Brigham Young "Transformed" Into Joseph Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

Sidney, unfortunately, had suffered brain damage due to a mob attack, and is not really a reliable witness to much of anything. People who knew him describe him as "mercurial" after the injury.

And, in fact, Joseph Smith rejected Sidney as his counselor, but, to their discredit, the people refused to sustain him in that action.

[Uncle Dale]

Sidney, unfortunately, had suffered brain damage due to a mob attack, and is not really a reliable witness to much of anything. People who knew him describe him as "mercurial" after the injury.

If Sidney Rigdon was insane in the summer of 1844 -- and that is the reason he

did not see Brigham Young transformed into Joseph Smith, then I can only ask:

Why was Joseph Smith promoting him as a vice presidential candidate only a

few days earlier? Why was he ever allowed into the LDS First Presidency.

and....

Was Rigdon insane when he claimed to have met Jesus Christ, face-to-face at

Hiram, Ohio, and to have been granted (along with Smith) a view of mankind's

ultimate destiny, in degrees of glory?

If God knew Rigdon was liable to be insane, then why was Rigdon

addressed by God Himself as Joseph Smith's "spokesman" in the

Doctrine and Covenants? An insane spokesman for the Mormon Church?

Was Rigdon as insane as David Hyrum Smith, or as George Albert Smith?

UD

[charity]

UD, you used the word insane. I didn't. He just wasn't the same as he was before the injury. No one has to be perfect, physically or mentally, to serve where they are called. But then a person with "issues" isn't esactly someone you would appeal to as a credible authority, eitehr.

There is another explanation already alluded to. The experience of seeing the mantle of the prophet was dependent upon the Holy Ghost. Those who were placing themselves in a position to resist the Spirit weren't going to have the witness of the Holy Ghost. Since Sidney Rigdon, for whatever reason, was trying to elevate himself to a position of authority against the will of the Lord, he certainly wasn't going to have any witness from the Holy Ghost.

[Uncle Dale]

...

There is another explanation already alluded to. The experience of seeing the mantle of the

prophet was dependent upon the Holy Ghost.

...

Now why would that be?

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.

That much I can agree to -- that some people believed they heard a change in his voice.

But to go so far as Orson Hyde did, and imply that a failure to bear witness to the

supposed miracle was an indication of something like damnation, is a bit too far for me.

Like I said, a couple of my MacIntire forebearers were there. They were proud to have

been in Nauvoo that day, and to have sustained Young -- but there is absolutely no

family tradition of those people having witnessed a miracle. There is no evidence that

the congregation gathered that day in Nauvoo immediately went to witnessing any such

miracle. No such miracle appears recorded in the Saints' newspapers nor in the Gentile

newspapers.

Were such a manifestation a topic of public discussion, we can be certain that the Warsaw

paper and other papers would have picked up story and have had something to say about it.

They did not. It was not a topic of public conversation. It was not a matter of LDS

testimony-bearing at that time, or at the time Brigham was elevated to the Presidency at

the Kanesville Log Tabernacle. We can be certain that such things would have been discussed

then, because there was a disagreement over that change, and many Saints refused to sustain

Brigham. That is why we had Cutlerites and Thompsonites and Strangites and Rigdonites.

If Rigdon did witness such a miracle, and then denied Brigham was the man ordained by

Joseph Smith's hands to be his successor (as Rigdon repeatedly pointed out in the D&C),

then Rigdon was denying God openly. Rigdon, a man second only to Smith in God's trust.

Rigdon, whom God had set over Smith, to watch for any transgression, in December 1830.

Rigdon, who had met Jesus Christ, face-to-face, and whom the D&C identifies as his

Divinely-appointed "spokesman."

For Rigdon to turn into Korihor, and openly and knowingly deny God, when he himself was chosen

by God to "prepare the way for Joseph Smith -- it is simply unbelievable.

More likely, your view of Rigdon as simply not witnessing what others felt they did.

At least that explanation makes some sense.

But why attach the witness of the Holy Ghost to the phenomenon? Where in scripture are

we told of such a thing? Where is Brigham's transfiguration prophesied? Where does

Brigham himself bear witness that the Holy Ghost caused such a transformation? Because

he sat on the podium, behind Orson Hyde, and silently allowed Orson to speak such things?

None of this speaks to the hearts of non-LDS. It will not serve as a conversion tool,

nor as a proof of Mormonism. It can only serve as faith-promoting stuff among the LDS

and the FLDS. If that is what it is meant for, then fine.

If it is meant to tell the rest of us that we do not have the abiding presence and

gift of the Holy Ghost, it fails completely.

Uncle Dale

.

[Cold Steel]

Well, I believe all those folks saw this happen, just like I believe all the people who have seen the Virgin Mary in Medjugorje. ... Do any of YOU believe that the Virgin Mary is appearing to people in Poland? Why or why not?

You should probably start a new thread on this. It's not the topic being addressed here.

Hard to say what happened or didn't happen (where was it -- Winter Quarters?). People seemed to have seen something, but others didn't. I wouldn't bet my bippy either way. The power of suggestion is substantial, but quite a few people recorded that they experienced something. Either way, I wouldn't have expected Sidney Rigdon to have seen it.

Follow the Twelve and the records of the church.

[paulpatter]

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.

First his speech became exactly like Joseph's -- down to

the tiny detail of a slight lisp, due to Joseph's broken tooth.

Then Brigham's leg took on a slight limp exactly like Joseph's --

down to the tiny detail of a typhus extraction bone scar.

Finally, Brigham's face lost its beard and his nose grew

to match our beloved martyr's generous schnozzola.

A blazing prophet's mantle of celestial glory descended from

the heavens upon Brigham's manly shoulders, and there,

embroidered upon its edge, a delicate heart, surmounted by

the words "For my loving husband, the Prophet Joseph."

Unfortunately this striking visage faded, before Brigham

could convince Mother Smith and Emma to hop into his wagon

for a holiday dip in the Great Salt Lake, on the 24th of July.

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

In fact, bigotry masquerading as sarcasm.

[Uncle Dale]

In fact, bigotry masquerading as sarcasm.

So, who am I bigoted against?

Richard Van Wagoner or Reid L. Harper?

I find their answers to these questions to be fully credible.

Or, are they also bigoted, for not bearing their testimony

that Brigham's alleged transfiguration was a manifestation sent

directly from our Heavenly Father?

UD

[paulpatter]

So, who am I bigoted against?

Richard Van Wagoner or Reid L. Harper?

I find their answers to these questions to be fully credible.

Or, are they also bigoted, for not bearing their testimony

that Brigham's alleged transfiguration was a manifestation sent

directly from our Heavenly Father?

UD

Here we have a quintessential example of the "shifting ground" fallacy as used in argument.

[Uncle Dale]

Here we have a quintessential example of the "shifting ground" fallacy as used in argument.

OK then, let's return to the exact subject matter of a person

bearing his testimony that Brigham was indeed so transformed.

I'm sure that any FLDS you might care to ask will agree wholeheartedly

that the transformation took place. He or she will undoubtedly also

be more than happy to bear their testimony of Brigham having been

a true prophet of The Lord.

Based upon that test of faith, an FLDS would have the gift of the Holy Ghost,

but we RLDS would not.

Is there some particular reason why I should sustain this line of reasoning?

Or why I should sustain any line of reasoning here, whereby you would NOT

accuse me of a "shifting ground fallacy."

Just to be exactly clear -- what answer would you want, that is NOT bigoted,

and is not a "shifting ground fallacy?"

Perhaps I can surprise you, and provide exactly the response you'd like to hear.

UD

[charity]

Now why would that be?

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.

That much I can agree to -- that some people believed they heard a change in his voice.

But to go so far as Orson Hyde did, and imply that a failure to bear witness to the

supposed miracle was an indication of something like damnation, is a bit too far for me.

Like I said, a couple of my MacIntire forebearers were there. They were proud to have

been in Nauvoo that day, and to have sustained Young -- but there is absolutely no

family tradition of those people having witnessed a miracle. There is no evidence that

the congregation gathered that day in Nauvoo immediately went to witnessing any such

miracle. No such miracle appears recorded in the Saints' newspapers nor in the Gentile

newspapers.

Were such a manifestation a topic of public discussion, we can be certain that the Warsaw

paper and other papers would have picked up story and have had something to say about it.

They did not. It was not a topic of public conversation. It was not a matter of LDS

testimony-bearing at that time, or at the time Brigham was elevated to the Presidency at

the Kanesville Log Tabernacle. We can be certain that such things would have been discussed

then, because there was a disagreement over that change, and many Saints refused to sustain

Brigham. That is why we had Cutlerites and Thompsonites and Strangites and Rigdonites.

If Rigdon did witness such a miracle, and then denied Brigham was the man ordained by

Joseph Smith's hands to be his successor (as Rigdon repeatedly pointed out in the D&C),

then Rigdon was denying God openly. Rigdon, a man second only to Smith in God's trust.

Rigdon, whom God had set over Smith, to watch for any transgression, in December 1830.

Rigdon, who had met Jesus Christ, face-to-face, and whom the D&C identifies as his

Divinely-appointed "spokesman."

For Rigdon to turn into Korihor, and openly and knowingly deny God, when he himself was chosen

by God to "prepare the way for Joseph Smith -- it is simply unbelievable.

More likely, your view of Rigdon as simply not witnessing what others felt they did.

At least that explanation makes some sense.

But why attach the witness of the Holy Ghost to the phenomenon? Where in scripture are

we told of such a thing? Where is Brigham's transfiguration prophesied? Where does

Brigham himself bear witness that the Holy Ghost caused such a transformation? Because

he sat on the podium, behind Orson Hyde, and silently allowed Orson to speak such things?

None of this speaks to the hearts of non-LDS. It will not serve as a conversion tool,

nor as a proof of Mormonism. It can only serve as faith-promoting stuff among the LDS

and the FLDS. If that is what it is meant for, then fine.

If it is meant to tell the rest of us that we do not have the abiding presence and

gift of the Holy Ghost, it fails completely.

Uncle Dale

.

This very nicely illustrates what happens when we try to define something the way we would think it was or should be, but not how it actually is. Where do we get the idea that tape recorders or video cameras would have recorded a physical change? The very fact that some saw while others did not speaks to a different type of miracle.

And the necessity for all to see is also a false construction. Have you never been in a congregation or group where some individuals were affected in ways that others were not? It speaks more to the receptiveness of the individual.

I also don't think there is evidence that anyone thinks Sidney Rigdon had turned into Korihor. As I said before, his brain injury is going to obviously be a mitigating factor in any of his later mistakes. We are only held accountable for those things for which we have control.

Why does anyone receive a spiritual witness of anything? For their own strength and edification. Now, if they are bearing witness to something that has been given to them by the Holy Ghost, and a person who is receptive to the Spirit should hear them, then the Spirit can witness to the observer that what the first person is saying is true. That's how it works.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Why does anyone receive a spiritual witness of anything? For their own strength and edification. Now, if they are bearing witness to something that has been given to them by the Holy Ghost, and a person who is receptive to the Spirit should hear them, then the Spirit can witness to the observer that what the first person is saying is true. That's how it works.

If we move along these lines, then we can say goodbye to Elder Orson Hyde's prejudice

and suppose that God gives us each personal witnesses of the spirit in those instances

where we ourselves are meant as the primary recipient.

I can go along with the notion that perhaps God had some inexplicable reason for

allowing some of the Nauvoo Saints to believe that Brigham Young had become Joseph.

Perhaps they were meant to go west, and only that experience would get them going.

Mother Lucy Mack Smith, on the other hand, had no reason to go west. Neither did

her daughter-in-law, Emma -- nor Lucy's own daughters, nor their husbands. If these

Saints did not see Brigham so transformed, perhaps it was because God was happy

in their remaining in Illinois and not following Brigham Young.

Thinking along those lines, I can almost envision an LDS point of view.

Presented as a test of true faith, I just naturally respond against that notion.

I might here cite RLDS experiences of Divine manifestations and chide the

Mormons for not believing and sustaining them. But I see no good purpose in

doing such a thing. Some things are best kept "at home."

Uncle Dale

[paulpatter]

So, who am I bigoted against?

Richard Van Wagoner or Reid L. Harper?

I find their answers to these questions to be fully credible.

Or, are they also bigoted, for not bearing their testimony

that Brigham's alleged transfiguration was a manifestation sent

directly from our Heavenly Father?

UD

You make no reference in Post #4 to Richard Van Wagoner or Reid L. Harper; hence, you attempt to shift the ground from the real purpose of your post to two critics of accounts of the event.

What was the real purpose of Post #4? To denigrate, mock, besmirch, vilify, and traduce an event held sacred by millions of Latter-day Saints; i.e., ". . .his nose grew to match our beloved martyr's generous schnozzle" and "A blazing prophet's mantle of celestial glory. . . ," etc.

Feign innocence as you will, but in truth your words were an expression of bigotry craftily clothed in sarcasm.

bigotry: "obstinate and unreasoning attachment to one's own belief and opinions with intolerance of beliefs opposed to them" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, 2002, page 214).

[Uncle Dale]

...an event held sacred by millions of Latter-day Saints; i.e., ". . .his nose grew...

According to President Rigdon, the supporters of the twelve were known to tell just

these sorts of tales. The nose-growing effects of tale-telling are an old literary tradition.

But, to take your accusations seriously, just why would I wish to bring any harm upon

the Latter Day Saints -- having been baptized one myself, in the seventh generation

of converts converted by Hyrum Smith, the Prophet's brother?

Among the Saints in whose company I matured, humor directed at the Smith family

was not taken as bigotry -- and descendants of Joseph regularly joined in that

humorous dialog (as Joseph himself was known to have done during his lifetime).

Perhaps the Mormons have gotten so far away from the original Smith family

dinner table conversations at Nauvoo, that they can only picture Bro. Joseph

as "mingling with gods," and preparing to "judge the quick and the dead."

I might relate the Brigham nose-growing tale to any group of Reorganized LDS,

and expect a few winks and nods. Evidently the Mormons have so mythologized

this non-event, as to make it a test of faith, as to who has the abiding

presence of the Holy Spirit and who does not -- who is worthy of the CK

and who is not.

I pity your lack of perspective here.

UD

.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Looks like someone struck a nerve with Uncle Dale...

Also, I don't think this event has been embroidered, but that would be a cool embroidery.

[Uncle Dale]

Looks like someone struck a nerve with Uncle Dale...

Also, I don't think this event has been embroidered, but that would be a cool embroidery.

The BY story is used as a test of faith -- pure and simple.

When we RLDS deny it, we are degraded as unfaithful servants

and apostates by our Utah brethren.

But that is a modern phenomenon. Read the literature of the

1840s and 1850s and you'll find no mention of this supposed

Divine transfiguration.

Had the Mormons been armed with such explosive ammunition

during that period, we can be certain that it would have

been used against the leadership claims of Alpheus Cutler,

Lyman Wight, James J. Strang, Charles B. Thompson,

David Whitmer, Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith III.

Sidney Rigdon was there at the non-event. Whether he saw

anything (or not) is hardly the question we ought to be

asking. What we should ask, is why Sidney was not having

to publish column after column refuting the BY transformation?

Why not? Because the Mormons were making absolutely no use

of any such story against Sidney and the other sect-leaders'

claims to authority. Not in the "Millennial Star," not in

the "Frontier Guardian," not in the "Western Standard,"

not in the NY "Prophet," not in the St. Louis "Luminary,"

and not in the "Deseret News."

And not in the manuscript "Journal History of the Church."

Think about it for a moment. -- God provides the Brighamites

with Divine proof of Brigham's selection as successor, but

the Brighamites make absolutely no use of that God-given

proof, for decades. They do not cite it as proof against

the claims of their rivals and they do not discuss it among

themselves in the preserved documents in Provo and SLC.

This old wives' tale falls into the same category as the

tremendous beam of heavenly light that reportedly broke

through the Carthage clouds and illuminated the dying

Prophet Joseph -- blinding the mob, so that they ran

away, leaving his body unmutilated.

These manifestations from heaven never seem to be mentioned

by the non-Mormons in attendance. Perhaps they can only

be seen with the "eyes of faith," eh?

UD

[paulpatter]

According to President Rigdon, the supporters of the twelve were known to tell just

these sorts of tales.

And you have evidence that [those] "sorts of tales" were told about Brigham Young's "transformation" into Joseph Smith--right?

The nose-growing effects of tale-telling are an old literary tradition.

Ah, yes, the argumentum ad antiquitam fallacy; i.e., just because something is old, it is good or right.

: But, to take your accusations seriously, just why would I wish to bring any harm upon

the Latter Day Saints -- having been baptized one myself, in the seventh generation

of converts converted by Hyrum Smith, the Prophet's brother?

You're the only person who can answer that question (it's a mystery to me).

: Among the Saints in whose company I matured, humor directed at the Smith family

was not taken as bigotry -- and descendants of Joseph regularly joined in that

humorous dialog (as Joseph himself was known to have done during his lifetime).

Your sweeping generalization doesn't serve you well. There is, obviously, a place for humor. An event described as "miraculous" and permeated with the Holy Spirit is not that place.

: Perhaps the Mormons have gotten so far away from the original Smith family

dinner table conversations at Nauvoo, that they can only picture Bro. Joseph

as "mingling with gods," and preparing to "judge the quick and the dead."

Perhaps you have a proclivity for rank speculation.

: I might relate the Brigham nose-growing tale to any group of Reorganized LDS,

and expect a few winks and nods. Evidently the Mormons have so mythologized

this non-event, as to make it a test of faith, as to who has the abiding

presence of the Holy Spirit and who does not -- who is worthy of the CK

and who is not.

The use of "Evidently" (second sentence) requires, ah, evidence. You have none to offer except your opinion, which I find less than persuasive.

: I pity your lack of perspective here.

UD

I didn't know you cared that much, but, gee, thanks.

[Uncle Dale]

And you have evidence that [those] "sorts of tales" were told

about Brigham Young's "transformation" into Joseph Smith--right?

...

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

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

[LifeOnaPlate]

Mother Lucy Mack Smith, on the other hand, had no reason to go west. Neither did

her daughter-in-law, Emma -- nor Lucy's own daughters, nor their husbands. If these

Saints did not see Brigham so transformed, perhaps it was because God was happy

in their remaining in Illinois and not following Brigham Young.

Way to hijack Lucy Mack Smith. I see you still haven't read the article Scott Lloyd provided.

[Uncle Dale]

Way to hijack Lucy Mack Smith. I see you still haven't read the article Scott Lloyd provided.

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

[Uncle Dale]

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

...

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

UD

.

[Zakuska]

-- and not for us trespassers on the soil of Deseret.

UD

Hey... didn't Moses have the Elders mark off the "Borders" to Mt Sinai so the uinclean would not tread there?

[Uncle Dale]

Hey... didn't Moses have the Elders mark off the "Borders" to Mt Sinai so the uinclean would not tread there?

Would you mind running that by me one more time, friend?

My eyes seem to be filled with stuff -- and my ears so waxed up

that I can't hear right. And -- oh my gosh! I got crap all over my hands...

Uincle-an Dale

[Scott Lloyd]

Now why would that be?

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.

That's not how I've heard Mormons tell the story. The fact that some people experienced it and others didnt follows the pattern of spiritual experiences as I understand it. Spiritual manifestations tend to be selective according to the need of the individual and other possible factors, including worthiness.

That much I can agree to -- that some people believed they heard a change in his voice.

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

But to go so far as Orson Hyde did, and imply that a failure to bear witness to the

supposed miracle was an indication of something like damnation, is a bit too far for me.

I would agree with you on that point.

Like I said, a couple of my MacIntire forebearers were there. They were proud to have

been in Nauvoo that day, and to have sustained Young -- but there is absolutely no

family tradition of those people having witnessed a miracle. There is no evidence that

the congregation gathered that day in Nauvoo immediately went to witnessing any such

miracle. No such miracle appears recorded in the Saints' newspapers nor in the Gentile

newspapers.

Again, these points were discussed in the other thread to which I gave a link. And in the Jorgensen article/book chapter to which there has been a link given. Have explored these yet? Or are you of the conviction that when Van Wagoner speaks, the thinking has been done?

Were such a manifestation a topic of public discussion, we can be certain that the Warsaw

paper and other papers would have picked up story and have had something to say about it.

They did not. It was not a topic of public conversation. It was not a matter of LDS

testimony-bearing at that time, or at the time Brigham was elevated to the Presidency at

the Kanesville Log Tabernacle. We can be certain that such things would have been discussed

then, because there was a disagreement over that change, and many Saints refused to sustain

Brigham. That is why we had Cutlerites and Thompsonites and Strangites and Rigdonites.

Why do we have to be so certain that these things would have been discussed on those occasions? Or if they had, that there would be a record of such discussion?

If Rigdon did witness such a miracle, and then denied Brigham was the man ordained by

Joseph Smith's hands to be his successor (as Rigdon repeatedly pointed out in the D&C),

then Rigdon was denying God openly. Rigdon, a man second only to Smith in God's trust.

Rigdon, whom God had set over Smith, to watch for any transgression, in December 1830.

Rigdon, who had met Jesus Christ, face-to-face, and whom the D&C identifies as his

Divinely-appointed "spokesman."

It has been shown again and again, in the scriptures and Church history, that being witness to a divine manifestation is no guarantee that one will remain faithful.

For Rigdon to turn into Korihor, and openly and knowingly deny God, when he himself was chosen

by God to "prepare the way for Joseph Smith -- it is simply unbelievable.

Se above.

More likely, your view of Rigdon as simply not witnessing what others felt they did.

At least that explanation makes some sense.

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.

But why attach the witness of the Holy Ghost to the phenomenon?

Why not?

Where in scripture are we told of such a thing? Where is Brigham's transfiguration prophesied?

Why are those things pre-requisite?

Where does

Brigham himself bear witness that the Holy Ghost caused such a transformation?

Brigham himself might not have been aware of it at the time. Why is it necessary that he would be.

Because

he sat on the podium, behind Orson Hyde, and silently allowed Orson to speak such things?

Why should Brigham deny that reality of a spiritual experience encountered by at least 121 people?

None of this speaks to the hearts of non-LDS. It will not serve as a conversion tool,

nor as a proof of Mormonism. It can only serve as faith-promoting stuff among the LDS

and the FLDS. If that is what it is meant for, then fine.

I don't think it is intended as a "conversion tool." I've never heard it presented as such. I believe, rather, it was a divine means of reassuring some of the saints present on that occasion of something they might not have understood fully: that the priesthood keys were in the hands of the Quorum of the Twelve after the death of the Prophet.

If it is meant to tell the rest of us that we do not have the abiding presence and

gift of the Holy Ghost, it fails completely.

Straw man alert.

By the way, do you intend to read the Jorgensen article and/or the previous thread? Or will you go on propounding the nebulous "scholarly consensus" which, more and more, is sounding to me like "my mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts."

[Scott Lloyd]

So, who am I bigoted against?

Richard Van Wagoner or Reid L. Harper?

I find their answers to these questions to be fully credible.

Not them. But apparently, anyone who contradicts them -- such as Lynn Jorgensen -- and what you in a rather elitist tone have designated as the "scholarly consensus."

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Mind made up -- don't confuse him with facts. Or with eye-witness testimony.

When this piece of legendary lore makes it into a contemporary

conference talk, I'll listen more carefully.

I'll see if I can find such a conference talk. Meanwhile, is the LDS Sunday School curriculum good enough for you? The following is from the book Our Heritage, a concise history of the Church used in the Sunday School gospel doctrine course on the Doctrine and Covenants and Church history.

Succession in the Presidency

When the Prophet Joseph and Hyrum Smith were murdered in Carthage Jail, many of the Quorum of the Twelve and other Church leaders were serving missions and were absent from Nauvoo. Several days passed before these men learned of the deaths. When Brigham Young heard the news, he knew that the keys of priesthood leadership were still with the Church, for these keys had been given to the Quorum of the Twelve. However, not all Church members understood who would replace Joseph Smith as the Lord