The transfiguration of Brigham Young - Do apologists have *any* ground to stand on?

[jfro18]

In the process of researching the church and talking with my wife (who is still 100% TBM although I'm hoping she's at least thinking about this stuff), the subject of the transfiguration of Brigham Young came up.

She had told me when I asked why *even if* the Book of Mormon was right, why does she believe BY was the person God wanted? She of course responded with the transfiguration story.

I researched it and found (to me) no credible evidence that it ever happened, and that just like the first vision - if something that amazing happened, you would not wait 13 years before it was documented somewhere. After that I mentioned to her that it does not appear to have happened, to which she said she did not care because she still has the testimony that it's true (that's a different story).

So anyway - does anyone believe that apologists have a leg to stand on here? I read the LDS answers article about it yesterday (http://ldsanswers.org/evidence-transfig ... ham-young/) and they stretch massively to try and justify that no one even mentioned it until 13 years later. They also make the mistake (in my opinion anyway), of framing the article with:
"The transfiguration of Brigham Young is a key assertion in this debate. If the Lord miraculously transfigured Brigham Young’s appearance, Brigham Young was divinely sanctioned as Joseph Smith’s successor. If this transfiguration never took place, the very foundations of our LDS faith and history are weakened."

Their reasons to say it's true is that so many accounts happened in different areas of the country, which to them excludes the possibility of 'group think' because apparently back then no one traveled around the country on behalf of the church pushing faith-promoting stories by a prophet who has been documented to push faith promoting stories about himself for legitimacy. They point to the 61 first hand documents and claim that many happened much earlier than 13 years, with some even being accounted for within a year (they don't quote or point to them, however). There were no accounts in the papers or writings from the church at the time either, which again is astonishing for such a life changing experience that we are told was witnessed by so many.

If it happened, they would be running down the streets to tell *everyone* how God is still with the church and has chosen a new leader... but crickets.

On the other hand, you have mass lying by leaders of the church about the event. For example, apostle Orson Hyde famously recounts seeing the transfiguration in person... except he didn't arrive until 5 days later.

It also ignored that BY wasn't made the prophet until years later - if he was truly transfigured by God into JS, there would have been no debate about him being the prophet immediately.

Anyway... does anyone think there is a leg to stand on for apologists here? This is one of the biggest nails for me in my research of the church so far, and I have to admit I am shocked that the CES Letter/Letter For My Wife do not go into this. It seems like a massive problem for the church, and I can't find any way to accept the apologists position which is eerily similar to the first vision issue (not written about until years later, inconsistent stories, etc).

[Rob4Hope]

It also ignored that BY wasn't made the prophet until years later - if he was truly transfigured by God into JS, there would have been no debate about him being the prophet immediately.

The debate of the successor of JS goes on and on. All of the living witnesses, including the entire Smith family, did NOT go with Brigham. I've heard reports that Samuel Smith was killed in an attempt to protect the successorship to Brigham, and the church has and continues to discount Joseph Strang as the successor--even though he has some witnesses of his own.

Several of the apostles didn't want Brigham...and even young Brigham Young Jr. factors into the succession. Brigham had him made an apostle WITHOUT the consent of the others (if I have that right), and young Briggy was supposed to be the next choice.

The whole succession problem IS A VERY BIG PROBLEM. Its interesting to me that God, in his wisdom, would have left something as important as this completely up to debate. You know....it kindof seems like God missed it?....

Since I am with Greg Palmer on this--Joseph was a con man--it makes perfect sense that the succession would be left out. That way Joseph could continue to coddle favorites and keep his own position of power intact. There was no successor?....that's because I haven't chosen one yet (speaking for Joseph), and unless you play my game, you are off the list.

[Reuben]

Brother Jake is here to help you laugh about the train wreck that was the succession crisis:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z2TgWZM93PQ

I haven't studied this extensively, but the impression I have is that there's no good primary evidence for it.

Keep in mind that the retcon pulled off by the church doesn't require lying, just motivated recall and motivated reasoning, which humans do all the flippin' time. It's part of our way of making our actions, memories, and beliefs all match up. For much illumination, search for "self-deception."

[Corsair]

Suppose we grant the Brigham Young transformation. Let the believers and apologists have it. In my experience, they only want to have it on their terms and absolutely none else.

How would a believer feel about visions and experiences of other religious mystics? What about the Miracle of the Sun where the Virgin Mary appeared in 1917 and made the sun dance in the sky for 10 minutes and was witnessed by thousands? Portuguese newspapers reports on the 29 October 1917 event. Consider the appearance of the Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City. Maybe the Blood of Saint Januarius will interest them? St. Joseph of Cupertino was known to levitate above crowds. Perhaps Saint Bernadette Soubirous and her incorruptible body after her death will be sufficient witness. This is only touching the major Catholic miracles. We have a list of additional miracles with other Christians, Muslims, and Jews without leaving the beliefs of the monotheists.

After we work through all those like some X-Files fan with nothing better to do, we are left with the confusing epistemology of this event. I can grant that many people followed Brigham Young based on their testimony, but does this necessarily obligate any of use living 150 years later? Does the church think that Brigham's one lame miracle in the 1840s is sufficient for millions of believers who came afterwards? Does this transformation mean that we can ignore so many ridiculous 19th century events during Brigham's time as prophet?

No further miracles are particularly evident ever since. Even further, we have Elder Bednar telling us to have faith to not be healed. It's like he doesn't realize that atheists already have faith to not be healed and they don't get any credit from believers for that.

It's not my job to base a testimony of the church on one lame miracle of Brigham Young. It's the job of the church to prove why they still should be a compelling influence in my life today. It's their job to show how Brigham Young was a disciple of Jesus. It's their job to show demonstrate Solus Christus, not a reverence for deeply flawed men.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

I like to ask the question "If Brigham was so obviously the rightful successor to so many, why was there any crisis at all?"

[jfro18]

OK - you guys are summing up my thoughts too.

I remember being taught the BY was the chosen successor and it was given through revelation to the people in Nauvoo, but I never really knew the details of the transfiguration story.

There's no way I believe that the Book of Mormon is legit, but as much as I think JS was a con man - I think BY was just a terrible person. So the idea that he could see easily seize power in the church is further proof to me that there's no connection to God here, and that there are a lot of accounts that show BY himself was responsible for revising history to give himself legitimacy.

I hate this so much... the more I learn, the more I want to rush back to my wife... but for now it's radio silence. I just hope she figures some of this out on her own. I know she's thinking of it, but I also know she's focusing only on LDS sources so that wall has to break before she really is exposed to all of this.

[Palerider]

OK - you guys are summing up my thoughts too.

I remember being taught the BY was the chosen successor and it was given through revelation to the people in Nauvoo, but I never really knew the details of the transfiguration story.

There's no way I believe that the Book of Mormon is legit, but as much as I think JS was a con man - I think BY was just a terrible person. So the idea that he could see easily seize power in the church is further proof to me that there's no connection to God here, and that there are a lot of accounts that show BY himself was responsible for revising history to give himself legitimacy.

I hate this so much... the more I learn, the more I want to rush back to my wife... but for now it's radio silence. I just hope she figures some of this out on her own. I know she's thinking of it, but I also know she's focusing only on LDS sources so that wall has to break before she really is exposed to all of this.

Regarding your wife:

Be an even better husband after mentally leaving the church than you were before. It may take some serious time before she comes around. Maybe years. We can't force a person to grow. They develop at their own pace.

My wife took about 3 years. It's worth the wait and being a person of integrity that your wife can TRUST and be happy with is paramount. She's trusting you not to force or hurt her. She's looking to see what kind of person you become without the church. Will you control your frustration? Will you prove all those nasty stories told by GAs about apostates to be true or will you put them to shame?

My prayers go with you.

[jfro18]

Regarding your wife:

Be an even better husband after mentally leaving the church than you were before. It may take some serious time before she comes around. Maybe years. We can't force a person to grow. They develop at their own pace.

My wife took about 3 years. It's worth the wait and being a person of integrity that your wife can TRUST and be happy with is paramount. She's trusting you not to force or hurt her. She's looking to see what kind of person you become without the church. Will you control your frustration? Will you prove all those nasty stories told by GAs about apostates to be true or will you put them to shame?

My prayers go with you.

That's my focus right now - just trying to do my own thing while leaving her to do her own thing. It is difficult as we both know we're on different paths, but she knows whenever she is ready I am here to talk, but until then I am not going to keep telling her my issues/feelings with the church.

It hasn't been too long so it's really difficult to say how it will all turn out, but I hope we will find that common ground to focus on while we get the other stuff straightened out. The good news is that the church has never been the center of our marriage, so it has made that part easier. Just need to figure out how to deal with our kid and then from there just keep doing our own path and hopefully someday try and work that part out.

Anyway... back to the issue at hand... it seems like the only way to believe this happened is to believe that 100+ people all remembered the event a decade later and that many people who weren't there but wrote down seeing it actually just got some key dates confused. So you see... no problem.

[Hermey]

At every turn as you journey own the rabbit hole that is Mormonism, another wristwatch or gas canister is uncovered....

[Corsair]

Hermey, is there any chance that apologists will use this pictures of Civil War wristwatches and Roman era gas canisters and evidence that anachronisms don't have to be the fatal flaw we assumed they were? After, we have photographic evidence in both cases.

[moksha]

Can you imagine if Donald Trump planted some shills in an audience who would claim that Trump took on the countenance of Ronald Reagan? It would be more believable for Donald Trump to take on the countenance of Brigham Young or Benito Mussolini.

The story was concocted to fool the rubes. Emma Smith and her children would never fall for such a pretense.

However, it would be fun to have some posters at the Mormon D&D board bear their testimony as to the truthfulness of this alleged face switcheroo.

[Hermey]

Hermey, is there any chance that apologists will use this pictures of Civil War wristwatches and Roman era gas canisters and evidence that anachronisms don't have to be the fatal flaw we assumed they were? After, we have photographic evidence in both cases.

I think they already do.

[AllieOop]

In the process of researching the church and talking with my wife (who is still 100% TBM although I'm hoping she's at least thinking about this stuff), the subject of the transfiguration of Brigham Young came up.

She had told me when I asked why *even if* the Book of Mormon was right, why does she believe BY was the person God wanted? She of course responded with the transfiguration story.

I researched it and found (to me) no credible evidence that it ever happened, and that just like the first vision

You're right. Here's some information on it (with more if you want to follow this links within)
http://holyfetch.com/young-transformed- ... eph-smith/

Here are couple of quotes from the article:

The only problem is that no one talked about this amazing transformation when it happened. There are no journals, letters, or newspaper accounts written at the time of the meeting that would back up this amazing story. It is true that such a meeting took place. And it is true that both Sidney Rigdon and Brigham Young spoke at the meeting. But no account of the transformation was recorded at that time.

Brigham’s speech was reported on in detail in both Nauvoo newspapers and recorded by scribes for the official church records. Hundreds of members present wrote about Brigham’s persuasive argument in great detail in their private journals. Nowhere was there a mention of the miraculous or divine.

So where does the story come from? There is no recorded account of the transformation until many years later, after the Saints were settled in Utah.In 1857, 13 years after the speech, Albert Carrington is the first to mention the transformation. In a speech before a huge gathering of Saints, he said that he couldn’t tell Brigham from Joseph that day when Brigham was speaking. Soon others were making the same claim.

[Ghost]

Though not all are as significant as succession to the presidency, I have found it interesting to learn how many foundational miracle stories appear to include elements of fabrication or exaggeration when examined. Another example is the the seagulls and the crickets (katydids). An essay about that one can be found in the excellent book The New Mormon History, which was edited by D. Michael Quinn.

The most significant example of this of all may be the New Testament Gospels, given how far removed the manuscripts are from the time, place, and even language of any potential eye witnesses.

[Reuben]

No further miracles are particularly evident ever since. Even further, we have Elder Bednar telling us to have faith to not be healed. It's like he doesn't realize that atheists already have faith to not be healed and they don't get any credit from believers for that.

I've had a vision! I saw Elder Bednar's April 2022 General Conference address. Here's what he said:

I then posed questions I had not planned to ask and had never previously considered: "[Bobby,] do you have the faith not to believe? If it is the will of our Heavenly Father that you are consigned in your youth to find the preponderance of evidence to be against the Church's truth claims, do you have the faith to submit to His will and not believe? More importantly, do you have the faith to obey every commandment with exactness even if you think it is all a total crock?"

[asa]

Albert Carrington in additional to being a member of the 12 was President of the European Mission until reports of misconduct with new female convets reached Salt Lake . He was recalled and confessed his misconduct. However he considered it “a little folly in Zion “. Because while there was penetration it was slight and never in his mind consituted full intercourse. So he was not guilty of fornicatiion. The argument was rejected by the Quorum and he was excommunicated.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Albert Carrington in additional to being a member of the 12 was President of the European Mission until reports of misconduct with new female convets reached Salt Lake . He was recalled and confessed his misconduct. However he considered it “a little folly in Zion “. Because while there was penetration it was slight and never in his mind consituted full intercourse. So he was not guilty of fornicatiion. The argument was rejected by the Quorum and he was excommunicated.

There seems to he a recurring issue with lack of penetration in these cases. History repeats itself. Viva viagara!

[deacon blues]

No further miracles are particularly evident ever since. Even further, we have Elder Bednar telling us to have faith to not be healed. It's like he doesn't realize that atheists already have faith to not be healed and they don't get any credit from believers for that.

I've had a vision! I saw Elder Bednar's April 2022 General Conference address. Here's what he said:

I then posed questions I had not planned to ask and had never previously considered: "[Bobby,] do you have the faith not to believe? If it is the will of our Heavenly Father that you are consigned in your youth to find the preponderance of evidence to be against the Church's truth claims, do you have the faith to submit to His will and not believe? More importantly, do you have the faith to obey every commandment with exactness even if you think it is all a total crock?"

I'm coming to this late (I've been on vacation) but boy did this resonate...........

[Arcturus]

No further miracles are particularly evident ever since. Even further, we have Elder Bednar telling us to have faith to not be healed. It's like he doesn't realize that atheists already have faith to not be healed and they don't get any credit from believers for that.

I've had a vision! I saw Elder Bednar's April 2022 General Conference address. Here's what he said:

I then posed questions I had not planned to ask and had never previously considered: "[Bobby,] do you have the faith not to believe? If it is the will of our Heavenly Father that you are consigned in your youth to find the preponderance of evidence to be against the Church's truth claims, do you have the faith to submit to His will and not believe? More importantly, do you have the faith to obey every commandment with exactness even if you think it is all a total crock?"

I was up on the stand during sacrament meeting when I read this and I literally almost laughed out loud

[Rob4Hope]

I don't recall the source, but I think there was a podcast out there where all this transfiguration malarkey can be attributed to post-facto narrative edits. The church has a history of that: keeping what bolsters their claims regardless of truth, and throwing out what may be true, if it doesn't bolster their claims. Didn't BY go after the testimony of Mother Smith?

If the guy is willing to change history at a whim, why then is it any stretch to consider him doing it to support his claim to leadership?

I'm reminded of the 3,500+ changes to the Book of Mormon...you know this book that was translated by the Gift and Power of God?...you know this book that had a statement appear on a rock that wouldn't disappear UNTIL it was written correctly by Oliver?...you know this book that is the most correct of any book on Earth?

History doesn't matter here. Close your eyes folks...and drink the cool-aid...