False Prophet?

[Glenn101]

I find this less than convincing. We're not really supposed to communicate with the dead. The devil could easily appear as Brigham. Actually, it gives me the creeps.

Who says that we are to communicate with the dead. There are many accounts of spirits of the dead appearing to someone for a specific purpose. I don't know that the devil could easily appear as Brigham Young, but even so, Lorenzo Snow knew Brigham personally and had the keys whereby he could discern evil spirits from messengers from God.

Glenn

[Calm]

We know this is not true because many years later (early 20th century) Joseph and Hyrum were exhumed and their bodies placed in a new grave. Therefore Joseph was not resurrected and did not appear to Pres. Taylor in his body.

Due to the reuse of the elements in the body though decomposition back into soil, it would be impossible for everyone who has ever lived to be resurrected with the identical elements in their bodies...also are we talking about the elements that a person possesses when they die? If so, does that mean if they are missing an appendix, an arm or leg or one of their kidneys, that is not part of their resurrected bodies?

[Questing Beast]

@calmoriah: You forget, or don't know, about JS's personal view of the resurrection. He said he wanted to be able to see his father as they arose from the grave and be able to say, "My Father!" And each family member likewise would stand above where they had lain in death and greet each other with joyful tears and fall upon each other's necks and weep for joy at the reunion of the physical resurrection. This sentiment was shared by, as far as evidence can show, all the Saints. So when Taylor asserted that he had seen JS as a resurrected person, it was understood that his body would no longer inhabit the grave. To explain the dichotomy of an occupied grave and yet a resurrected JS, requires twisting in the grip of false logic....

Edited March 17, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Calm]

@calmoriah: You forget, or don't know, about JS's personal view of the resurrection.

I am not forgetting it at all and it does not require any twisting of false logic to say that he and others who hold this view are wrong. It is quite possible that JS believed this along with the rest of the Saints and the rest of the world...it does not mean it is the true state of things.

Where would one whose body had been burned and the ashes scattered appear at resurrection? Or someone whose dead body had been eaten by animals, whose bones had been scattered across a wide range that then decomposed and were incorporated into the the plant life in the area?

Edited March 17, 2013 by calmoriah

[Questing Beast]

Precisely. JS et al. Christians of the 19th century held emotional, inconsistent expectations. That is why my point is always directed at what JS, "prophets", taught as "gospel". How did the Saints determine what was "gospel" and what was opinion?...

Edited March 17, 2013 by Questing Beast

[CASteinman]

The reason for my OP was that I have come to the belief that although we have a president of the church, we do not always have a prophet.

You can only come to this belief by a misunderstanding of what the calling of a prophet is.

[Alan]

Just curious, aside from the "Eloheim is Adam", what other "falsehoods" did he teach -- especially those which are believed "even to this day". I think you are making a rather silly statement, so let's see what you got.

There are people, even on this board, who defend the Adam-God theory. There are people who continue to practice polygamy because BY taught it was essential to exaltation. There are people who still think it was ok not to ordain blacks prior to 1978, even though Joseph Smith did it. The State of Utah only recently changed it's law on capital punishment, removing the right to elect for a firing squad in order for a convicted murderer to have their blood spilled, which has it's basis in the blood atonement doctrine.

I think that's enough for now.

I'm not arguing that BY was a false prophet, I'm suggesting he was a non prophet. He occupied the throne, but didn't wear the crown.

[pogi]

The reason for my OP was that I have come to the belief that although we have a president of the church, we do not always have a prophet. What I mean by this is that we have a man occupying the position of President and who therefore has the potential to be used by the Lord as a prophet, but that in reality that is hardly ever done.

I would not say that we do not always have a prophet. We sustain 15 of them twice a year. I would agree however that a prophet is not always acting in that role. Joseph Smith distinguished the role of a prophet from a seer, revelator, or translator. What is it that you think the prophets are not doing today that Joseph Smith did as a prophet? Perhaps what you are considering to be the role of a prophet really falls under the role of a seer, revelatory, or translator - which I agree, we don't see as much of anymore.

[MormonMason]

This is very easy to answer. Brigham was not arguing that he should lead the church or be it's president. He was arguing that the Twelve should lead the church on the basis that the First Presidency had dissolved and church leadership therefore devolved to the next Quorum in authority.

It is logical, considering that Joseph Smith had passed all the keys to the Twelve prior to his death. But, evidence also suggests that Joseph Smith was trying to cover all bases in the event of his death. He did not know the precise time but he knew his death was near at hand.

[Kevin Christensen]

This is very easy to answer. Brigham was not arguing that he should lead the church or be it's president. He was arguing that the Twelve should lead the church on the basis that the First Presidency had dissolved and church leadership therefore devolved to the next Quorum in authority.

Way too easy, and you are forgetting that there were other people about who were in actual fact arguing with Brigham about who should lead the church. My point was not about Brigham's arguments in favor of the 12 but of any rival's arguments against Brigham, including Joseph Smith, who could have quite easily dismissed Brigham Young from the 12 had their been early evidence of misbehavior or prophetic condemnation. What is lacking is contemporary evidence of what people claimed was common knowledge forty years before, common knowledge that not only could have been, but would have been, employed by any opposing side in the disputes about succession. Rigdon, Whitmer, Cowdery, Strang, Lyman White,.. whomever. Several historians write about the succession crisis as a crisis. If thousands heard in 1843, any number could have employed the argument far earlier than 1881. The overall thrust of LDS scholarship since Brodie has been to go back to the first hand-contemporary eye-witness accounts as the best, most reliable place to start. That is the whole point of the Joseph Smith papers, for instance.

The most reliable, most effective, and as it happens, fatally flawed mode of discerning true prophets is to simply list a few things that they have done or said that a person personally disagree with or disapprove of. The fatal flaw in this mode is that it presumes that the ways of the one making the argument are God's ways, that God would never permit a prophet to do or say anything of which the disapprover disapproves. One practical check on the human tendency to make arbitrary subjective judgements decisive is to apply Biblical keys, which are not arbitrary subjective criteria. One thing that the Bible demonstrates rather thoroughly is that Biblical prophets quite frequently do and say things that clash with contemporary value systems. Biblical prophets can be seen saying and doing things of which God and or other prophets seems to disapprove or disagree with. Perfect consistency is not one of the keys for discerning true and false prophets. The prophets do not behave like God's sock puppets, but like people who are, on various issues, inspired, and on other issues, do their best according to their lights. Having received inspiration from God is an important input, but not the only one. They are not boxes with only one input (God's word) and one output, (God's word), but rather, are human beings who have all sorts of inputs from culture, biography, books, conversations, and, on occasion, various forms of revelation. Alma refers to divine revelation, and personal study, the voice of an angel, and his own personal opinion. The existence of one kind of input and output does NOT exclude the presence or value of the other. One thing that the 28 Biblical Keys that I found (see the Fairwiki article I linked) demonstrate is that there is a complex and useful set of criteria that do not consist of a list of things that a modern person might disapprove of, but which do seem very relevant to the question of how a person might go about recognizing a prophet if they saw one.

Asking whether Brigham Young ever demonstrated evidence of divine inspiration is a very different thing than asking whether Brigham Young ever said anything that might offend modern sensibilities. It requires more work, since it involves a broadly based look over the whole of his life and achievement, rather than just looking to make a man an offender for a word. What I got from my readings of Arrington, Eugene England, Nibley, the Priesthood manual, and a range of essays, and a number of discourses, is that there is far far more to Brigham Young's thought than racism, Adam God, and Blood atonement. Indeed, those topics strike me as the least inspired, and least relevant, and the last places I would go to find evidence of his inspiration.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited March 18, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[CASteinman]

Perhaps what you are considering to be the role of a prophet really falls under the role of a seer, revelatory, or translator - which I agree, we don't see as much of anymore.

I think you have precisely described it --- the notion of "seer" has not been made evident to us.

Having said that, whether it is legend or truth, I am not sure, but I understand that after President Kimball was installed as the President of the Church -- as I recall it being told to me by someone who was in a position to know -- that after about a month or so, he was praying and seeking guidance and upon much fasting and prayer received a revelation that was actually written down and recorded and is held by the Church. As I am told, the revelation began with the words: "Hear the voice of the Lord: Lengthen Your Stride".

It is possible that there are things happening of which we are not entirely aware.

[Alan]

Way too easy, and you are forgetting that there were other people about who were in actual fact arguing with Brigham about who should lead the church. My point was not about Brigham's arguments in favor of the 12 but of any rival's arguments against Brigham, including Joseph Smith, who could have quite easily dismissed Brigham Young from the 12 had their been early evidence of misbehavior or prophetic condemnation. What is lacking is contemporary evidence of what people claimed was common knowledge forty years before, common knowledge that not only could have been, but would have been, employed by any opposing side in the disputes about succession. Rigdon, Whitmer, Cowdery, Strang, Lyman White,.. whomever. Several historians write about the succession crisis as a crisis. If thousands heard in 1843, any number could have employed the argument far earlier than 1881.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

You make some good points.

Although just an interested amateur, I do have quite a lot of knowledge regarding the 1844 succession crisis. It has been a pet subject of mine for a long time and I have read everything I can lay my hands on concerning the matter. Not just LDS research either.

In the church we are "taught" that a large majority of the saints went west with Brigham. This is not entirely accurate. It was probably a majority, but only just. A large number followed James Strang, who was in fact, a major rival to Brigham and succeeded in attracting quite a following - and capturing the church name (BY changed the name by adding the hyphen, in order to differentiate the church from Strang's). He was even able to entice members of the Twelve. It also has to be remembered that a lot of saints stayed put. They didn't go anywhere. They didn't go west, nor did they go after Strang. Admittedly, the majority of these were not located in Nauvoo at the time of the martyrdom, but some were. Whole branches of the church just stayed where they were and functioned as normal.

We also need to keep in mind that many saints followed the Twelve rather than Brigham, on the understanding that this was a temporary measure until JSIII came of age. There is no doubt this was certainly the expectation of a great many of the saints, including members of the Twelve. It is now accepted by most reliable scholars that Joseph did designate his eldest son to succeed him. The evidence is quite conclusive. Therefore Brigham was not seen, initially at least, as the president or even leader of the church. He was seen as the president of the Twelve, and the Twelve were charged with leading the church.

It should perhaps, also be noted that Brigham's reorganisation of the first presidency was not conducted according to church law and could, and was, considered by some to be out of order.

[Tacenda]

You make some good points.

Although just an interested amateur, I do have quite a lot of knowledge regarding the 1844 succession crisis. It has been a pet subject of mine for a long time and I have read everything I can lay my hands on concerning the matter. Not just LDS research either.

In the church we are "taught" that a large majority of the saints went west with Brigham. This is not entirely accurate. It was probably a majority, but only just. A large number followed James Strang, who was in fact, a major rival to Brigham and succeeded in attracting quite a following - and capturing the church name (BY changed the name by adding the hyphen, in order to differentiate the church from Strang's). He was even able to entice members of the Twelve. It also has to be remembered that a lot of saints stayed put. They didn't go anywhere. They didn't go west, nor did they go after Strang. Admittedly, the majority of these were not located in Nauvoo at the time of the martyrdom, but some were. Whole branches of the church just stayed where they were and functioned as normal.

We also need to keep in mind that many saints followed the Twelve rather than Brigham, on the understanding that this was a temporary measure until JSIII came of age. There is no doubt this was certainly the expectation of a great many of the saints, including members of the Twelve. It is now accepted by most reliable scholars that Joseph did designate his eldest son to succeed him. The evidence is quite conclusive. Therefore Brigham was not seen, initially at least, as the president or even leader of the church. He was seen as the president of the Twelve, and the Twelve were charged with leading the church.

It should perhaps, also be noted that Brigham's reorganisation of the first presidency was not conducted according to church law and could, and was, considered by some to be out of order.

I've read somewhere that the story of BY looking/speaking like JS, while speaking to the saints during the succession of presidency, was a myth? What do you think?

[Kevin Christensen]

I've read somewhere that the story of BY looking/speaking like JS, while speaking to the saints during the succession of presidency, was a myth? What do you think?

You can find a link here to the BYU Studies collection of 121 reports of what happened.

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/issue/view/607

The essay was later published in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations.

Kevin Barney's review talks about some of the social history regarding LDS interpretations of the event..

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=2&id=625

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

For a more positive source towards Brigham Young as prophet, and not just president, I'm very fond of this:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/097-86.pdf

I rather think that this experience is behind Brigham's other detailed accounts about the Spirit World. (See, for starters the chapter in the Brigham Young priesthood manual.) Brigham went way beyond anything recorded in the scriptures in his teaching on this topic, and in this case, what he taught has been supported by other reports, as noted in Raymond Moody, The Light Beyond, who quotes Young without naming him as other than a Mormon leader.. Jedediah Grant's account, as reported in conference by Heber C. Kimball, included Grant's exclaimation that "Why, it was just as Brigham has told us many times."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Alan]

I've read somewhere that the story of BY looking/speaking like JS, while speaking to the saints during the succession of presidency, was a myth? What do you think?

There is a quote from Brigham himself (can't lay my hand on it right now) where he seems to deny such reports. It is interesting that no one present at the meeting recorded such a manifestation at the time. Journal entries made at the time from those who many years later swore they had witnessed the transfigurement (is that a word?) are entirely silent on the issue.

Like Brigham, I am personally convinced it did not happen.

[Kevin Christensen]

Brigham Young's diary entry for August 8, 1844 says:

I arose and spoke to the people, my hart was swollen with compassion toards them and by the power of the Holy Gost even the spirit of the Prophets I was enabled to comfort the harts of the Saints.

Jorgenson observes that the comment about "the spirit of the Prophets" and the effect of the sermon on the Saints that day is consistent with the later accounts.

While Brigham Young in August 15, 1844, wrote "Let no man presume for a moment that his [Joseph's] place will be filled by another; for remember, he stands in his own place and always will," he also later stated "The spirit of Joseph which fell upon me is ready to fall upon somebody else when I am removed." (See Lynne Watkins Jorgensen, "The Mantle of the Prophet Joseph Smith Passes to Brother Brigham: One Hundred Twenty-one Testimonies of a Collective Spiritual Witness" in John W. Welch, ed., Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestation, " p 381. It happens to that while Van Wagoner demands that the "transfiguration stories must appear on the day... or shortly thereafter" to count, he doesn't provide any evidence that nothing happened, but rather admits that "the sentiment which had so recently changed in favor of the twelve became palpable." (Jorgenson, 375).

Jorgenson discusses the environment in Nauvoo at the time, as well as the two different women who independently recorded their reports in 1851. This is, I notice over 30 years sooner than the affidavits about Joseph supposedly, and publically callling out Brigham on irresponsible behavior and predicting he'd lead the church to hell. It is also, I notice less of a gap than exists between the 1832 First VIsion account and the Vision, and much less than that between the written Gospels and the events they report. He collects 121 accounts in all. It's very much worth reading, if only to get a realistic perspective on the nature of the evidence.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited March 19, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[CASteinman]

Val...have you ever been to the lookout at Adam-ondi-Ahman? If I was a millionaire I would build a house there and put a picture window to see this vast valley.

There are some land transactions taking place around there.

[Robert F. Smith]

it was understood that his body would no longer inhabit the grave. To explain the dichotomy of an occupied grave and yet a resurrected JS, requires twisting in the grip of false logic....

No, it requires knowledge of the laws of biology, physics, and chemistry. The body laid in the grave consists of common elements arranged in molecules which once served a living simulacrum. At death the deterioration begins immediately, i.e, the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) takes over, and the materials of which that body consisted break down into their constituent elements or take on new molecular structures as plants, bacteria, or worms use them for food or they bond in new ways. Even during life, the constituent elements of our bodies change as cells die and are replaced. This is true for every cell of our bodies. We are not continuously the same set of molecules over time and it is ridiculous to think that we must be identified with some elements in a grave.

We will truly arise in the first resurrection glorified, but the physical bodies so glorified can be constructed of elements available anywhere on Earth. What is important is that they be in our personal similitude when alive and healthy, and united with our spirits. Only then can we fully appreciate who we have become. Do I understand that. No, but there is the vaguest suggestion that it is essential to our functioning like our Father in Heaven, worlds without end.

[Robert F. Smith]

Brigham Young's diary entry for August 8, 1844 says:

Jorgenson observes that the comment about "the spirit of the Prophets" and the effect of the sermon on the Saints that day is consistent with the later accounts.

While Brigham Young in August 15, 1844, wrote "Let no man presume for a moment that his [Joseph's] place will be filled by another; for remember, he stands in his own place and always will," he also later stated "The spirit of Joseph which fell upon me is ready to fall upon somebody else when I am removed." (See Lynee Watkins Jorgensen, "The Mantle of the Prophet Joseph Smith Passes to Brother Brigham: One Hundred Twenty-one Testimonies of a Collective Spiritual Witness" in John W. Welch, ed., Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestation, " p 381. It happens to that while Van Wagoner demands that the "transfiguration stories must appear on the day... or shortly thereafter" to count, he doesn't provide any evidence that nothing happened, but rather admits that "the sentiment which had so recently changed in favor of the twelve became palpable." (Jorgenson, 375).

Jorgenson discusses the environment in Nauvoo at the time, as well as the two different woment who independently recorded their reoports in 1851. This is, I notice over 30 years sooner than the affidavits about Joseph supposedly, and publically callling out Brigham on irresponsible behavior and predicting he'd lead the church to hell. It is also, I notice less of a gap than exists between the 1832 First VIsion account and the Vision, and much less than that between the written Gospels and the events they report. He collects 121 accounts in all. It's very much worth reading, if only to get a realistic perspective on the nature of the evidence.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

As usual, Kevin, you are right on the money.

One testimony not in Welch's compilation is that of a female ancestor of mine who was 4 years old at that crucial time in Nauvoo. She was there with the crowd of Saints as Brother Brigham began to speak. She was being carried on the shoulders of her uncle, with other relatives nearby. As soon as Brigham began to speak. she said: "Look, Mommy, it's Brother Joseph!"

Of course, that must have been made up later by those lying Mormons . . . .

[Questing Beast]

No, it requires knowledge of the laws of biology, physics, and chemistry. The body laid in the grave consists of common elements arranged in molecules which once served a living simulacrum. At death the deterioration begins immediately, i.e, the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) takes over, and the materials of which that body consisted break down into their constituent elements or take on new molecular structures as plants, bacteria, or worms use them for food or they bond in new ways. Even during life, the constituent elements of our bodies change as cells die and are replaced. This is true for every cell of our bodies. We are not continuously the same set of molecules over time and it is ridiculous to think that we must be identified with some elements in a grave.

We will truly arise in the first resurrection glorified, but the physical bodies so glorified can be constructed of elements available anywhere on Earth. What is important is that they be in our personal similitude when alive and healthy, and united with our spirits. Only then can we fully appreciate who we have become. Do I understand that. No, but there is the vaguest suggestion that it is essential to our functioning like our Father in Heaven, worlds without end.

You need to teach all of this thermodynamics stuff to JS's God then, because JS did not anticipate any such picture of the resurrection....

[CASteinman]

You need to teach all of this thermodynamics stuff to JS's God then, because JS did not anticipate any such picture of the resurrection....

You seem to be conflating three different individuals in this comment:

1. Joseph Smith.

2. Joseph Smith's God.

3. Your image of Joseph Smith.

[Questing Beast]

You seem to be conflating three different individuals in this comment:

1. Joseph Smith.

2. Joseph Smith's God.

3. Your image of Joseph Smith.

Appearances can be misleading.

Joseph Smith is know by his own words, as given from memory by those who heard him speak, and by his revelations/scripture.

Joseph Smith's God was God as JS understood him. That is one man's understanding. We have over seven billion souls on the planet at this moment, each with his/her own understanding of God. No two will be exactly alike.

My image of Joseph Smith is necessarily different from yours and everyone else's who has knowledge of his life....

[CASteinman]

Joseph Smith's God was God as JS understood him.

According to your imagination of things. Since you do not know Joseph Smith nor Joseph Smith's God, this is shear, unsupported speculation on your part.

[Questing Beast]

According to your imagination of things. Since you do not know Joseph Smith nor Joseph Smith's God, this is shear, unsupported speculation on your part.

ironically, the assertion applies to anything you can say about JS as well, since you accuse me of "unsupported speculation" without cause....