*Shrug* Some of Brigham’s teachings have turned out to be erroneous (though I think the jury’s still out on Adam-God, since his statements on the matter are self-contradictory even his most attentive researchers aren’t *exactly* clear about what he was trying to say; and the Church has *not* dismissed the priesthood ban itself as uninspired). But the question here isn’t whether Brigham was infallible. The question is whether Brigham considered himself to be, and was, a prophet. He seems to have done so at least occasionally; and his contemporaries (including Joseph Smith himself) certainly regarded him as such.

I am with Peter Brown on this one. When you really dig into the teachings of Brigham Young, there are many major things that cannot be overlooked. The blacks and priesthood, his racial positions, blood atonement and Adam God are major blunders. It is very difficult for me understand how people just jump around these colossal mistakes with ease.

I, for one, don’t see any problem with the context given for the HC quote (you can
pull all of Volume 2 over at boap.org). HC was, of course, compiled
sometime after the events in question; but it derives from source documents
that date to Smith’s and Young’s lifetimes. The JD quotations Gramps
gives can be dated with relative ease over at journalofdiscourses.com,
and Gramps himself gives the dates for Woodruff’s diary entry.

Joseph Smith was one of an elite group of dispensation heads which included Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus Christ Himself. No one–including Brigham Young–is going to measure up in every way to the standards set by those particular individuals; but that does not bar other prophets from legitimately claiming the title of “prophet, seer, and revelator”. Joseph Smith’s revelations do contemplate a plurality of living prophets in which some have higher stewardships than others; but in that hierarchy the ultimate authority under God lies with the presiding high priest of the Church–a position held by Young and his successors.

Nor is Young really the red-headed stepchild amongst Church presidents that some modern commentators try to make him out to be. When the
Teachings of the Presidents of the Church series was
initiated back in 1997, they led out with a volume synthesized from
Young’s teachings. Anyone who has a passing familiarity with Young’s teachings (from this volume, or through other published sources) knows that his statements on the controversial topics you mention are an infinitesimal part of his entire corpus of teachings; the bulk of which withstand the test of time remarkably well.

Nonetheless, what you have shown is that Brigham Young was a shepherd, one of the lowest levels of prophets, a level often chastised by higher prophets in the Old Testament. Brigham Young’s fruits can also cause us to question his prophetic abilities. Almost all of his doctrines, “Blood Atonement, Adam God, Polygamy, and Black” have not survived the day.

Under this definition we are all prophets.

We would do ourselves a service to understand his role, that of a shepherd, keeping the wolves out of the flock. Anything more than that, or equating what he did with the prophetic undertakings of Joseph Smith, negate and make a mock of accomplishments of Joseph Smith and other scriptural prophets who showed forth the gifts of prophecy, seer-ship, and revelation, and were the mouthpiece of God at times.