Let's just say the Angel with a drawn sword story is true

[cdowis]

del

Edited March 12, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

On 3/5/2016 at 0:42 AM, VideoGameJunkie said:

 Isn't that violating Joseph Smith's agency? Isn't it not giving him a choice to turn it down like he wanted to the previous 2 times the angel showed up? If an angel threatened me with destruction if I didn't do something, I would feel I wouldn't have a choice in the matter.

Joseph Smith had a special covenant relationship with God, experienced miracles, visions, personal visitations, receiving the keys of the priesthood.  Basically he no longer has a choice of a buffet dinner of choices -->> he must accept what is placed before him or suffer severe consequences.

In my own case, my life choices have become very limited because of the covenants I have made with the Lord and the experiences that He has given me.  Perhaps some day, you will understand what I mean.

Edited March 12, 2016 by cdowis

[ALarson]

59 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Before I read any more than I have already on the subject, please make one thing clear.

Are there any claims I made that are disputed by any of the accounts?

I.e., Are there any accounts recorded contemporaneously with the event that mention anything miraculous? 

Interesting topic (and the answer to your question is "no").  I have to admit that I haven't studied much about this particular supposed event in church history.  I did read some from Scott's links and they are not too convincing.

Here's something I found while searching that is pretty thorough and well documented and sourced:

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0102_171.pdf

Some quotes from it:

Quote

Retrospective retellings of a "transfiguration," in a variety of forms, can be found in dozens of sources, yet no two seem to agree on precise details.

Quote

 

The earliest detailed accounts of a purported transfiguration did not begin to surface until long after the Saints were settled in the Great Basin. The fact that no account was included in "Joseph Smith's History," completed in August 1856, or in The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, completed before his 1857 death, suggests that the myth was not fully developed by this period. The first public reference to a "transfiguration" may have been a 19 July 1857 statement by Albert Carrington before a huge gathering of Saints that "he could not tell [Brigham Young] from Joseph Smith" when Young "was speaking in the stand in Nauvoo" during the 8 August 1844 convocation. "Somebody came along and passed a finger over his eyes/' Brigham Young declared, "and he could not see any one but Joseph speaking, until I got through addressing the congregation."60 Yet Young himself, while addressing the assembled Saints on the afternoon of 8 August 1844, confirmed that no chimerical experience had occurred that day. " 

 

Quote

Apostles Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, and Wilford Woodruff, all of whom made 8 August 1844 entries in their diaries, make no reference to an epiphany.

Quote

The most damning evidence to claims of a transfiguration is the fact that on 8 August 1844 the congregation sustained a committee rather than an individual to run the church. They confirmed the collective Quorum of the Twelve as their presiding authority. Furthermore, Young's ascent to the presidency was no ceremonial stroll, as could be expected if something as phenomenal as a transfiguration occurred. His emergence as the dominant, uncontestable Mormon guiding force was not complete until late 1847, after the pioneer trek west.

I don't know, but the evidence is sketchy.

I'd imagine if this story was not faith promoting, those here fighting for believing it is factual would be the ones speaking out the loudest with doubt and skepticism

I'll keep reading more from the links Scott gave too.

Edited March 12, 2016 by ALarson

[consiglieri]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There are reasonable considerations and possibilities as to why accounts weren't recorded until later. Many people don't record significant events in their lives until long after the fact.

In other words, lack of contemporaneously recorded accounts is not as definitive as you seem to claim in your dismissal of the accounts that do exist.

If you refuse to read the Jorgensen article ("mind made up; don't confuse me with facts") just own up to that refusal now, but stop trying to convince us you know more than you actually do.

 

 

You have it backward, my friend.

You have just admitted I already know the facts.

Your objection is that I do not want to engage in your spin.

Your argument amounts to one of believing the spin in spite of the facts.

Not following the facts to the most reasonable conclusion.

[PeterPear]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

You have it backward, my friend.

You have just admitted I already know the facts.

Your objection is that I do not want to engage in your spin.

Your argument amounts to one of believing the spin in spite of the facts.

Not following the facts to the most reasonable conclusion.

-----

Edited March 12, 2016 by PeterPear

[VideoGameJunkie]

Only 6 or 7 of the Prophets the church has had were only sealed to one wife. All the rest have been sealed to multiple women.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Quote

 

George Albert Smith, David O'Mckay, Spencer W Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B Hinckley, and Thomas S Monson are the only prophets we've had that are only sealed to 1 woman. The rest of the prophets in church history are sealed to at least 2 women for eternity. Only 6 prophets in church history are eternally monogamous.

 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

George Albert Smith, David O'Mckay, Spencer W Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B Hinckley, and Thomas S Monson are the only prophets we've had that are only sealed to 1 woman. The rest of the prophets in church history are sealed to at least 2 women for eternity. Only 6 prophets in church history are eternally monogamous.

 

Which is why whether polygamy is ever restored or not in mortality, as soon as mortality ends the society of the saints will include those who are polygamous.  And most of them will be the noble and great ones.

[VideoGameJunkie]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Which is why whether polygamy is ever restored or not in mortality, as soon as mortality ends the society of the saints will include those who are polygamous.  And most of them will be the noble and great ones.

That's true if most of the prophets are multiple sealed. The apostle who chose not to remarry even though people were telling him to was Richard G Scott, but that was his decision to make.

[Scott Lloyd]

On March 11, 2016 at 10:09 AM, consiglieri said:

You have it backward, my friend.

You have just admitted I already know the facts.

Your objection is that I do not want to engage in your spin.

Your argument amounts to one of believing the spin in spite of the facts.

Not following the facts to the most reasonable conclusion.

So I take it you don't intend to engage the sources or the reasoning. then. Alas, I hardly find that surprising. I repeat: I don't think you are as knowledgeable or as thoughtful on this matter as you let on.

In dismissing eyewitness accounts of Brigham Young appearing to take on the voice and visage of Joseph Smith, critics typically labor under two or three assumptions, all of which are flawed:

Faulty assumption #1: Everyone present on the occasion would have experienced it.

Faulty assumption #2: Everyone had to have experienced it at precisely the same moment in time, like some sort of mass hypnosis or legerdemain; otherwise, their accounts cannot be accepted as credible.

Faulty assumption #3: Everyone who has a spiritual experience can necessarily be expected to make a written account of it right away.

There are a number of principles pertaining to spiritual experiences. When these are established and understood, the individual objections and criticisms are pretty much neutralized pertaining to the accounts regarding Brigham Young looking and sounding like Joseph Smith.

Principle: Spiritual experiences are gifts from God that are bestowed selectively as He sees fit to do so according to the need and readiness of the one receiving the gift. Thus, it is not at all problematic that not everyone present that day in the grove in Nauvoo experienced what many witnessed. In one of the past threads, someone made a point about whether Brigham Young said anything about it at the time. It is quite possible that President Young was not even aware it was happening.

Historians agree that it is almost certain Joseph Smith was not alone in the bedroom of the Smith home at the time he received the visitation from Moroni. The dwelling was too small. There surely would have been some of his siblings in the room with him. They were not disturbed in their sleep by the angelic light from the visitation of the angel or from the lengthy and repeated conversations between Joseph and the angel. Why? Because spiritual manifestations are, by nature, selective.

Principle: Spiritual manifestations need not be experienced at the same time by more than one individual in order for the experience to be genuine. Thus, it would not be problematic at all for one or more individuals, even if not present on the occasion in question, to have experienced it on a separate occasion.

When the Three Witnesses were shown the Book of Mormon plates by an angel, Martin Harris did not experience that spiritual manifestation at the same time as the others. He withdrew, humbled himself in prayer, and then experienced what the other men had already witnessed.

Principle: Many, perhaps even most, people do not record spiritual experiences right away; some never do it at all.

There are many significant events in my life that I’ve never left any narrative record of: my mission call, my marriage, the individual births of our children, priesthood ordinations and significant callings in the Church, and on and on. Some things I have recorded I did it long after the event transpired.

Many people just aren’t journal or diary keepers. Even if they are, it is often not a high priority to make a daily record; life gets in the way. In the case of the saints in Nauvoo, they were weathering a leadership succession crisis in the Church. They were on constant alert for mob activity and were engaged in fending off mobs. And they were preparing as best they could to leave homes and property for an imminent departure to the West, where the Church would move en masse and re-establish its headquarters in the Rocky Mountains. It's logical to conclude that making a journal or diary entry was just not very high on their individual to-do lists at the time.

In a footnote to the BYU Studies article I have linked to, Lynne Jorgensen told of teaching a genealogy course in which she asked students how many had experienced supernatural occurrences in connection with their genealogical research; i.e. a visitation from or dream about a deceased relative, etc. As I recall, she said nearly every hand went up. Then she asked how many had recorded a narrative of the experience; most of the hands went down. When asked why, the students responded that they deemed the experience too sacred and personal to share.

Thus, it is scarcely problematic that the people in the grove didn’t make an immediate record of what they had experienced and only did so some years later, after they learned that others had experienced something similar.

The bottom line: You and ALarson and others can continue to choose to dismiss the numerous accounts; you each are entitled to your unbelief. But the reason for that unbelief is no more definitive and compelling (I would say far less so) than is my reasoning for choosing to believe that these people did have spiritual experiences that were remarkably similar in nature as they recorded them later, beginning within a few years of the actual event.

 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I take it you don't intend to engage the sources or the reasoning. then. Alas, I hardly find that surprising. I repeat: I don't think you are as knowledgeable or as thoughtful on this matter as you let on.

In dismissing eyewitness accounts of Brigham Young appearing to take on the voice and visage of Joseph Smith, critics typically labor under two or three assumptions, all of which are flawed:

 

 

 

Faulty assumption #1: Everyone present on the occasion would have experienced it.

 

 

 

Faulty assumption #2: Everyone had to have experienced it at precisely the same moment in time, like some sort of mass hypnosis or legerdemain; otherwise, their accounts cannot be accepted as credible.

 

 

 

Faulty assumption #3: Everyone who has a spiritual experience can necessarily be expected to give a written account of it right away.

 

 

 

There are a number of principles pertaining to spiritual experiences. When these are established and understood, the individual objections and criticisms are pretty much neutralized pertaining to the accounts regarding Brigham Young looking and sounding like Joseph Smith.

 

 

 

Principle: Spiritual experiences are gifts from God that are bestowed selectively as He sees fit to do so according to the need and readiness of the one receiving the gift. Thus, it is not at all problematic that not everyone present that day in the grove in Nauvoo experienced what many witnessed. In one of the past threads, someone made a point about whether Brigham Young said anything about it at the time. It is quite possible that President Young was not even aware it was happening.

 

 

 

Historians agree that it is almost certain Joseph Smith was not alone in the bedroom of the Smith home at the time he received the visitation from Moroni. The dwelling was too small. There surely would have been some of his siblings in the room with him. They were not disturbed in their sleep by the angelic light from the visitation of the angel or from the lengthy and repeated conversations between Joseph and the angel. Why? Because spiritual manifestations are, by nature, selective.

 

 

 

Principle: Spiritual manifestations need not be experienced at the same time by more than one individual in order for the experience to be genuine. Thus, it would not be problematic at all for one or more individuals, even if not present on the occasion in question, to have experienced it on a separate occasion.

When the Three Witnesses were shown the Book of Mormon plates by an angel, Martin Harris did not experience that spiritual manifestation at the same time as the others. He withdrew, humbled himself in prayer, and then experienced what the other men had already witnessed.

 

 

 

Principle: Many, perhaps even most, people do not record spiritual experiences right away; some never do it at all.

 

 

 

There are many significant events in my life that I’ve never left any narrative record of: my mission call, my marriage, the individual births of our children, priesthood ordinations and significant callings in the Church, and on and on. Some things I have recorded I did it long after the event transpired.

 

 

 

Many people just aren’t journal or diary keepers. Even if they are, it is often not a high priority to make a daily record; life gets in the way. In the case of the saints in Nauvoo, they were weathering a leadership succession crisis in the Church. They were on constant alert for mob activity and were engaged in fending off mobs. And they were preparing as best they could to leave homes and property for an imminent departure to the West, where the Church would move en masse and re-establish its headquarters in the Rocky Mountains. It's logical to conclude that making a journal or diary entry was just not very high on their individual to-do lists at the time.

 

 

 

 

In a footnote to the BYU Studies article I have linked to, Lynne Jorgensen told of teaching a genealogy course in which she asked students how many had experienced supernatural occurrences in connection with their genealogical research; i.e. a visitation from or dream about a deceased relative, etc. As I recall, she said nearly every hand went up. Then she asked how many had recorded a narrative of the experience; most of the hands went down. When asked why, the students responded that they deemed the experience too sacred and personal to share.

 

 

 

Thus, it is scarcely problematic that the people in the grove didn’t make an immediate record of what they had experienced and only did so some years later, after they learned that others had experienced something similar.

 

The bottom line: You and ALarson and others can continue to choose to dismiss the numerous accounts; you each are entitled to your unbelief. But the reason for that unbelief is no more definitive and compelling (I would say far less so) than is my reasoning for choosing to believe that these people did have spiritual experiences that were remarkably similar in nature as they recorded them later, beginning within a few years of the actual event.

 

 

 

Thanks for the synopsis.

Looking at the evidence in a less strained way, the speech Brigham Young gave was not marked by any spiritual transfigurations and nobody witnessed any.  Certainly we know that nobody wrote it down contemporaneously, which supports that interpretation.

A number of different strains of Mormonism broke off at this point, only one of which went with the Brighamites to Utah.

In retrospect, it became important for the Brighamites to support their version of Mormonism as divinely appointed, and hence superior to the other offshoots.

Due to this need, stories began to circulate that a miraculous manifestation occurred giving God's imprimatur to Brigham Young as his divinely designated successor to Joseph Smith.

These miraculous stories therefore were told in such a way as to have Brigham Young taking on the face and/or voice of Joseph Smith when he addressed the saints in Nauvoo.

(This is key, by the way, as it suggests a creation of this story after Brigham Young had become President of the Church in 1847.  In 1844, Brigham Young was advocating only that the 12 apostles should lead the Church in Joseph Smith's absence.  One notes that having Brigham Young transfigured into Joseph Smith makes less sense in the context of the actual 1844 speech than it does in the post-1847 scene where Brigham Young had become Church President.  This is another indication the transfiguration story was created at a later date.)

These stories that were later conceived and written down became part of the tradition of the Latter-day Saints.

But when the documents are actually looked at, they support the above interpretation.

Your interpretation manifests a desire to believe the transfiguration was real in spite of the evidence.

[cdowis]

FWIW
 It just doesn't sound right.  My instinct suggests that it's just another faith promoting myth.  Now it appears to me to have a basis of truth, in that BY knew Joseph Smith better than anyone, and spoke to the saints with power and in a way that JS himself would have spoken to them.  Let's call it the  charisma and confidence that JS bore now came upon Brigham Young.

Edited March 14, 2016 by cdowis

[ALarson]

38 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Your interpretation manifests a desire to believe the transfiguration was real in spite of the evidence.

I think this is true and I understand why Scott wants to believe it so badly.  

But again, if this was not a faith promoting story and it began being told years after the event and it had not been recorded on the day it occurred (when many leaders made journal entries that very day) and if there were many different versions told years later, Scott would be the first to be pointing at all the inconsistencies and evidence against it being true.  I do understand why he (and maybe others) would want to believe this actually occurred, but serious historians would not put much credence in any story that had evolved years after it supposedly happened and there were actual records from the very day that did not mention it.  This would have been of such importance and such a miracle to behold, that I cannot imagine that at least one member or leader would not have recorded and documented it.

Here's another quote that I think is an important thing to remember regarding this (from the article I linked to above):

When 8 August 1844 is stripped of emotional overlay, there is not a shred of irrefutable contemporary evidence to support the occurrence of a mystical event either in the morning or afternoon gatherings of that day. 

 

Also, if this transfiguration actually occurred, why would so many who were present that day still oppose establishing a First Presidency?

Quote

Considerable opposition to Brigham Young establishing a First Presidency is evident in original, unaltered accounts. Particularly outspoken were Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, and to a lesser degree John Taylor, Parley P. Pratt, George A. Smith, and Amasa Lyman. The number of meetings on the topic is ample proof of contention. Woodruff told Young on 12 October 1847 that he felt it "would require [a] revelation to change the order of that Quorum."81 Six weeks later Woodruff, again objecting to Young's formation of a First Presidency, said that if three were taken out of the Twelve it seemed like "severing the body in 2." Furthermore, if the Quorum of the Twelve surrendered its power "unto [three]/' he added, "I sho[ul]d be totally opposed to it." Pratt's viewpoint was that the "head of the church consists of the Apostleship united together."82 The matter was not resolved until a lengthy, emotion-filled meeting of the quorum on 5 December 1847.

 

Edited March 14, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

FWIW
 It just doesn't sound right.  My instinct suggests that it's just another faith promoting myth.  Now it appears to me to have a basis of truth, in that BY knew Joseph Smith better than anyone, and spoke to the saints with power and in a way that JS himself would have spoken to them.  Let's call it the  charisma and confidence that JS bore now came upon Brigham Young.

I don't see why it really matters historically.
What matters is that there are those who believed that is what they saw.
Still comes down to faith.

[T-Shirt]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

 

(This is key, by the way, as it suggests a creation of this story after Brigham Young had become President of the Church in 1847.  In 1844, Brigham Young was advocating only that the 12 apostles should lead the Church in Joseph Smith's absence.  One notes that having Brigham Young transfigured into Joseph Smith makes less sense in the context of the actual 1844 speech than it does in the post-1847 scene where Brigham Young had become Church President.  This is another indication the transfiguration story was created at a later date.)

This is a bad argument for a couple reasons.  First, the point of the alleged transfiguration was not to confirm Brigham Young as the new President of the Church, (Which, as you rightly stated, Brigham Young was not advocating for) but to show that Brigham Young was correct in stating that the keys of the priesthood resided in the Quorum of the twelve and thus the members would be right in following the Twelve.  Second, there was no need to argue for Brigham Young as the President of the Church after the fact, as, since the death of Joseph Smith, Brigham was the President of the Quorum of the Twelve and was essentially the leader of the Church already.  Among the body of the Church that went west, this was never in dispute.  The question was whether to reorganize the First Presidency or to continue as the Twelve leading the Church.  Brigham Young was recognized as the leader either way.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

First, the point of the alleged transfiguration was not to confirm Brigham Young as the new President of the Church, ... but to show that Brigham Young was correct in stating that the keys of the priesthood resided in the Quorum of the twelve and thus the members would be right in following the Twelve.  

If that's true, it was not very effective: 

On 3/11/2016 at 5:12 PM, ALarson said:

"Apostles Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, and Wilford Woodruff, all of whom made 8 August 1844 entries in their diaries, make no reference to an epiphany."

 

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

"Considerable opposition to Brigham Young establishing a First Presidency is evident in original, unaltered accounts. Particularly outspoken were Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, and to a lesser degree John Taylor, Parley P. Pratt, George A. Smith, and Amasa Lyman. The number of meetings on the topic is ample proof of contention. Woodruff told Young on 12 October 1847 that he felt it "would require [a] revelation to change the order of that Quorum."81 Six weeks later Woodruff, again objecting to Young's formation of a First Presidency, said that if three were taken out of the Twelve it seemed like "severing the body in 2." Furthermore, if the Quorum of the Twelve surrendered its power "unto [three]/' he added, "I sho[ul]d be totally opposed to it." Pratt's viewpoint was that the "head of the church consists of the Apostleship united together."82 The matter was not resolved until a lengthy, emotion-filled meeting of the quorum on 5 December 1847."

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0102_171.pdf

Edited March 14, 2016 by ALarson

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If that's true, it was not very effective: 

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0102_171.pdf

And what about T-Shirt's second point?  It certainly doesn't matter much whether it happened or not in terms of laws of succession.  In the absence of a functioning First Presidency, the leadership of the Church devolves upon the Twelve, whose president and senior member was BY.  See D&C 107:21-24.

 

Quote

 

Of necessity there are presidents, or presiding officers growing out of, or appointed of or from among those who are ordained to the several offices in these two priesthoods.   Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.

The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.   And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.

 

Please recall that this revelation was recorded ca Apr 1835, 9 years previous to JSJr's death and the events under consideration.

Compare the loss of JSJr to assassination to the Master's assassination as it pertains to Church governance:  Available records from near that time are unanimous that nobody was put forward to be the Master's replacement in governance, and that the "twelve traveling councilors [ ] called [ ] the Twelve Apostles," whose number had been reduced to eleven by Judas' suicide, took up the reins of Church governance in earnest, even insofar as replacing Judas to bring their number back to twelve.

Given the legal effect of Section 107 on questions of authority and, by implication, succession, the only purpose to be accomplished by the claimed manifestation [which one of my great grandfathers also attested to, years later in Utah], was persuasive as there had arisen a few claimants [Rigdon, etc] to JSJr's position.  The vote at the meeting was, essentially, to do nothing but permit status quo ante to continue until later revelation/action.  Which revelation/action was taken, as you point out, 3-1/2 years later.

[T-Shirt]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If that's true, it was not very effective: 

"Apostles Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, and Wilford Woodruff, all of whom made 8 August 1844 entries in their diaries, make no reference to an epiphany."

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0102_171.pdf

First off, I don't know if the event happened or not, (although I am of the mind to think that it did) but if it did, it makes no difference as to when it was recorded or by how many.  I am confident that over-zealous members have probably over exaggerated the event to the point where it sounded as if the whole congregation witnessed the event simultaneously.  By the same token, those on the other side who want to believe the event never happened are equally over-zealous and just as wrong.  If there was only a handful who had the experience then it served it's purpose in convincing some, who were not sure what to do, but were faithfully looking for direction.  I wouldn't expect that any of the Twelve, who were already on  the side of Brigham Young, had this experience or even needed it.  I would not expect to find it recorded in their journals.

Quote

"Considerable opposition to Brigham Young establishing a First Presidency is evident in original, unaltered accounts. Particularly outspoken were Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, and to a lesser degree John Taylor, Parley P. Pratt, George A. Smith, and Amasa Lyman. The number of meetings on the topic is ample proof of contention. Woodruff told Young on 12 October 1847 that he felt it "would require [a] revelation to change the order of that Quorum."81 Six weeks later Woodruff, again objecting to Young's formation of a First Presidency, said that if three were taken out of the Twelve it seemed like "severing the body in 2." Furthermore, if the Quorum of the Twelve surrendered its power "unto [three]/' he added, "I sho[ul]d be totally opposed to it." Pratt's viewpoint was that the "head of the church consists of the Apostleship united together."82 The matter was not resolved until a lengthy, emotion-filled meeting of the quorum on 5 December 1847."

This is completely consistent with my point.  There may have been disputes as to whether the First Presidency was to be reorganized, but there was no dispute as to where the Keys to the Kingdom resided or as to who was the leader. Which was the whole point of the conference where Brigham Young and Sidney Rigdon spoke in the first place.  Your argument is irrelevant.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/14/2016 at 8:45 AM, cdowis said:

FWIW
 It just doesn't sound right.  My instinct suggests that it's just another faith promoting myth.  Now it appears to me to have a basis of truth, in that BY knew Joseph Smith better than anyone, and spoke to the saints with power and in a way that JS himself would have spoken to them.  Let's call it the  charisma and confidence that JS bore now came upon Brigham Young.

You are entitled to disbelieve it.

However, your reference to your "instinct" and your characterizing it as "just another faith-promoting myth" strongly suggests to me that you haven't bothered to properly consider the evidence.

Did you read the Lynne Jorgensen article or book chapter that I cited/linked to? Do you realize that she identified 121 separate journal entries or recollections from witnesses? That these came from people living in areas that were widely disparate geographically, so that it is unlikely they could have gotten together to compare notes to fashion a bogus narrative?

Furthermore, your "instinct" is at odds with the official position of the Church, which continues to include this incident in its curriculum, specifically in the book Our Heritage, which is distributed to members of Sunday School gospel doctrine classes in connection with the course on the Doctrine and Covenants and Church history. It's also in the book Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, which was the course of study for Relief Society and Melchizedek Priesthood quorums several years ago and is still available from the Church,  in hard copy, on line, and as part of Gospel Library app.

In addition to considering the evidence,  I have considered the reasons commonly given for disputing the veracity of the reports, and I have found that they are based on faulty assumptions and are neutralized when the nature of spiritual experiences is understood (see my post above). I repeat that my reasons for believing it actually occurred are at least as compelling as your "instinct."

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't see why it really matters historically.
What matters is that there are those who believed that is what they saw.
Still comes down to faith.

It doesn't really matter historically.

However, the fact that it doesn't matter historically doesn't make it any the less true. There is quite a bit in Church history that is not crucial to accepting the truthfulness of the Restoration. However, the fact it is not crucial has no bearing on whether or not it is authentic.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

However, your reference to your "instinct" and your characterizing it as "just another faith-promoting myth" strongly suggests to me that you haven't bothered to properly consider the evidence.

Because those who "properly consider the evidence" will come to the conclusion that the transfiguration of Brigham Young really did occur?

 

A similar story supporting the legitimacy of any other LDS offshoot would be quickly shot down by LDS apologists on the basis of the same evidence.

 

So why the double standard?

 

Hmmm . . . ?

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/14/2016 at 8:36 AM, consiglieri said:

Thanks for the synopsis.

It was not a synopsis. It was my own systematic rebuttal of the common objections to the authenticity of this incident. Again, those objections are neutralized when one understands that they are based on faulty assumptions.

(So you are not off the hook to read and consider the Jorgensen article on the pretext that you think I have given you a "synopsis" of it; I have not.)

Quote

Looking at the evidence in a less strained way, the speech Brigham Young gave was not marked by any spiritual transfigurations and nobody witnessed any. 

You have no basis on which to make this assertion. You are blowing smoke here.

Quote

Certainly we know that nobody wrote it down contemporaneously, which supports that interpretation.

I have already addressed this. There are reasonable possibilities why people would not have taken time to write down a narrative right away. I suggested some.

On the other hand, accounts of the incident began to emerge soon thereafter, the earliest ones being within a few years of the incident. This is made clear in the Jorgensen article.

 

Quote

 

A number of different strains of Mormonism broke off at this point, only one of which went with the Brighamites to Utah.

In retrospect, it became important for the Brighamites to support their version of Mormonism as divinely appointed, and hence superior to the other offshoots.

Due to this need, stories began to circulate that a miraculous manifestation occurred giving God's imprimatur to Brigham Young as his divinely designated successor to Joseph Smith.

These miraculous stories therefore were told in such a way as to have Brigham Young taking on the face and/or voice of Joseph Smith when he addressed the saints in Nauvoo.

 

 

 

 

This does not address the evidence any better than does the understanding that the spiritual experience was granted to people who needed to receive it at a time of confusion in the Church as to leadership succession and that it gave them the spiritual assurance that the authority to lead the Church was resting with the Quorum of the Twelve.

Have you even bothered to read the Jorgensen article/book chapter yet? I'm guessing not. 121 separate attestations in journal entries and reminiscences from people in widely disparate areas geographically. Are you saying they were all lying? As widely separated as they were, how could they have gotten together to hatch such a hoax?

And the earliest reminiscences were recorded not very long after the incident, within a few years, as I recall. Other accounts emerged later, independently of one another.

These are all transcribed in an appendix at the end of Jorgensen's article/book chapter. How about reading and considering them on their merits rather than making a blanket dismissal of them all en masse as being part of a conspiracy?

 

Quote

(This is key, by the way, as it suggests a creation of this story after Brigham Young had become President of the Church in 1847.  In 1844, Brigham Young was advocating only that the 12 apostles should lead the Church in Joseph Smith's absence.  One notes that having Brigham Young transfigured into Joseph Smith makes less sense in the context of the actual 1844 speech than it does in the post-1847 scene where Brigham Young had become Church President.  This is another indication the transfiguration story was created at a later date.)

Though he was not yet president of the Church, Brigham Young was the president of the Quorum of the Twelve, which, in the minds of the saints, made him the de facto leader of the Church. There is good reason why Brigham Young is widely credited with leading the pioneers across the plains to the Salt Lake Valley, even though the exodus was formally under the direction of the Twelve.

And T-shirt has addressed this point very well, effectively rebutting both you and ALarson. Bravo, T-shirt.

Quote

 

These stories that were later conceived and written down became part of the tradition of the Latter-day Saints.

But when the documents are actually looked at, they support the above interpretation.

 

The "above interpretation" is nothing more than your own post hoc conspiracy theory. It's easy to construct such a theory; for example, people have done that who believe the Apollo moon landings were faked.

And when "the documents are actually looked at" -- including the written reports and reminiscences of witnesses who were there during the meeting in the grove -- what that supports is the fact that scores of people received a spiritual manifestation in the form of Brigham Young appearing to look and sound like Joseph Smith. They individually and independently reported that experience as having given them the assurance that the status quo -- the Church being led by the Quorum of the Twelve under the direction of Brigham Young -- was in accordance with the will of God, despite the claims and pretensions of Sidney Rigdon and others.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Because those who "properly consider the evidence" will come to the conclusion that the transfiguration of Brigham Young really did occur?

 

A similar story supporting the legitimacy of any other LDS offshoot would be quickly shot down by LDS apologists on the basis of the same evidence.

 

So why the double standard?

 

Hmmm . . . ?

No double standard.

Have you read the Jorgensen article yet? I doubt it.

[Keq82]

First of all, I do not believe there ever was an angel with a flaming sword--it was part of Joseph Smith's imagination or what he wanted to believe.  Further, I think the underlying reason behind polygamy wasn't to obey God's laws; rather, it was to fulfill the church leaders' sexual gratifications.  How else can you explain President John Taylor (age 78) marrying a lady (26)?  Is that what an all-knowing God wanted?  Likewise, would an omnipotent God want other Presidents of the church listed below to do the same thing?

Joseph Smith age 37 - youngest wife 14

Brigham young age 45 - youngest wife 16

Wilford Woodruff age 46 - youngest wife 15

Lorenzo Snow age 57 - youngest wife 57

How is this any different from what the fundamentalists still practice today?  They were doing the same thing Warren Jeffs was doing--practicing the Celestial Order of Marriage that both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught.  Keep in mind that many of Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's wives were already married to other men; thus, these women practiced polyandry (more than one husband).  One third of Joseph Smith's wives were already married by civil law to other men, so why would God want Joseph Smith to be married to these women?  Any way you slice it, polygamy is a disgusting practice and NOT from God.  Joseph Smith used the threat of damnation as a justification to engage in this abhorrent practice.  

[Keq82]

* Lorenzo Snow age 57 - youngest wife 15