What made/makes Brigham Young the obvious choice?

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

If it is a hedge, and is kept in place by fallible men, that would be par for the course! But I would suppose there can be inspired hedges and inspired justifications more than I would hazard a suggestion as to who would have been a better choice for President of the Church than the seventeen individuals during their respective tenures.

[Calm]

On 3/14/2022 at 8:48 AM, 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/

I would be careful with LDSAnswers.  Always check their sources to see if they say what is claimed (though you should with anyone, some you really need to). And be aware they ignore sources that conflict with their claims at times.
 

They are somewhat aligned with the FIRM Foundation group and last I looked at it the Stoddards were backing the Universal Model or whatever was the name for the pseudo science claim, so I would avoid them as references for science concepts. They (as an example of sloppy and biased scholarship) also refuse to accept the use  or terminology of “seer stones”, etc. and instead make several claims about the translation process and present it as if supported by Joseph’s own words, but their own references do not provide what they claim and instead are limited to references to using the Urim and Thummim and translating by the gift and power of God, such as from here:

Quote

Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God

https://ldsanswers.org/did-the-prophet-joseph-smith-describe-the-book-of-mormon-translation-process/

Edited March 16, 2022 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

His beard.

Surely Porter Rockwell would have been next then?

[Calm]

8 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

They say they are going to provide them in part 2, but there is no link to part 2 and a search on “transfiguration” only brings up this article, so if anyone has already found the second article with the discussion about the references, please post it. 
 

And one of the men they suggest likely wrote it close to the event, but his journal was simply published later is only mentioned in this article (Glines)

Edited March 14, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

I found a copy of the Glines reference in the Church History Library. It starts as far as I can tell (faded cursive writing) in March 1945. I can’t tell if that is the date it was first written or the first he starts talking about…but given the title includes 1845-1899, how do they manage to claim: “Cases such as James Harvey Glines,¹⁸ William Hyde¹⁹ and others. These entries were very likely written the day of, or soon after August 8th.”

Now written in March ‘45 would be not that far after, but given the difficulty searching it, for now I can’t tell when the account was actually written, it is not the first page as far as I can tell. Will have to see if I can find the text written up or a quote that places it in context. 
 

If someone is interested in deciphering it:  

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/24fbad64-5949-4468-abc5-4e1fac7b5bb4/0/13

[Calm]

Here is the specific entry in the Reminiscences and Diary:

Quote

I arrived in time to hear Sidney Rigdon’s last lectures before the Church. President Brigham Young and others of the twelve apostles now arrived and appointed a meeting in the grove at the stand east of the temple block. . . .

Sidney Rigdon stopped speaking. President Brigham Young stood up and commenced speaking, and all eyes were turned upon him for he seemed to have the voice of the prophet Joseph, as many testified at the time, for he spoke with great power and authority to the convincing of the Saints that the mantle had fallen from Joseph to Brigham.¹²⁴

Footnote:

Quote

124. James Harvey Glines, “Reminiscences and Diary, March 1845–December 1899,” holograph, 41, LDS Church Archives

 

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would be careful with LDSAnswers.  Always check their sources to see if they say what is claimed (though you should with anyone, some you really need to). And be aware they ignore sources that conflict with their claims at times.
 

They are somewhat aligned with the FIRM Foundation group and last I looked at it the Stoddards were backing the Universal Model or whatever was the name for the pseudo science claim, so I would avoid them as references for science concepts. They also refuse to accept the use  or terminology of “seer stones”, etc. and instead make several claims about the translation process and present it as if supported by Joseph’s own words, but their own references do not provide what they claim and instead are limited to references to using the Urim and Thummim and translating by the gift and power of God, such as from here:

https://ldsanswers.org/did-the-prophet-joseph-smith-describe-the-book-of-mormon-translation-process/

Thanks for the warning. I wasn’t aware of their affiliation with Meldrum’s group. 
 

This piece, though, appears to be solid. You might recall from years past that I’m somewhat well versed in the arguments pro and con regarding the Brigham Young transfiguration and have posted substantially in favor of its reliability. The link in question seems to summarize pretty well the content in Lynn Watkins Jorgensen’s chapter in “Opening the Heavens,” and I do hold that in high regard. 

[Calm]

Here is a link to a copy of William Hyde’s journal. It is hard to tell if this was the original or if he rewrote from other notes. He includes dates and quotations and lots of details. I am not trained in this area at all and cannot say if this means he had contemporary notes or if he just acted like he did, if one can tell he wrote it continuously, all at once or in batches over time. 

The description of the day in question starts on page 13 of the journal or page 31 of the book (click “view inside” and then the 3x3 squares icon at the top to pull up the straight to page — function).

https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/viewer/61374/?offset=0#page=33&viewer=picture&o=&n=0&q=

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This piece, though, appears to be solid.

Not really since they don’t give the references in this article and there is no part 2 I can find where they said they were going to give them. So do we even know what are the 3 references they are claiming occurred during that first year?

Since you are familiar with the material, can you provide the names of who they are referring to, please?

Edited March 15, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

My understanding is this is the article that later appeared in Opening the Heavens:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-mantle-of-the-prophet-joseph-passes-to-brother-brigham-a-collective-spiritual-witness/
 

Is that correct?

Jorgensen references two women who wrote in 1850 and 1851. (I skimmed it).  Were there any other earlier references Jorgensen referred to?  If not, where did Stoddard get the references for his chart from?

Edited March 15, 2022 by Calm

[Jaydes]

In my belief, God has several other choices but they rebelled and gave up their right to succession and Brigham was the next one down the line and was approved by common consent.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Jaydes said:

In my belief, God has several other choices but they rebelled and gave up their right to succession and Brigham was the next one down the line and was approved by common consent.

Rebelled against what?

Joseph? God? Doctrine?

Just curious what you think Brigham did right that those up the line rebelled against.

I'm not convinced there was anyone up the line except maybe Hyrum.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Not really since they don’t give the references in this article and there is no part 2 I can find where they said they were going to give them. So do we even know what are the 3 references they are claiming occurred during that first year?

Since you are familiar with the material, can you provide the names of who they are referring to, please?

I’m familiar with the content in the Lynn Watkins Jorgensen BYU Studies article that was later reprinted in Opening the Heavens, but this is the first time I’ve seen the LDS Answers piece, so I’m not all that well acquainted with it. Sorry if I gave the inadvertent impression that I was. I said it seemed solid, because in reading  it, I got the impression that it was generally consistent with Jorgensen’s article, which, as I said, I hold in high regard. 

Edited March 15, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

My understanding is this is the article that later appeared in Opening the Heavens:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-mantle-of-the-prophet-joseph-passes-to-brother-brigham-a-collective-spiritual-witness/
 

Is that correct?

Jorgensen references two women who wrote in 1850 and 1851. (I skimmed it).  Were there any other earlier references Jorgensen referred to?  If not, where did Stoddard get the references for his chart from?

I don’t know. His essay is more recent than the Jorgensen piece, so I assumed he was going off of research that had surfaced since it’s publication, but if, as you say, you have searched for it but can’t find it, I don’t know how I can be of help. 

[caspianrex]

On 3/13/2022 at 7:11 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

You mean succession.  There were several competing personalities, some of whom actually started their own churches -- including Sidney Rigdon, whose branch of the church still exists and publishes its own Book of Mormon.  Some people claimed at the time that Joseph's mantle fell upon Brigham in the presence of the Saints assembled in Nauvoo.  One of my own ancestors claimed that when Brigham began to speak, he took on the visage and voice of Joseph.  Whatever the reason, most of the Saints went West with Brigham.

My understanding is that today's surviving sect of the followers of Sidney Rigdon are The Church of Jesus Christ, based in Monongahela, PA (commonly known as "Bickertonites.") Their edition of The Book of Mormon is quite similar textually to the version published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but without nearly as much in the way of footnotes and other apparatus. The edition in my library is quite nice, though, and is a "red-letter" edition (which has its good points and bad points). The font is a very comfortable size for people who have some difficulty with small type, such as myself. In case anyone is interested, they have their BoM edition available for free download on their website.

Edited March 15, 2022 by caspianrex
added one detail about the Bickertonites

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/14/2022 at 12:01 PM, Teancum said:

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.

Power is always a central feature of every controversy.  Might makes right.  The question then is whose power?  For an atheist, only secular power is relevant.  For the believer, God might have something to do with it.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, caspianrex said:

My understanding is that today's surviving sect of the followers of Sidney Rigdon are The Church of Jesus Christ, based in Monongahela, PA (commonly known as "Bickertonites.") Their edition of The Book of Mormon is quite similar textually to the version published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but without nearly as much in the way of footnotes and other apparatus. The edition in my library is quite nice, though, and is a "red-letter" edition (which has its good points and bad points). The font is a very comfortable size for people who have some difficulty with small type, such as myself. In case anyone is interested, they have their BoM edition available for free download on their website.

Thanks.  They don't follow the 1830 ed.  They do have readings from the second ed. (1837), as well as from the 1920 LDS ed.  Hard to know what sort of changes they have made over time to modernize the text.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/14/2022 at 6:29 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

............The link in question seems to summarize pretty well the content in Lynn Watkins Jorgensen’s chapter in “Opening the Heavens,” and I do hold that in high regard. 

Is there additional material in the second edition (2017) of Opening the Heavens?  I haven't seen it.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Is there additional material in the second edition (2017) of Opening the Heavens?  I haven't seen it.

I don’t know. 

[T-Shirt]

Brigham Young was the logical choice.  Of the original twelve, only six were still apostles at the time of Joseph's death, Brigham Young, Heber C Kimball, Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt, William Smith and Parley Pratt.  David Patten had been killed and the remaining five had all been excommunicated, two of whom were eventually readmitted to the Church, but never reinstated to the Twelve.   Of these six Brigham Young was senior in both age and time of service.  He was President of the Quorum of the Twelve, at the time, by virtue of age, he was thirteen days older than Heber C. Kimball, the next oldest.  There were several refining trials, in my opinion, that were very formative in these men's experiences.  Some of them were, Zion's Camp, Missions to England, Kirtland Bank failure and plural marriage. All but William Smith went to England, he chose not go, even though he was called.  All of them served in Zion's Camp and all of them accepted and practiced plural marriage, although, not readily.  They all got through the Kirtland Bank failure, but not all of them did so smoothly.  Parley P Pratt, as faithful as he was, the Kirtland Bank was the one issue that caused him, for a time, to openly criticize and blame Joseph Smith for the failure and, for a time, rejected Joseph Smith.  Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt and William Smith had all been excommunicated and dropped from the quorum, but later reinstated.  Of the original twelve, only Brigham Young and Heber C Kimball came through all trials unscathed and remained unwaveringly faithful to Joseph Smith.  These two were staunch defenders of Joseph, no matter what.  Of these two, Brigham Young, in my opinion, was the most aggressive in defending Joseph and was the most verbal leader.  When the Twelve were told, by revelation, to gather at the temple site at Far West in preparation for going on their missions to England, at a time where it was very dangerous to do so, and the mobs had openly declared that they would not allow the twelve to fulfill this prophecy, it was Brigham Young who told the Twelve that they would go and meet at the temple site, despite the danger, in order to fulfill prophecy.  He laid out a plan for them to go there, briefly, under the cover of darkness and slip under the noses of the mob and meet the dictates of the revelation.

Other very faithful men were called to fill vacancies, namely John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow and Wilford Woodruff.  Each of these men could have succeeded Joseph Smith, but they were not among the original twelve, had less experience and less seniority.  As great as they were, they still did not match up to Brigham young in his staunch defense of Joseph and his leadership.

Incidentally, if not for their excommunication, both Orson Hyde and Orson Pratt would have been presidents of the Church.  Before his death, Brigham Young demoted both of them in seniority to coincide with date of readmittance rather than their original ordination.  Had they remained in their original place of seniority, Orson Hyde would have succeeded Brigham Young and Orson Pratt would have succeeded Orson Hyde.

Another interesting tidbit, David W Patten should have been the first President of the Quorum of the Twelve as he was older than Thomas B Marsh, but there was confusion about his birthdate, so Thomas Marsh was chosen.  Some say that if Thomas Marsh had remained faithful, he would have succeeded Joseph Smith as he was the senior apostle in age, however, as to seniority in time of ordination, Brigham Young outranked him by about two and half months.

Edited March 16, 2022 by T-Shirt

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

Brigham Young was the logical choice.  Of the original twelve, only six were still apostles at the time of Joseph's death, Brigham Young, Heber C Kimball, Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt, William Smith and Parley Pratt.  David Patten had been killed and the remaining five had all been excommunicated,........

When Joseph died, the First Presidency consisted of 1st counselor Sidney Rigdon (who was also Joseph's Vice Presidential running mate), as well as John Smith and Amasa Lyman.  Moreover, Rigdon and the Twelve had all been ordained as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.  Retrojecting the current structure of the First Presidency and Twelve on the past is very misleading.  Today, at the death of the Prophet, regardless of the number involved, all members of the First Presidency would become Apostles, arrayed by seniority.  There is no law which states that there must be just 15.  Rigdon would have been the senior man in such case.  So, Brigham was far from "the logical choice."  What won the day for Brigham was his charisma and common consent.

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Power is always a central feature of every controversy.  Might makes right.  The question then is whose power?  For an atheist, only secular power is relevant.  For the believer, God might have something to do with it.

Might makes right?  So do you think God disposes the power and might to his chosen one?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Might makes right?  So do you think God disposes the power and might to his chosen one?

No.  God allows stupid humans to wield power, righteous and unrighteous power, over others.  It's a learning experience.  Too few humans exercise gracious and kind relationships, preferring to dominate one another.  D&C 121:41-43, "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;"

[T-Shirt]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When Joseph died, the First Presidency consisted of 1st counselor Sidney Rigdon (who was also Joseph's Vice Presidential running mate), as well as John Smith and Amasa Lyman. 

Of these three, only Amasa Lyman was an apostle but he wasn't ordained until 1842, replacing Orson Pratt after his excommunication, Sydney Rigdon and John Smith were not ordained apostles, so there is no seniority to speak of here.  Furthermore, both Amasa Lyman and John Smith supported Brigham Young as Joseph's successor.  

Quote

Moreover, Rigdon and the Twelve had all been ordained as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.

Prophet, Seer and Revelator is not a priesthood office and does not grant one priesthood keys.  It appears that, maybe, you are, "retrojecting" (is that a real word?) here.

Quote

  Retrojecting the current structure of the First Presidency and Twelve on the past is very misleading.  Today, at the death of the Prophet, regardless of the number involved, all members of the First Presidency would become Apostles, arrayed by seniority.  There is no law which states that there must be just 15.  Rigdon would have been the senior man in such case.  So, Brigham was far from "the logical choice."  What won the day for Brigham was his charisma and common consent.

I actually have not done that.  Today, seniority is determined by date of ordination, then it was determined by age.  Sydney Rigdon, indeed, was older than Brigham Young but he was not an apostle nor was he part of the Twelve (Twelve being a quorum and not a number) when Joseph Smith gave them the keys to carry on the work after his death.

Sydney Rigdon contributed much to the Church and was a great man, but he was far from a logical choice to lead the Church.  Of the refining experiences I mentioned above, Sydney did not participate in Zion's Camp, he did not go to England and he was strongly opposed to plural marriage.  Sydney was strongly rebuked by the Lord in August of 1831 for being too arrogant.  in July of 1832 he was teaching that the keys of the kingdom had been taken from the Church, requiring Joseph Smith to publicly rebuke Sydney and prophesy against him.  In the Nauvoo period, he had very little to do with Church administration.  He didn't live in Nauvoo, but in Pittsburgh, serving in a local Church presidency.  In 1843, Joseph wrote a letter to Sydney saying, “I believe and am laboring under the fullest convictions that you are actually practicing deception and wickedness against me and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...  I must, as a conscientious man publish withdrawal of my fellowship from you to the Church”

Joseph dropped Rigdon as his counselor, but at a subsequent conference, the Saints voted to retain him.  Joseph, very reluctantly complied with their wishes, saying, “I have thrown him off my shoulders, and you have again put him on me...  You may carry him, but I will not.”  After this conference, Sydney moved to Pittsburgh, to which Joseph said,  “Poor Rigdon, I am glad he is gone to Pittsburg out of the way, were he to preside he would lead the Church to destruction in less than five years.”

Sydney did great things, but  remaining loyal and being a staunch defender of Joseph Smith were not among them.  In fairness to Sydney, many believe that, in 1831, when he had been dragged by a horse with his head bouncing on frozen ground, his mind had been severely affected and he was never the same afterward.  For years Sidney suffered from delusions and disturbing rantings and ramblings.

I believe Brigham was the only logical choice.  I can envision defenders of Brigham Young saying to Sydney Rigdon, "Sydney, I served with Brigham Young. I knew Brigham Young. Brigham Young was a friend of mine. Sydney, you are no Brigham Young."

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2022 by T-Shirt

[Robert F. Smith]

56 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Of these three, only Amasa Lyman was an apostle but he wasn't ordained until 1842, replacing Orson Pratt after his excommunication, Sydney Rigdon and John Smith were not ordained apostles, so there is no seniority to speak of here.  Furthermore, both Amasa Lyman and John Smith supported Brigham Young as Joseph's successor.  

I did not say that they were apostles.  They were counselors in the First Presidency, and one does not have to be an apostle to be such a counselor.  The question of succession had not yet been addressed.  Today there is a set pattern:  When the Prophet-President dies, all members of the First Presidency become members of the Quorum, arranged according to seniority.  No such understanding then existed.  You are confusing today with yesterday.

56 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Prophet, Seer and Revelator is not a priesthood office and does not grant one priesthood keys.  It appears that, maybe, you are, "retrojecting" (is that a real word?) here.

Sidney Rigdon was ordained a prophet, seer, and revelator in 1842 -- as were the members of the 12.  I did not say that this granted priesthood keys.

56 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

I actually have not done that.  Today, seniority is determined by date of ordination, then it was determined by age.  Sydney Rigdon, indeed, was older than Brigham Young but he was not an apostle nor was he part of the Twelve (Twelve being a quorum and not a number) when Joseph Smith gave them the keys to carry on the work after his death.

Sydney Rigdon contributed much to the Church and was a great man, but he was far from a logical choice to lead the Church.  Of the refining experiences I mentioned above, Sydney did not participate in Zion's Camp, he did not go to England and he was strongly opposed to plural marriage.  Sydney was strongly rebuked by the Lord in August of 1831 for being too arrogant.  in July of 1832 he was teaching that the keys of the kingdom had been taken from the Church, requiring Joseph Smith to publicly rebuke Sydney and prophesy against him.  In the Nauvoo period, he had very little to do with Church administration.  He didn't live in Nauvoo, but in Pittsburgh, serving in a local Church presidency.  In 1843, Joseph wrote a letter to Sydney saying, “I believe and am laboring under the fullest convictions that you are actually practicing deception and wickedness against me and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...  I must, as a conscientious man publish withdrawal of my fellowship from you to the Church”

Joseph dropped Rigdon as his counselor, but at a subsequent conference, the Saints voted to retain him.  Joseph, very reluctantly complied with their wishes, saying, “I have thrown him off my shoulders, and you have again put him on me...  You may carry him, but I will not.”  After this conference, Sydney moved to Pittsburgh, to which Joseph said,  “Poor Rigdon, I am glad he is gone to Pittsburg out of the way, were he to preside he would lead the Church to destruction in less than five years.”

I often use this instance as an example of the law of common consent.  Anti-Mormons used to tell me that the Far West Record was proof that Joseph was a dictator.  So I would pull out this instance as an example of Joseph not getting his way.  He was plainly overruled.  You also fail to note that Rigdon was Joseph's Vice Presidential running mate.  Why would Joseph have allowed that if he was so disgusted by him?  You are retrojecting (look it up) our modern views on an earlier time.

56 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

..................

I believe Brigham was the only logical choice.  I can envision defenders of Brigham Young saying to Sydney Rigdon, "Sydney, I served with Brigham Young. I knew Brigham Young. Brigham Young was a friend of mine. Sydney, you are no Brigham Young."

Brigham would have been my choice, just as he was the obvious choice of my female ancestor who observed the transfiguration and mantle of Joseph falling on him:  She said, "Mommy, it's Brother Joseph!"   But Brigham was not the logical choice at all.  No one knew he should be the man to lead them.  That is why both Sidney and Brigham spoke to the crowd that day (among other men).  The crowd decided, which is as it should have been.