By Sandra Tanner

---

One of the founding principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [the Mormon Church] is that there must be a living prophet at the head of the true church. Joseph Smith was designated as God’s “prophet, seer and revelator,” as have been all the succeeding presidents of the LDS Church.¹

When Joseph Smith was killed by a mob while under arrest at Carthage, Illinois, in 1844, it left the Mormons with a leadership vacuum. While several men, mainly Sidney Rigdon and Brigham Young, vied for leadership, Smith had not left instructions on who was to be his successor. LDS historian Richard S. Van Wagoner explained:

Despite frequent kidnapping and assassination attempts, Joseph Smith established no firm policies regarding presidential succession in the event of his death. The resulting confusion threw the prophetic transition into turmoil. He simply had not expected to die at thirty-eight. Never given to full disclosure to any man or woman, the prophet’s public and private statements between 1834–44 suggested at least eight different methods for succession, each pointing to different successors with some claims to validity.²

After much debate, Brigham Young was able to convince the majority of the leaders to turn the control of the church over to the twelve apostles, of which he was head. Later he was formally installed as the president of the LDS Church in 1847.³

John Turner, in his new book, Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet, gave this overview of Young’s leadership:

After the founding prophet’s murder Brigham Young gathered the largest portion of Smith’s followers under his leadership, held them together amid persecution and exile, and planted the Mormon kingdom in what became Utah. Young was no less controversial than his predecessor, and non-Mormons routinely accused him of ecclesiastical tyranny, licentiousness, and even murder.⁴

Further on Turner observes:

Within a Protestant America dedicated to monogamy, monotheism, and Jacksonian democracy, Young advocated the plurality of wives, a plurality of gods, and a unity of power. Given the scope of his vision and the novelty of his beliefs, it is not surprising that he generated intense controversy and opposition. Young’s siege mentality, forged in the crucible of anti-Mormon persecution, led him to demonize his enemies, employ violent rhetoric, and condone murders. A leader who understood himself as following in the footsteps of the ancient biblical patriarchs could not readily function within the U.S. territorial system. Convinced that Young—Utah’s [territorial] governor as of 1857— was leading a rebellion against the U.S. government, President James Buchanan sent an army to Utah with Young’s gubernatorial replacement. Young eventually learned to live with the presence of U.S. soldiers and officials, but in other ways he defended his kingdom with ever-greater desperation until the end of his life. In the end, Young’s ambitions for his church and himself were so great that he could at best bring them only partly to fruition.⁵

Young’s Sermons

Approximately 500 of Brigham Young’s sermons were recorded by a stenographer, more than 350 of which were printed in the Journal of Discourses, a 26-volume set published by the LDS Church.⁶ Many of his sermons were also published in the church-owned Deseret News. Young’s sermons were published during his lifetime, and he never issued any statement that they had been printed incorrectly. In fact, Brigham Young even went so far as to compare his published sermons with scripture. Preaching in January of 1870, Brigham Young declared:

I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom. . . . I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually.⁷

[Bold in quotations is added for emphasis and does not appear in originals.]

Later that same year Young stated:

Brother Orson Hyde referred to a few who complained about not getting revelations . . . I say now, when they [Young’s sermons] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . ⁸

On another occasion Brigham Young preached:

If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason.⁹

Yet it is common to have a Mormon dismiss doctrinal statements by Brigham Young and other past prophets. Today the church leaders send a mixed message when they admonish the Mormons to follow the living prophet (as opposed to past prophets) and then quote past prophets to make their point. For example, speaking at the October 2010 LDS Conference, Claudio M. Costa, of the Presidency of the Seventy, preached on the necessity of following the words of the living prophet by quoting past prophets:

I testify to you that Joseph Smith is a prophet, and because I have received this answer from the Lord, I know that all of his successors are prophets too. What a great blessing it is to have prophets in our day! . . .

In 1980, when President Ezra Taft Benson was serving as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, he gave a powerful message about obedience to the prophets at a BYU devotional in the Marriott Center. His great talk, titled “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” touched my heart. It made me feel good that I had made the decision to follow the prophets for the rest of my life when I accepted baptism in the Lord’s true Church.

I would like to share with you some of the principles that President Benson taught:

“First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything” (1980 Devotional Speeches of the Year [1981], 26). . . .

We are counseled to “give heed unto all his words and commandments” (D&C 21:4). We also learn:

“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith. . . .” (D&C 21:5-6).

Second fundamental: “The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works” (“Fourteen Fundamentals,” 26). . . .

Third fundamental: “The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet” (“Fourteen Fundamentals,” 27). . . .

Fourth fundamental: “The prophet will never lead the Church astray” (“Fourteen Fundamentals,” 27).

Again we learn from the living prophets. President Wilford Woodruff said:

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty” (Official Declaration 1).¹⁰

Notice that Mr. Costa quoted two past prophets in his sermon to reinforce the importance of a “living prophet.” When a Mormon is confronted with statements by past prophets that don’t agree with the current position of the church, he will often claim that we are to only heed the statements of the “living prophet.” However, LDS conference speakers and manuals repeatedly quote from their past prophets to support their point. In fact, starting in 1997, the church has yearly produced new manuals in a series called Teachings of Presidents of the Church, which covers the sermons of each of their past prophets.

In the introduction to the first manual of that series, entitled Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, we read:

The prophet Brigham Young taught the restored gospel of Jesus Christ in a basic, practical way . . . Though more than a century has now passed, his words are still fresh and appropriate for us today as we continue the work of building the kingdom of God. . . .

This book reflects the desire of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to deepen the doctrinal understanding of Church members and to awaken within them a greater desire to know the things of God.¹¹

However, as one studies the manual it becomes apparent that Young’s sermons have been carefully edited. Young repeatedly preached on such topics as Joseph Smith’s importance, polygamy, the Adam-God doctrine, blood atonement, and the ban on blacks holding the LDS priesthood. Yet, these subjects are not covered in the 1997 manual. In light of this, we will now explore some of Brigham Young’s more controversial sermons as they were originally printed.

Joseph Smith

In the manual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, is a quote from Brigham Young about the importance of Joseph Smith to the restoration of “the keys and power of the Priesthood of the Son of God.”¹² When we go back to the original source of the quote we find that it is taken from a sermon where Young declared that Joseph Smith rules over the spirit world and that one must accept him in order to gain entrance into the Celestial Kingdom:

Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, . . . no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are—I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation—the keys to rule in the spirit world; and he rules there triumphantly, for he gained full power and a glorious victory over the power of Satan while he was yet in the flesh, and was a martyr to his religion and to the name of Christ, . . . He reigns there [in the spirit world] as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven.¹³

On another occasion Young stated that anyone who rejects Joseph Smith is “of Antichrist”:

For unbelievers we will quote from the Scriptures —“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” Again—“Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God.” I will now give my scripture— “Whosoever confesseth that Joseph Smith was sent of God to reveal the holy Gospel to the children of men, and lay the foundation for gathering Israel, and building up the kingdom of God on the earth, that spirit is of God; and every spirit that does not confess that God has sent Joseph Smith, and revealed the everlasting Gospel to and through him, is of Antichrist, . . . They may say that they acknowledge Him until doomsday, and he will never own them, nor bestow the Holy Spirit upon them, and they will never have visions of eternity opened to them, unless they acknowledge that Joseph Smith is sent of God. Such people I call unbelievers. They tell about believing in Jesus Christ, but they might as well talk about birds understanding the Hebrew language. This statement is no more positive than true.¹⁴

The Bible cautions us to examine the teachings of anyone claiming to be a prophet. John wrote:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
(1 John 4:1)

God calls us to faith in Christ, not a man. John wrote:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
(John 3:16)

Polygamy

Curiously, the LDS manual on Brigham Young never mentions his 55 wives or his 56 children (by 16 of his wives).¹⁵ It does tell of his first wife’s death and his subsequent marriage to Mary Ann Angel in 1834,¹⁶ but does not mention the others. This leaves the impression that he only married one wife after the death of his first wife. Not only that, when quoting his sermons the LDS Church edited out the references to “wives” and substituted “wife.”

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young	Discourses of Brigham Young
“ . . . especially to those who are presiding officers, Set that example before your [wife] and your children”17	“ . . . especially to those who are presiding officers, Set that example before your wives and your children”18
“Let the husband and father learn to bend his will to the will of his God, and then instruct his [wife] and children”19	“Let the husband and father learn to bend his will to the will of his God, and then instruct his wives and children”20

Another problem is the use of a few select sentences from a sermon that was actually about polygamy. An example of this appears on page 166 of the manual:

Let the father be the head of the family, the master of his own household; and let him treat them [his family] as an angel would treat them.²¹

However, the same sentence in Discourses of Brigham Young reads:

Let the father be the head of the family, the master of his own household; and let him treat them as an angel would treat them; and let the wives and the children say amen to what he says, and be subject to his dictates, instead of their dictating the man, instead of their trying to govern him.²²

Even the quote above, from Discourses of Brigham Young, is an edited version of Young’s sermon. Ironically, the quote was part of a sermon given by Brigham Young in 1856 threatening to disown the women who were complaining about polygamy:

Men will say, “My wife, though a most excellent woman, has not seen a happy day since I took my second wife;” “No, not a happy day for a year,” says one; and another has not seen a happy day for five years. . . .

I wish my own women to understand that what I am going to say is for them as well as others, and I want those who are here to tell their sister, . . . I am going to give you from this time to the 6th day of October next, for reflection, that you may determine whether you wish to stay with your husbands or not, and then I am going to set every woman at liberty and say to them, Now go your way, my women with the rest, go your way. And my wives have got to do one of two things; either round up their shoulders to endure the afflictions of this world, and live their religion, or they may leave, for I will not have them about me. . . . ²³

Two paragraphs later we read the quote that is given in the current manual about the father being the head of the family. But the context of that portion of Young’s sermon was about women obeying their husbands in polygamy.

Although the LDS Church today tries to minimize the importance of their past teachings on polygamy, it is still a part of their scriptures. Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants warns that once this doctrine has been revealed to a person they are under obligation before God to practice it.

Verily, thus saith the Lord . . . inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

. . . For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned . . . (Doctrine and Covenants 132:1-4)

Brigham Young was very adamant about the necessity of practicing plural marriage to achieve exaltation:

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.²⁴

On another occasion he preached:

Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.²⁵

It should be noted that polygamy in the Bible was never commanded by God or presented as a requirement for eternal life.

Adam is God

One of the more controversial doctrines taught by Young was that Adam is the God over this earth, under the supervision of yet a higher god, and Adam is the father of Jesus. However, the current manual on Brigham Young has carefully avoided this doctrine. On page 30 of the manual is a quote on the nature of God:

Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth [see Hebrews 12:9]; and they were born spirits in the eternal world.²⁶

The reference given for the quote is Discourses of Brigham Young.²⁷ However, when we take the reference back another step and look at the original source we find it is Young’s famous sermon on Adam-God:

Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. . . .

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Arch-angel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. . . . When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost, And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, . . . I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind.²⁸

(see photo below)

In 1857, after some members had questioned the Adam-God doctrine, Brigham Young declared:

Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him [Adam] our God, or whether His Father, or His Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species—of one family—and Jesus Christ is also of our species.²⁹

The Adam-God doctrine was no idle speculation: Brigham Young taught that doctrine throughout his life and declared it to be a matter of revelation. In 1873 the Deseret News quoted one of Brigham Young’s sermons:

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our father and God—I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companion came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve, . . . ³⁰

Contrary to present LDS understanding that Elohim is the father of our spirits, Brigham Young taught that Elohim, as a higher god, appointed Adam to be the father of our spirits:

We say that Father Adam came here and helped to make the earth. Who is he? He is Michael, a great prince, and it was said to him by Eloheim, “Go ye and make an earth.” . . . Father Adam came here, and then they brought his wife. “Well,” says one, “Why was Adam called Adam”? He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker, he, with the help of his brethren, brought it into existence. Then he said, “I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state, I was faithful, I received my crown and exaltation. . . . I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle or a dwelling place as mine has and where is the mystery?³¹

Even though Young taught the Adam-God doctrine for over twenty years, at least one apostle was troubled by it. In Apostle Wilford Woodruff’s journal for September 17, 1854, we read about a meeting where this was discussed:

Brother Pratt Also thought that Adam was made of the dust of the Earth. [Pratt] Could not believe that Adam was our God or the Father of Jesus Christ. President Young said that He was that He came from another world & made this. Brought Eve with him partook of the fruits of the Earth begat Children & they were Earthly & had mortal bodies & if we were Faithful we should become Gods as He was. He told Brother Pratt to lay aside his Philosofical reasoning & get Revelation from God to Govern him & Enlighten his mind more . . . ³²

In 1877 Brigham Young even introduced the Adam-God doctrine into the LDS endowment ceremony in the temple at St. George, Utah, which was the only one then in operation. This lecture was a summary of the theological meaning of the ritual, including the Adam-God doctrine. Young explained that Adam and Eve were once mortals on some other world and after receiving their exaltation the gods sent them to form this world for the habitation of their spirit children, of whom Jesus was the first born. The lecture also taught that Adam was the literal father of Jesus in the flesh. While the original manuscript of the lecture at the veil is not publicly available, L. John Nuttall, Young’s scribe, recorded it in his diary:

In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth & putting Michael or Adam upon it. These thing[s] of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness . . .

We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve, how they were formed &c. . . . He was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth. He had lived on an earth similar to ours. . . . and gained his resurrection and his exaltation . . . And [he] had begotten all the spirit[s] that was to come to this earth. And Eve[,] our common Mother who is the Mother of all living[,] bore those spirits in the celestial world. And when this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah & Michael[,] who is Adam our common Father, Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of Progression [and] consequently came to this earth . . .

Father Adam’s oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) wh[o] is the heir of the family is Father Adams’ first begotten in the spirit World, who according to the flesh is the only begotten[,] as it is written. (In his [Adam’s] divinity[,] he having gone back into the spirit World and come in the spirit to Mary[,] and she conceived[,] for when Adam and Eve got through with their Work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit World from whence they come.[)]³³

Contrary to Young’s doctrine, the Bible, in Genesis 1:26-27, clearly presents Adam as God’s creation. Also, Isaiah declared that there is only one God:

“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior.” 
(Isaiah 43:10-11)

Some may argue that the Adam-God doctrine was never canonized, but by placing this teaching in the temple ceremony Young placed it above the authority of the LDS scriptures. Anyone may read the scriptures, but only faithful Mormons may participate in the temple rituals. One should also note that the temple ceremony itself has never been canonized, but no Mormon would argue that it is not doctrine.

While the Adam-God doctrine has dropped into obscurity, the polygamist splinter groups and some Mormons have continued to believe the doctrine. In 1976 President Spencer W. Kimball denounced the teaching in the October LDS Conference:

Another matter. We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.³⁴

Kimball’s statement, however, did not end the discussion. In 1981 Apostle Bruce R. McConkie sent a letter to BYU professor Eugene England regarding the Adam-God doctrine:

As it happens, I am a great admirer of Brigham Young and a great believer in his doctrinal presentations. He was called of God. . . . Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. . . .

Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is, that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. . . . If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrines, we are making an election that will damn us.³⁵

This raises the question: When does a prophet speak for God? Young, as God’s prophet, declared the Adam-God doctrine to be a revelation. Kimball, as God’s prophet, declared it to be false doctrine. Since Deuteronomy 13 states that a true prophet will not lead the people after a false god, it appears that Brigham Young was a false prophet.

See also:

• Adam is God??? (PDF book)

Blood Atonement

Another troubling doctrine of Brigham Young’s was blood atonement. This didn’t relate to Christ’s atonement, but to the sinner’s personal blood atonement. In reading the following statements, remember that Brigham Young was not just the president of the LDS Church, but was also the Governor of Utah Territory. In 1856 Brigham Young explained this doctrine:

There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them. . . . I do know that there are sins committed, of such a nature that if the people did understand the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day; and though the principles are taught publicly from this stand, still the people do not understand them; yet the law is precisely the same. There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man. That is the reason why men talk to you as they do from this stand; they understand the doctrine and throw out a few words about it. You have been taught that doctrine, but you do not understand it.³⁶

Brigham Young further explained:

Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands. . . .

There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it . . . ³⁷

In another sermon Young stated that this has been carried out:

Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved in the kingdom of our God and our Father, and being exalted, . . . and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, . . . is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, “shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?” . . . Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant. . . .

I could refer you to plenty of instances where men, have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up—conquers death, hell, and the grave. I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle’s being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force.

This is loving our neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind.³⁸

However, the New Testament never mentions any such practice. The atonement for man’s sins was completed with Christ’s death and resurrection. Paul explained:

This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.
(Romans 3:22-25, NIV)

Blacks Cursed

While a few blacks were admitted to the LDS priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, Brigham Young put an end to that in Utah. Denial of priesthood to blacks was carried on until 1978 when President Kimball reversed the ban.³⁹ Young was very vocal in his disregard of the African race. In 1859 Young declared that blacks are cursed due to Cain’s sin:

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the “servant of servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.⁴⁰

While the Civil War was raging in the east in 1863, Brigham Young declared:

The rank, rabid abolitionists, whom I call black-hearted Republicans, have set the whole national fabric on fire. . . . The Southerners make the negroes, and the Northerners worship them; this is all the difference between slaveholders and abolitionists. I would like the President of the United States and all the world to hear this.

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.⁴¹

Later in the same year Young preached:

What is the cause of all this waste of life and treasure? To tell it in a plain, truthful way, one portion of the country wish to raise their negroes or black slaves and the other portion wish to free them, and, apparently, to almost worship them. . . .

Ham will continue to be the servant of servants, as the Lord has decreed, until the curse is removed. Will the present struggle free the slave? No; but they are now wasting away the black race by thousands. . . .

Treat the slaves kindly and let them live, for Ham must be the servant of servants until the curse is removed. Can you destroy the decrees of the Almighty? You cannot. Yet our Christian brethren think that they are going to overthrow the sentence of the Almighty upon the seed of Ham. They cannot do that, though they may kill them by thousands and tens of thousands.⁴²

This attitude prevailed among the Mormons for the next hundred years. Then in 1978, after years of civil rights protests, President Kimball made the following announcement that lifted the ban on blacks:

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church.⁴³

This shift left many Mormons wondering what to make of the many past statements of their leaders that the blacks would not receive the priesthood until all the rest of mankind were given the opportunity. Consequently, Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated:

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.⁴⁴

As one former Mormon quipped, “Today’s truth may be tomorrow’s heresy.”

There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that white skin is superior to dark skin or that dark skin denotes a curse from God.

Conclusion

Mormons are often advised by their leaders to avoid reading material on the LDS Church that is not produced by them, usually with the warning that those outside of Mormonism distort the church’s true beliefs or misquote the leaders. Speaking at the October 2012 LDS Conference, Apostle Quentin L. Cook admonished the members against reading critical material on the internet:

Some have immersed themselves in Internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and, in some cases, invent shortcomings of early Church leaders. Then they draw incorrect conclusions that can affect testimony. Any who have made these choices can repent and be spiritually renewed.⁴⁵

However, from the examples given in this newsletter, it is obvious that it is the LDS Church leaders who edit, “exaggerate” or “invent” statements of their past leaders to suit the current agenda. The real concern of the LDS Church seems to be that the members will read unvarnished, uncensored quotes of their past prophets.

Since each LDS president is ordained as a “Prophet, Seer and Revelator” one is left to wonder why their doctrinal statements vary from man to man? If the prophet can never lead one astray how do we reconcile their contradictory sermons? Those in the audience when Brigham Young was preaching would have been listening to the “living prophet.” Obviously, then, a “living prophet” can teach false doctrine. Since both the Bible and the Book of Mormon warn that false prophets will come there is a need for vigilance.

Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
(Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 14:15)

Mormonism is presenting a gospel that depends on the revelations of Joseph Smith and his successors, not on the Christianity revealed in the Bible. In the book of Mark we are warned about false prophets:

For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
(Mark 13:22)

Peter, in the New Testament, specifically warned against such deception coming not just from without but even from within the Christian community:

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories.
(2 Peter 2:1-3)

Rather than providing a bedrock of trust in the unchanging God of the Bible, Mormonism is presenting a gospel that depends on Joseph Smith and his successors, not simply on Christ.

---

Footnotes:

1. Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 3, (Macmillan Publishing: 1992), pp. 1165, 1170. ↩︎
2. Richard S. Van Wagoner, “The Making of a Mormon Myth: The 1844 Transfiguration of Brigham Young,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 28, no. 4 (Winter 1995): p. 4. ↩︎
3. Presidents of the Church Student Manual, Religion 345, LDS Church, 2004, pp. 21, 30; John G. Turner, Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet, (Boston: Harvard Press: 2012), pp. 110-118. ↩︎
4. Turner, Brigham Young, p. 3. ↩︎
5. Ibid., p. 4. ↩︎
6. Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 4, pp. 1607, 1611. ↩︎
7. Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95. ↩︎
8. Ibid., vol. 13, p. 264. ↩︎
9. Ibid., vol. 16, p. 161. ↩︎
10. Claudio R.M. Costa, “Obedience to the Prophets,” Ensign, (Nov. 2010): pp. 11-12. ↩︎
11. Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, LDS Church, 1997, page v. ↩︎
12. Ibid., p. 96. ↩︎
13. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289. ↩︎
14. Ibid., vol. 8, pp. 176-177. ↩︎
15. Jeffery Ogden Johnson, “Determining and Defining ‘Wife’: The Brigham Young Households,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 20, no. 3, p. 64; also Brigham Young’s Wives (utlm.org); also George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), pp. 635-636. ↩︎
16. Teachings: Brigham Young, p. 4. ↩︎
17. Ibid., p. 165. ↩︎
18. John A. Widtsoe, ed., Discourses of Brigham Young, Deseret Book, 1941, p. 198; 1925 ed. p. 306. This book is a condensed versions of Brigham Young’s sermons that are found in the 26-volume Journal of Discourses printed by the LDS Church. ↩︎
19. Teachings: Brigham Young, p. 165. ↩︎
20. Discourses of Brigham Young, 1941, p. 198; 1925 ed. pp. 306-307. ↩︎
21. Teachings: Brigham Young, p. 166. ↩︎
22. Discourses of Brigham Young, 1941, p. 198; 1925 ed. p. 306. ↩︎
23. Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 55. ↩︎
24. Journal of Discourses vol. 11, p. 269. ↩︎
25. Journal of Discourses vol. 3, p. 266. ↩︎
26. Teachings: Brigham Young, p. 30. ↩︎
27. See page 24 in the 1941 edition, page 37 in the 1925 edition. ↩︎
28. Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 50-51. For more on Young’s Adam-God teaching, see “The Adam-God Doctrine,” by David John Buerger, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 15, no. 1 (Spring 1982). ↩︎
29. Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 217. ↩︎
30. Deseret Weekly News (June 18, 1873): p. 308 (edition page 4, column 4). Also Deseret Evening News (June 14, 1873), p. 2, column 3. ↩︎
31. Ibid. ↩︎
32. Scott G. Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal: 1833–1898, vol. 4 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books), p. 288. ↩︎
33. Devery S. Anderson, The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846–2000, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2011), pp. 36-37; David John Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship, (Salt Lake City: Smith Research, 1994), pp. 110-111; also see online at the B.H. Roberts Foundation. ↩︎
34. Spencer W. Kimball, “Our Own Liahona,” Ensign (Nov. 1976): p. 77; Mysteries of Godliness, pp. 110-111. ↩︎
35. Letter from Bruce R. McConkie to Eugene England, Feb. 19, 1981, pp. 5-7, photo of entire letter in LDS Apostle Confesses Brigham Young Taught Adam-God Doctrine, by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1982. ↩︎
36. Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, (September 21, 1856) pp. 53-54. ↩︎
37. Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, (March 16, 1856) p. 247. ↩︎
38. Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, (February 8, 1857) pp. 219-220. ↩︎
39. “Blacks and the Mormon Priesthood,” Salt Lake City Messenger, no. 102, (May 2004). ↩︎
40. Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, (October 9, 1859) pp. 290-291. ↩︎
41. Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, (March 8, 1863) p. 110. ↩︎
42. Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, (Oct. 6, 1863) p. 250. ↩︎
43. Doctrine and Covenants, Official Declaration—2. ↩︎
44. Bruce R. McConkie, “All Are Alike Unto God,” BYU, (August 18, 1978). ↩︎
45. Quentin L. Cook, “Can You Feel So Now?,” October 2012 LDS Conference. ↩︎

---

---