On June 17, 1933, two years after Lorin C. Woolley published his account of the meeting, the church issued an "Official Statement from the First Presidency":

It is alleged that on September 26-27, 1886, President John Taylor received a revelation from the Lord . . . As to this pretended revelation it should be said that the archives of the church contain no such revelation; the archives contain no record of any such revelation, nor any evidence justifying a belief that any such revelation was ever given. . . . From the absence in the church archives of any evidence whatsoever justifying any belief that such a revelation was given, we are justified in affirming that no such revelation exists.

The key word seems to be "revelation." The church does not accept any message as the word of the Lord until it is presented to the church membership and accepted as a revelation. With this definition in mind, there is little conflict between the official statement and certain facts; it is a matter of definition of terms.

We will, therefore, use the term "alleged revelation."

This alleged revelation of John Taylor's, which unquestionably is his handwriting, has been widely circulated in photocopy. After Presiin dent Taylor's death his son, John W. Taylor, found the original among his father's papers, and made a copy in his own handwriting. This also has been widely distributed in photocopy. The original of the alleged revelation was delivered by the Taylor family to the church. It has not surfaced since.

However, there is evidence that it is safely preserved. On April 21, 1972, Raymond W. Taylor found copies of this alleged revelation among the John Taylor papers in the Church Historian's Office. He located a total of eleven reproductions, bearing the notation that they had been copied from the original. A number of these were personally copied by the church historian.

This brings up the definition of the word archives." The Webster definition is: a place for keeping public records. The CHO has always been a repository, never a library; its records are not public. Access is carefully restricted, authorization for research limited to certain records and not others.

In his research, Raymond W. Taylor got so far inside the CHO that, in effect, he went out the other side into orbit. In outer space was the "Special Documents Department," which is not officially part of the "archives"; and it was here that he found the eleven copies of the alleged revelation. There are also various safes at the CHO, to which he did not have access; these also are not part of the "archives."

Thus in perfect truth the alleged revelation of 1886 could be said not to be in the archives, nor would the archives contain any record of any such alleged revelation, nor any evidence whatsoever justifying a belief that any such alleged revelation was ever given.

The same sort of denials concerned Joseph Smith's original revelation on plural marriage at Nauvoo. Later, when the Principle was officially endorsed, these repudiations were characterized as "seeming" denials, which denounced not the "true coin," but the "counterfeit" of unauthorized practice.

Daniel R. Bateman corroborated Lorin C. Woolley's statement as "correct in every detail." He was present at the meeting, and copied the alleged revelation in his journal at that time.

It is significant that despite official suppression, none of the twelve witnesses at the meeting ever denied it, except for a carefully worded statement by George Earl, the fifteen-year-old chore boy, who admitted being "in and out" during the day while attending to his farm duties.

Some of the most impressive evidence is the blanket suppression of material relating to events of September 27, 1886. L. John Nuttall's detailed journal is unavailable for this period. The underground journals of John Taylor are deep in some recess of the official records. It is said that B. H. Roberts wrote an account of the 1886 meeting in his Life of John Taylor, but that this and "many other wonderful events" were censored. Roberts "was heartsick and went to John and Lorin Woolley for advice." They counseled obedience. The original manuscript has also vanished.

However, in recent years church scholars have been forced to admit the existence of the alleged revelation. Brigham Young University actually approved a study of the controversy by Dean C. Jesse. Kenneth W. Godfrey, director of LDS institutes and seminaries for Arizona and New Mexico, quoted from the alleged revelation in Dialogue (Autumn., 1970), and said that "Dean Jesse concluded in his study that it is highly probable that such a revelation does exist."

Two church authorities have admitted its existence, but denied its authenticity because it was unsigned. In this respect it resembles revelations given Joseph Smith. In fact, Joseph's original revelation on plural marriage was unsigned, and, since it had been dictated, wasn't in his handwriting.

The vital issue of the controversy is not the existence of the alleged revelation, but whether or not it is accepted as church doctrine. The statement of the first presidency says on this point:

Furthermore, so far as the authorities of the church are concerned and so far as the members of the church are concerned, since this pretended revelation, if ever given, was never presented to and adopted by the church or by any council of the church, and since to the contrary, an inspired rule of action, the Manifesto, was (subsequently to the pretended revelation) presented to and adopted by the church, which . . . was directly opposite to the interpretation given to the pretended revelation, the pretended revelation could have no validity... and action under it would be unauthorized, illegal, and void.

In this respect, the alleged revelation of 1886 has exactly the same status as more than half of Joseph Smith's own revelations. For reasons best known to the keepers of the records, the majority of the prophet's instructions from the Lord were "never presented to and adopted by the church or by any council of the church," and therefore "could have no validity."