Latter-day Saints are often taught that prophetic authority is the foundation of continuing revelation—that God speaks through living prophets, and that their words carry divine weight. Few church leaders embraced that idea more boldly than Brigham Young. Unlike modern leaders who carefully qualify their statements, Young made an unambiguous claim about his own authority and teachings. He did not suggest that his sermons were inspired, useful, or worthy of consideration. He declared that they were scripture.
I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. 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, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. 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. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and He may preserve us as we desire.
Brigham Young, Delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, January 2, 1870
Journal of Discourses, 13:13 Page 95
https://journalofdiscourses.com/13/13
That claim creates a problem the modern church has never fully resolved—because many of Brigham Young’s sermons and doctrines have since been reversed, disavowed, or dismissed as speculation. In 1980, Ezra Taft Benson stood at a BYU devotional and quoted Brigham Young — not as a joke, not as a relic of the past — but as if it were still meaningful:
The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you”…
Said Brigham Young, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture”
Ezra Taft Benson, BYU Devotional, Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, February 26, 1980
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/
Benson was trying to remind Latter-day Saints of prophetic authority, while simultaneously ignoring all the disavowed ramblings of Brigham Young. Today, however, the church treats this “scripture” as folklore or speculation rather than binding doctrine — despite Brigham being the second president of the church. Are they now calling Brigham Young’s own words the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture?
Which of Brigham Young’s teachings did the church later reverse or disavow?
Adam-God Doctrine — Once Taught as True, Now Called False
Brigham Young taught publicly that Adam—the first man—was literally God the Father, came to Earth, and that worship centered on Him. These teachings were repeated in multiple sermons during his presidency.
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 Archangel, 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. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.
Brigham Young, LDS President, Self Government—Mysteries—Etc, Journal of Discourses, Volume 1, discourse 4, pages 28-34. Delivered at the Legislative Festival Held in the Territorial House, Great Salt Lake City, March 4, 1852.
https://journalofdiscourses.com/1/8
After Young’s death, church leaders began to cast the various interpretations of this teaching as mere speculation and denied that any particular interpretation was binding on the church. Later leadership made clear that this Adam-God “idea” is not doctrine. In 1976, Church President Spencer W. Kimball denounced the Adam-God theory and warned members against spreading it as true doctrine.
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.
Spencer W. Kimball, LDS President, Our Own Liahona, October 1976
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1976/10/our-own-liahona
Even an LDS general authority like Bruce R. McConkie later described the Adam-God theory as heretical and at odds with the plan of salvation. He gave a talk about the seven deadly heresies and specifically listed the Adam-God Theory as one of them. Note that the text on the BYU Speeches site has changed the wording here, but in the audio file we can hear (27:20) that he said that any who believes the Adam-God theory “does not deserve to be saved.” The text of the talk has been changed to say only that they have “no excuse whatever for being led astray by it.”
There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.
The devil keeps this heresy alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment and who yet believes the Adam–God theory does not deserve to be saved. Those who are ensnared by it, reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day.
Bruce R. McConkie, LDS Apostle, BYU Fireside, The Seven Deadly Heresies, June 1, 1980
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/seven-deadly-heresies/
In other words, what Brigham Young taught as divine revelation has since been called a theory, false doctrine, and then a heresy. But when he spoke a sermon, it was as good as scripture, as is the word of modern-day prophets and apostles…
Blood Atonement — Another Doctrine Later Rejected
In the mid-19th century, Young preached that some sins could not be forgiven through Christ’s atonement alone — that a person might have to shed their own blood to obtain forgiveness.
In multiple sermons, he described violent imagery: killing a thief on the spot, spilling blood to atone, even pushing the idea that a man might kill his own unfaithful wife. His violent rhetoric was at the very least a cause of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
When will we love our neighbor as ourselves? In the first place, Jesus said that no man hateth his own flesh. It is admitted by all that every person loves himself. Now if we do rightly love ourselves, we want to be saved and continue to exist, we want to go into the kingdom where we can enjoy eternity and see no more sorrow nor death. This is the desire of every person who believes in God. 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, one who knows and understands the principles of eternal life, and sees the beauty and excellency of the eternities before him compared with the vain and foolish things of the world, 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, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, 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?”
All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant. He never told a man or woman to love their enemies in their wickedness, never. He never intended any such thing; his language is left as it is for those to read who have the Spirit to discern between truth and error; it was so left for those who can discern the things of God. Jesus Christ never meant that we should love a wicked man in his wickedness…
Brigham Young, LDS President, Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, February 8, 1857
Journal of Discourses, Volume 4: Discourse 42
https://journalofdiscourses.com/4/42
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…
This is loving our neighbor 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.
Brigham Young, LDS President, Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, February 8, 1857
Journal of Discourses, Volume 4: Discourse 42
https://journalofdiscourses.com/4/42
This concept came to be called blood atonement and was widely publicized as part of Mormon belief.
“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 the 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.”
Brigham Young, LDS President, Journal of Discourses, v. 3, pp. 108-109
https://journalofdiscourses.com/3/35
By the late 19th and 20th centuries, however, it was being publicly repudiated.
December 12th, 1889
To WHOM IT MAY CONCERNIn consequence of gross misrepresentations of the doctrines, aims and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints commonly called the “Mormon” Church which have been promulgated for years and have recently been revived for political purposes and to prevent aliens, otherwise qualified, who are members of the “Mormon” Church from acquiring citizenship we deem it proper on behalf of said Church to publicly deny these calumnies and enter our protest against them.
We solemnly make the following declarations, viz:
That this Church views the sheding of human with the utmost abhorrence. That we regard the killing of a human being except in conformity with the civil law as a capital crime which should be punished by shedding the blood of the criminal after a public trial before a legally constituted court of the land.
Notwithstanding all the stries told about the killing of apostates, no case of this kind has ever occurred, and of course has never been established against the Church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the Church have continuously resided and now live in this Territory, many of whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly hostile to the “Mormon” faith and people. Even those who have made it their business to fabricate the vilest falsehoods, and to render them plausible by culling isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, and have suffered no opportunity to escape them of vilifying and blackening the characters of the people, have remained among those whom they have thus persistently calumnlated until the present day, without receiving the slightest personal injury.
We denounce as entirely untrue the allegation which has been made that our Church favors or believes in the killing of persons who leave the Church or apostatize from its
Official Declaration, December 12, 1889, Deseret Weekly
doctrines. We would view a punishment of this character for such an act with the utmost horror it is abhorrent to us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed….
https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=2746961
Church publications in the 1880s and later statements from apostles in the 1970s rejected blood atonement as doctrine — and emphasized that Christ’s infinite atonement is sufficient for all sins. There was even an official declaration printed in the Deseret Weekly renouncing the “doctrine” of blood atonement.
You note that I and President Joseph Fielding Smith and some of our early church leaders have said and written about this doctrine and you asked if the doctrine of blood atonement is an official doctrine of the Church today.
If by blood atonement is meant the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the answer is Yes. If by blood atonement is meant the shedding of the blood of men to atone in some way for their own sins, the answer is No.
We do not believe that it is necessary for men in this day to shed their own blood to receive a remission of sins. This is said with a full awareness of what I and others have written and said on this subject in times past.
In order to understand what Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Charles W. Penrose and others have said, we must mention that there are some sins for which the blood of Christ alone does not cleanse a person. These include blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (as defined by the Church) and that murder which is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice. However, and this cannot be stressed too strongly, this law has not been given to the Church at any time in this dispensation. It has no application whatever to anyone now living whether he is a member or a non-member of the Church.
There simply is no such thing among us as a doctrine of blood atonement that grants a remission of sins or confers any other benefit upon a person because his own blood is shed for sins.
Bruce R. McConkie, LDS Apostle, on behalf of the First Presidency and in response to a query from the Utah Law Review. Letter from McConkie to Thomas B. McAffee (October 18, 1978) on file at the University of Nebraska College of Law.
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/mormonism-and-capital-punishment-a-doctoral-perspective-past-and-present/
Another teaching once preached by Brigham Young as divine truth has been formally disavowed.
The Priesthood and Race — A “Divine Curse” Theory That Changed
Under Brigham Young’s leadership, the church implemented a policy that men of African descent were banned from holding the priesthood. Brigham explained this in explicitly racial terms tied to the curse of Cain.
That policy stood for over 125 years, shaping social and ecclesiastical life for generations. But in 1978, the church announced a revelation reversing the ban and allowing all worthy men to hold the priesthood. Contemporary LDS essays describe earlier racial theories about the ban — including notions of divine curse and premortal conduct — simply as theories that are not accepted today.
Even modern church leaders have acknowledged that earlier racial explanations — often rooted in Brigham Young’s rhetoric — are incorrect or based on cultural prejudice. So, those sermons were not scripture?
A policy once justified with divine rationale was changed, and the rationale has since been repudiated. But they still want to claim the same authority with which the prophet spoke?
So What Do We Make of Sermon as Scripture?
Brigham Young’s own claim — that everything he preached was scripture — illustrates theological tension:
- Brigham claimed his sermons were as good as scripture.
- Some of those teachings — Adam-God, blood atonement, racial priesthood restriction — shaped culture, identity, and policy for decades.
- Decades later, the church distances itself from many of those sermons, calling them speculation, incorrect interpretation, or disavowed doctrine.
Some apologists try to soften this by saying Brigham was “speculating” — that not everything he said was meant as binding revelation. Others point out that the process of canonization is needed before something becomes scripture.
But the direct clash between Brigham’s own words and the modern church’s position raises questions about prophetic infallibility, the nature of ongoing revelation, and how the church decides what counts as doctrine.
But as Scripture?
Brigham Young was clear; in 1880, he said every sermon he preached could be called scripture. Then, a century later, in 1980, the same sentiment was emphasized by Ezra Taft Benson, another church president. The church can’t use Brigham Young’s notion that the church president’s words are on the same level as scripture while ignoring all Brigham Young’s words that have since been disavowed and no longer represent the church. Topics such as the inferiority of black people, women, and the doctrines he taught that Adam was God (demoted first to a “Theory” and then to a devilish idea), or that Jesus’ atonement wasn’t enough and human blood must be spilt to atone for certain sins.
They want to use Brigham Young quotes emphasizing the importance and authority of church leaders, yet treat many of his sermons and teachings — including core theological concepts — as disavowed, speculative, or not binding doctrine.
Is that not an admission that prophets can be wrong? Can leaders be influenced by culture, personal belief, or societal norms? Can modern scripture itself be as simple as “what the current prophet says”?
For many people on the outside looking in — and former members who’ve lived these doctrines and their consequences — that tension is not abstract. It’s a real question about authority, truth, and the enduring struggle between what was taught and what is taught now.
More reading:
- https://journalofdiscourses.com/13/13
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam–God_doctrine
- http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/adamgod.htm
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1976/10/our-own-liahona
- https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/seven-deadly-heresies/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Reformation#Blood_atonement
- http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/bloodatonement.htm