Prophets and Church leaders/Criticisms related to 19th-century prophets

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Criticisms related to 19th-century Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") prophets

Jump to Subtopic:

• Question: Did Brigham Young state that everything he said could be considered "scripture"?
• Question: Did John Taylor receive a revelation on September 27, 1886 that promised that polygamy would never be abandoned by the Church?
• Question: Will Mormons "walk back to Jackson County" before the second coming of Christ?
• Question: Will all Mormons return to Jackson county before the second coming?
• Question: Will there be immense destruction in Jackson County before the second coming of Christ?

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about Prophets and Church leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ

Characteristics of Church Leaders	Apostles as personal witnesses of Christ Terms prophets, seers, revelators Modern prophets and prophecy Obedience to Church leaders Fallibility of prophets Prophetic words as scripture
Succession of the President of the Church	Standards for prophetic succession 1844 Succession to Joseph Smith
Criticisms related to Church leaders	Russell M. Nelson Dallin H. Oaks Thomas S. Monson M. Russell Ballard Paul H. Dunn Brigham Morris Young Joseph Smith Paid and unpaid Church leaders
Doctrine and official statements	Official doctrine in the Church
Other	Fulfillment of prophecy Divine manifestations since the time of Joseph Smith Blessings given by Oliver Cowdery Joseph F. Smith at the Reed Smoot hearings

V

Articles about Brigham Young

Teachings	Creation President of US? Adam-God theory Moon inhabited by Quakers? Words as scripture Science and education Word of Wisdom Need to know for ourselves Total submission to him?
History	1844 Succession to Joseph Smith Disagreements with Emma Smith Divine manifestations Freemasonry Lucy Mack Smith's Biography of Joseph Smith *Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadows Massacre The 'Mormon Reformation'
Race	Brigham Young's statements regarding race
Critics	Fabricated quotes from Brigham Young Quote mining JoD 13:95 Not witness of Christ? Reviews of books about Brigham Young

Prophetic words as scripture

Brigham made it clear that his previous statement should not mean that anything he said was scripture, but only that which he had the opportunity to correct and send to the Saints as scripture

Brigham Young made a statement which is often misrepresented:

Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; 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 [discourse] 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 here says that his remarks are "scripture." The Church statement notes that "isolated statements are often taken out of context." That is true in this case. Here is Brigham's own explanation of this comment:

Brother Orson Hyde referred to a few who complained about not getting revelations. I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of the nations—that Brigham Young has said "when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture." I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God, without any special command to one man to go here, and to another to go yonder, or to do this or that, or to go and settle here or there.

Brigham made it clear that his previous statement should not mean that anything he said was scripture, but only that which he had the opportunity to correct and send to the Saints as scripture. This provides a good example of why this rule exists at all: what a prophet may intend to convey may not be what his listeners hear, or what scribes recorded. Thus, teachings must be approved by the author and submitted as binding scripture in order for them to be considered such.

When are the writings or sermons of Church leaders entitled to the claim of scripture?

J. Reuben Clark: "there are many doctrines, tenets as the Lord called them, that have not been officially defined and declared"

In response to the question, "When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?" President J. Reuben Clark of the First Presidency said:

But there are many places where the scriptures are not too clear, and where different interpretations may be given to them; there are many doctrines, tenets as the Lord called them, that have not been officially defined and declared. It is in the consideration and discussion of these scriptures and doctrines that opportunities arise for differences of views as to meanings and extent. In view of the fundamental principle just announced as to the position of the President of the Church, other bearers of the Priesthood, those with the special spiritual endowment and those without it, should be cautious in their expressions about and interpretations of scriptures and doctrines. They must act and teach subject to the over-all power and authority of the President of the Church. It would be most unfortunate were this not always strictly observed by the bearers of this special spiritual endowment, other than the President. Sometimes in the past they have spoken "out of turn," so to speak. Furthermore, at times even those not members of the General Authorities are said to have been heard to declare their own views on various matters concerning which no official view or declaration has been made by the mouthpiece of the Lord, sometimes with an assured certainty that might deceive the uninformed and unwary.

Notes

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about Plural marriage

Doctrinal foundation of plural marriage	Purpose of plural marriage Plural marriage as a requirement for exaltation Plural marriage in early Christianity Plural marriage in the Book of Mormon Plural marriage and the Bible
Introduction of plural marriage	Initiation of the practice of plural marriage 1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership Divine manifestations to plural wives and families Plural marriage and the law
Questions about Joseph Smith and plural marriage	Initiation of the practice of plural marriage Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife Joseph Smith hid polygamy from the general Church membership Joseph Smith's marriages to young women Did Joseph Smith coerce women to marry him? Mormon women refusing offers of plural marriage Polyandry Joseph Smith and children through plural marriage Marrying other men's wives? Joseph Smith hiding plural marriages from his first wife, Emma Emma Smith's reaction to Joseph Smith's plural marriages Emma Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 132 Did Joseph have lustful motives for practicing polygamy? Did Joseph Smith send men on missions in order to steal their wives? Did Joseph Smith practice polygamy for the purpose of monetary gain?
John C. Bennett and Nauvoo polygamy	Bennett before Nauvoo Bennett and Prostitution Brothel at Nauvoo Rise and Fall of Bennett Sarah Pratt Nancy Rigdon Sidney Rigdon
Plural wives of Joseph Smith	Divine manifestations to plural wives and families Emma Smith Fanny Alger Louisa Beaman Prescindia Lathrop Huntington Buell Sarah Kingsley Howe Cleveland Agnes Moulton Coolbrith Elizabeth Davis Goldsmith Brackenbury Durfee Esther Dutcher Hannah S. Ells Olive Grey Frost Desdemona Catlin Wadsworth Fulmmer Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris Clarissa Reed Hancock Elvira Annie Cowles Holmes Sarah Maryetta Kingsley Howe Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde Vienna Jacques Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Almera Johnson Helen Mar Kimball Maria Lawrence Sarah Lawrence Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner Malissa Lott Sylvia Sessions Lyon Martha McBride Eliza Partridge Emily Partridge Rhoda Richards Ruth Vose Sayers Patty Bartlett Sessions Delcena Diadamia Johnson Sherman "Miss Smith" Mary Heron Snider Eliza R. Snow Lucy Walker Sarah Ann Whitney Nancy Maria Winchester Flora Ann Woodworth Fanny Young
Plural marriage in Utah	Difficulties with plural marriage Brigham Young's statements regarding plural marriage John Taylor's 1886 revelation Latter-day Saints and divorce in the nineteenth century Prevalence of plural marriage in Utah
End of plural marriage	The First Manifesto Official Declaration Number 1 Plural marriage practiced after the First Manifesto The Church of Jesus Christ and plural marriage today

John Taylor’s September 27, 1886 Revelation

Summary: John Taylor, third President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was in hiding from federal agents in 1886 over the Church's then-current practice of plural marriage. During that time, President Taylor received a revelation that some interpret to mean that the Church would never abandon the practice of polygamy. Many in the Fundamentalist branches who live the practice today believe that their leaders were present when John Taylor secretly commissioned them to continue it. This is problematic considering the Church's abandonment of plural marriage beginning in 1890.

While previous generations have been uncertain of the revelation’s text and provenance, Church historians have confirmed the revelation’s authenticity and, in 2025, the original revelation was digitized and uploaded to the Church's online catalogue of historical documents hosted on its website.

The text of the revelation reads:

My Son John, You have asked me concerning the new and everlasting covenant, and how far it is binding upon my people; Thus saith the Lord, all commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name, unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, or I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever. Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years, and this because of their weakness because of the perilous times, and furthermore; It is now pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters; nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And I have not commanded men, that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof. Even so, Amen.

Historical Context

The federal government of the United States had opposed Latter-day Saint plural marriage for decades, and that opposition continued to escalate. In March 1881, for example, during his inauguration address, President James A. Garfield condemned the Church because it “offends the moral sense of manhood” for allowing polygamy and not allowing those who practiced it to be punished under the law. After his assassination several months later, Garfield’s successor, Chester A. Arthur, also condemned polygamy as an “odious crime, so revolting to the moral and religious sense of Christendom.”

While anti-polygamy legislation and commentary did use the term “polygamy,” it should be noted that early Saints very carefully differentiated between polygamy (what they saw as something foreigners engaged in), adultery, “spiritual wifery” (what John C. Bennett engaged in), and celestial or plural marriage. “Polygamy” is a broader term that can be further broken down into polyandry (a woman with multiple husbands) and polygyny (a man with multiple wives). Though the phrasing used by the Saints began to change once they arrived in Utah Territory, the preferred term used by the Church today is still “plural marriage.“

In February 1882, apostle and First Presidency member George Q. Cannon was denied his seat in the U. S. House of Representatives because he had multiple wives. Just a month later, the Edmunds Act was passed by Congress, making polygamy a felony and disenfranchising those who engaged in the practice. Additionally, it eliminated the need to prove an illegal marriage had taken place, as it also prohibited “unlawful cohabitation.” Polygamists were unable to serve on juries or hold public office, and the bill also targeted those who merely supported polygamy, such as the bulk of Latter-day Saints who accepted plural marriage but did not live the practice themselves. All elected positions in Utah were voided and new elections were required, and eventually, more than one thousand Latter-day Saints were imprisoned under the act.

President Cannon’s brother, Angus Munn Cannon, was arrested in January 1885. In December of that same year, his final appeal failed to overturn his conviction. Just four days after the decision was announced, federal officers began raiding towns in Utah Territory, hunting for polygamists. Further federal laws targeting Latter-day Saints were passed over the next few years, until the Manifesto was announced in 1890.

In September 1886, when the revelation was received, many Church leaders were in hiding. The apostles were scattered across multiple states and cities to avoid prosecution, and they debated whether it was time to end plural marriage or allow the persecution of the Saints to continue. They grappled with the decision, because for half a century, the Saints had sacrificed for and lived the practice. Many Church members defined themselves by it, and they had spent so many years defending it and their right to engage in it, enduring humiliation and persecution on all sides, that it was an integral part of their identity. Families were entwined in the practice, and separating themselves from it would be incredibly difficult and painful for all involved. It was under these circumstances that President Taylor turned to the Lord for advice and counsel.

Due to the scattered nature of the apostles at the time in which it was received, the revelation was never brought to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, or the Church membership, for canonization. Meeting as a body to conduct Church business in the late 1880s was impossible. Even if you consider Elder John W. Taylor’s 1911 excommunication hearing as being the moment in which the revelation was presented to the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, however, it was not accepted by the Apostles. Therefore, unlike the 1890 Manifesto, the revelation is not authoritatively binding on the Church.

Did the Church Lie About the Revelation?

Between the years of 1886 and 1933, the existence of the revelation was uncertain to many. At some point, Elder John W. Taylor, a then-member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and President John Taylor’s son, located the physical copy of the revelation among his father’s things and copies of the revelation were passed around to certain individuals. A week before the first Manifesto was issued, Elder Heber J. Grant recorded in his journal that John W. Taylor had told the Quorum about the revelation. Elder Taylor then showed a copy of it to the Quorum of the Twelve during his excommunication hearing in 1911 (he was excommunicated for continuing to fight against the First and Second Manifestos). Some Church leaders believed in its authenticity, while others disputed it. It was rejected as being authoritative by the Quorum of the Twelve, and the Manifestos were upheld.

The First Presidency released a statement in June 1933, calling it a “purported revelation” and saying it was not located in the Church archives. At the time of the statement, that was true. Joseph Fielding Smith, who was then both an apostle and an Assistant Historian of the Church, had a copy, but it was not the original document, and it was kept in the Church Historian’s Office rather than in the official First Presidency's Church archives. Other copies were reportedly housed in the “Special Documents Department” of the Historian’s Office, which was also a separate archive. Thus, the First Presidency statement appears to have been another carefully worded denial like those made during the early days of plural marriage.

Approximately one month after the statement was released, Frank Y. Taylor, another son of President Taylor, gave the original revelation to the First Presidency. While in the Church’s possession, the document has been made available to historians for research purposes, though its authenticity was still disputed by some Church leaders. At some point in the 2000s, over a century after it was received, the revelation was finally confirmed to be authentic through handwriting analysis and other processes. In June 2025, was digitized and put on the Church’s online library of historical documents.

Should the Church have announced it had the revelation in its possession after it was received? Perhaps. But with Fundamentalist Mormon sects claiming it gave them authority and using it to suggest the mainstream Church was in apostasy, the decision not to broadcast it is understandable—especially as it was disputed and could not be fully authenticated for over a century.

The New and Everlasting Covenant

Does this revelation say that plural marriage can never be revoked? No. While some Fundamentalist branches that have broken off from the Church interpret the revelation that way, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that the “new and everlasting covenant” refers to more than just plural marriage.

For example, Brigham Young taught, “All Latter-day Saints enter the new and everlasting covenant when they enter this church. They covenant to cease sustaining, upholding and cherishing the kingdom of the devil and the kingdoms of this world. They enter into the new and everlasting covenant to sustain the Kingdom of God and no other kingdom. They take a vow of the most solemn kind, before the heavens and earth, and that, too, upon the validity of their own salvation, that they will sustain truth and righteousness instead of wickedness and falsehood, and build up the Kingdom of God, instead of the kingdoms of this world.”

Historian Brian Hales explained that, therefore, to Latter-day Saints, “The new and everlasting covenant is the fullness of the gospel because it encompasses all of the covenants required for exaltation. … Within the context of Joseph Smith’s teachings, plural marriage cannot be accurately characterized as a ‘law,’ a ‘condition of the law,’ or a ‘covenant.’ Instead, historically it has been treated as a ‘commandment’ that could be mandated or revoked.”

In 1882, John Taylor echoed this clarification when he said, “So far as it [celestial marriage] is made known unto men, it is … part of the New and Everlasting Covenant; and it is only those who receive the Gospel that are able to, or capable of, entering into this Covenant.”

Approximately a year later, he also taught, “[God] has revealed unto us the Law of Celestial Marriage, associated with which is the principle of plural marriage.”

The Doctrine and Covenants even refers to the Book of Mormon and “the former commandments” which the Lord gave His people, as the “new covenant.”

Thus, Latter-day Saints do not need to interpret the revelation as saying that plural marriage can never be revoked. Rather, it is saying that the fullness of the gospel and its accompanying covenants cannot be revoked. Plural marriage, conversely, comes and goes according to the will of God. It is a commandment only when He commands it, and it is revoked when He doesn’t command it.

The “New and Everlasting Covenant” in Latter-day Saint Scripture

It is common for critics to insist that “the new and everlasting covenant” can only refer to plural marriage. But, this is not consistent with Latter-day Saint scripture:

• The Old Testament frequently referred to the “everlasting covenant” which God had established with Noah (Genesis 9:8-16), and Israel (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
• Hebrews asserts that Christ's sacrifice is the basis of the “everlasting covenant”: Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant... (Hebrews 13:20).
• In 1830, the Lord declared of baptism into the restored Church: “this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning” (Doctrine and Covenants 22꞉1).

None of these covenants had anything necessarily to do with plural marriage; they certainly did not exclusively refer to plural marriage.

The Doctrine and Covenants frequently refers to the covenant, and it is clear that the reference is generally to the gospel covenant, not to plural marriage (emphasis added in all cases):

Doctrine and Covenants 45 (March 17, 1831)

I came unto mine own, and mine own received me not; but unto as many as received me gave I power to do many miracles, and to become the sons of God; and even unto them that believed on my name gave I power to obtain eternal life. And even so I have sent mine everlasting covenant into the world, to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me (Doctrine and Covenants 45꞉8-9).

Doctrine and Covenants 49 (March–May 1831)

Wherefore, I will that all men shall repent, for all are under sin, except those which I have reserved unto myself, holy men that ye know not of. Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning (Doctrine and Covenants 49꞉8-9).

Doctrine and Covenants 66 (October 25, 1831)

Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine everlasting covenant, even the fulness of my gospel... (Doctrine and Covenants 66꞉2).

Doctrine and Covenants 76 (February 16, 1832)

[Telestial kingdom is those who] received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant... (Doctrine and Covenants 76꞉101).

Doctrine and Covenants 84 (September 1832)

And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written— (Doctrine and Covenants 84꞉57).

Doctrine and Covenants 88 (December 27, 1832)

[In the school of the prophets] Let him offer himself in prayer upon his knees before God, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant....[and say] I salute you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant, in which covenant I receive you to fellowship...through the grace of God in the bonds of love, to walk in all the commandments of God blameless, in thanksgiving, forever and ever.(Doctrine and Covenants 88꞉131-133).

Doctrine and Covenants 101 (December 16, 1833)

When men are called unto mine everlasting gospel, and covenant with an everlasting covenant, they are accounted as the salt of the earth and the savor of men....(Doctrine and Covenants 101꞉39).

Thus, the “everlasting covenant” or “new and everlasting covenant” may refer to the gospel message and its restoration. This phrase is also used, however, in the revelation on plural marriage—we will label this “the new and everlasting covenant of marriage” (compare Doctrine and Covenants 131).

The revelation on plural marriage (Doctrine and Covenants 132) describes a similar idea:

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.(Doctrine and Covenants 132꞉4-6)

This “new and everlasting covenant” has a “law” and “conditions thereof,” and one must “abide the law.” What is the law and conditions?

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead (Doctrine and Covenants 132꞉7).

The law and conditions of the “new and everlasting covenant of marriage” are that such relationships must be sealed by priesthood authority (vested in one man only, the President of the Church) and the Holy Spirit of promise. This law encompasses both monogamous and polygamous marriage.

There is, as Brian Hales has noted, no scriptural mention of “the law of plural marriage,” nor did Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or John Taylor ever use this term. (In fact, references to “the law” of plural marriage tend to crop up far more frequently in Fundamentalist writings.) It may be significant that this revelation repeatedly refers to both “the law” and covenants (which will not change) and “commandments” by which one is bound by the covenant (which may change or vary from person to person and time to time).

Was There an 8-Hour Meeting Followed by Ordinations After the Revelation was Received?

There are no records of John Taylor’s revelation or of any meetings or visions associated with it during the final year of his life. At some point after his passing on July 25, 1887, rumors of President Taylor being visited by Joseph Smith and the Savior began to spread. In 1912, those rumors began to be associated with the 1886 revelation, and from there, the story grew larger and larger over time. Eventually, the story developed that, after a night spent in visions, President Taylor called for thirteen individuals to come to where he was in hiding, where an eight-hour meeting commenced, during which Joseph Smith allegedly appeared. Directly following that meeting, another meeting was held in which five men—all from outside the leadership of the Church—were ordained and put under covenant to continue plural marriage outside of the mainstream of the Church.

Mormon Fundamentalist Lorin C. Woolley was the main voice spreading the story, and new details seemed to emerge with each retelling. While one or two others corroborated small portions of his story, none corroborated it in full. None of those allegedly present recorded the meetings at the time, and no rumors of these collective visions, or of the ordinations or covenants, were shared in either the aftermath of the revelation or of John Taylor’s death. It is telling that Woolley did not begin sharing details of these purported meetings until well into the 1920s, after the others he named had passed away.

As Brian Hales noted, “It is puzzling that the meeting created no discernable stir or excitement among the thirteen men and women who reportedly witnessed it. No mention of the proceedings is found in any letter or diary from that era, no secondhand retellings, and no rumors or stories were echoed by devout pluralists. The lack of any contemporaneous references in the historical record indicates the described meeting must have flashed upon the scene, colliding with the quiet spiritual status quo of the participants, and then disappeared into thin air. All available documents fail to identify a resurgence of faith and a revival of determination in the fall of 1886 arising as a consequence of an experience of President John Taylor with the Divine that was witnessed by more than a dozen people. … In summary, explaining the thirty-five-year silence that followed the reported meeting and the lack of any discernible contemporaneous record or impact in the lives of the described participants depicts a problematic scenario raising plausibility questions.”

Importantly, such a meeting would also not follow the pattern laid out for the Church in the wake of Joseph Smith’s death. The priesthood keys lay with the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, and all doctrine, practices, and changes must flow through them. It does not come through secret factions and clandestine meetings. It does not come from breakaway sects and those who reject the words of the living prophets. It only comes from those called by God, holding His authority and priesthood keys.

Notes

Question: Will Mormons "walk back to Jackson County" before the second coming of Christ?

No, this is a "faith promoting" myth

Graham W. Doxey in the April 1979 Ensign:

Myth #1: We’re going to walk to Missouri to prepare for the Second Coming. Scripture makes it clear that Missouri has a prophetic role to play in the Second Coming and it seems logical that some people will need to go there to assist in portions of that work. But the scriptures contain no references that spell out in detail how that assistance will be given.

One of the quotations I hear frequently repeated is part of a sermon by Joseph F. Smith in 1882: “When God leads the people back to Jackson County, how will he do it? Let me picture to you how some of us may be gathered and led to Jackson County. I think I see two or three hundred thousand people wending their way across the great plain enduring the nameless hardships of the journey, herding and guarding their cattle by day and by night. … This is one way to look at it. It is certainly a practical view. Some might ask, what will become of the railroads? I fear that the sifting process would be insufficient were we to travel by railroads.” (Journal of Discourses, 24:156–57.)

This is a vivid mental picture, but people frequently remember the picture and forget he said “some of us” and “may be gathered.” We should also keep in mind that he said this is “one way to look at it,” remembering also the perspective of 1882. From our perspective in 1979, it seems even less likely that we would sell our automobiles and herd cattle along our freeway systems. But we simply have no scriptural information about who—if any general Church members—will be called to go back and the means that they might use. The prophets of our day have not found it timely or necessary to speak on the matter.

Question: Will all Mormons return to Jackson county before the second coming?

No, this is a "faith promoting" myth

Graham W. Doxey in the April 1979 Ensign:

Myth #2: The entire Church will be gathered to Missouri. Here recent prophets have been quite specific. President Spencer W. Kimball said in October Conference, 1978: “We are building up the strength of Zion—her cords or stakes—throughout the world. Therefore, we counsel our people to remain in their native lands and gather out the elect of God and teach them the ways of the Lord. There temples are being built and the saints will be blessed wherever they live in all the world.” (Ensign, Nov. 1978, p. 76.)

During the time of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, it was essential for members of the Church to “gather to Zion” for their own spiritual and physical safety. But now that temples, welfare proJects, educational facilities, genealogical research libraries, and the blessings of a full church organization in stakes are available, this gathering is no longer required or wise. And although the Church purchased some Clay County land last December, it was solely for investment purposes—not for other Church use. At a general conference, President Harold B. Lee stressed the point made by Elder Bruce R. McConkie at the Mexico City Area Conference: “‘The place of gathering for the Mexican Saints is in Mexico; … and so it goes throughout the length and breadth of the whole earth. Japan is for the Japanese; Korea is for the Koreans; Australia is for the Australians; every nation is the gathering place for its own people.’” (Ensign, July 1973, p. 5.)

Of course, there will be special functions of the temple in Jackson County, but worldwide gatherings of the Saints to Missouri may not be necessary, or desired—after all, the mission of members is to always share the gospel with the nonmembers who surround them throughout the world, and this activity will undoubtedly continue after the Second Coming. Elder Harold B. Lee further cautioned the Saints in all lands to be guided by the current prophet, not by rumor or supposition, and “look forward to the instruction that shall come to them from the First Presidency of this Church as to where they shall be gathered and not be disturbed in their feelings until such instruction is given to them as it is revealed by the Lord to the proper authority” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1948, p. 55).

Question: Will there be immense destruction in Jackson County before the second coming of Christ?

This may have already taken place, or it is yet to occur

Graham W. Doxey in the April 1979 Ensign:

Myth #3: But won’t there be immense destructions in Missouri preceding the Second Coming, so extensive that “not a yellow dog will be left to wag his tail”? It’s true that destruction throughout the earth is one of the conditions prior to the Second Coming. Yet as far as destruction in Missouri is concerned there are two schools of thought among members.

One believes that it has already taken place. Elder B. H. Roberts published a reported prophecy of Joseph Smith to Alexander Doniphan, his lawyer in Missouri. According to Doniphan’s brother-in-law, writing the incident over seventy years after it occurred, Joseph Smith warned Doniphan that “‘God’s wrath hangs over Jackson County … and you will live to see the day when it will be visited by fire and sword. The fields and farms and houses will be destroyed, and only the chimneys will be left to mark the desolation.’

“General Doniphan said to me,” his brother-in-law continued, “that the devastation of Jackson county [during the Civil War] forcibly reminded him of this remarkable prediction.” Elder Roberts cites additional descriptions of Jackson County’s role during the Civil War as fulfillment of this prophecy. (See Comprehensive History of the Church, 1:538–59; italics added.)

The other school of thought on the so-called “yellow dog” prophecy is that some members feel it is yet to occur. However, a study of the supposed source of the prophecy is helpful. It seems to have originated in a conversation between Heber C. Kimball and Amanda H. Wilcox in Salt Lake City in May 1868. She reports him as saying, “The western boundries of the State of Missouri will be swept so clean of its inhabitants that, as President Young tells us, when we return to that place, ‘There will not be left so much as a yellow dog to wag his tail.’” (Prophetic Sayings of Heber C. Kimball to Sister Amanda H. Wilcox, n.p., n.d., p. 6.)

There seem to be a number of questions about the authenticity of this account since Heber C. Kimball was apparently in Provo, not Salt Lake, during the month of May. Also, no other record exists of Brigham Young making a similar statement. However, it is sufficiently similar to Joseph Smith’s statements, except for the “yellow dog,” that someone may have remembered the original substance but in the retelling allowed embellishment to creep in.