The Many-Transfigurations theory

[I Have Questions]

FAIR doesn’t portray the event as quite so miraculous.

some Saints specifically state that as Brigham Young addressed the congregation he sounded and appeared remarkably like Joseph Smith, others simply say that the “mantle of Joseph” or “of the prophets” rested on Brigham Young, and others state that they were given a witness “by the spirit” that Brigham was to lead the Church.

https://byustudies.BYU.edu/article/the- ... l-witness/

So it sounds as if things got more miraculous the more time passed - just like the First Vision accounts.

[Moksha]

No miracle stories of Young’s alleged transfiguration change any of this.

You would think the Saints would abandon this obvious artifact of trickery and hokum.

[Kishkumen]

You would think the Saints would abandon this obvious artifact of trickery and hokum.

It doesn't bother me because I think I understand the nature and role of miracle stories. My guess is that most miracle stories evolve according to need and a continuing revisitation of the event. Over time, different meanings are applied to the sense that something special happened. In the case of Brigham and the mantle of the prophet, it is clear to me that at first he was arguing that the Twelve should be the guardians of the church now that Joseph and Hyrum had been assassinated. Any sense of something special at the time was most likely taken as a confirmation of Brigham's argument at the time. But, things evolved and Brigham carried the leadership role, so the meaning of the initial experiences evolved with the change in Brigham's position. What was originally a sense of spiritual comfort that Brigham's argument was approved by the Spirit became the miracle of his transfiguration to indicate he was Smith's literal successor.

Human beings do not have stagnant or stable memories. Memory is shaped and reshaped over time. I do not contest the fact that some Mormons felt the Spirit's confirmation that Brigham's argument at the time was correct. I contest the idea that the significance and meaning of their experiences never changed. They did change along with the changes in Brigham's role, becoming something quite different from their initial meaning.

[Doctor Steuss]

You would think the Saints would abandon this obvious artifact of trickery and hokum.

It doesn't bother me because I think I understand the nature and role of miracle stories. My guess is that most miracle stories evolve according to need and a continuing revisitation of the event. Over time, different meanings are applied to the sense that something special happened.

I think a good example of the evolutionary nature of this particular miracle story is how the vast majority of the first-hand accounts of the miracle are from years after it occurred. Even people who were keeping journals at the time only noted in their journals years later that they witnessed it. I remember picking up a book from the FAIR bookstore over a decade ago that had all of the accounts within it, and being taken aback by how much time had passed between the event, and when all of these people started talking about it. It was kind of like a floodgate of the necessity for the creation of the "memory" being opened. Years, and years of no one mentioning any type of miracle, and then *boom*, everyone started sharing their recollection.

It's also a cool look into how our minds work within our given community groups. Some of the people may have been giving their account, knowing full well they never saw such a thing, but I think it's likely that a lot of the people had essentially convinced themselves, and re-written their recollections of the event. Kind of a communal miracle Mandella effect of sorts. Our noggins are rascally things.

[Kishkumen]

I think a good example of the evolutionary nature of this particular miracle story is how the vast majority of the first-hand accounts of the miracle are from years after it occurred. Even people who were keeping journals at the time only noted in their journals years later that they witnessed it. I remember picking up a book from the FAIR bookstore over a decade ago that had all of the accounts within it, and being taken aback by how much time had passed between the event, and when all of these people started talking about it. It was kind of like a floodgate of the necessity for the creation of the "memory" being opened. Years, and years of no one mentioning any type of miracle, and then *boom*, everyone started sharing their recollection.

It's also a cool look into how our minds work within our given community groups. Some of the people may have been giving their account, knowing full well they never saw such a thing, but I think it's likely that a lot of the people had essentially convinced themselves, and re-written their recollections of the event. Kind of a communal miracle Mandella effect of sorts. Our noggins are rascally things.

Indeed, and modern historical method is a check on those noggins and their unreliable recollections. There is a place for the noggins, and there is a place for the best historical method. Our collective memory is an important part of our sense of community, while the best historical method checks the tendency that memory has to take us far afield from what actually happened. The role of the organization should be to mediate between those perspectives. I am afraid apologetics compromises on sound historical method to cherrypick whatever buttresses the current status quo. The LDS Church lacks sufficient intellectual institutions to provide the right mediation between the two extremes. Critics go too far in privileging what they feel is the least flattering take on a Mormon topic based on data gathered, or sometimes just cobbled together, from the past.

[Res Ipsa]

I think a good example of the evolutionary nature of this particular miracle story is how the vast majority of the first-hand accounts of the miracle are from years after it occurred. Even people who were keeping journals at the time only noted in their journals years later that they witnessed it. I remember picking up a book from the FAIR bookstore over a decade ago that had all of the accounts within it, and being taken aback by how much time had passed between the event, and when all of these people started talking about it. It was kind of like a floodgate of the necessity for the creation of the "memory" being opened. Years, and years of no one mentioning any type of miracle, and then *boom*, everyone started sharing their recollection.

It's also a cool look into how our minds work within our given community groups. Some of the people may have been giving their account, knowing full well they never saw such a thing, but I think it's likely that a lot of the people had essentially convinced themselves, and re-written their recollections of the event. Kind of a communal miracle Mandella effect of sorts. Our noggins are rascally things.

Indeed, and modern historical method is a check on those noggins and their unreliable recollections. There is a place for the noggins, and there is a place for the best historical method. Our collective memory is an important part of our sense of community, while the best historical method checks the tendency that memory has to take us far afield from what actually happened. The role of the organization should be to mediate between those perspectives. I am afraid apologetics compromises on sound historical method to cherrypick whatever buttresses the current status quo. The LDS Church lacks sufficient intellectual institutions to provide the right mediation between the two extremes. Critics go too far in privileging what they feel is the least flattering take on a Mormon topic based on data gathered, or sometimes just cobbled together, from the past.

Well said.

[Kishkumen]

Thanks, RI!

[drumdude]

Arguments from incredulity seem to me extremely common, if not indeed almost omnipresent, when a proffered explanation is rejected. And I don't see them as inherently bad or false.

They're certainly omnipresent in Daniel's work.

"How could Joseph Smith have written the Book of Mormon? It must have been God."

"How could the 8 witnesses have lied about hefting the plates? They must have been real."

"How could 120 people, including ones who weren't in the room, lie about Brigham's transfiguration? He must have been transformed."

Daniel lacks the imagination necessary to entertain any other hypothesis than what his church tells him is true. Or, he actually can imagine it, and purposely chooses not to give those thoughts any air. God forbid anyone have their fragile faith challenged with a bit of skepticism.

[Moksha]

Years, and years of no one mentioning any type of miracle, and then *boom*, everyone started sharing their recollection.

Can't wait for the next generation of apologists to relate future stories of how unicorns and rainbows magically surrounded Dr. Peterson when he was chastising critics and other theologies. Bear those testimonies, my entrepreneurial Brothers and Sisters!

[Gadianton]

FAIR doesn’t portray the event as quite so miraculous.

That's my first impression, the apologists would distance themselves from this.

There must have been a time in the past where propping BY up with a miracle seemed necessary, as the Rev has explained, something akin to the miracle of the Gold Plates for Joseph Smith.