Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Brigham Young "Transformed" Into Joseph Smith


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
85 replies to this topic

#61 Hamba Tuhan

Hamba Tuhan

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,211 posts

Posted 17 December 2009 - 03:36 PM

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.
  • 0

#62 Scott Lloyd

Scott Lloyd

    Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,962 posts

Posted 17 December 2009 - 03:45 PM

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.
  • 0
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.

#63 Uncle Dale

Uncle Dale

    truth will prevail

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,002 posts

Posted 17 December 2009 - 03:54 PM

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

Edited by Uncle Dale, 17 December 2009 - 03:55 PM.

  • 0
"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be,
and often is, right under another." -- Joseph Smith

#64 Scott Lloyd

Scott Lloyd

    Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,962 posts

Posted 17 December 2009 - 04:09 PM

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?
  • 0
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.

#65 Uncle Dale

Uncle Dale

    truth will prevail

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,002 posts

Posted 17 December 2009 - 04:23 PM

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.sidneyrig...NYSc.htm#020233
http://www.centerpla...s/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
  • 0
"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be,
and often is, right under another." -- Joseph Smith

#66 Scott Lloyd

Scott Lloyd

    Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,962 posts

Posted 17 December 2009 - 05:14 PM

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.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 18 December 2009 - 04:30 PM.

  • 0
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.

#67 Uncle Dale

Uncle Dale

    truth will prevail

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,002 posts

Posted 17 December 2009 - 06:07 PM

...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
  • 0
"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be,
and often is, right under another." -- Joseph Smith

#68 Scott Lloyd

Scott Lloyd

    Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,962 posts

Posted 18 December 2009 - 02:22 PM

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."

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 18 December 2009 - 02:38 PM.

  • 0
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.

#69 O-Brother

O-Brother

    Separates Water & Dry Land

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 18 December 2009 - 05:42 PM

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

Posted Image


  • 0


#70 Uncle Dale

Uncle Dale

    truth will prevail

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,002 posts

Posted 18 December 2009 - 06:06 PM


Posted Image


Brigham Smith, I presume?

UD
  • 0
"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be,
and often is, right under another." -- Joseph Smith

#71 O-Brother

O-Brother

    Separates Water & Dry Land

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 18 December 2009 - 06:31 PM

Brigham Smith, I presume?

UD


I was trying to "picture" what they may have seen and morphing was the closest thing.
  • 0


#72 Uncle Dale

Uncle Dale

    truth will prevail

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,002 posts

Posted 18 December 2009 - 06:33 PM

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
  • 0
"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be,
and often is, right under another." -- Joseph Smith

#73 USU78

USU78

    Dr. Pepper Addict

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,179 posts

Posted 18 December 2009 - 06:38 PM

Cool --

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

I'm impressed.

UD

Me too. Guy looks like Matthew McConaghy [?sp?]
  • 0
In the immortal words of? Socrates...I DRANK WHAT???!!!

#74 O-Brother

O-Brother

    Separates Water & Dry Land

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 18 December 2009 - 07:05 PM

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.

Posted ImagePosted Image
  • 0


#75 Zakuska

Zakuska

    Creates Worlds Without Number

  • Limited
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,607 posts

Posted 18 December 2009 - 08:45 PM

Perhaps BY was really one of those wiley shape shifting Lizard men that are supposed to inhabit the desert country in the west? Posted Image
  • 0
"Works are necessary for salvation but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life.” -- Martin Luther
"Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" -- Martin Luther

#76 O-Brother

O-Brother

    Separates Water & Dry Land

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 18 December 2009 - 09:07 PM

Posted Image

Edited by O-Brother, 18 December 2009 - 09:12 PM.

  • 0


#77 handys003

handys003

    Ka Nui Kahuna

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,941 posts

Posted 19 December 2009 - 03:56 AM

Get a grip on this. As the example set by Jesus Christ himself. Christ came back in spirit and flesh and bone to the disciples. If Christ has demonstrated this then why on earth would Joseph Smith need Brigham Young's body? That's why I don't believe in mediums.
  • 0
If there is righteousness in the heart, there will be beauty in the character. If there is beauty in the character, there will be harmony in the home. If there is harmony in the home, there will be order in the nation. Where there is order in the nation, there will be peace in the world.

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

#78 O-Brother

O-Brother

    Separates Water & Dry Land

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 08:51 PM

Get a grip on this. As the example set by Jesus Christ himself. Christ came back in spirit and flesh and bone to the disciples. If Christ has demonstrated this then why on earth would Joseph Smith need Brigham Young's body? That's why I don't believe in mediums.


Because spirits aren't visible so they use mediums. However, the countenance change part is baffling. I think this story needs a lot more details and you'd think that JS would have said something about where he was and what it was like to cross over, etc. The story seems to imply that JS took over BY's body momentarily and that BY's countenance changed. If this truly happened, this is something very significant.
  • 0


#79 handys003

handys003

    Ka Nui Kahuna

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,941 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 10:27 PM

I know you believe in mediums OB, but I don't. Spirits of the Lord don't need human help. We are talking about a doctrine where the Godhead are the creator of the entire Universe who organized matter and we were there to witness it. He does not need a puny human do act as a vassal to do his bidding. Jesus himself is proof of showing up as spirit and flesh and bones. We are talking about the same HF who can take all those mortal bodies cremated and returned to flesh and bones after the resurrection. If he's allowing a spirit, prophet, angel, etc... to return to deliver a message he does not need one of us. Evident by how he actually yanked Moses around himself to see all things.
It just dumbfounds me how small some think of HF is percieved.

Edited by handys003, 20 December 2009 - 10:32 PM.

  • 0
If there is righteousness in the heart, there will be beauty in the character. If there is beauty in the character, there will be harmony in the home. If there is harmony in the home, there will be order in the nation. Where there is order in the nation, there will be peace in the world.

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

#80 Scott Lloyd

Scott Lloyd

    Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,962 posts

Posted 21 December 2009 - 06:24 AM

Yesterday in priesthood meeting, we had the last lesson in the manual Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith. I was interested to observe that the lesson, Chapter 47, begins with a retelling of the incident in Nauvoo where Brigham Young seemed to many to take on the voice and visage of Joseph Smith. Here's a quote:

From the Life of Joseph Smith
Following the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum, the members of the Quorum of the Twelve who had been on missionary journeys in the United States returned as quickly as possible to Nauvoo. The members of the Twelve called a meeting of the Saints for August 8, 1844, at which Brigham Young, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, spoke. As he did so, an extraordinary event occurred that was witnessed by many Saints. President Young was miraculously made to appear and sound like Joseph Smith. If Joseph had risen from the dead and again spoken in their hearing, George Q. Cannon recalled, the effect could not have been more startling than it was to many present at that meeting. It was the voice of Joseph himself; and not only was it the voice of Joseph which was heard; but it seemed in the eyes of the people as though it was the very person of Joseph which stood before them. A more wonderful and miraculous event than was wrought that day in the presence of that congregation we never heard of. The Lord gave His people a testimony that left no room for doubt as to who was the man He had chosen to lead them.1

At the conclusion of this meeting, the Saints voted to have the Twelve preside over them. A little over three years later, in December 1847, the First Presidency was again organized, with Brigham Young sustained as the President of the Church.


This manual, of course, was introduced to us barely two years ago. So, whatever one may think of this well-attested incident in Church history, its inclusion in this lesson manual is proof that it is still part of the authoritative curriculum of the Church.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 21 December 2009 - 06:25 AM.

  • 0
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users