The institution

When Prophets Were Wrong

The Church’s own pages say its leaders have made mistakes and set aside some of what past leaders taught, but the pages cited here never say how a member could tell, at the time, which words those were.

The point in one sentence

If you grew up in the Church, you were probably taught to follow the prophet. The Church itself now says that a single leader’s statement is not necessarily doctrine, and its own pages set aside some of what men sustained as prophets and apostles taught. That is honest. It also means a member has no way, in the Church’s own pages, to know in advance which of today’s teachings will be set aside next. The Church sorts that out afterward.

The world these sermons came from

The Church’s own account of Brigham Young’s preaching during the 1856–57 reformation describes the tone: “At times during the reformation, President Young, his counselor Jedediah M. Grant, and other leaders preached with fiery rhetoric, warning against the evils of those who dissented from or opposed the Church.” Many sermons of that era were collected in the Journal of Discourses. The Church’s page on it says the content was “transcribed, sometimes inaccurately, and published between 1854 and 1886 in England.”

On race, the Church’s essay gives the sequence plainly: “In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.” It continues that “Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions.” In 1949 the First Presidency, the three men at the top of the Church, wrote a statement on the matter that it used as standard language in its private correspondence. In 1978 the restriction ended.

The same Church now has a stated test for what counts as doctrine. That test is where this page begins, because it is the believing position at its strongest.

What the Church says about its own leaders

Start with what believers hold, in the Church’s words. Prophets are men, and the scriptures say so. In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord says the commandments “were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding,” and that the process includes correction: “inasmuch as they erred it might be made known.” Nobody is claiming a prophet is infallible, and the Church does not either.

The exhibits

Church sources first. Each quotation is word for word, and the link under it opens the page it came from.

The visual breakdown: what was said, and what the Church says now

Each row pairs a statement by a sustained leader, word for word, with the Church’s own later words about it. Only one row has a disavowal of that specific teaching. The wording on the right is otherwise a description or a general statement, and each row says what the later page does and does not do.

Read down the right-hand column. Only the first row is a disavowal of that specific teaching, and it names the theory, not Brigham Young. The second is described by the Church as rhetoric and is not set aside. The third and fourth are covered only by general statements that do not name the sermon or the statement. The fifth, Kirtland, is not disavowed: the Church reports the statement and gives causes. It is the row where a leader is reported to have attached the Lord’s name to a worldly venture whose results could be seen, and it has its own section next.

Kirtland: the word of the Lord about a bank

The strongest believing account comes first, because it is strong. The Church says the society was founded “just prior to a broader financial crisis known in the United States as the Panic of 1837.” It explains the cause: “Higher interest rates in Britain, combined with policy changes in the United States that disrupted land sales and put pressure on the nation’s developing banking system, led to an extended economic depression in the United States.” Joseph paid for it. Saints, the Church’s narrative history, says he “had lost thousands of dollars in the collapse of the Safety Society, far more than anyone else,” and adds that “unlike many others, he had not abandoned the institution when it began to fail.” The Joseph Smith Papers record that he and Rigdon resigned as officers before 7 July 1837. The Church’s history reports that many members blamed shortcomings in the community and says outside opposition “also played a role”; it also notes the legislature did not issue a charter. And the promise on record is conditional.

Here is what the record holds. Saints (early November 1836) says Joseph “urged all the Saints to invest in the Safety Society, quoting Old Testament scriptures that called on the ancient Israelites to bring their gold and silver to the Lord,” and that “Joseph felt that God approved of their efforts, and he promised that all would be well if the Saints heeded the Lord’s commandments.” Then, on 6 January 1837:

Here is the Church’s own account of what followed. Its history says the optimism of the Saints “had included a sense that the Kirtland Safety Society would succeed if the Saints were faithful,” and: “Many Church members looked to shortcomings within their community, blaming Church leaders for failing to anticipate problems, individuals for engaging in land speculation and overspending, or Church membership in general for not adequately supporting the society. Not all the possible contributing factors, however, were in the Saints’ control. Outside opposition, often fueled by prejudice against the Saints, also played a role in undermining the society.” The society “struggled for months before ceasing operations by August 1837.” Both Joseph and Rigdon were tried and fined under an 1816 Ohio law.

Put the claim next to the outcome. The claim was a word of the Lord about a specific worldly venture: all would be well if the commandments were heeded. The venture closed within the year. A conditional promise cannot simply be proved wrong by a failure, because the failure can be put down to disobedience, and a success credited to obedience. Believers read conditional prophecy that way for a reason, and scripture contains many. The difficulty is narrower. The sources this page found do not say what the commandments were, so there is no way to judge whether they were kept. The promise could be read as kept or as unmet, whichever way things went. Kirtland is the one row in the table where a prophet is reported to have attached the Lord’s name to a venture whose results could be seen. The Church’s later words quote the statement and give causes, and do not give a verdict on the claim.

What is true on the other side

The Church’s test for doctrine is not a dodge. It says doctrine is what the First Presidency and the Twelve establish together and proclaim consistently, and a lone sermon is not that. By that test, Adam-God was never doctrine, blood atonement sermons were rhetoric, and Kirtland was a venture, not a revelation to be added to the canon. Joseph’s condition, recorded in the minutes of 3 September 1837 after the society had failed, “unless the institution was conducted upon righteous principles it could not stand,” is consistent with a prophet who warned and was ignored. The believing position does not require that a prophet never be wrong. It requires that the Church be right about which statements are binding, and it has the means to say so.

Two things in the record sit uneasily with that. The 1949 statement is not a lone sermon. It is a First Presidency statement, the body the Church now names as establishing doctrine, and it calls the restriction “direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church.” A believer will answer that it was used in private correspondence, was never issued publicly, and says the priesthood is withheld “at the present time.” The pages cited here do not say whether the Church today counts it as doctrine. And “consistently proclaimed” is a test that can be applied only after enough time has passed to see whether it was.

The common rebuttals

“Nobody says prophets are perfect. The Church never has.”

That is true, and this page agrees with all of it: D&C 1, President Uchtdorf and the newsroom statement say it directly. The question is a different one. If a prophet can be wrong while teaching, what does a member in 1952 or 1976 or today do with Sunday’s teaching? The Church’s answer is the doctrine test, and part of that test, “consistently proclaimed,” can only be applied after time has passed.

“Those were never doctrine anyway. Only what the Twelve and First Presidency establish together counts.”

The 1949 statement was written by the First Presidency, and it says the restriction rests on “direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church.” It was used in the First Presidency’s private correspondence. The Church’s essay says only that the explanations are not accepted “today” as official doctrine. Someone told this in 1949 had no way to know that in 1978 an apostle would tell Church educators that what earlier leaders had said on the subject was said “with a limited understanding.”

“The Lord reveals line upon line. Of course there is correction over time.”

Elder McConkie said it himself, in the paragraph right before “forget everything”: “We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept.” Take that at face value. It means that teaching develops and earlier teaching can be corrected, and D&C 1:25 says errors are made known later. Nothing in the process labels which present teachings those are while a member is being asked to act on them.

“Banks failed all over America in 1837. Why is Joseph on trial for one?”

He is not on trial as a banker, and nobody here faults him for the Panic. The claim is the one in Woodruff’s journal: that the Lord had spoken about this society. A prophet who reports the Lord’s word on a venture invites the venture to be read as a test of the report.

What this means

You have read the Church’s own test for doctrine and agreed with it. You have read a President of the Church calling the Adam-God teaching “false doctrine,” an apostle telling educators to forget what he and earlier presidents had said about race that was contrary to the present revelation, an essay that disavows theories advanced by “Church leaders and members,” and a page that says the Journal of Discourses is not authoritative by itself. You have held a one-dollar note from the week Woodruff recorded Joseph telling men in the Deposit office that the Lord had spoken about the society, and a five-dollar note from the month its notes were reportedly trading at 12½ cents on the dollar.

The Church names some of what it now sets aside, but only after the fact. In the pages cited here, it does not say how a member could have known at the time.

The same pattern shows up elsewhere on this site: the Race and the Priesthood page covers the ban in full, what changed and the money page take up related ground, the temple that was never built, and the Joseph page covers the founder himself. What the evidence shows is plain. Statements given by men sustained as prophets were later set aside, in the words of an apostle as “limited understanding,” and in the Church’s own words as theories it “disavows,” and the Church tells us afterward which ones. In the pages cited here, a member today has nothing to tell which of the teachings they are asked to live by belong to the next set.