Prophets

A Closer Look

Ch. 7 - Kinderhook Plate & Translator Claims →

Jesus' Commission to His Twelve Apostles

" He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward." - Matthew 10:40-41

Introduction

The CES Letter seeks to make the case in this section that it's not rational to listen to prophets since then can make mistakes. (see LDS Truth Claims video). This section is a classic case of "cherry picking" (a logical fallacy). One could cherry pick the few instances of almost any piece of information as a reason to not believe in it. The core question in this section essentially asks: how can we trust human fallible prophets who sometimes get it wrong? Similarly, one could ask, how can I trust a human fallible pilot who is flying my plane? And then go on to give examples of where planes have crashed as justification for not flying.

Similarly, the CES Letter cherry-picks five cases where he believes the brethren got it wrong. Rather than call these five cases are exceptions over the churches 200+ year history, Runnell's calls it a "ridiculous and inconsistent" track record.

The first two points of this section discuss Adam God & Blood Atonement. Both are obscure teachings by Brigham Young that were never fully adopted by the church. The next two points are polygamy and the priesthood ban. Both practices the church sub-sequentially changed. The final example used in this section is con-artist Mark Hofmann, who sold the church leaders fraudulent documents. Runnell's believes that prophets would have been able to detected the fraud.

CES Letter Thesis Claim

"Yesterday's doctrine is today's false doctrine. Yesterday's prophets are today's heretics."

As stated above, Runnell's views change and new revelation as a negative thing. He also believes that the brethren should always get it right from the beginning and if they don't they not only can't be trusted but are heretics. This is contrary to what the Bible, Book of Mormon and modern prophets have all taught.

"Line Upon Line"

We have a church that is built upon revelation. Article of Faith #9 says, "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” We also believe that the Lord teaches us "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little.” (2 Nephi 28:30). Thus, we should expect to see things change. That's the beauty of revelation.

Past Prophet's Aren't Heretics

Runnell's says "yesterday's prophets are today's heretics." Very unforgiving and harsh language not used by our prophets to describe changes we make. Just because polygamy isn't practiced today it doesn't doesn't mean previous prophets who did teach it are heretics. Same goes with the priesthood ban or Brigham Young's teachings on Adam God and Blood Atonement what were never widely accepted by the church. Bruce R. McConkie calling Brigham Young's Adam God teaching as a heresy is the closest thing we have to the Runnell's language. Which is still far short of labeling all previous prophets as "heretics."

Adam-God

CES Letter Core Question

Did Brigham Young teach that Adam was actually Heavenly Father?

Click to Read the Original CES Letter Claim

President Brigham Young taught what is now known as “Adam–God theory.” He taught that Adam is “our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.” Brigham not only taught this doctrine over the pulpit in conferences in 1852 and 1854 but he also introduced this doctrine as the Lecture at the Veil in the endowment ceremony of the Temple.

Brigham also published this doctrine in the Deseret News on June 18, 1873:

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me – namely that Adam is our father and God – I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve, because she was the first woman upon the earth. Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth. I have been found fault with by the ministers of religion because I have said that they were ignorant. But I could not find any man on the earth who could tell me this, although it is one of the simplest things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith.

Contrary to the teachings of Brigham Young, subsequent prophets and apostles have since renounced the Adam-God theory as false doctrine. President Spencer W. Kimball renounced the Adam-God theory in the October 1976 General Conference:

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.

Along with President Spencer W. Kimball and similar statements from others, Elder Bruce R. McConkie made the following statement:

The devil keeps this heresy [Adam-God theory] 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, has no excuse whatever for being led astray by it. Those who are so ensnared reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day.

Ironically, Elder McConkie’s June 1980 condemnation asks you to trust him and President Kimball as today’s living prophet. Further, McConkie is pointing to the endowment ceremony as a source of factual information. What about the Saints of Brigham’s day who were following their living prophet? And what about the endowment ceremony of their day where Adam-God was being taught at the veil?

Yesterday’s doctrine is today’s false doctrine and yesterday’s prophet is today’s heretic.

Yes he did but it was never widely accepted or adopted on a large-scale level. Brigham Young gave 388 sermons that are included in the Journal of Discourses between 1852 and 1877. The Adam God teaching is a handful of cherry-picked cases. Joseph F. Smith said in 1897 on this topic, "Prest. Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject. What he said was not given as a revelation or commandment from the Lord. The Doctrine was never submitted to the Councils of the Priesthood nor to the Church for approval or ratification [p.2] and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the Church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church nor upon the consciences of any of the members."

David Buerger, who provided one of the most extensive analyses of the topic concluded:

In sum it appears that Brigham's Adam-God doctrine never became thoroughly established in late nineteenth-century LDS theology. While it is evident that many of the leading authorities of the Church endorsed Young's teaching during these years, there was not a unanimous view even among the hierarchy. The published writings of church authorities in these years avoided any endorsement of the doctrine, and evidence suggests that it was not widely accepted among the general membership of the Church."

Dialogue Magazine, The Adam-God Doctrine, David Buerger, p. 36

Blood Atonement

Click to Read the Original CES Letter Claim

Along with Adam-God, Brigham taught a doctrine known as “Blood Atonement” where a person’s blood had to be shed to atone for their own sins as it was beyond the atonement of Jesus Christ.

There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them...

And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further;

I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins. It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit...There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, or a calf, or of turtle dove, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man.

UPDATE: The Church now confirms in its Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints essay that Blood Atonement was taught by the prophet Brigham Young.

As with the Adam-God theory, the Blood Atonement doctrine was later declared false by subsequent prophets and apostles.

Yesterday’s doctrine is today’s false doctrine. Yesterday’s prophet is today’s heretic

CES Letter Core Question

Brigham Young and several early church leaders taught that some sins required a voluntary shedding of ones blood to fully atone for them. Was this an incorrect teaching?

Despite fiery rhetoric, Blood Atonement was never practiced. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism addresses this:

Several early Church leaders, most notably Brigham Young, taught that in a complete theocracy the Lord could require the voluntary shedding of a murderer's blood-presumably by capital punishment-as part of the process of Atonement for such grievous sin. This was referred to as "blood Atonement." Since such a theocracy has not been operative in modern times, the practical effect of the idea was its use as a rhetorical device to heighten the awareness of Latter-day Saints of the seriousness of murder and other major sins. This view is not a doctrine of the Church and has never been practiced by the Church at any time.

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Blood Atonement

CES Letter Core Question

Did the church put to death apostates and other sinners?

Discussions of "blood atonement" are made only in propaganda against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is no record of any LDS leader directing that a person should be "blood atoned." Nor is there any account of a person being killed through a principle called “blood atonement.” (Click here).

In 1889 the First Presidency released a statement addressing this:

this church views the shedding of human blood 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. 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 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. The revelations of God to this church make death the penalty of capital crime, and require that offenders against life and property shall be delivered up and tried by the laws of the land.’’ We declare that no bishop's or other court in this church claims or exercises civil or judicial functions, or the right to supersede, annul or modify a judgment of any civil court. Such courts, while established to regulate Christian conduct, are purely ecclesiastical, and their punitive powers go no further than the suspension or excommunication of members from church fellowship.

The doctrine of blood atonement has reference to the great sacrifice made by Jesus Christ in the shedding of his blood upon the cross and is still a doctrine of the Church today. (Click here)

Polygamy

CES Letter Core Question

Is polygamy required for exaltation?

Click to Read the Original CES Letter Claim

Brigham Young taught the doctrine that polygamy is required for exaltation:

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.

Several other prophets after Young, including Taylor, Woodruff, Snow, and Joseph F. Smith gave similar teachings that the New and Everlasting Covenant of plural marriage was doctrinal and essential for exaltation.

It’s even in the scriptures:

DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 132:4

“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.”

In a September 1998 Larry King Live interview, President Hinckley was asked about polygamy:

Larry King:You condemn it [polygamy]?

Hinckley:I condemn it. Yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.

Contrary to President Hinckley’s statement, we still have Doctrine & Covenants 132 in our canonized scriptures. We're also still practicing plural marriage in the Temples by permitting men to be sealed to more than one woman (so long as only one is living). Apostles Elder Oaks, Elder Perry, and Elder Nelson are modern examples of LDS polygamists in that they're sealed to multiple women.

Polygamy is doctrinal. Polygamy is not doctrinal. Yesterday's doctrine is today's false doctrine. Yesterday's prophets are today's heretics

The short answer is no.

FairMormon does and excellent job addressing this quote here.

Brigham Young Quote on Polygamy and Gods

A new transcription of this discourse from the original shorthand shows that Brigham Young did indeed make this comment, but he clarified it twice saying that it applied only to men and women who have the privilege of practicing plural marriage. The CES Letter is wrong. The issue is obedience, not plurality. No presiding leader has ever stated that all exalted beings are polygamists. (Click here)

What the "New and Everlasting Covenant" is in D&C 132:4

The new and everlasting covenant of marriage is not polygamy. D&C 132:7 describes the "conditions" of the law and polygamy is not mentioned. Verses 19-20 declare that a worthy monogamous couple sealed by proper authority will received exaltation. Polygamy is not a law or a covenant or a ceremony. It is best referred to as a principle and a practice. The new and everlasting covenant of marriage is eternal marriage, which all must abide or they "shall remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity," which is damnation (v. 17). (Click here)

Is Polygamy Doctrinal?

The idea that polygamy must always be practiced is not doctrinal. Take for example the Book of Mormon peoples who were all monogamists. President Hinckley was speaking the truth. (Click here)

Blacks Ban

Click to Read the Original CES Letter Claim

As you know, for close to 130 years blacks were not only banned from holding the priesthood but black individuals and black families were blocked from the saving ordinances of the Temple. Every single prophet from Brigham Young all the way to Harold B. Lee kept this ban in place.

Prophets, Seers, and Revelators of 2013 – in the Church’s December 2013 Race and the Priesthood essay – disavowed the “theories” of yesterday’s Prophets, Seers, and Revelators for their theological, institutional, and doctrinal racist teachings and “revelation.”

Yesterday’s racist doctrine and revelation is now today’s “disavowed theories.”

Next Related Portion

Joseph Smith permitted the priesthood to at least two black men. Elijah Abel was one of them. Walker Lewis was another.

So, Joseph Smith gives the priesthood to blacks. Brigham Young bans blacks. Each and every single one of the 10 prophets from Brigham Young to Harold B. Lee supported what Spencer W. Kimball referred to as a “possible error” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.448-449 ).

Heavenly Father likes blacks enough to give them the priesthood under Joseph Smith but He decides they’re not okay when Brigham Young shows up. And He still doesn’t think they’re okay for the next 130 years and the next 9 prophets until President Kimball decides to get a revelation.

The same God who “denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female ” is the same God who denied blacks from the saving ordinances of the Temple for 130 years. Yet, He apparently changed His mind again in 1978 about black people.

CES Letter, P. 65-66

CES Letter Core Question

The Race and the Priesthood essay said that "the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse." Is that inconsistent with 2 Nephi 5:21?

Click to Read the Original CES Letter Claim

Additionally, the above-mentioned essay also withdraws “that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse” while ironically contradicting the Book of Mormon itself:

2 NEPHI 5:21

“And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

CES Letter, Page 65

Nephi is speaking about Lamanites in these verses, not African Americans. Additionally, Nephi demonstrates some complex feelings concern "he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female," (2 Nephi 26:33). On one-hand he had a strained relationship with his brothers who "did seek to take away my life (2 Nephi 5:2). Brant Gardner provides the following commentary on this verse, "Modern readers may be uncomfortable with Nephite racial prejudices, but they existed. They were not, however, based on skin color as has been part of the more modern U.S. culture. Nephite prejudices were developed on distinctions more common to the ancient world and used reasons other than pigmentation." (Brant Gardner, What Does the Book of Mormon Mean by “Skin of Blackness”?)

CES Letter Core Question

Did IRS pressure lead to the church revoking the church ban on the priesthood?

Click to Read the Original CES Letter Claim

Of course, the revelation He gives to the Brethren in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978 has absolutely nothing to do with the IRS potentially revoking BYU’s tax-exempt status , Stanford and other universities boycotting BYU athletics , we can’t figure out who’s black or not in Brazil (São Paulo Temple dedicated/opened just a few months after revelation), and that Post-Civil Rights societal trends were against the Church’s racism. I would think Christ’s one true Church would have led the Civil Rights movement; not be the last major church on the planet in 1978 to adopt it.

How can we trust these “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators,” who have been so wrong about so many important things for so long while claiming to be receiving revelations from God?

Yesterday’s doctrine is today’s false doctrine. Yesterday’s 10 prophets are today’s heretics.

CES Letter, P. 65-66

This is yet another baseless conspiracy put forward by the CES Letter. Colorado Professor of history Matt Harris had this to say about the possibility of the IRS pressuring the church to revoke the priesthood ban:

I don’t think the threat of the IRS revoking the church’s tax exemption status had anything to do with the priesthood revelation, the internet notwithstanding. On the other hand, the brethren were concerned about it. Beyond the Arrington letter, I have other evidence that I will present in my next book. You might be interested to know that I contacted Pres. Carter several years ago and asked him if he pressured the IRS to pester the church over the priesthood restriction. He wrote back a warm letter denying such claims. There was nothing in his presidential papers, either, to confirm that the IRS went after the church. Pres Kimball’s diaries are silent on this subject as well.

Matt Harris, By Common Consent Tax Roots OD2

Mark Hofmann

CES Letter Core Question

Should the brethren have been able to discern that Hofmann's documents were forgeries and Hofmann was a murderer?

The author of the CES Letter has an incorrect perception of what it means to be a prophet. Like Michael Ash said, "There is no doctrine that a prophet will discern the evil or treachery in all people (or even in most or many people)."

One can look at Joshua who was deceived by Achan, who did so in order to obtain money. Achan's actions even resulted in the death of some people. After investigation, Achan was discovered and sentenced. (Joshua 7) Additionally, Joshua was also deceived by the inhabitants of Gibeon when they claimed to come from a far country so they could get a peace accord with Joshua. Then the Israelites found that instead of living a long distance away, that people from Gibeon lived among them. (Joshua 9).

CES Letter Core Question

Did President Hinckley demonstrate "significant dishonesty" in his dealings with Mark Hofmann?

Click to Read the Original CES Letter Claim

In the early to mid-1980s, the Church paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in expensive and valuable antiquities and cash to Mark Hofmann – a con man and soon-to-be serial killer – to purchase and suppress bizarre and embarrassing documents into the Church vaults that undermined and threatened the Church’s story of its origins. The documents were later proven to be forgeries.

The lack of discernment by the Brethren on such a grave threat to the Church is troubling.
Speeches by Elder Dallin H. Oaks and President Gordon B. Hinckley offered apologetic explanations for troubling documents (Salamander Letter and Joseph Smith III Blessing ) that later ended up, unbeknownst to Elder Oaks and President Hinckley at the time of their apologetic talks, being proven complete fakes and forgeries.

THE FOLLOWING IS ELDER OAKS’ 1985 DEFENSE OF THE FAKE SALAMANDER LETTER (WHICH OAKS EVIDENTLY THOUGHT WAS REAL AND LEGITIMATE AT THE TIME):

Another source of differences in the accounts of different witnesses is the different meanings that different persons attach to words. We have a vivid illustration of this in the recent media excitement about the word salamander in a letter Martin Harris is supposed to have sent to W. W. Phelps over 150 years ago. All of the scores of media stories on that subject apparently assume that the author of that letter used the word salamander in the modern sense of a ‘tailed amphibian.’

One wonders why so many writers neglected to reveal to their readers that there is another meaning of salamander, which may even have been the primary meaning in this context in the 1820s. That meaning, which is listed second in a current edition of Webster’s New World Dictionary, is ‘a spirit supposed to live in fire’ (2d College ed. 1982, s.v. ‘salamander’). Modern and ancient literature contain many examples of this usage.

A spirit that is able to live in fire is a good approximation of the description Joseph Smith gave of the angel Moroni: a personage in the midst of a light, whose countenance was ‘truly like lightning’ and whose overall appearance ‘was glorious beyond description’ (Joseph Smith-History 1:32). As Joseph Smith wrote later, ‘The first sight [of this personage] was as though the house was filled with consuming fire’ (History of the Church, 4:536). Since the letter purports only to be Martin Harris’s interpretation of what he had heard about Joseph’s experience, the use of the words white salamander and old spirit seem understandable.

In view of all this, and as a matter of intellectual evaluation, why all the excitement in the media, and why the apparent hand-wringing among those who profess friendship with or membership in the Church? The media should make more complete disclosures, but Latter-day Saint readers should also be more sophisticated in their evaluation of what they read.

So, what just happened? Elder Oaks defended and rationalized a completely fake and made up document that Mark Hofmann created while telling “Latter-day Saint readers” to be “more sophisticated in their evaluation of what they read.”

There was significant dishonesty by President Hinckley on his relationship with Hofmann, his meetings, and which documents that the Church had and didn’t have.
Just hours following the bombings on the morning of October 15, 1985, murderer Mark Hofmann met with Elder Dallin H. Oaks in the Church Office Building:

He’s just killed two people. And what does he do? He goes down to the church office building and meets with Dallin Oaks. I can’t even imagine the rush, given Hofmann’s frame of reference, that this would have given him. To be there standing in front of one of God’s appointed apostles, after murdering two people, and this person doesn’t hear any words from God, doesn’t intuit a thing. For Hofmann that must have been an absolute rush. He had pulled off the ultimate spoof against God.

Elder Oaks had a serial murderer right in front of him in his office just hours after Hofmann killed two people (Oaks later admits this meeting ). What does this say about the discernment of the Brethren when they can’t discern a murderer and con man, hell-bent on destroying Mormonism, right under their noses?

Ultimately, the Church was forced to admit it had, in the First Presidency Vault, documents (McLellin Collection) that the Church previously denied it had . The McLellin documents were critical for the investigation of the Hofmann murders.
While these “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators” were being duped and conned by Mark Hofmann’s forgeries over a four-year period (1981-1985), the Tanners – considered some of the biggest critics of the Church – actually came out and said that the Salamander Letter was a fake . Even when the Salamander Letter proved very useful in discrediting the Church, the Tanners had better discernment than the Brethren did. While the Tanners publicly rejected the Salamander Letter, the Church continued buying fakes from Hofmann and Elder Oaks continued telling Latter-day Saints to be more sophisticated.

The CES Letter alleges that the Hofmann's forgeries undermined and threatened the Church's story of its origins, which is untrue and overly dramatic. Before they were discovered to be forgeries, their contents were dealt with like any new document would have been. Church leaders were excited to learn of purportedly new documents dealing with the Restoration.

Elder Oaks

Elder Oaks states: “Latter-day Saint readers should also be more sophisticated in their evaluation of what they read." Ironically, this seems to be the very thing that the author of The CES Letter is championing—LDS being more sophisticated in their evaluation of what they read about prophets and history. It is good advice, and apparently Elder Oaks believes that such behavior will lead them to belief, not disbelief.

(More detailed response coming)

The CES Letter accuses President Hinckley of dishonesty based upon his assumption that the Church was going to sequester documents obtained from Hofmann. It is a reckless accusation because it is based purely upon speculation.

The Tanners

Gerald and Sandra Tanner were initially skeptical regarding the Salamander letter and Church leaders never pronounced it genuine. The CES Letter seems to condemn LDS leaders for expressing interest in and acquiring documents purporting to deal with Church history.

The Church Released the Purchased Fraudulent Documents

The Church immediately released the documents. The CES Letter's allegation is based upon an assumption that they were not going to release them. There was no wrongdoing, but the author of The CES Letter alleges impropriety based upon its opinion of what would have happened.

Conclusion

CES Letter Core Question

There is a quote where Brigham Young equates his sermons to scripture. How do we reconcile this with cases where he was wrong?

Click to Read the Original CES Letter Claim

I’m told that prophets are just men who are only prophets when acting as such (whatever that means). I’m told that, like all prophets, Brigham Young was a man of his time. For example, I was told that Brigham Young was acting as a man when he taught that “God revealed to [him]” that “Adam is our father and God” and the “only God with whom we have to do.” Never mind that Brigham taught this over the pulpit in not one but two conferences and never mind that he introduced this theology into the endowment ceremony in the Temples.

Never mind that Brigham Young made it clear that he was speaking as a prophet:

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 CES Letter deliberately omitted the portion in red)

CES Letter, page 68-69

A believing member doesn't need to reconcile this quote since it's taken out of context. The cherry picked quote leaves out the next sentence which said, "let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon.”

FairMormon does a good job addressing this here.

CES Letter Core Question

Do the prophets have a "ridiculous and inconsistent" track record not worth listening to?

Click to Read the Original CES Letter Claim

CES Letter, page 68-69

The CES Letter calling the brethren's record "ridiculous" is hyperbolic and a distorted opinion based upon a select cherry-picking a few cases while disregarding the big picture.

Jim Bennett does a good job addressing this distorted view of of the prophets the CES Letter creates:

You’re looking at the teachings of the prophets through a fun-house mirror. It’s a gross distortion to say that prophets primarily teach “theories” that are later disavowed. What percentage of Brigham Young’s entirety of teachings is no longer consistent with what the church currently teaches? There’s no way to definitively quantify it, but objectively speaking, it’s a pretty small percentage. What’s the likelihood that, say, baptism by immersion will become passé under the next church president? Are we going to abandon the Book of Mormon? Ditch the Sabbath Day? When should we expect a repudiation of the Sermon on the Mount?

A Faithful Reply to the CES Letter, Jim Bennett p. 226

CES Letter Core Question

Why didn't the Lord correct Brigham Young's incorrect views on race, Adam God, etc?

Click to Read the Original CES Letter Claim

Prophets aren't perfect and they sometimes hold incorrect views on things. It's entirely possible the Lord did try to correct Brigham's view on race, Adam God, etc. The beautiful thing is the Lord works with us despite our weaknesses, biases, and incorrect view of things.