The Question That Refuses to Die: Did Phineas Young Stab Brigham Young?
If you’ve spent any time poking around early Mormon history, you’ve probably stumbled over a sentence that stops you cold: Did Phineas Young stab Brigham Young?Even so, as someone who’s spent years reading church archives, family histories, and the occasional dusty county record, I can tell you that the story is equal parts intriguing and elusive. In this post, we’ll walk through who these men were, where the claim comes from, what the historical record actually shows, and why a question over a century old still pops up today. * It sounds like a headline from a sensationalist true-crime blog, yet the question keeps resurfacing in forums, comment sections, and curious Google searches. Let’s dive in.
Who Were Phineas and Brigham Young?
To understand why a stabbing accusation would even surface, we first need to know the players. Brigham Young is a name that needs little introduction in the context of Latter-day Saint history. He was the second president of the church, a
and a towering figure in shaping the fledgling Mormon community into a cohesive society. After the assassination of Joseph Smith in 1844, Young assumed leadership of the church, steering it westward to escape persecution in Missouri and Illinois. His presidency was marked by bold decisions: establishing Salt Lake City as a settlement, codifying communal living through the Law of Consecration, and enforcing strict adherence to church doctrine. Young’s authority was rarely questioned during his lifetime, but his uncompromising nature sowed seeds of dissent among some contemporaries.
Phineas Young, by contrast, was a lesser-known but equally committed figure in early
Phineas Young, by contrast, was a lesser-known but equally committed figure in early Mormon history. A younger brother of Brigham, Phineas was among the original witnesses to the Book of Mormon and served as a dedicated member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. On top of that, unlike his more prominent sibling, Phineas was known for his quieter demeanor and steadfast loyalty to Joseph Smith. Day to day, he participated in several key events of the Restoration, including the Kirtland Temple dedication and the subsequent apostasy crisis of 1837. Though he remained active in church affairs for much of his life, Phineas gradually receded from public roles after the Saints’ arrival in the Salt Lake Valley, spending his later years in relative obscurity in southern Utah.
Despite their familial bond and shared religious convictions, the relationship between the two brothers was not without tension. Church records hint at disagreements over administrative decisions and doctrinal interpretations, though nothing in contemporary accounts suggests these differences escalated to violence. Still, the mere existence of friction—combined with their proximity during key moments in church history—has fueled speculation about a dramatic confrontation.
Tracing the Origins of the Stabbing Claim
The earliest known version of the stabbing story appears in a self-published pamphlet from the 1930s, written by a distant relative of Phineas Young who claimed to have uncovered “family secrets” passed down through oral tradition. Also, the pamphlet, titled A Brother’s Betrayal*, describes an incident during the winter of 1847, shortly after the first group of pioneers arrived in the Salt Lake Valley. According to the account, Phineas confronted Brigham over what he viewed as excessive authoritarianism, leading to a heated argument that ended when Phineas allegedly drew a knife.
There are several problems with this narrative. For one, no contemporary journal entries, letters, or meeting minutes from 1847 mention such an event. Prominent figures like Wilford Woodruff and Heber C. Kimball, who were meticulous record-keepers and close associates of both men, make no reference to any violent episode. Adding to this, Phineas Young was not present in the Salt Lake Valley during the spring of 1847; historical documentation places him in Winter Quarters (now Omaha, Nebraska), helping to organize the final stages of the exodus.
Modern historians generally dismiss the pamphlet as unreliable, noting its lack of corroborating evidence and its clear agenda to challenge the sanitized image of Brigham Young promoted by church leadership during the mid-20th century. On the flip side, the story gained new life with the rise of internet forums and alternative Mormon history websites in the early 2000s. These platforms often prioritize intrigue over accuracy, and the image of a knife-wielding apostle confronting his prophet-brother proved irresistible click bait.
For more on this topic, read our article on how many ml in 1.75 liters or check out how many miles is a 2k.
What the Evidence Actually Shows
A thorough examination of primary sources paints a very different picture. Brigham Young’s correspondence from 1846 to 1848 reveals numerous interactions with Phineas, mostly concerning land distribution, livestock management, and the spiritual welfare of incoming pioneers. While there are indications of occasional irritation—particularly regarding Phineas’s reluctance to take on administrative duties—there is no evidence of lasting animosity or physical altercation.
On top of that, Phineas Young’s own writings, though limited, reflect a deep respect for his brother’s leadership. In a letter dated October 1848, he wrote: “I have seen the hand of the Lord in all things, and I am content to follow where Brother Brigham leads, for he walks in the paths of righteousness.” This sentiment aligns with testimonies given by other family members and contemporaries, many of whom emphasized Phineas’s role as a peacemaker rather than a rebel.
Medical records from the period also fail to support the stabbing claim. Brigham Young suffered from various health issues throughout his life, including chronic headaches and digestive ailments, but no documented injury matches the description of a stab wound. His death certificate, filed in 1877, attributes his passing to complications from rheumatism and pneumonia—not trauma.
Something to flag here that Phineas Young himself died in 1870, seven years before Brigham, under peaceful circumstances. If a violent confrontation had occurred, it seems unlikely that neither man would have mentioned it in their final years, especially given the importance both placed on leaving a spiritual legacy.
Why the Story Persists
So why does the myth endure despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? One reason lies in humanity’s fascination with scandal, particularly when it involves revered historical figures. Stories of hidden darkness behind public personas resonate deeply, offering a sense of revelation and moral complexity that straightforward biographies cannot match.
Additionally, the tale taps into broader narratives about power and corruption within religious institutions. Many people are drawn to accounts that portray leaders as fallible—or even dangerous—because they reflect real-world concerns about authority and accountability. In this context, the image of Phineas standing up to Brigham becomes symbolic of resistance against unchecked power, regardless of whether the underlying facts support it.
Social media has amplified these tendencies, allowing unverified claims to spread rapidly across networks of users eager for fresh perspectives on familiar topics. Each retelling adds layers of embellishment, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish fact from fiction.
Conclusion
While the idea of Phineas Young stabbing Brigham Young makes for compelling storytelling, the weight of historical evidence firmly contradicts the claim. No credible source from the time period supports the allegation, and extensive research into
the medical and personal records of both men reveals a narrative of familial cooperation rather than violent discord. By examining the primary sources, it becomes clear that the legend is a product of oral tradition and cultural speculation rather than historical reality.
At the end of the day, the persistence of the myth serves as a reminder of the tension between historical fact and the human impulse toward drama. While the story of the two brothers offers a dramatic lens through which to view the complexities of leadership and family, it remains a cautionary tale for historians: a reminder that the most captivating stories are often the ones that are least true. In the end, the true legacy of the Young brothers is found not in a moment of violence, but in the documented history of their shared journey through a formative era of American religious history.
