The institution

When Prophets Were Wrong

The Church’s own pages disavow its own sermons. Take them at their word and see what follows.

The point in one sentence

The Church itself now teaches that prophets are fallible and has formally distanced itself from decades of its own leaders' teachings, which is honest, and which quietly gives up the thing a prophet is for.

In the Church’s own words

• The Church's Gospel Topics page on the Journal of Discourses, 26 volumes of sermons by Brigham Young and other early leaders, now cautions that it "includes practices and doctrine that were limited to a specific time" and is not an official record.
• President Uchtdorf, October 2013: "there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes."
• The 2013 Gospel Topics essay on race disavowed the theories "advanced in the past," theories that were taught over pulpits by the men sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators for 126 years. Covered in full on the Race and the Priesthood page.
• Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, for decades the most-cited doctrinal reference in the Church, was quietly withdrawn from publication in 2010. The Church made no official statement; the withdrawal was reported by Deseret News' own coverage and confirmed by Deseret Book. It is reported, not an official act.

What is true on the other side

Fallible prophets are the Church's own stated theology, not a hostile discovery. Uchtdorf says it outright, and thoughtful members have always known Brigham Young taught things no one defends today. This page takes the Church at its word. That is the point.

The problem the concession creates

Hold the two official statements together. Prophets can simply make mistakes, including over the pulpit, including for 126 years, including on who gets saving ordinances. And yet the operating principle taught to members is that the prophet will never lead the Church astray, and that when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done.

There is no announced method for telling which category a current teaching is in. The teachings on race were not labeled "limited to a specific time" while they were being taught. They were doctrine, defended by First Presidency letters, until the day they were not. Whatever tool members had in 1970 for evaluating those teachings, members today have the same tool and no more.

The common rebuttals

"The Lord corrects the Church line upon line." Fair, and consistent with the record. But notice what it concedes: at any given moment, some of what the prophet teaches as doctrine is scaffolding that will later be discarded, and nobody inside can tell which part.

"Prophets are only prophets when acting as such." Joseph Smith did say this. The difficulty is that the teachings later disavowed were delivered in general conference, in First Presidency statements, and in official manuals, which is as "acting as such" as it gets.

Why this should make you question

A guide who is sometimes authoritative and sometimes mistaken, with no way to distinguish the two until decades later, provides exactly as much guidance as no guide. The Church's own honesty about its past is admirable. It is also, quietly, a data point about its present.