2BizE Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, rongo said: As has been mentioned, there are far more witnesses than just "primarily Orson Hyde." People can chalk it up to late reminiscences, group hypnosis, or whatever, but a lot of people and a lot of people's ancestors who were there believed they witnessed it. Turned out to be a hoax, indeed . . . The main thing is that Brigham's speech and his argument for succession was accepted by the vast majority --- along with his claimed revelation that the surviving apostles collectively held the keys to ordain the successor. Edited March 14, 2022 by 2BizE Link to comment
Fether Posted March 14, 2022 Author Share Posted March 14, 2022 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: It seems like you're more asking how people recognized his authority vs how he was qualified. Am I correct? More qualified actually. I recognize the method now, but the skeptical side of my brain sometimes wonders if BY became President and then justified his ascension by building the method of succession that matches his own path to the presidency Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 The question in the thread title seems internally inconsistent. If he is indeed the “obvious choice,” then by definition, there should be no need to ask the question. 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, 2BizE said: This seems to be a dead link. Anyone else experiencing that? If it’s a link to Van Wagenor’s arguments, they have been countered in the “Opening the Heavens” citation that Robert provided above. There is simply too much primary and independent source material to summarily dismiss the reported transfiguration of Brigham Young as a “hoax.” Edited March 14, 2022 by Scott Lloyd 2 Link to comment
Fether Posted March 14, 2022 Author Share Posted March 14, 2022 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The question in the thread title seems internally inconsistent. If he is indeed the “obvious choice,” then by definition, there should be no need to ask the question. Not if the person asking the questions doesn’t understand why he was the obvious choice. 1 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 2 hours ago, kimpearson said: There is simply not enough evidence to conclude exactly what happen. Many of the later recounted stories describe different experiences. Maybe something will be discovered that will more fully answer the question. I would agree that the word hoax is not correct but there could be embellishment of the memory when later recorded. Of course. Human memory is unreliable. That doesn't make everything fiction. It merely calls it into question. I give as much credence to the later detractors of Joseph Smith as I do to his advocates -- even though many of them wrote down their recollections much later. One must systematically gather the accounts, subject them to close scrutiny, and draw reasonable conclusions. A good deal of gathering has been done since that early research which threw cold water on such accounts -- as for the volume by Welch & Carlson. The same applies to the late Mike Quinn's brilliant piece on the First Vision being in 1820, which was considered utter nonsense until he took a close look at it. 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 1 minute ago, Fether said: Not if the person asking the questions doesn’t understand why he was the obvious choice. Perhaps a different word than “obvious” would have been better, such as ideal. 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 5 minutes ago, Fether said: Not if the person asking the questions doesn’t understand why he was the obvious choice. May have useful info for you https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_church_leadership/Succession_in_the_Presidency_of_the_Church#Question:_What_indications_were_there_that_Brigham_Young_would_be_Joseph_Smith.27s_successor.3F 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 5 hours ago, Fether said: One little gap in my understand has to do with the secession crisis following the death of Joseph Smith. What makes Brigham Young the obvious choice for the leader of the church? Was it established before The Prophet’s death how the keys were passed down? If so, why was there a crisis? It has been awhile since I read this, so not sure if there are areas where it needs to be updated (it was published in ‘76), but it did well imo in explaining the different claims and why the confusion. https://byustudies.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/16.2QuinnMormon.pdf Link to comment
teddyaware Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 5 hours ago, Fether said: One little gap in my understand has to do with the secession crisis following the death of Joseph Smith. What makes Brigham Young the obvious choice for the leader of the church? Was it established before The Prophet’s death how the keys were passed down? If so, why was there a crisis? Upon the death of the President of the Church and the dissolution of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve automatic becomes the presiding council of the Church, with the most senior member of the Twelve automatically becoming the presiding officer of the Church at the moment the previous President of the Church breathes his last. In other words, the position of the presiding priesthood authority of the Church is never left vacant, not even for a nanosecond. The only reason why there was a controversy about this issue when Joseph Smith was murdered is because some of the members at that time didn’t have a comprehensive understanding of the revelations on presidential succession that were clearly set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants. Since the death of Joseph Smith, every President of the.Church was first the senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles prior to being set apart and ordained as the President of the First Presidency and the presiding priesthood authority of the Church. This precedent has been followed, without exception, since the passing of President Joseph Smith. 2 Link to comment
strappinglad Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 3 hours ago, kimpearson said: there could be embellishment of the memory when later recorded. Have you read the OT ?? 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 (edited) 14 hours ago, 2BizE said: Unfortunately, the whole transfiguration story has turned out to be a hoax… It is primarily attributed to Orson Hyde, which Wilford Woodruff’s own journal confirms Orson was not at the event and would not arrive for another 5 days. https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/transfiguration Orson would not have to have been present on that day to have experienced something similar to what the other witnesses did, perhaps on another occasion. Who says miraculous manifestations have to be limited to a specific day and time? And numerous independent recollections were documented in the “Opening the Heavens” volume, definitely not dependent on Orson Hyde. Edited March 14, 2022 by Scott Lloyd Link to comment
CV75 Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 11 hours ago, Fether said: More qualified actually. I recognize the method now, but the skeptical side of my brain sometimes wonders if BY became President and then justified his ascension by building the method of succession that matches his own path to the presidency I don't see much skepticism in this; it seems to be a reasonable approach for Brigham to have taken, and it seems to have worked well since. Given that there was some opposition and breakaway, of course he had to justify the three-year interregnum (the Twelve together) and the formation of the First Presidency. But if each Apostle has the keys, then each is "qualified"; and if they are in agreement according to the established "articles and covenants" of the Church (these are found in the D&C), what is the problem? 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 (edited) 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Orson would not have to have been present on that day to have experienced something similar to what the other witnesses did, perhaps on another occasion. Who says miraculous manifestations have to be limited to a specific day and time? And numerous independent recollections were documented in the “Opening the Heavens” volume, definitely not dependent on Orson Hyde. In addition to the Lynn Watkins Jorgensen chapter in the book “Opening the Heavens,” already cited in this thread, there is this thoughtful essay and study countering arguments that the transfiguration of Brigham Young is mere folklore: https://ldsanswers.org/evidence-transfiguration-brigham-young/ Edited March 14, 2022 by Scott Lloyd Link to comment
SeekingUnderstanding Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: In addition to the Lynn Watkins Jorgensen chapter in the book “Opening the Heavens,” already cited in this thread, there is this thoughtful essay and study countering arguments that the transfiguration of Brigham Young is mere folklore: https://ldsanswers.org/evidence-transfiguration-brigham-young/ Perhaps you could provide a source for the three accounts written in 1844. The article for some reason decided not to do that provide references or quotes from them. Link to comment
pogi Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 19 hours ago, Fether said: What makes Brigham Young the obvious choice for the leader of the church? His beard. 1 Link to comment
Teancum Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 20 hours ago, Fether said: One little gap in my understand has to do with the secession crisis following the death of Joseph Smith. What makes Brigham Young the obvious choice for the leader of the church? Was it established before The Prophet’s death how the keys were passed down? If so, why was there a crisis? No it was no established though the Salt Lake LDS Church argues it was. But it wasn't. It was all a power play by a number of parties. Quinn's volume 1 on the Mormon Hierarchy goes into the succession crisis in great detail. Link to comment
Teancum Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 20 hours ago, InCognitus said: Simply put, Brigham Young was the president of the quorum of the twelve apostles at the time that Joseph Smith was killed: Doctrine and Covenants 124:127-128: "I give unto you my servant Brigham Young to be a president over the Twelve traveling council; Which Twelve hold the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom upon the four corners of the earth, and after that to send my word to every creature." That passage does not give the twelve the right to run the church. The twelve had authority where a stake was not established. The Nauvoo stake president, Steven Markham I beleive, likley had more right to succeed Joseph than BY did. 1 Link to comment
Teancum Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 20 hours ago, rongo said: There wasn't any precedent. Brigham had a revelation as the Twelve were called home because of the death of Joseph (in company of a couple of other apostles, I think) that the senior apostle would be in charge on the interim. His transfiguration before the audience at Nauvoo when speaking at the succession meeting (where Sidney Rigdon made his case as "caretaker") sealed it for the bulk of the membership, who followed and stayed with the main body. While it is established precedent now, I do think that it doesn't have to be this way --- that the apostles who collectively hold keys could choose someone who wasn't the senior apostle (if they were trying unanimous). I know others disagree, and think that God makes His choice clear by who He allows to be the senior apostle. The alleged transfiguration of BY is rather dubious. Seems like it was back written into the history. Link to comment
Popular Post cinepro Posted March 14, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted March 14, 2022 15 hours ago, teddyaware said: Upon the death of the President of the Church and the dissolution of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve automatic becomes the presiding council of the Church, with the most senior member of the Twelve automatically becoming the presiding officer of the Church at the moment the previous President of the Church breathes his last. In other words, the position of the presiding priesthood authority of the Church is never left vacant, not even for a nanosecond. The only reason why there was a controversy about this issue when Joseph Smith was murdered is because some of the members at that time didn’t have a comprehensive understanding of the revelations on presidential succession that were clearly set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants. Since the death of Joseph Smith, every President of the.Church was first the senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles prior to being set apart and ordained as the President of the First Presidency and the presiding priesthood authority of the Church. This precedent has been followed, without exception, since the passing of President Joseph Smith. That's a pretty generous view of how things played out. You're basically describing how things worked out over the 60 or 70 years after Joseph's death as the "succession" system and protocols were developed, and backdating it as if it was always to be so. This article from BYU Studies even acknowledges the murkiness in the situation, and notes that Brigham Young was not chosen as Joseph Smith's successor in 1845. The saints sustained the Quorum of the 12 to lead, and BY led the Quorum of the 12. That's very different than the saints sustaining Brigham Young as the leader. Quote [After learning of Joseph's death by letter in July and feeling great confusion and despair] At last, his despair lifted “like a clap,” [Brigham Young] said. The answer came to him like revelation: “The keys of the kingdom [are] here.” He brought his hand to his knee to make the point. [44] He later confessed that the idea of assuming Joseph’s office had never occurred to him. [45] It had been an interesting psychological study, resisting reality until he could resist it no longer—followed by an emotional and religious outburst of feeling. There was another meaning to Young’s revelation. It showed that the Church’s procedures for succession were by no means clear, even to the leading Apostle. ----------------------------------------------------- Quote But Young’s religious experience at Peterborough was more certain, especially as the days wore on and he continued to feel religiously prompted. He was convinced that he, as President of the Twelve, had authority to lead the Church, or to at least name Joseph’s successor. He also believed that at some point a new First Presidency of three men would be required, though he was willing to let that issue rest for the moment. [51] And he hoped that a general assembly of the Saints would give its approval to the succession. One of Joseph’s revelations declared such a gathering to be the highest authority in the Church—the collective inspiration of leaders and members (D&C 107:32). [52] https://rsc.byu.edu/firm-foundation/six-days-august-brigham-young-succession-crisis-1844 5 Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 42 minutes ago, cinepro said: The saints sustained the Quorum of the 12 to lead, and BY led the Quorum of the 12. That's very different than the saints sustaining Brigham Young as the leader. That's an American view. In the US you directly vote for your President to be leader. In the UK, Canada etc you vote for your member of parliament. The leader of the party with the most members becomes the leader. I have no issue with the most Senior Apostle being the President. In fact, it would make no sense for anyone else to supersede them. Who other than the leader of the ruling quorum should be the leader of the Church? Who could outrank them from a priesthood standpoint? Link to comment
cinepro Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: That's an American view. In the US you directly vote for your President to be leader. In the UK, Canada etc you vote for your member of parliament. The leader of the party with the most members becomes the leader. I have no issue with the most Senior Apostle being the President. In fact, it would make no sense for anyone else to supersede them. Who other than the leader of the ruling quorum should be the leader of the Church? Who could outrank them from a priesthood standpoint? If you asked 1,000 LDS today who leads the Church, how many do you think would answer "The First Presidency"? 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 8 hours ago, CV75 said: But if each Apostle has the keys, then each is "qualified"; and if they are in agreement according to the established "articles and covenants" of the Church (these are found in the D&C), what is the problem? If they built a hedge by restricting the choice to one man when the Lord sees 12 (15?) men as the pool to draw the next prophet from, it seems problematic to me even if the one is capable of leading the Church simply because the Lord might prefer someone else who has a different focus, one more needed by the Church or world at that time. It has removed contention and quite a bit of disruption though, it seems to me. Link to comment
Calm Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 (edited) 6 hours ago, pogi said: His beard. But did he have a beard then? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brigham_Young_portrait_ca_1845.PNG Edited March 14, 2022 by Calm Link to comment
pogi Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 24 minutes ago, Calm said: But did he have a beard then? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brigham_Young_portrait_ca_1845.PNG Brigham Young was born with a beard. That painting must be someone else! 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts