Brigham Young "Transformed" Into Joseph Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, a few paragraphs in -- looking for some reference to past writers

on the subject (two of whom I've repeatedly mentioned here, and whose reports

on the topic are the contemporary consensus among the scholars).

You keep using that "scholarly consensus" phrase as though it were some reverential mantra to which we all must genuflect. Consensus among which scholars? Those who, like you, are predisposed to disbelieve no matter what is stated or written on the subject?

Then the BYU writer said something about "stories" told by Utah Mormons

"first beginning" to get passed around in the late 1850s -- as

something like "embellished accounts."

I needed read no further.

Your intellectual rigor is awe-inspiring. Why does a recollection or an after-the-fact record necessarily invalidate the experience? Not all journal writers keep up-to-the-minute entries. Sometimes, the significance of an experience is not entirely clear until some time has passed.

If God gave such a manifestation, to separate the sheep from the goats

(the goats remaining at Nauvoo, or Sugar Cr., or Kanesville or Fort Bridger) and

the sheep faithfully trekking to "The Valley" to much later tell their "stories,"

then this God-given manifestation was only meant for "true believers" in

Brigham in the first place -- and not for us trespassers on the soil of Deseret.

Separating the sheep from the goats is your own supposition. My own take on it, as I expressed in a previous post, was that it was a spiritual gift for some of the saints to reassure them, particularly those who might not yet have a full understanding the concept of the keys of the kingdom reverting to the Quorum of the Twelve after the death of the president of the Church. This would be enough to assure them, at a time of crisis, that the president of the quorum, Brigham Young, was God's chosen servant to lead the Church after the death of Joseph.

A camera would not have recorded any change. A Gentile stenographer

would not have recorded any change. A newspaper reporter interviewing

the attendees in August of 1844 would not have recorded any talk of

such a change.

And your point is ...?

If the Red Sea parted and then closed, even the Egyptians saw that change.

If Brigham channeled the dead Joseph, it was not a "Red Sea" sort of miracle.

And your point is ...?

[Uncle Dale]

...

Why do you believe part of the eyewitness accounts but dismiss the rest?

All I said is that perhaps Brigham mimicked Joseph's style

of speaking and his voice -- whether consciously or by design

is unimportant to me. What IS important, is whether God intends

for people like myself to accept that such a manifestation

occurred, as an integral part of the plan of salvation -- as

a key element in the fulness of the gospel.

If Mormons really meant this non-event to stand on the same

level as the "first principles," then it would be included in

the missionary discussions, or cited in apostolic conference

talks. The Brethren themselves would come out against the

published scholarship on the subject and refute it.

But -- if this was only an "embellished" story, gotten up in

the hysteria of the late 1850s "Reformation" in Utah, then

of course it would not be a key element of modern LDS doctrine.

It would be an example of people having been impressed with

Brigham's speech, sustaining him, and later attaching God's

name to their impressions of August 1844. -- That's all.

Have explored these yet?

I got down to the part I cited earlier. The author was clearly

attributing this to a set of "stories" that were "first"

circulated during the Reformation. There is no attempt to

attribute those stories to God's actions of 1844 -- at least

no attempt to offer proof that God meant for any manifestation

to have an impact upon the events of 1844.

Sidney Rigdon was Brigham's only serious challenge that day. And

it was well known that Rigdon would have annihilated secret polygamy

and purged from the Church all who supported it. A vote for Brigham

was a vote for the status quo -- a vote for Rigdon was a vote for

an uncertain future and for a man of uncertain abilities and policies.

The congregation would have voted for Brigham without any Divine

manifestation whatever. And, I think that's what occurred.

a record of such discussion?

No discussion of a tremendous Divine manifestation? Do you suppose

there would have been no discussion of the Christophany reported

in 3rd Nephi, the day after? However, if the BY speech were nothing

near the level of that 3rd Nephi event, THEN we can begin to see

why there would be no discussion of it for nearly fifteen years.

It was a minor thing -- something felt by a few people and not

of such stupendous importance as to be published as a revelation

from God to the Saints.

I don't know of any believer in the miracle who claims the miracle was universally

witnessed by all present on the occasion. I certainly don't. And not all who experienced

it did so then; for some, it happened later.

Then good for you. This 1844 scenario was briefly discussed on the airplane,

with the elite of the LDS intelligentsia, returning from the first MHA meeting

at Lamoni. I sat across the aisle from Bitton and Arrington. The jist of the

conversation that day, was that different perceptions of the events of

August, 1844 are allowable and perhaps even to be encouraged. I did not record

any of that dialog -- but it was strikingly different from the lesson presented

on exactly the same topic, when I attended LDS history classes at the Weber

State Institute a few years later. I prefer Arrington's views --- and yours.

...at least 121 people?

If those 121 people had signed a testimony statement in August of 1844,

I might be better impressed. Or had they sworn under oath in court

(church or civil), I'd be happy to review their recollections. But,

as I said elsewhere, numbers of people testifying to one thing or another

can be had in various instances. I could probably dig up some similar

numbers among the Strangites or the FLDS, for their unique experiences.

...

means of reassuring some of the saints present on that occasion

...

Or, more likely, in Utah -- during the "Reformation."

By the way, do you intend to read the Jorgensen article...

I read enough. The first paragraph should have spoken of how the

August 1844 speech fits into God's plan of salvation -- or how

it was reported in contemporary sources. It didn't. Nor did the

next several paragraphs. When something concrete was finally

offered the reader, it was about 1850s "stories."

This sounds like the "sea-gull miracle" all over again. At least

MGM did not attempt to portray the 1844 scene. That's a relief.

UD

[paulpatter]

Calm down, friend -- or you're going to bust a gut.

In other words, you have no evidence.

: Were Bro. Joseph here with us today, I reckon this is what he'd tell you:

"That Dale fellow is a burr under the Saints' saddle-blanket, for sure.

He has defamed my good name in the courts of the wicked more than once.

I should wrastle him to the ground, and make him cry 'Uncle!'

But every now and then he's right -- and this is one of those times.

Cut our wayward brother some slack, or you'll go where he's going!"

UD

Capable of putting words into the Prophet's mouth, are you? Astonishing.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Got a few sentences in -- had more important things to do.

When this piece of legendary lore makes it into a contemporary

conference talk, I'll listen more carefully.

But you've got my curiosity up, I must admit.

Mother Smith really did see the so-called BY "transformation"?

Are you preparing a tasty dish of baked crow for my consumption?

UD

It seems you may be switching the subject? You said LMS had "no reason to go West." I responded to that argument, I did not say anything about the Brigham Young incident.

[Uncle Dale]

Capable of putting words into the Prophet's mouth, are you? Astonishing.

What, no notice of my mimicked broken tooth and limping leg?

I suppose I'll need to do better next time, in order

to match Brigham's notable impersonation.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

It seems you may be switching the subject? You said LMS had "no reason to go West."

I responded to that argument, I did not say anything about the Brigham Young incident.

Actually, Mother Smith's remaining in Nauvoo does little to help the

RLDS argument here. First she supported the problematic William, and

then the equally problematic Strang, and then her son William again.

None of that looks very much like proper saintly discernment.

I heard Ms. Anderson lecture on Lucy's dissatisfaction with Brigham,

at a gathering in Independence some years back. She seems to be the

expert, and her depiction of that "Mother in Israel" was one of

advanced age and stubborn family loyalties -- none of which helped

the cause of The Twelve.

I was gritting my teeth -- waiting for you to speak of her actually

having mentioned the BY transformation, and attributing it to some

supernatural cause. That would certainly be a possibility. Even I

must admit such a thing.

But you did not seek to embarrass me in front of all my friends.

A compassionate gesture.

UD

[charity]

What, no notice of my mimicked broken tooth and limping leg?

I suppose I'll need to do better next time, in order

to match Brigham's notable impersonation.

UD

I think I detect a little bit of illogic here, UD. Let me get this clear. You think there was nothing that indicated the mantle of the prophet had fallen on Brigham Young. You have argued for that position in several posts. However, Brigham Young consciously impersonated Joseph, with a mimicked broken tooth and limp?

Which is it? There was or there wasn't something. Hint: It would be helpful to your argument to back off the impersonation thing, and just stick with "nothing happened at all."

[Uncle Dale]

...

Which is it? There was or there wasn't something.

Hint: It would be helpful to your argument to back off the impersonation thing,

and just stick with "nothing happened at all."

No -- I'm convinced that "something" happened. Some wavering saints had the

opportunity to hear both Sidney and Brigham. They made a sort of informal

decision to trust the leadership of the Church into the hands of The Twelve,

with Brigham at the head of that quorum.

I do not think that pure logic was the deciding factor.

Rigdon was very well known in the Church for his eloquent, persuasive powers.

He was the sort of guy who could sell ice to the Eskimos.

But on that particular day, Brigham's words outweighed those of the

practiced and professional speaker. It must have astounded Sidney.

If God had to take sides that day, Sidney would have been the worse

disaster. I seriously think that not only Nauvoo would have been lost,

but very likely also the lives of many more of our ancestors.

Brigham spoke more like the leader the saints had been used to

following -- and that was fortunate, under those trying circumstances.

Whether he spoke more like Joseph due to conscience effect, or to

a greater affinity with Joseph's teachings and delivery style, I

cannot say for sure. Perhaps some combination of both.

Did God cause that to happen? Only in the same way that God causes

the wind to blow one way now and another way later, I suppose.

Uncle Dale

[Scott Lloyd]

All I said is that perhaps Brigham mimicked Joseph's style

of speaking and his voice -- whether consciously or by design

is unimportant to me. What IS important, is whether God intends

for people like myself to accept that such a manifestation

occurred, as an integral part of the plan of salvation -- as

a key element in the fulness of the gospel.

If Mormons really meant this non-event to stand on the same

level as the "first principles," then it would be included in

the missionary discussions, or cited in apostolic conference

talks. The Brethren themselves would come out against the

published scholarship on the subject and refute it.

I don't know of any Mormon who gives this incident the doctrinal weight of the first principles of the gospel. But there is a broad spectrum between that and dismissing it as a non-event. You are espousing a false dichotomy.

It is what it is: a well-attested incident that lends support to the doctrine of succession in the presidency and of priesthood keys reverting to the Twelve with the death of the Church president.

But -- if this was only an "embellished" story, gotten up in

the hysteria of the late 1850s "Reformation" in Utah, then

of course it would not be a key element of modern LDS doctrine.

It would be an example of people having been impressed with

Brigham's speech, sustaining him, and later attaching God's

name to their impressions of August 1844. -- That's all.

The reformation movement did not transpire until 1856-57. Stories of the miracle of the mantle falling on President Young surfaced as early as 1850, with the accounts of Caroline Barnes Crosby and Emily Smith Hoyt. Moreover, if you had bothered to read the Jorgensen article, you would have seen that she suggests some plausible reasons why journal accounts did not record the incident before then. When people are feverishly engaged in completion a temple before they are forced into exile; when they are at the same time ending off murderous mobs while undertaking an overland trek to some unknown point 1,300 miles to the unsettled West, perhaps they have little time for journal reading. Crosby and Hoyt recorded the incident as soon as they found an uninterrupted block of time to do so.

I got down to the part I cited earlier. The author was clearly

attributing this to a set of "stories" that were "first"

circulated during the Reformation.

Before then. See above. And do us all the favor of actually reading the article before commenting on it.

There is no attempt to

attribute those stories to God's actions of 1844 -- at least

no attempt to offer proof that God meant for any manifestation

to have an impact upon the events of 1844.

The article presents the recorded instances verbatim. One is free to draw his own conclusions.

Sidney Rigdon was Brigham's only serious challenge that day. And

it was well known that Rigdon would have annihilated secret polygamy

and purged from the Church all who supported it. A vote for Brigham

was a vote for the status quo -- a vote for Rigdon was a vote for

an uncertain future and for a man of uncertain abilities and policies.

The congregation would have voted for Brigham without any Divine

manifestation whatever. And, I think that's what occurred.

You're entitled to your opinion. It doesn't invalidate the accounts in question, though.

No discussion of a tremendous Divine manifestation? Do you suppose

there would have been no discussion of the Christophany reported

in 3rd Nephi, the day after? However, if the BY speech were nothing

near the level of that 3rd Nephi event, THEN we can begin to see

why there would be no discussion of it for nearly fifteen years.

It was a minor thing -- something felt by a few people and not

of such stupendous importance as to be published as a revelation

from God to the Saints.

I don't know of anyone who is claiming this was one the level of a "Christophony." That's a straw man.

It was what it was: a manifestation experienced -- and reported -- by some, though not all, of those present for the occasion.

And it is false to say there was no discussion of it for 15 years. Crosby and Hoyt, mentioned above, recorded their recollections just six years after the event.

Then good for you. This 1844 scenario was briefly discussed on the airplane,

with the elite of the LDS intelligentsia, returning from the first MHA meeting

at Lamoni. I sat across the aisle from Bitton and Arrington. The jist of the

conversation that day, was that different perceptions of the events of

August, 1844 are allowable and perhaps even to be encouraged. I did not record

any of that dialog -- but it was strikingly different from the lesson presented

on exactly the same topic, when I attended LDS history classes at the Weber

State Institute a few years later. I prefer Arrington's views --- and yours.

I'm not accountable for what transpired during your Institute class. But from the description of your airplane trip, it sounds like neither Bitton nor Arrington was ready to toss it onto the scrap heap of embellished non-events as you have done here. Arrington, by the way, had a sort of maybe/maybe not attitude toward the incident, according to Jorgensen's article -- which you have refused to read in its entirety.

If those 121 people had signed a testimony statement in August of 1844,

I might be better impressed. Or had they sworn under oath in court

(church or civil), I'd be happy to review their recollections. But,

as I said elsewhere, numbers of people testifying to one thing or another

can be had in various instances. I could probably dig up some similar

numbers among the Strangites or the FLDS, for their unique experiences.

Do you have such an unbending attitude toward all elements of the historical record, or just those that contradict your predispositions?

Or, more likely, in Utah -- during the "Reformation."

Give it up. This was not a product of the Reformation. See above.

I read enough.

Obviously not.

The first paragraph should have spoken of how the

August 1844 speech fits into God's plan of salvation -- or how

it was reported in contemporary sources.

Why?

It didn't. Nor did the

next several paragraphs. When something concrete was finally

offered the reader, it was about 1850s "stories."

See above. A later recollection does not automatically render an account inaccurate.

This sounds like the "sea-gull miracle" all over again. At least

MGM did not attempt to portray the 1844 scene. That's a relief.

This is probably a topic for another thread, but I am no less disposed to see a divine hand in the deliverance of the 1848 pioneers from a cricket infestation in the Salt Lake Valley than I am in the spiritual experience of many who heard President Brigham Young speak in Nauvoo in 1844. Your ill-defined "scholarly consensus" notwithstanding.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Actually, Mother Smith's remaining in Nauvoo does little to help the

RLDS argument here. First she supported the problematic William, and

then the equally problematic Strang, and then her son William again.

None of that looks very much like proper saintly discernment.

I heard Ms. Anderson lecture on Lucy's dissatisfaction with Brigham,

at a gathering in Independence some years back. She seems to be the

expert, and her depiction of that "Mother in Israel" was one of

advanced age and stubborn family loyalties -- none of which helped

the cause of The Twelve.

I was gritting my teeth -- waiting for you to speak of her actually

having mentioned the BY transformation, and attributing it to some

supernatural cause. That would certainly be a possibility. Even I

must admit such a thing.

But you did not seek to embarrass me in front of all my friends.

A compassionate gesture.

UD

Lucy Mack Smith had reason to go west. She also had reason to stay. She expressed her own feelings on the subject and if you look you will find what she said.

[Hamba Tuhan]

As I've heard Mormons tell the story (my own MacIntire ancestors were there that day) a camera set up and pointed at Brigham would have photographed the miracle -- that was precisely why it was a public miracle and not a private testimony of the heart.

Or, if there had been no camera available, a tape-recorder would have captured the change in Brigham's voice.

Thanks, Uncle, for the clarification. So often we talk past each other endlessly, wondering why it is that the other person gets hung up on points that don't even matter, and then we realise that we were working from totally different initial premises. Here we are with this one. I have never in my life understood the transfiguration of Brigham Young to have been of the nature described above. In fact, this description runs counter to everything I know about spiritual manifestations.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks, Uncle, for the clarification. So often we talk past each other endlessly, wondering why it is that the other person gets hung up on points that don't even matter, and then we realise that we were working from totally different initial premises. Here we are with this one. I have never in my life understood the transfiguration of Brigham Young to have been of the nature described above. In fact, this description runs counter to everything I know about spiritual manifestations.

I would echo the above. It would seem Uncle Dale's "scholarly consensus" is built upon a faulty frame of reference.

[Uncle Dale]

Thanks, Uncle, for the clarification. So often we talk past each other endlessly, wondering why it is that the other person gets hung up on points that don't even matter, and then we realise that we were working from totally different initial premises. Here we are with this one. I have never in my life understood the transfiguration of Brigham Young to have been of the nature described above. In fact, this description runs counter to everything I know about spiritual manifestations.

Perhaps you are correct.

I'm willing to hear arguments, that the spiritual manifestation of

the crossing of the Red Sea was only witnessed by those who actually

crossed -- and that the Christophany of 3rd Nephi was only witnessed

by those who survived the recorded great destruction.

But can you say the same thing about the recorded earthquake in

Palestine, at the time of the crucifixion? If tombs were then

opened, and the dead were revived, and walking around Jerusalem,

can we really conclude that the manifestation was not witnessed

by any of the Jews and Romans who did not follow Jesus?

It seems to me that "spiritual manifestations" fall into two

categories -- those witnessed naturally, and those witnessed

only though the "eyes of faith."

Look at the various accounts of Saul's reported conversion

on the road to Damascus -- did his companions at that time

see the manifestation or not?

Did my ancestors at Nauvoo in 1844 see Brigham turn into Joseph?

Or, if they did not, was it because the "eyes of faith"

were required. Whereas, with the Jerusalem earthquake

during the crucifixion (and darkness and resurrections)

the "eyes of faith" were not required for witnesses?

???

.

UD

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems to me that "spiritual manifestations" fall into two

categories -- those witnessed naturally, and those witnessed

only though the "eyes of faith."

Are you saying one is less real than the other? If so, why?

[Uncle Dale]

Are you saying one is less real than the other? If so, why?

In 1831 Joseph Smith sent out a warning prophecy to the world:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYSc.htm#020233

http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v5n21.htm#705

I suppose that his intent was to publicize something to the world.

At about the same time he was involved with a certain Fanny Alger.

I suppose that his intent then was NOT to publicize something to the world.

In the Bible we read of Jesus' transfiguration upon the mount, but very

little detail is provided, and only his close disciples as witnesses.

I suppose that his intent then was NOT to publicize something to the world.

In the Bible we read of Jesus' sermon, preached with multiplication of loaves and fishes.

I suppose that his intent was to publicize something to the world.

Perhaps some things are reserved for the enlightenment of small groups,

(at least initially), and other things are immediately meant for all to know.

If you wish to place Brigham's speech in the former category, then you'll

have less reason to try and convince me of anything here.

Last I looked, I had about 9170 postings here. In those postings where a

controversial issue was debated, I suppose the Mormons managed to change

my mind a half dozen times.

I expect that ratio to remain about constant.

UD

[Scott Lloyd]

If you wish to place Brigham's speech in the former category, then you'll

have less reason to try and convince me of anything here.

If by "Brigham's speech," you mean the miraculous manifestation witnessed by some of his hearers, then I see no reason in particular why it should not be placed in that category. As I've already indicated, I think the primary purpose was for the edification/assurance of each individual who did experience it. Now that you mention it, that would help explain why it was not widely publicized immediately, as critics seem to think it should have been for it to have any veracity. The fact that a striking similarity was found in later recollections of those who were present in the grove at Nauvoo that day is interesting but not vital to the truth claims of Mormonism.

By the way, one of the things mentioned in Jorgensen's article that I find striking is that the recollections were from witnesses who were widely separated throughout the then-vast Utah Territory; there were no "pockets" where a local group of witnesses would have synthesized and enlarged upon one another's reminiscences to embellish or enhance their own.

Last I looked, I had about 9170 postings here. In those postings where a

controversial issue was debated, I suppose the Mormons managed to change

my mind a half dozen times.

I expect that ratio to remain about constant.

Changing the mind of another contributor here is of no great concern to me. As I've indicated before, my implied audience is primarily the unseen lurker.

[Uncle Dale]

...my implied audience is primarily the unseen lurker.

Well, good luck with that.

As for myself, I'm convinced that there's some value to be had, just in discussing

things -- even if no agreement is reached and no "lurkers" come to new realizations.

Every now and then, however, I discover something new -- usually unexpectedly.

It's that intermittent reinforcement that brings me back, to probe the knowledge

of contributors like yourself. I appreciate the opportunity, when it comes.

Perhaps I'll have better luck, next time.

UD

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, good luck with that.

As for myself, I'm convinced that there's some value to be had, just in discussing

things -- even if no agreement is reached and no "lurkers" come to new realizations.

No question about that.

In that spirit, I have an observation that occurred to me this morning.

Years ago, I was watching the TV min-series "Jesus of Nazareth," the one directed by Franco Zefirelli. In the depiction of the annunciation to the virgin Mary by the angel Gabriel, there was no visible angel shown. It was as though Mary were speaking and listening to someone unseen and unheard. It struck me then -- and still does -- that this is how the scene likely would have appeared to a bystander who happened to be there. By that, I mean the vision of the angel was probably meant for Mary and Mary alone, and an eavesdropper in the room would not have been privy to the visitation. I think that's how most spiritual manifestations are. I note that when Joseph Smith was visited by Moroni, it was in a cramped cabin bedroom, likely with several of his siblings present. That they were not conscious of what was going on is not puzzling to me, as I think Joseph would have been the only one enabled to see and hear Moroni on that occasion.

Just a thought in the interest of "just discussing things."

[O-Brother]

It is absolutely true!

In front of thousands of totally objective witnesses,

Brigham Young literally transformed into Joeph Smith, Jr.

at Nauvoo -- while Sidney Rigdon writhed in jealousy.

It's all recorded there in that now "lost Extra" of the Nauvoo

Times & Seasons. (Only surviving copy is said to be

in the vault of the First Presidency)....

[/sarcasm]

UD

[Uncle Dale]

Brigham Smith, I presume?

UD

[O-Brother]

Brigham Smith, I presume?

UD

I was trying to "picture" what they may have seen and morphing was the closest thing.

[Uncle Dale]

I was trying to "picture" what they may have seen and morphing was the closest thing.

Cool --

Can you also post the two original images, that were morphed?

I'm impressed.

UD

[USU78]

Cool --

Can you also post the two original images, that were morphed?

I'm impressed.

UD

Me too. Guy looks like Matthew McConaghy [?sp?]

[O-Brother]

Cool --

Can you also post the two original images, that were morphed?

I'm impressed.

UD

Certainly. With more time, the images can be morphed a bit better.

[Zakuska]

Perhaps BY was really one of those wiley shape shifting Lizard men that are supposed to inhabit the desert country in the west?