excommunication hearing, he's like holding a copy.

36:22 And they have one in the archive. Joseph Fielding Smith made that copy. Heber J Grant talked about it. Remember, in 1890, he noted in his diary that it existed. Anthony Ivins has been running through Mexico stealing people polygamously. And now we're in a situation where John W Taylor's excommunicated. Oh. Man, and I just want to trace just kind of sum up the the history of the dock. So Taylor Taylor senior pens it John Taylor pens it. It kind of goes out of circulation, although there is some references to it every so often. So we got a continual chain, so to speak of at least it being while it's not in every Mormon's mind, those who are in the know about what's going on, there's a continual hey, this is a thing nineteen O 9.

37:21 Joseph F Smith makes a copy and then he Joseph Fielding. Thank you. Who? Who did I say? Joseph F. Remember the F? OK, Joseph Fielding makes a copy of it, sticks it in the vaults. It's brought up again in 1911, you said or. No, that copy just kind of stays there. And in 1911, John W Taylor brings. Brings a copy his copyright. And I mean, of course, there are copies of this clearly at this point that John W Taylor circulating will note as well that when the fundamentals movement, when kind of rustling begins about that, they start making copies very quickly.

38:04 I was talking to Brian Buchanan, who I'm doing the Joseph Muster Diaries with, and he actually brought up something that's so interesting of, you know, when things go into the archive, they are scanned and photographed. And we have that incredibly beautiful high resolution scan that we can all now see on the church archive. And he, I called him yesterday, we were talking about this and he was like, who do you think photographed it? Yeah. Like who is the person in the archive who has probably heard for a long time it's not real and then was the one who had to scan it? Yeah, yeah. No. And and and that's that's the other thing that that I couldn't help but think about, you know, going forward to today. I was thinking about that as I saw the scan. It's like, OK, somebody knew it was there the whole time. Somebody knew it was there, right. And and that that that brings up a good question, question which we'll cover here and here in a few, but OK. So after John W Taylor's ex excommunication, the split obviously happens.

39:11 Yeah, we start to see, I mean, by this point, 1911, you have a fleet of people who've been disciplined. Right. Or at least maybe not excommunicated, but have had talking to's by their state president. And so obviously most of the people are in Salt, the Salt Lake Valley. They're all going to find each other. And we're better to find each other than at Nathaniel Baldwin, the inventor of headphones House, right? Of course, he maybe, I don't know which, he's an interesting character. I mean, he was never a polygamist himself, but he was deeply sympathetic to these people, these families. People start to Nathaniel Baldwin in this kind of new iteration for the 20th century, and Nathaniel Baldwin starts to make mention of it.

39:57 I don't know where he first hears about it. However, in the night late 1910s, he starts hosting meetings at his house. And John W Willy's son is there who is starting to talk about. The revelation, so we don't know I don't know when Nathaniel Baldwin it becomes Privy to this, but he starts to hold meetings at his house with all these disenfranchised Mormons. He also hires all of them to like, right, give them employment. They're losing their jobs. And in 1921, that's the earliest. So I I date 19/21 as the beginning of the Mormon fundamentalist movement for no other reason than that is the moment that Lauren C Wally stands up Nathaniel Baldwin's home in front of a group of people and says, let me tell you a story.

40:50 And he proclaims the story of the 1886 revelation to this group of people. And this would have been a bit. I mean, he's vindicating them like he's telling them like, you've all been disciplined, like you've all been shunned. You've all lost your jobs, but you're all right. And you're, you're doing what John Taylor has asked you to do. So this is a big moment. Now, Lauren Seewilly does a second thing that you and I are going to disagree on many people. Lauren Sewell says in 1886, John Taylor receives A revelation that is true. He also says John Taylor ordained men to a priesthood council to ensure that happens. Now will agree to disagree on whether or not that happened. Woolley then claims this is his ability to ordain people to the office of high priest apostle, where many Woolley 8 fundamentalist groups then draw out their authority. This is where Joseph W Messer receives his ordination to a high priest apostle.

41:58 Joseph W Messer is special among the group because he had his second anointing. So he's also kind of in a class of his own. But John Y Barlow, Charles Zitting, this is where the fundamentalist movement kind of emerges as its own unique thing between 29 and 19331931. But now the long standing question between historians of fundamentalism and Mormon fundamentalists is, did the ordinations happen? I'm one who says no, that they didn't. And the reason I say no is there's no contemporary evidence for it. Again, I told you everything we know about 1886. There's no information at all. Right.

42:39 But the problem, the problem that the LDS Church has now placed themself in by releasing the revelation, because you're going to release the ordination record next. Like is there like, what do you, what's going on? Like, like you said, there's not a revelation. You also said there's not an ordination record is 1 different than the other. And so, granted, I still maintain that there is not an ordination record, but the release of the 1886 revelation does cast doubt on a narrative generally about polygamy history. Right, right. Again, there's no contemporary evidence, but but all to say, when Woolly starts to tell this story, and I use story very broadly, Lawrence C Woolly has many stories about his life, meaning the Lamanite prophet goes down to the Yucatan Peninsula for some reason, I don't know. He has a lot of great stories about the world, but he also like Ordains.

43:42 Who did he meet? Oh, he said he he said he met a few people. Gandhi. Teddy Roosevelt. Yes. He ordained Teddy Roosevelt to the office of high priest apostle. So I mean this Lawrence C Well, they were reliable there. He also claims he was probably like the CIAI don't know. Was he a reliable narrator? No. So do I think that he? No. But all to say, his dad has been in the game a long time. I mentioned John W Woolley is doing polygamous ceilings in 19 O 7. He's excommunicated. But this is where kind of two movements really kind of begin. And around this time, we start to see the first LDS reaction to this because the story is spreading. And of course, it is spreading because if you are disenfranchised, if you have been excommunicated, if you have lost your job, if you have lost your family, and suddenly someone is like, you've been right all this time, you're probably going to join that movement like. And so it does.

44:45 It never gets, of course, to the same scale as the LDS Church, but it does garner sympathy. And because of that, it starts to kind of slowly raise some issues in the LDS leadership of what do we do, How do we handle this? And the first iteration of that is in 1923 with a man named J Reuben Clark. And at the time, you know, when we imagine J Reuben Clark, when many listeners, especially LDS listeners, imagine J Reuben Clark, they think of a guy who's an apostle or a leader. But J Reuben Clark is an attorney. He is. He's a attorney who is LDS and embarrassed.

45:27 And why is he embarrassed, you ask? Well, he's embarrassed because his uncle is John West Woolley. Right. And his dad is a unapologetic, unrepentant polygamist. And so for someone like J Ribbon Clark, who has political ambition, this is an embarrassing story of your family are criminals and. They. Do. And so J Rubin Clark pens the first kind of memorandum in kind of legalese, without using leg me to try to explain away the revelation without saying he's talking about the revelation.

46:10 Wow, And you know, it's important to note too, is that look, and and I'm not trying to trash talk the guy. I'm just telling you, like I see it. He's not, he's not even like he's not theologian, right Clark, he's barely active by all accounts while he's living in DC, right? I mean, he's not there. His appointment seems to come at the behest of what, in my opinion, and, and again feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, looks like he's an appointment for the times because of what the church is going through and also because of his connections in Washington. Great argument to be made for that. And he seems, he seems to be one of the ones and, and that's the other thing that happened in this dump of documents that we got is there's a letter from him in there that talks about and and I'm, I'm paraphrasing, but essentially we need to deep 6 this thing.

47:13 Yes, yeah. And I think that's the document in the folder that's most significant because we see the attempt to conceal it. And he does kind of the first attempt at this where. Well, he, he pens a memorandum in 1923 where it wouldn't seem weird if you didn't know that there was this document circulating because he mentions something about polygamy without using the word polygamy. And he he basically says that seed key is an authority and at the point of death. And So what he ends up writing is a memorandum that basically says 1886 Revelation is void about saying that. And you know, at the time, you know, he's really kind of extrapolating on how authority works in the church, how stealing keys work, how they end at the moment of death, how the keys to perform plural ceilings.

48:14 And at death, you can't kind of pass these on like you can with other things. And at face value, that's kind of like a, oh, that's interesting. But when you realize that there's this document circulating with a group that just in 1921 has started to promote this, that in 1923, we're starting to circulate it in pamphlets in the Salt Lake Valley that Joseph White, that Joseph Muster is making prints of it. Joseph Muster, who is a very compelling writer and speaker, is starting to talk about this. They are all kind of uniting around this. And then all of a sudden in 1923 someone is like making these cryptic claims about by ceiling authority ends at the point of death and so therefore any previous revelation on the matter doesn't hold water.

48:55 It doesn't make sense in Mormon theology, right? No, no, it, it doesn't. And and then and then again we kind of like, I think there's an attempt at, you know, we excommunicated people in the 1911 let's let it die and then 1923 we're releasing the memorandum. Let's just kind of see if it dies, but the Mormon Fundamentals movement doesn't die is the problem. And so in 1931, the last kind of iteration of this is J Reuben Clark or Heber J Grant, the prep now president of the LDS Church, begins to make a statement make begins to make statements to statements about polygamy. And in 1931, he starts to basically say we're excommunicating you.

49:46 It doesn't matter if you are in leadership, it doesn't matter if you're performing pro ceilings, It doesn't matter if you are practicing polygamy. And the wildest one, it does. If you believe in it, you're out. And so Hebrew Jake, Hebrew Jake Grant is the one that starts to make excommunication for people who believe in it. So this becomes also thought policing of do you believe in the principle of marriage? Because it's, you know, the reality is if you are living like, how do you know? And so the question, how do you know people think it or practice it or whatever is this is when we start to get neighbors turning against neighbors. This is when we start to get state presidents telling on people.

50:29 I mean, to put into perspective, if you can imagine like you talk to your state president in a confidential setting and he goes and tells on you for being a polygamist like this is going to, you're going to feel deep betrayal at this moment. And then 1933 really is the end of the story. And it's also the last time that we hear anything about the revelation in 1933. The 1931 excommunications still aren't ramping up as intensely as we want them to. Loyalty do start to go out that you have to be loyal to the LDS Church. Loyalty to the LDS Church means an abandonment of polygamy. We especially see this in places that become kind of strongholds of the fundamentalist movement.

51:13 What becomes Short Creek ends up get the Zion parks, what was the Zion Park Stake gets a lot of loyalty oaths sent out that you have to sign later on if you go to prison. There's an easy way out of prison. It's to sign a loyalty oath. And so this becomes a problem. But in 1933, J Reuben Clark writes a statement to Church News that is published in Church News and it says it is alleged on September 26th, 27, John Taylor receives A revelation. The purported text dot dot dot So J Reuben Clark writes to Church News casting doubt on the documents existence.

52:00 Heber, J Grant, Anthony W Ivins. Sign off on this Now. He's very good at he's a lawyer. He's very good writing things. So he never says it doesn't exist. Right, pretended is the word he uses a lot. A purported, A purported text. So is he saying it's a forgery? Is he saying it's fake? He's very good at that. Subsequently, of course, famously, Heber J Grant stands up at general conference and unleashes what becomes the third manifesto where he says that celestial marriage is monogamy. And he says the purported plural marriages of the so-called fundamentalists are fake and they're purported revelation or they're pretended revelation and that's it.

52:53 So the last we hear about the document is Heber J Grant. Heber J Grant, who in 1890 wrote in his diary that he heard about a John Taylor revelation. Heber J Grant, who in 19 O 9 likely knew that Joseph Fielding Smith had made a copy of it. Heber J Grant, who in 1911 saw John W Taylor's copy. Heber J Grant, The polygamist. Heber J Grant very close friends with Anthony W Ivins the the face of Post manifesto Polygamy in Mexico. Heber J Grant says the pretended revelation of the so-called fundamentalists.

53:38 Now you hit on something good that I always like to throw in when I can. Someday I'm going to write a book about the five stages of becoming a Mormon fundamentalist. Now, one of those stages is going to be a deep, white hot, seething hate for Wilford Woodruff. And then you're going to do some research and you're going to be like, OK, probably shouldn't have issued the manifesto, but I can kind of sympathize, right? Have the whole world coming down on him. And furthermore, he never meant it, right? It's my opinion that the reason that the one that gets canonized gets canonized as far as the manifesto is because of the way he words it. In my opinion, he words it so far from a revelation that a Mormon would recognize that everybody knows. Meanwhile, meanwhile, the 1886 says thus saith the Lord. Right, Exactly, exactly right.

54:26 And OK, so we have that. And so that white hot seething hatred that you had for Wilfred Woodruff. Well, that's going to change and you're going to have a new white hot seething hatred and it will be for Hebrew J Grant because of the things that you kind of talked about, right. I mean, it's, I, I try to be very forgiving of historical figures, right? Because I don't like presentism. I don't like looking back on somebody and trying to judge them based on my own social norms of the time, right? I don't think that's fair. Now, certainly you can do crappy things and it's crappy throughout history no matter what, but I, I try to be careful with Grant.

55:11 What I see is it's really hard for me to get to that point. It it's very hard when I see all, it's not just one thing, it's just over and over and over and over and it's hard for me to get past that. Well, and I think the reason, the reason why it bothers, why the 1933 bothers me or I'm sorry, 1931 in particular bothers me because when he gets up and starts talking about the revelation, it becomes very or about post manifesto polygamy. It becomes very clear that it is not an issue of doctrine. It's not it's not even an issue of authority. It's not an issue of history.

56:03 It becomes very clear that it's an issue of embarrassment. And the kind of the quintessential example of this is that in 1931, when he stands up and he like he speaks on this, he does a pretty robust condemnation of those who, quote, persist in teaching the doctrine and maligning the leaders of the church. So Hebrew J Grant is not necessarily upset with polygamy. He's upset at fundamentalists for saying for saying that, that leaders of the LDS Church continued polygamy. It's so it's. True. Yep.

56:44 Yep, I was going to say, if I'm not mistaken, this is the time frame in which the the recommend question. Do you believe whoever Hebrew J Grant in this point is the only guy authorized to exercise the keys of the priesthood right? We also see the question of in 19, I believe 1935 don't quote me on that date. It's like the one date that I don't have. We also it it's AI think it's 1935 that that's when the question, the temper recommend question. Do you associate with groups? Yeah. Whatever about the LDS Church, this is also when we get the the children of polygamist families cannot be baptized into the Aldous church.

57:28 This is when we get kind of small, many small moves that shape a broader culture of animosity against polygamists. Now, I say many small moves, but of course for fundamentalists that these are all very kind of big things that the Aldous Church does to create a hostile environment. But they do kind of lay lay the groundwork of small things that really do create create a hostile environment. But I mean, it, it is the case that, you know, by this time Truth magazine is starting, we start to see the publication of pamphlets that the fundamentalists, I mean, Joseph Messer has lost all of his jobs for being a unrepentant polygamist. And Lauren Woolley comes to him and says basically, basically gives him a calling to promote the fundamentals and to promote fundamentalism.

58:22 And so he starts publishing pretty widely pamphlets. He starts publishing the revelation, he starts publishing the account of the ordinations, and he starts publishing pretty scathing op eds about the leaders of the LDS Church. Some of my favorites are Joseph Muster does a conference report twice a year in truth where he like writes a commentary on all the conference talks and like with particular attention to a bridge a grant like he just kind of those hard and it is true. But Joseph Messer does call these men liars like he does. He calls them liars for several reasons.

59:04 He calls them liars for concealing the revelation. He calls them liars for saying plural marriage ended when it didn't. And he calls them liars for not really being lifelong monogamists. Right. And so he does malign the leaders of the LDS church. And it wouldn't be maligning or embarrassing if there wasn't truth to what he was saying. Like Joseph Muster actually, for all of his maybe flaws, I don't know, I happen to like the guy, but for everything he was, he never lied about it. Right. Right, he did. He did promote kind of weird Lauren Woolley stories, sure, but he didn't lie about Anthony Ivan's continuing polygamy. Right.

59:55 Like he didn't. And so so that's what has always kind of bothered me about Huber J Grant, is that him being bothered by the maligning of the leaders. What it actually was is he was angry at people for telling the truth about it. And that was that's a frustrating reality. And I think that the documents we received on Saturday or were made available on Saturday. Everyone's very excited about the revelation, of course they are. But what we find also is a paper trail about this story that this had this was this was concealed. Yep. OK. So that's kind of the history behind the revelation, which I wanted to go over because I think it was super important, especially for, for the audience who's not familiar with it, it's important to, to lay that groundwork.

1:00:46 And you're right, after 33 it, it or 31, I can't remember. It doesn't get brought up a whole lot. The, the most I could come up with is a quote from Marky Peterson in his book Way of the Master, where he seems to take a shot at anybody espoused in this because of a pretended revelation or whatever, kind of a veiled shot there. But it it largely goes away outside of fundamentalist circles. And so I want to start talking first kind of kind of about the ramifications. But before we do that, Christina, do you have any like I can get? I'm going to try to be gentle here. The church is super concerned with its good name, right? That is a big thing.

1:01:34 So I could understand releasing the revelation itself, but why release the documents that are kind of the smoking gun that show, hey, this was suppressed? Do we have any indication on why that happened? So I, what I can say is in general folder, like things are usually released it like it it this is a folder of documents pertaining to each other and pertaining to a particular historical moment. And they go together. Now, one of the things that is important that I, I really remind people of as often as I can is the Church historians Office of the Church History Library and the Quorum of the 12 apostles are not the same thing.

1:02:25 They are the the church. No, this is this will probably sound strange to some listeners. The church did not release this document. The Church historical library did. Which of course it's all part of the LDS church. Yes, but at the end of the day this was not like right? It wasn't posted on LDS Newsroom and most things that come out of CHL, the Church history library aren't because this wasn't like this wasn't the church releasing it. Now of course, the truth, like everyone, it is a hierarchical institution.

1:03:07 Everyone kind of knows when things are released. But the LDS Church History library, for anything people can say about the LDS church or about its history or whatever, the Church History Library is a world class archive. It is a world class library. It it it employs some of the finest archivists that I've ever met, some of the best people I've ever met who are incredibly trained in. I mean, they pH DS in history library science, really phenomenally gifted and trained scholars run this library and they are people and the church history library is an A lot of ex Mormons will not like this, but it is a library that it is an archive and it acts like one more often than not.

1:04:05 And so archives generally when they release documents, they will release documents with the context of the documents and in folders that kind of pertain to the document. So if you're going to be releasing papers that talk about a document, probably a good thing to release a copy of the document with it. And so releasing a folder pertaining to the 1886 revelation of John Taylor, it makes sense for or what a normal archive would do. I think kind of the questioning around it comes from comes from what the document happens to be of people being like, what's going on here? You know, of course there are restrictions on what is what people can see and what people can't see in the LDS Church archive.

1:04:47 But I do note more often than not that the LDS church, I mean, because I hear a lot of people, especially in the next Mormon community, talk about how the LDS Church is secretive and whatever the LDS church is more open about their you and me. Me, this random woman from California, can go to the church history library and just like, rustle through documents. You don't get to go to the Vatican and do that to my people. Right. You don't get to do that. No, I it's a fairpoint. I don't get to do that, actually, and I'm a Roman Catholic. And so it is the case, as much as there are hard feelings about the history, as much as there are hard feelings about how the Church operates, the oldest church history library is incredibly receptive to even people without advanced degrees. People who are just wanting to study their family are able to go and look at things.

1:05:41 So am I shocked the 1886 revelation was published? Yes, I am, but it is. I also want to extend the reality that the LDS Church history library is it does function like a world class archive that does value history even when it's difficult. And I think we can thank Leonard Arrington, former church historian, for this. Who believe the history of the church had to be shown words and all as he worded it and he wanted to release. I mean he got he got in time in trouble in his time for talking about how Brigham Young's sons chewed tobacco right. And so. And they told him not to include that in his writing and he argued about it. But yeah, I, I just want to note that it is a kind of a way that his, that archives usually operate.

1:06:27 It makes a lot of sense from an archival standpoint. I think a lot of my, our and my own shock is just because there has been so much concealment about this document. But for all of that to be said, it is a. It is a world class archive. Well, and, and look here, here's where so and hearing that explanation, it makes sense, right, that it sounds like that's just kind of the way these these documents are released, right? Standard of maybe standard of care is a good word. Maybe it's not, but kind of how how this how this work is done. When you release something, you release the adjacent documents that give context and. And I mean, I think a great example of this is when the priesthood band conversation really got going again in 20, 18, I think people were really talking about this issue. You know, the big question of was Elijah Abel? Was he ordained to the priesthood by the hand of Joseph Smith?

1:07:23 And they could have released the one page of the ordination record. Instead, what the archive did, which was bold and incredible, is they got a beautiful glass case and they put it in the middle of the church history library with the entire ordination record book. So you could see the whole thing. And so, and it was real, like you could walk up to this box and you could see the ordination book from Nauvoo and you could see Elijah Abel's name, but you could see it in its full context. They couldn't have just released a scan of the page. Right.

1:08:04 But it wouldn't have been the same. No, it could. Have been the same vibe and so I think they have done or when they first started when they first showed the papyrite from the book of Abraham, they put the papyri on display, which was very cool. They also put the original printing plate with it. They also put the very first copy that ever came out of it. They also put the first transcription with it and it was kind of as a package deal of this is what this is historically. And so I think they, they're really good at doing that. I mean, again, they're world class archivists behind the scenes. And the people who I've talked to about the document generally are people who, who are very good at what they do.

1:08:49 They're they're brilliant historians and they, they get the importance of telling a historical picture that makes sense and that is comprehensive. And like I mentioned, we don't have anything else from 1886. There's nothing else to put with it from the time. And so any, so when we looked at this folder, this is really all we this is this is the picture unfortunately, but this is all this is what we have about the document because we don't have much else. And so they did paint the full picture of the document, even if it just looks like there's a couple kind of weird things. Gotcha. All right, so that takes us to today and the ramifications of what this what this really means now, right. So let's talk for a second.

1:09:37 What? What do you think this should mean for for fundamentalists? Well, I mean, I'm not one, so this matters to me in a very weird way in that I just get to like be excited that I knew it. And that's like a very different experience than people who I do know have spent a long, a lot of their life feeling crazy, feeling like the foundational. I mean, it makes me 6. Revelation is so wild because it's one piece of paper folded. It's like 12 lines, you know, it's not, it's not like the Bible where it's like this giant. It's a very totally small, but thousands of people base their faith.

1:10:23 They base the structure of their family. They base the structure of the cosmological order. They base the nature of God. They base the nature of how the temporal world should look. They base everything. They base their willingness to go to jail. They base their willingness to lose their family. That everything is based on this piece of paper and whether or not it is real. And for 100 years, they were told that it's fake, whether that means it's a forgery or whether that means it doesn't exist. They were told this is fake. And that is difficult. And granted, you know, the people I know who believe in this document, we're willing to have faith in it regardless of that in the same way. I mean, I thought it was real.

1:11:08 And so like, whatever. But that's different than what I'm, I'm not basing my life, my livelihood on it. But that is set, that is a challenging and a painful experience to go to bed every night being told you're crazy by in many cases, the religious institution of your family, the religious institution that excommunicated you for this, the for, for, I mean, so many people I know have been excommunicated or disciplined or lost family members or have lost a lot. I've lost jobs, have given up a lot for this and have given up a lot for something that they were told is fake.

1:11:49 And so for the people that I know that, you know, I mean, I've messaged you immediately. I, I messaged so many people when it came out with the realization that, and I, I mentioned this to others that, you know, for me, this was just like a fun historical thing, like a fun historical find, but messaging people who it matters to it. I, it hit me have like this is, this is people's lives. Like this is a document that changes everything. And I mean, you might not get your family back. You might not get your standing in the LDS church back. You probably won't get your standing in the. LDS Church you no it's. Probably less likely now you you probably won't get your job back.

1:12:29 A lot of things that fundamentalists lose they will not get back because of this. But it does matter that you weren't crazy. Well, and and you hit on something just just this week, a gentle, I heard a gentleman rehearse the story. And I'm going to be as vague as possible, but not terribly long ago there was a gentleman who encountered this, right, who had not not the document but had become a fundamentalist. And he essentially was drug in to the Bishop's office. His wife wasn't happy, right, that he went down this road. And the Bishop was like, you are base. When asked for why do you do this, he pointed to the 1886 revelation.

1:13:20 And the Bishop looked at him and said you are basing your faith on a historical inaccuracy and an urban legend. And this man said, I have received a witness. I am going to stick by this. The man, his wife leaves him. He never gets remarried. He he loses his job, he loses his standing in his community. I mean, it is the Horror Story, right? And it is from a place of you have banked it all on a fictitious account. And at least today and and I get a little emotional about this.

1:14:03 At least today, that man can at least stand vindicated that it wasn't pretended that he was following John Taylor's advice, you know, prophetic counsel. And I think that's huge, right? I think that that lends, lends credence to what it is we do that it's not based off of off of just somebody else's pretended authority, so to speak, right? That this this did originate at the highest office of the LDS Church in in that moment in time. And it said thus, saith the Lord on it. It wasn't John to where it was God. Yes, it wasn't to to whom it may concern.

1:14:44 You should keep doing this right. It was thus, saith the Lord. This is the way it is. In AI mean the manifesto it is to whom it may concern. Yes. To whom it may concern we won't do it anymore wink, nod. Those are very different documents. And, and it, I mean, the reason I've always been sympathetic to the fundamentalist movement is there is a very large, I mean, it is to whom it may concern versus thus sayeth the Lord when it comes to the year 1885 to 1890. And those are rough. Those are rough things. But yeah, I mean, I messaged someone who has I, I, who has been, his family's been so good to me. And he's a, you know, he's a fundamentalist and dude, I can't imagine how difficult it would be. And, and yeah, I mean, it would, it'll change the way that people experience their life.

1:15:49 Now, I will also say as like, I feel like an obligation to say that the fundamentals movement has some rough patches. Sure does sure does that. I've, I don't think I've been like a rosy, like rosy eyed. No, but I mean, I've been accused of that. And and so I do feel an obligation to say that, you know, the fundamentals movement has had a rough time. It has it's at a violent time and it's had a a bad time because of this document. And so I think there is, I think this can also, I hope be kind of maybe a call to like to a renewed reflection, self reflection of what are the values?

1:16:34 Why do we do what we do kind of moment of and kind of think through the that this is a, this is an important moment for the for American polygamy and to kind of really evaluate what is polygamy going to look like for the next. Like polygamy for the last 100 years was in the shadows. It was a hidden revelation. We were told it was fake. Now it is something that everyone knows is real and it we're having documents come to light and maybe there's a way that we can look at what this means, how we're going to do this moving forward. That would, I guess, be my hope about what it does for the community.

1:17:17 Got you. So here's one that and I got to be honest, I'm a little nervous to ask this one. What does this mean for for your average, run-of-the-mill member of the LDS church? Now you? Know I don't think it means anything. OK. Yeah, I, I have seen many comments about is the church going to bring back polygamy like is no. I mean, I think if J Reuben Clark's memorandum stands, meaning the keys to polygamous ceilings are void at death, then you don't have to worry about it. Then the then the 1896 revelation is void and you can go to bed at night being glad this doesn't apply to you. I don't think that the LDS church is going to bring back polygamy at least.

1:18:01 No. In any of our lifetimes, I think the LDS, I think the LDS church has gone through such an intense shift toward trying to be like the American mainline churches, trying to be very kind of similar to Methodism in its vibe and aesthetic, even though it's it's theologically not. I think it's tried really hard to do that. Bringing back polygamy is the end of that attempt, right? Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. It has been decriminalized in some places, but it is illegal in all 50 states. So you're not it. It would be, it would be very weird to have a temple recommend question of like the law of the land when you're doing this.

1:18:43 So I mean, I think if I was, so I don't think institutional change if I was a member of the LDS Church, I think it would raise maybe some questions about, I don't think the document raises questions. I think the period of the 1910s to 1930s has a lot to answer for of how it was, how the document was handled by the institution. So I don't think the document does anything to the average person. I think the handling of the document is something that I would kind of want some answers for. Yeah, no, I think so. I think, I think that's exactly where it's at. And, and look, I, I want to be fair. None of the men who are in charge now were in charge in the 1930s, right.

1:19:24 And so I do want to say thanks, right? Like who, whoever this, you know, came from what as you were saying, there's 22 divisions, there's the church and then the the church history library, right? It's it's a huge thing. It means a lot to the to the people that I know, right. And so for them to be this forward, just thank you. I, I know that couldn't have come without a little bit of consternation, but or maybe it did. Maybe the rookie on the team was like, yeah, just ship that out. It's fine. Well, I mean, fortunately, I mean, that is something we can say for hierarchical institutions, they usually know better than to let like a new intern or a rookie run something big. So.

1:20:07 But yeah, I mean, I, yeah, it is AI also. I mean, if we're honest, I also would be shocked if the release of this if anyone who was part of this even thought about fundamentalists in the moment. Right, right. I, I think, I think they would have had to spend the 30s if it had been the 70s. I think they would have kind of had that in the back of their mind. But I think it's been long enough that the average kind of archivist people working in CHL, even the leadership, I don't think they really kind of think about fundamentalists as much as maybe sometimes fundamentalist think about them.

1:20:48 But, and, and so I, I think that's probably more likely than not. I think a lot of this is kind of a renewed interest in an accurate telling of history, which which I can fully applaud. Yeah, no, I think so. And look, Mormon history is, you know, I you don't need to tell. You don't need me to tell you this Mormon history is a strange piece of history to try and not navigate, right. And because like within Mormon history, you get to about the 40s and 50s and correlation starts to become a thing, right? Like we're going to, we're going to have a standard narrative here. And so often a lot of the things that at least that drove me nuts when I had all this knowledge and was still in the LDS church was just like the frustration of like, no, that's not how the story went down, right.

1:21:45 And that telling of history has to be important. And look, I do want to say we do see seem to be seeing in the LDS church a more willingness to address the address the actual history rather than the narrative. But nonetheless, there there there's those narratives that it's going to take a hot minute to break, right? And look, I've had LDS people reach out to me over this just incensed, right? And I'm like, look, slow your roll before you just jump ship. There does seem to be a more openness towards that history, which I applaud. I think that's fantastic because I think that can only lead to greater understanding between, you know, the, the fundamental circles I run in and more understanding with the LDS Church and hopefully vice versa, right?

1:22:32 Like whether you agree or disagree, you can be like, at least I know how you got there, right? And I think for too long it was just a history that was spun of, well, it was just for plural marriage, right? Like it we were, we were really trying to do what was right there. Yeah. I mean, I think I think we're all seeing, at least institutionally, I think there is kind of maybe not, not a sympathy that's too much, but I think an interest in kind of figuring out why there are polygamists still. For most of history, it was kind of like those weird people over there. Yeah. And I don't think that has inverted to those great people over there. But I think there's a curiosity of how did that happen? And I remember it's probably been long enough that I can talk about the story that in 20/17/2018, 2017, I think 2018, I don't know, one of those years, for some reason, I was invited to the LDS Church's Christmas party. I don't.

1:23:35 Wow. And I was excited because like, my question is like, what do they drink at like a fancy party with no alcohol? Like what? What does that look like? It's no, it is a CRAN guava juice. Oh. I know it's very, it was very interesting. Was it good? Yeah, it was great. OK. I was just curious. Oh, yeah, it was great. And it was in the big church office building on the, like, roof. And like some of the apostles were there. I don't know. And I was like, why am I here? And I think it was because I was a fellow at the University of Utah. I don't know. It didn't make. I don't know. But I, before the dinner, I talked to Sister Jean Bingham, the Relief Society president, like the head one, like the big Relief Society president, and she asked what I did.

1:24:25 And I, I, I didn't really know how much, you know, like I, I didn't really know how to approach it. And I was like, oh, you know, I, I study fundamentalist Mormons. And her husband said, what's that? And she very generously said, those are the Mormons who still practice polygamy. And, and I was like, and she started talking about how in the 1930s and 40s there was splits in the church over this. And many of them moved and went down to southern Utah and, and, you know, she didn't have this robust history like she, it was like a couple minutes like before dinner. But I was really taken aback the way that she answered. What's that?

1:25:18 Like, she, she had an answer for it that was more generous than I think I would have imagined. And then I would have imagined would have happened in the 1980s, seventies, 60s. And so I think there is kind of a renewed curiosity without sympathy for most people, but probably with for some of why aren't, why is it like that? Like, why are there? Why? Why does Bluffdale have people with big families? What is going on? And so I think maybe some of that is there and I, I would hope so. Yeah. You know, it's funny, you, you bring, you bring up that encounter with, with Gene Bingham. And when, when me, Amber and Tanya came out here to visit Missouri, I thought, you know, we're not actually close, but we're closer. Let's go ahead and go to Nauvoo too. Tanya had never been.

1:26:09 So I'm like, let's go to Nauvoo. And it was, it was in August. So there wasn't a lot of people there right when we hit it. And, and one of the places I always like to go in Nauvoo is John Taylor's home, just because there's so much history happens there, right? That's where they plan the exodus. It's it's a big, it's, it's a big area. And the missionary couple who was there were brand new, like they got in the night before. And so I was, I was just sitting there. And then she brought a couple through who weren't Mormon at all. And she was explaining who John, you know, they'd ask the question, who was John Taylor? And she was explaining it. And she looked at me and she's like, do you have anything else on John Taylor?

1:26:51 I feel like I'm leaving it out, something out. And I'm like, oh, yeah, well, of course I. And so I just go in about halfway through my diatribe, right. And I'm respectful. I'm not bringing up. And he's the prophet that started fundamentalism. But I, I was like, you know, this is where he planned it. He also took bullets and Carthage and, you know, just kind of went through it about halfway through. I thought, oh, I probably have overstepped my bounce, right. So I wrap it up real quick. And then when it's all over, Amber and Tonya and I step outside and the missionaries follow me And I'm like, look, I'm sorry. I did not mean to, to overstep If I, you know, share too much or whatever. And her and her husband were sweet. They were like, oh, no, we're glad you, you, we're, we're glad that you shared that because we, we didn't know half that.

1:27:34 And the lady looks at me and she goes, so which, which woman there is your wife. And I was like, yes, like I didn't know what else to say. And she's like it, the, the gears turned for about 5 seconds. She's like, oh, oh, you're, you're a fundamentalist. And I'm like, I am, but we had a conversation there the the five of us together for probably, I don't know, 45 minutes, maybe an hour. And the, the lady said something really sweet when when we left, she's like, I just want you to know I'd have no problem sitting next to you in a temple session, right? And moves on.

1:28:19 And I don't know if she'll ever know how good that felt to us, right? That there's way more that unites us than separates us. And I think, I think we have to be able to get to a point to where, again, we may not be able to hug it out theologically on a Sunday, but there's nothing that says we can't get together on a Saturday for a BBQ, right? But it is good times, right? I mean, this, this was huge for our people. What? Did it mean to your family and to you? Oh man, so to me, I, I now get to have at least a piece of the history that is recognized by all parties involved where I can be like, I'm not asking you to accept it, right?

1:29:05 I'm not asking you to, to get behind 100% endorse what I believe. That's not what I or practice. That's not what I'm asking for. What I am asking is for a little bit of acknowledgement here in that this was more than just a guy who got a feeling in 1930 whatever to start a fundamentalist movement. This has chops going to the highest office within the LDS Church in a very important time in church history. And this is where that comes from. This is the injunction. This is the the the mission, right? And it doesn't compass more than plural marriage, right.

1:29:47 I do believe it encompasses Adam, God teachings, the original temple endowment and those things. And again, I'm not here to tell anybody else how they believe is wrong. That's not what I'm doing. And you know, yeah. So for us, it was very much a vindication. And that, no, we have, we have historical chops on this, right. It's not just a fancy of of feeling. Yeah, yeah. And I think more, I mean, one of the, when you were mentioning the missionaries, your experience with missionaries, but I think also with the release of the revelation, you know, I've been really fortunate to get to, I mean, like with Sister Bingham, get to talk to people in the LDS church who are not, I mean, not I, I don't, I've never, I haven't talked to like, except for the Christmas party.

1:30:38 I haven't talked to like apostles or anything, but to talk to people in leadership positions And I don't. And like with the release of this document, I think something that we're, that we're finding more and more is the animosity between the polygamists and the non polygamists. That's everyone's dad and grandpa's fight. It's not most people's fight anymore. The people who, you know, talked about the publication of this document, they're not, we're not in the 1930s. This is not their fight to win. This is something that their grandparents fought hard for and against. You know, I I have a memory of when I went on a tour of the Jordan River Temple. Is that the one in West Valley?

1:31:27 Yeah. The Jordan River Temple. And I, I was really lucky to get to go through with one of the someone in a position of leadership. And I talked to him about how I knew that there was a temple building that had been desecrated, but had there was a time when some like dumb LDS kids had like spray painted it. And we're kind of mean about it. And he expressed real sorrow for that reality that that was still happening in in his language was he was shocked that was still happening and that that was still going on. And that like hostility was still the case. And I think more and more it is true that the fight against the fundamentalist movement is an old fight that I don't think most people in leadership are as concerned about. Now, granted, when it comes to like people like Warren Jeffs, etcetera, with law enforcement, that is its own thing when it comes to your, I mean, even when, when the polygamy bill came up and the decriminalization of polygamy, and I remember talking to legislators about it and asking like, I'm just being kind of nervous, is the LDS church gonna gonna send in their lobbyists?

1:32:42 Like, is there gonna be a problem? And that they chose to remain decidedly neutral on it. And I mean, that was huge. But they were going to remain neutral on the polygamy question after siding with the government in the in 1935 to go after the polygamist. And I think there is a sense of like, this is just not their fight. This is not, this isn't. This is no one's fight anymore. Right, right. I think enough time has passed that that divorce has had scars that have healed over right. And and I, I think what we see now are, are the offspring, offspring of the children of the parents of that divorce going, Oh, well, you know, let's let's start talking, let's have a dialogue and.

1:33:29 Technology. It's a great analogy for it. And, and I think, I think that's where we're at now. And, and look, I'll say this, I, I have a lot of active LDS folks on the podcast, right? And I value the the things that they can bring to the table. And I think this also shows that we don't necessarily have to be scared of this history, that we can share this history and share honestly and openly and not have to hate each other over it. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So, well, awesome. Is there anything else you wanted to go over that we didn't touch on? Anything. Worth it in conclusion. I think, I mean just excited it happened. I didn't, I didn't think, I didn't think I'd ever get to see it like so many people.

1:34:15 I mean, I know that again, my experience is such a microcosm, but I mean, just spending, you know, years, years writing about this document and writing about it. Like in most articles, in most in my book, in the book that's coming out with Brian from Signature, in most things I've written, it has talked about the revelation and it has always had a footnote basically saying we don't have it. Right. And so man, just having written about this document, presenting on it and having to explain, but like, yeah, we don't, it's not, it isn't there, but like it is real, like, and then just now it is, man.

1:35:01 Yeah, it's huge. So it's. Still it is still open. The tab from Saturday is still open on my computer. Yeah, yeah. No, I, I'll be honest with you there. There were moments when I got home after I asked you to come on the podcast was like, did I did I really read that correctly, right? Like I got to go back. I got to go back. I got to make sure right? I. Didn't believe that. I didn't believe that. I like, I just called people like who like, how did this happen? What's going on? And just talking to people who like, who know how much, how big of a deal it was, I'm like, yeah, I still don't really. Also like my husband has not stopped hearing about it. Yeah, although.

1:35:44 He he never like he never stopped hearing about it. He has been from the day, like the day we met, he was like, oh, I guess like Mormon polygamy is a big part of your life. Yeah, yeah. My entire for some reason, it's my entire personality. Yeah, OK. I, I'm not going to lie to you. I I do have this question for you, a couple of them before we go. One, do you, now that this is for real, do you have to go back and look at your own work and go, OK, I need to shore something up or something like that or do you feel like. I always wrote about it as though it was real. OK, cool. And then my, my next observe question is this, are you out of retirement forever or are you going back back into retirement? No, I'm, I haven't happily retired. I mean, I did quit my job.

1:36:38 I moved to Canada to be with my husband. And you know, it's it's funny that when I quit my job and moved to Canada and like quote retired from Mormon studies, I didn't think that meant I would never see a Mormon again. But would you believe rural Quebec does that actually has no Mormons in it? There's, I haven't seen one since I moved, but there's no meeting house near me. There's no eldest meeting house near me, like for hours. What's interesting is I've talked to people, like even I've talked to people who've served missions in Quebec and they'll be like, yeah, no, it's a rough mission. And so there's not, there's not Mormons. But yeah, I got married, retired and it's been great.

1:37:26 But but now with this, you know, I odds and ends I I'll do a plug for I Co edit Mormon studies review. So I still do that and I guess what is retirement. I am editing the Musser Diaries with Brian. I'm really excited to put it. The collection is going to be called St. The Diaries and correspondences of Saint Joseph White Musser using his blessing, the name from his blessing, Cuz I think we should be calling him that like this name. He was blessed, baby. And then I will be writing, I will be writing an article about or two about the revelation and it's kind of impact.

1:38:12 Nice. So I am gonna be some writing, but you know, I also AM. My husband's going to laugh at this. I'm the devotions coordinator for a segment of the Anglican Church Women So. Nice, nice. I am. I am a member of the Relief Society presidency in this tiny corner of Anglicanism. Nice. Nice. Well, I got to tell you after we talked, I think it was Tuesday. Being the guy that I am, I love the John Wick movies, right? When I want to go brain dead and I just want to not think about anything, that's what I go to.

1:38:53 However, something was said in the first one that made me think of you. And that's when Wick walks back into the nightclub where all the hit men are and he gets warned. If you step put one pinky back in these waters, it could bring you back in. So. Everyone has been sending me the Godfather meme. Like. Thought I was out like everyone every both. My husband was the first person to like. He'd like texted it to me from like across the table. Awesome. On Saturday as I'm like panicking and then just telling people to send that to me. No, but I mean, I love I love Mormon studies. I loved it but.

1:39:35 You're on to other things now. I. Get it? Aching and canning and. Very Mormon skills, by the way. They are my husband. To be fair though, my husband was raised Mennonite. OK, there you go. They they do it too. They they're they're they're pretty. They're for real. You know their skills, they're. They're they're for real. They're for real. Yeah. So I'm gonna, yeah, I'm doing that. And I'm tentatively interested in writing about schismatic Catholic movements. To try to maybe take some of what I did in Mormon studies to my own people. That's interesting. You should bring that. So I just had a conversation, shouldn't say just, it was probably six months ago I had a buddy out here in Missouri who, you know, is a fundamentalist, but he's also very religiously curious, right, Which is what I love about him. And he was studying the schisms between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox.

1:40:30 And we had a conversation about that because there were some really interesting parallels with Mormonism on that even. Right. Sure. And the. Big thing was the papacy. Yeah, yeah. But I mean, there's a lot of really tiny, tiny, tiny Catholic religions that are Catholic but don't think the Pope is real, that he's lost his authority. And, and so I know it's an interest and I, it's an interesting route. They're called State of Acontists. And so when I started slowly, like learning about them, I was like, seems kind of shit. And we have a lot of them near where I live. So maybe. But for now, I'm just baking.

1:41:12 Well, awesome. I can't tell you how much I appreciate you making time for me. Like I said, I know you were in retirement and I, I, I wanted to respect that, but at the same time I'm like, she started it game on. So I I do appreciate you jumping on with me, Christina. It's always great. Awesome. All right, hang out for just 5 minutes. Bye everybody.

1:42:05 You're listening to the Mormon Renegade podcast.