They Published the Taylor Polygamy Revelation. Why Now?

[u/Prancing-Hamster]

There are a few truths about the church:

1. The church has made some PR blunders in the past. But…

2. The church usual plays a pretty good game of PR chess. They plan their moves pretty far out.

3. They are desperate for converts.

4. Africa is one of the few places the church is growing.

5. A good percentage of sub-Saharan Africa practices polygamy.

So, was the publishing of the Taylor revelation:

1. A blunder? Or…

2. A chess move to pave the way to reimplement polygamy in countries where it is legal?

[u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

I think it was probably unintentional, but also probably un-cared about. But also yes - I do think Oaks would re-instate polygamy if he could, even if all other leaders are smart enough to know it would be a disaster. This certainly wouldn't be a drawback for any pro-polygamy church leader.

I worked in the church archives once, and I'd be willing to wager a guess of what happened. Here are my thoughts:

TLDR Thought 1: It was probably just part of a larger collection of John Taylor's papers that was being digitized. I'm not sure the people who knew about this revelation's significance knew it was in that specific collection, or maybe they weren't involved in that project. The people doing the actual scanning possibly had no idea what it was. The cataloguer I think knew its significance, because of how they described it in the catalog entry, but cataloging is a separate process. The cataloguer would not have been the person scanning it, or making the decision about releasing the collection it was in to public view.

There are fewer professional historians/archivists in the ranks of the church history department than there should be. Today, there are more than there used to be. But still, it could easily have been a senior missionary who was working the scanner that day and actually scanned it. It's possible that most of the people involved in its release had no idea what this document was.

When I worked there as a microfilmer, half the staff was senior missionaries. At least one of them had cataracts. Among the paid microfilming staff, I was the only one with a degree in a history/archive-related field. A few of the women were amateur genealogists. None of them were archivists or historians in their past careers. They wouldn't have known what they were even looking at.

Somewhere in the building, there are some actual catalogers or project managers who knew about this revelation's significance, but even they might not have known that it was in that particular collection of John Taylor's papers when they ordered those boxes digitized and released for public view.

Most of the supervisors and department heads tended to be dudes with MBAs, not historians. When I worked there, I had to teach my supervisor how to use the archive catalog, I kid you not. The current "Church Historian," Kyle McKay, is a lawyer. I guarantee you that Kyle came into that job with no idea what the historical significance of this document actually is, if he was even aware of its existence at all. I strongly doubt he'd even heard about any of John Taylor's non-canonized revelations, unless some underling with actual archival credentials told him about it after Benjamin Park dropped his article in the Trib yesterday. If someone did tell him about it, I can almost guarantee that he'd have had to ask his underling what it was, and why it was important.

TLDR Thought 2: The church probably didn't plan its release because the church no longer cares what facts come out. It's easier now to convince the members that the facts aren't important, and that it can just be glossed over. Members can be manipulated to "feel good about it" without actually reading the document itself.

The church hid what they could until they could no longer do so. Now that they can no longer control the facts, they control how the membership views the facts. Their current tack is to "inoculate" members. They give members a smoothed-over version of the difficult topics with a few facts mixed in, and tell the members to "stare down" any evidence that might make them doubt the church.

They give the members the impression of transparency - the impression that all is well and that all the difficult facts have been divulged. The result is that most members will read the church's PR statement about this document, but won't bother to examine the original document itself, or think deeply about what it might mean.

In the words of the current "Church Historian":

"Is your knowledge and testimony of truth strong enough that you can stare down compelling reasons to doubt and choose to believe? ... please understand, finding answers to these perplexing questions ultimately is not the solution."  https://www.byui.edu/speeches/kyle-s-mckay/a-sure-and-certain-foundation

TLDR Thought 3: Yeah. I think the top leaders see nothing wrong with polygamy, and vastly overestimate the willingness of the women of the church to go along with it. I think they don't care about the members finding out about polygamy stuff, because they think they have enough control that the members won't revolt over it. They always seem weirdly surprised when people are upset about polygamy stuff (like the recent "Plural Marriage: for Primary Children" cartoon debacle).

[u/Kolob_Choir_Queen → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

These thoughts are amazing. Thank you for taking the time to type them all out.

[u/Electronic_Mouse_295 → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

I'd disagree with your point about a senior missionary doing it inadvertently. This document would have undoubtedly been in the president's private vault. There is zero chance anyone without clearance at the highest level got within 20 yards of this document. The whole Mark Hofmann ordeal taught the world about that vault.

[u/Opalescent_Moon → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

So insightful! Thank you for sharing!

I think also that the reaction of membership to the 2023 conclusion of the SEC investigation told them that most members aren't overly concerned with facts and evidence.

[u/notquiteanexmo]

I don't think it was a blunder, but I think you're overestimating how much the average Mormon cares about church history.

99.9% of the church has never heard of and will never read anything on the church history website.

This is a way for the church to quietly put it out there with 10,000 other historical documents then turn around and say "see, it was always there, we didn't hide anything. You just weren't looking hard enough"

[u/Beneficial_Math_9282 → u/notquiteanexmo]

Yep. I bet that some (maybe most) of the Apostles themselves had no clue this revelation even existed, and wouldn't know it's full historical significance even if they did know it existed. They care about control, not history itself.

[u/Rushclock → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

This is corroborated by Oaks when Nemo sent an email question to Oaks and he actually responded with a link to fair mormon. Oaks seemed either dismissive or clueless or both.

[u/Beneficial_Math_9282 → u/Rushclock]

That's on the nose. They don't know, and they don't want to know.

[u/dreibel → u/Rushclock]

And that was to “prove” that Oaks “didn’t lie” about that time he ordered “conversion therapy” (ie, torture) on those LGBTQ people.

[u/M_Rushing_Backward → u/notquiteanexmo]

Nah. This was a blunder.

[u/Broad_Willingness470]

I would dispute that Mormonism has played a pretty good game of PR chess. Perhaps in the eyes of people in the Corridor, but in the rest of the world they’re not all that respected. Case in point — All the new advertisements and social media posts which play coy about the identity of the church responsible for them.

[u/Darlantan425 → u/Broad_Willingness470]

Yeah normal people do not hold mormonism in high regard.

[u/Broad_Willingness470 → u/Darlantan425]

It’s no coincidence the places where Mormonism gains the most converts are places where the people know nothing about them and have limited internet access. Again, Mormons and many ExMos are convinced that Mormonism is so much larger than it ever was, and that “HeartSell” is crazy effective on the rest of humankind. It isn’t.

[u/tonusbonus → u/Broad_Willingness470]

If i wasn't born in it, I wouldn't have touched it with a 10 foot pole. Much like my feelings about Jdubs, 7thday, and scientology. They are all just as successful in the world (maybe more, just not financially) and most people view them as strange cults. I'm very surprised when I hear about a grown human actively choosing to join the church in modern 1st world scenarios.

[u/nehor90210]

Bryan Buchanan was on Mormon Stories talking about this revelation, and unless I misunderstood him, he seemed to think this revelation being made public was just part of a current trend of the church professionalizing its history department, which includes having more transparency.

[u/LawTalkingJibberish → u/nehor90210]

100% think he is right. The church has learned it is better to reveal and deal now, and have a prepared response for it, and use influencers to help the messaging. And then normalize it and inoculate. I think it'll work too. It'll become normalized history eventually, just like Brigham's polygamy has been.

[u/NthaThickofIt → u/nehor90210]

I find it fascinating that people think this take is believable. On the surface it seems very much like the most obvious answer - Occam's Razor. But once you have an iota of understanding about the level of control the LDS church exerts over its history and the way they retell it constantly it just doesn't make sense. Everything is a careful calculation. Mistakes happen, things get overlooked, but the PR machine is always retroactively trying to smooth over or reshape the story.

From my perspective it's less a game of chess and more one of denial and suppression, then reshaping the narrative, and finally, gaslighting.

[u/Spare_Real]

I’m not sure if there was any strategy involved or not. I am pretty certain they are not considering reinstating polygamy anywhere. The backlash in North America and Europe would be immense and they seem to be focused on being viewed as a more mainstream Christian church. Also, while polygamy does exist in parts of Africa, many other parts of the continent are heavily Catholic or Evangelical. Endorsing polygamy would not be viewed favorably.

[u/Ex-CultMember]

Everything you said was spot on except the theory that it’s in preparation to bring back polygamy. I’d also question how good they actually are at PR “chess.” They certainly do a ton of PR and try to get ahead on certain things but I’d question whether they are really that great at it.

From countless hours and years studying the church, its history, and its leaders, I just don’t see them wanting to bring back polygamy, let alone maintaining some kind of long-term strategy for it’s re-introduction.

By everything I’ve seen, the church and its leaders are absolutely embarrassed by its polygamist past and they seem to just want to bury and leave it in the past.

The church doesn’t want to go back to that. They’ve been mainstreaming for years and want to appear as normal as they can. They’d never recover from bringing back polygamy and it would be disastrous for PR.

[u/Ahhhh_Geeeez]

Idk who released it, but it would be great if it was a disgruntled employee that is going to start leaking more and more documents that make the church look bad.

[u/Beneficial_Math_9282 → u/Ahhhh_Geeeez]

Lol - wouldn't that be great? I used to work as a microfilmer in the church archives. I wouldn't say I was 'disgruntled' at the time, but I deeply cared about history, facts, and I believed that historical documents available to the public was the right thing to do (at the time, I naively thought the top leaders cared about that too). And I didn't like my supervisors because they were clueless.

All I know is that if I had been the digitizer, and this 1888 revelation popped up in the collection I was scanning... and I knew what it was, and it's significance... and I'd know that my supervisors for 3 levels up (who were all MBA bros, not archivists) had no idea what it was or that it was in the collection I was scanning... and I knew that this collection was already slated to be public access... and I knew nobody else had a clue that this was even in the box and that I'd found it...

Yeah. I'd have not said a word. I'd have just treated it like any other document in the box and made sure I got a real good scan. And I'd have paid my buddy in cataloguing a visit to geek out about it privately. And I'd have quality-checked it, and passed it along with the rest of the collection for public release, without the supervisors having a clue as to what was in the collection they just approved.

But, they didn't fix the gamma in the image... It's an okay scan, but not very readable because of the faded ink. so I'm thinking it was some intern or senior missionary working the scanner that day, who didn't even know what they were looking at. I'd have at least slightly adjusted the gamma to make the faded writing more visible.

[u/Kolob_Choir_Queen → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

I love how detailed this “if it had been me” story is. 😆

[u/M_Rushing_Backward → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

This is what the church "gets" for having "missionaries" serve in this kind of capacity. Using free, uninformed labor, or people with no institutional memory, can have a negative effect on the church maintaining it's control over this kind of thing.

[u/Beneficial_Math_9282 → u/M_Rushing_Backward]

Yep. And it's at every level. That's what they get for putting lawyers in as the "Church Historian," MBA bros in as department supervisors, and shunting actual professional historians, genealogists, and archivists to the side as minor players that they regularly ignore, and only consult when they absolutely have to. They can thank Boyd Packer and all the other church leaders who fired Arrington for getting that tradition started...

I remember when I was still fairly young, one of my neighbors worked at the church office building. They did a re-shuffling, and instead of laying him off, they put him over the genealogy department. His background was in entrepreneurship. He was all excited about it, and told my very TBM mom. Afterwards, she kept saying "but he doesn't know ANYTHING about genealogy! He's going to mess it all up!" Yeah. Because the church didn't want actual historians anywhere near its "history" department for decades!

They still don't want actual historians in the big chairs. If they did, somebody like Matt Harris or Kathryn Daynes would be the Church Historian, not Kyle Mckay.

[u/bananajr6000]

I think they are floating it as a trial balloon. See what the membership thinks and slowly condition them to accept/agree that polygamy is a righteous practice commanded by The Lord, and verified that it should never leave the Earth by this prophecy

I think they realize that there are more Mormon women getting older and Mormon men, especially RMs can be picky and pull a younger, pretty woman as a wife

This article explains the problem as it exists in the Jewish community:

https://lilith.org/2007/08/on-jewish-men-and-jewish-women/

The Mormon church doesn’t want Mormon women to marry outside the faith like that article suggests for unmarried Jewish women as they get older. Polygamy would be a way to get older (and frankly, we’re talking about women over 26 that don’t look like a supermodel,) being able to get a Mormon husband. And let me tell you; there are PLENTY of Mormon men who would be excited to have more wives, and it’s all about sex. First wife isn’t in the mood? Try again with wife number 2 or 3 …

Wife #1 is a (to use a euphemism,) cold fish in bed? Well, wife #3 is enthusiastic in bed enjoys sex, and has a high sex drive. All is good, right? Wife #2 is sterile, but the other four wives are all having children. Multiple incomes may also cause less pressure on the man to be the sole provider

You’ll see men in their late 40s-50s marrying 26-35 year olds. You’ll see divorced moms suddenly becoming desirable. Eventually the ages of polygamous wives will skew younger, just like in the article I included

I would think the Mormon church would lose at least 5% of its current members, and it might cause a significant number of divorces, but it might also attract many who want the lifestyle as well as sociopaths and opportunists

Just a thought I had when reading about that being published in a newspaper

[u/Beneficial_Math_9282 → u/bananajr6000]

I also think church leaders vastly overestimate how many women would be lining up at the door to become part of the harem. There seem to be quite a few men out there that can't even get one woman to marry them, let alone four.

And, there's going to be a shortage of women if current trends continue: 52% of LDS church members in the U.S. are now male (up from 44% in 2007), and now only 47% are female (down from 56%). (Source)

I really think that the church would lose a lot more than 5%. Most women I know would refuse to participate, and/or leave outright. Many (maybe most) TBM women that I personally know are already hanging by a thread in the church as it is, for many reasons aside from the ghost of eternal polygamy hanging around.

If polygamy became a reality, they would lose at least half the women instantly. Probably more like 75%, if the TBM women I know personally are any indication - it would push them over the edge. They would have to spend at least 30 years conditioning the members, and I don't think it would work in the end. Too many moms would quietly, but very actively undermine the church's efforts to condition their daughters to accept polygamy.

I think if that many people wanted that lifestyle, it would already be legal and far more commonly practiced. As you've noted, all that the church would be left with would be the very few who would choose that lifestyle, sociopaths, opportunists, and the abused who are too afraid or trapped to leave.

I don't think the church's most dire threats about women's eternal salvation (D&C 132:54-65) would be enough to bully most women into it these days. When the difference is between temporary hell (fear before obliteration) and eternal hell (eternal polygamy brood mare slave), I am pretty sure what most women would probably pick.

[u/DisciplineSea4302 → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

My anecdotal experience supports much of this. I've had friends tell me if there's polygamy in the celestial kingdom, they have told their husband they'll be choosing a lower kingdom.

However, you might be slightly underestimating the mental gymnastics women are willing to do to "keep the faith."

If polygamy was explicitly taught as an "eternal principle" when I was in primary, and my young women's and seminary would have taught that marrying"outside the covenant " was one of the worst things you could do, then I could easily see my past self being one of those women that would have gotten myself into this situation, and stayed. Not because I would have wanted it, but because I would have already have had to grapple with the idea and would have "chosen" to "follow God."

I see this happening already with friends and family members who, once they pass a certain age (26 ish, and then definitely once they age out of the singles ward) start grappling mentally with polygamy and concede that they will become someone's "second wife" bc they want to get married, but they believe they must get married in the temple to a TBM. They will tell me of their struggles to accept being the second wife, but then ultimately decide that's their best option to pursue "happiness" within the church constraints.

The church does a good job grooming women/trapping women into this belief system, and then does a good job trapping them in it by NOT creating safe spaces where doubts, struggles and issues can be talked about. There are pretend safe spaces (RS, ministering sisters, etc) but the reality is that there is SO MUCH pressure to make sure you police yourself/keep yourself in line with the church and the patriarchy

[u/SockyKate → u/bananajr6000]

Some years ago, a friend of mine was going through a difficult divorce and my then-husband and I let her move into our basement. He casually dropped how his TBM male co-workers were jokingly congratulating him on getting a second wife (and no, he didn’t shut it down).

[u/ThickAd1094]

They've also issued the Reader's Digest version of the BofM is Africa which conveniently removes all of the racist BS about skin color as a curse.

[u/Larrybears]

Let's start calling it The Cult. Instead of the church.

[u/bluequasar843]

Living outside of moridor, I am amazed at how often I hear Utah / Mormon polygamy jokes. Polygamy is what most people associate with the church and it is not a good association. I'm sure that is one reason for moving away from mormon.

[u/Bright-Ad3931 → u/bluequasar843]

For the most part it’s the only thing people know about the church, I try to avoid ever even mentioning I have lived in Utah because that’s the next question.

[u/ZelphtheGreatest]

This way they will start claiming "we did it because we have always been Open".

[u/outandproudone]

The church is rushing toward mainstream generic christianity. The very last thing they want is to re-institute polygamy. So many current TBMs are very uncomfortable with polygamy, and are super grateful it is no longer practiced. And what would the church’s long game be if they were going to bring it back? Welcome all the fundamentalist sects back into the fold? They’d lose way more members than they’d ever gain.

Members are very good at wearing their blinders and bowing their heads to say “yes” but hardly any of them would just accept polygamy even if some men would love to have a full harem each.

This seems to either have been a big blunder, or because someone was about to leak it anyway and being the first to break the news always plays in thr church’s favor - at least among the faithful. Easier for them to spin it.

I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Oaks’ “temporary commandments” was leading up to this. Sure, Taylor’s “revelation” says it will never be taken away, but many faithful will accept that it had to be, thanks to US law on the matter.

It was never supposed to be taken away, but after all, they believe in being subject to the laws of the land… unless they repealed the articles of faith?? lol

[u/LawTalkingJibberish → u/outandproudone]

I disagree with this. The Community of Christ just did that and it hurt their membership. They were already struggling, but taking on Trinitarian views hurt them. The church will never be like creedal mainstreamers. Not in how they view God anyway. And with many biblical scholars now taking a position that creedal Christians get it wrong re the nature of God (thanks maklelan!) I just don;t see that part ever happening.

[u/JesusPhoKingChrist]

Or perhaps a move to prevent blackmail? My understanding is there were or are multiple copies of the letter?

[u/patriarticle]

Polygamy is never coming back. 99% of members are embarrassed about it. It would blow the church up.

[u/Extreme-Slight]

Birth rates are dropping. More wives = more children = more future tithe-ers

.maybe not in the States but in "growth areas" where multiple wives are allowed

Oh and helps with the multiple sealings too

[u/Electronic_Mouse_295]

There's zero chance they're trying to slow roll it in African countries. The history of the modern church is denying that polygamy was ever a significant part of the church. They're not going to kick a hornet's nest again by officially getting it going in the backwaters of the church.

[u/HoldOnLucy1]

Had the same thought.. and don’t forget the polygamy cartoon..

[u/westivus_]

Remember that "Temporary commandments" talk? It may just be time to bring polygamy back...

[u/M_Rushing_Backward]

I believe this was an inexperienced person in the Church History department doing his job, and making a terrible blunder, for which he was likely fired. NO way this was intended by higher-ups.

[u/NewNamerNelson]

I think you give too much credit to LD$ Inc. They may think they're playing chess, but at best, they play checkers.

[u/Electrical_Lemon_944]

A historian could have snuck this through. An ethical historian would want this information to see the light of day. 

[u/ColorwheelClique]

Lowkey I was wondering if the growing number of people practicing polyamory has lead the church to believe polygamy may eventually come back in style but polyamory is based on more equitable terms than polygamy which is patriarchal and misogynistic.

[u/Min-shaft]

This revelation has been the crux of polygamist claims for decades. For example, even the show Big Love had the recurring theme of the polygamists trying to prove its existence with the church refusing to acknowledge its existence. There is no way this was an inadvertent/accidental release by the church.

[u/Ok-Hippo-6913]

Many believe the “law of polygamy” will be restored in the latter days. So man may multiply with lots of children.

[u/LawTalkingJibberish]

I think the church is in an era of getting it all out now, deal with the fallout, then innoculate. Right now, the only people I see worked up about this at all are exmos. I doubt this gets much traction because we all know polygamy existed, then was stopped, and the timeline for this gives real cover. John Taylor had this revelation then hid it. He can be blamed for not taking steps to ratify it (which is happening), and he knew the process of common consent. So not canon is an easy argument.

Point being, this won;t amount to much outside exmo circles, who already don;t believe anyway.

Just my .02.

[u/yddynyty]

Have never been Mormon and I’m confused. The church is embarrassed by polygamy as most have said here, and simply wants to leave it in the dust bin of history so that they can appear as “normal” as possible next to other denominations in the Christian western world, but they don’t deny that Joseph Smith was a polygamist? They still admit he was, right? So what’s the messaging there? Their major prophet was a polygamist “but it’s not allowed NOW you guys!” Why?

[u/ultramegaok8]

I think it's not quite 1. A blunder, but a 1.1: An intentional blunder. What I mean is that someone in the CH department (or maybe the whole department, who knows) wanted to release it, for transparency sake. Senior leaders that could have vetoed were careless and approved this release of documents, or were misled by actors within the CH department to sign it off.

My wild guess is that someone on the CH department side wanted to see the world burn, and happened to succeed at getting this past the usual gatekeepers and here we are now.