Breaking News: BYU-I Professor Resigns Church Membership

[Guest]

I used to agree with Caudle's proposition until I saw the mass of statements assembled by BYU Studies on this event, from eyewitness to later recollection, and then re-discussed in Welch's book, and I was convinced that the event was indeed quite historical. I suppose that one could quibble with independent statements of witnesses but en masse they are quite something.

Interesting. Perhaps you could give us references to this "mass" of eyewitness statements recorded substantially contemporaneously with the supposed event. Or even one, for starters. "Later recollections?" Sure, I have seen lots of those. Haven't seen any contemporaneous eyewitness accounts, though. as far as I know, the earliest mention of the supposed transfiguration was not recorded until 1846 nearly two years after the event. Even BYU Studies, in introducing the article to which you likely are referring, says this about the event:

Most Mormon historians acknowledge the mantle story agreeing that something important happened in August 1844. For example, Ronald K. Esplin states, "Though there is no contemporary diary account, the number of later retellings, many in remarkable detail, argues for the reality of some such experience." Leonard J. Arrington notes that an important event "took place" but observes that there may be psychological explanations for the phenomenon and reserves judgment regarding whether a miraculous transfiguration occurred. Others, however, have concluded that it is unlikely that a miraculous spiritual manifestation took place. Richard S. Van Wagoner, for instance, writes, "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." Van Wagoner concludes that "a more likely scenario was that it was the force of Young's commanding presence, his well-timed arrival at the morning meeting, and perhaps a bit of theatrical mimicry, that swayed the crowd."

https://byustudies.byu.edu/dailyfeature.aspx?feature=435

By saying "from eyewitness to later recollection, you are creating a misleading contrast, implying that there were contemporaneous eyewitness accounts when none has ever been discovered. All of the eyewitness accounts of which historians are aware were, in fact, "later recollection."

Actually one of my forefathers was a witness to this transfiguration of Brigham to Joseph and recorded the event contemporaneous to the event occurring. Knowing that my grand dad was a witness of these events has always been a spiritual witness for our entire family to the truthfulness of the truth claims of the church. He wrote of the event in his diary the evening of the transfiguration. His diary has been passed down through our family and thus has trustworthy provenance...but the church has refused to pay us what we demand for its contents...we've been fair in the market price we're asking for this contemporaries collaboration of these and other important historical events during the Nauvoo period but so far the church just wants us to donate it so they can bury it in their vaults...and there is no way that's going to happen. But they are fully aware of its contents since we've allowed their representative to look at the diary...just not copy it.

Some Gems from my great great grand father's diary:

June 5, 1844 : Just subscribed to a new newspaper that President Law is publishing...finally we'll be able to read the unfiltered truth

June 7, 1844 : “F”, those bastards destroyed the printing press...and I paid a whole $1.00 for an annual subscription...no way I'll get my money back now.

June 27,1844 : Good riddance to bad rubbish...they finally got the bastard

July 31, 1844 : I heard today that that pretender Brigham young is headed back to town...can't imagine what he wants to say

August 8, 1844 : Went to the bowery today for some entertainment. I got so damned drunk. How damned drunk was I? I was so damned drunk that that ugly bastard Brigham Young actually looked like Joseph Smith to me...that's how damned drunk I was.

Our family just can't figure out why the church doesn't want to buy my grand dad's diary

[_Equality]

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/mass_delusions_and_hysterias_highlights_from_the_past_millennium

Suggested reading for Yahoo Bot. Read these accounts of mass delusions and hysteria, then read the recollections of mid-19th-century Mormons about Brigham Young's "transfiguration." Does it change your perception of the value of the accounts about the Joseph/Brigham event, even when taken "en masse?"

[_SteelHead]

These en mass reports.... When did they first surface? Why was this miracle omitted from all the contemporary reports?

[_Ludd]

by the way, an interesting blog post appeared yesterday that spells out Caudle's reasons for leaving in some detail: http://approachingjustice.net/2014/08/05/byu-idaho-religion-instructor-leaves-church/

Kind of a sad story.

From your quoted link:

During one particular session that touched on the succession of Church leadership from Joseph Smith to Brigham Young, 30 students joined the session. During the discussion, Caudle mentioned that the account of Brigham Young being transfigured to appear like Joseph Smith is not “entirely historical.”

I used to agree with Caudle's proposition until I saw the mass of statements assembled by BYU Studies on this event, from eyewitness to later recollection, and then re-discussed in Welch's book, and I was convinced that the event was indeed quite historical. I suppose that one could quibble with independent statements of witnesses but en masse they are quite something.

Not sure what to think about the fact that all these people tell a similar story about what happened that day in 1844. Yes, the accounts are mostly (all?) from many years down the road. But what I find strange is that they all reference such an odd ocurrence. I mean, couldn't they have come up with something a little more.......well........normal? You know, just your standard "voice of god speaking from the heavens" type of thing? Or maybe even a white dove landing on Young's shoulder? I don't know, I guess part of me thinks they could have settled on a better story than Young being "transformed" into Joseph Smith. Just seems like a strange thing to come up with.

One thing is true: for whatever reason, a huge majority of Mormons decided to follow Brigham Young. If you look back at the first 15 years of Mormon histoyr, I think most people would conclude that there ought to have been more of power struggle for control of the Mormons than there actually ended up being. Instead, Brigham Young consolidated power amazingly fast. In fact, within a short period of time, he had organized things such that power and control was much more centralized in him than it ever had been in Joseph Smith. Things were always pretty loosey goosey when Smith was in charge. But Brigham Young put an end to all of that in short order. So it could be just that the people in Nauvoo that day in August 1844 recognized a "general" when they saw one, and they fell in behind him simply because he had a kind the kind of "leader charisma" they were looking for at that time.

[_SteelHead]

Ludd, it took 3 years from Joseph Smith's death to by's coronation. How is that quick? More than anything the isolation of his flock to the great basin is what consolidated his hold, that and punishment by the danites for those trying to leave.

[_Equality]

So it could be just that the people in Nauvoo that day in August 1844 recognized a "general" when they saw one, and they fell in behind him simply because he had a kind the kind of "leader charisma" they were looking for at that time.

I disagree with a lot of the other stuff you wrote, but this I agree with. Brigham Young was a doer. He was an organizer. And he was a decider. He also understood politics and was not afraid to get down in the dirt when necessary to achieve his objectives. So it is not at all surprising that his particular faction was able to thrive while others faltered.

Not sure what to think about the fact that all these people tell a similar story about what happened that day in 1844. Yes, the accounts are mostly (all?) from many years down the road. But what I find strange is that they all reference such an odd ocurrence. I mean, couldn't they have come up with something a little more.......well........normal? You know, just your standard "voice of god speaking from the heavens" type of thing? Or maybe even a white dove landing on Young's shoulder? I don't know, I guess part of me thinks they could have settled on a better story than Young being "transformed" into Joseph Smith. Just seems like a strange thing to come up with.

You should read the stories about mass hysteria that I posted up thread. Similar questions could be asked about all examples of mass visions and mass hysteria. It's a fascinating subject. But no ghosts, holy or otherwise, are needed to explain away bizarre human behavior.

[_Ludd]

Ludd, it took 3 years from Joseph Smith's death to by's coronation. How is that quick?

Sorry, but I must disagree. The reorganization of the FP at Winter Quarters was just a formality. More or less the equivalent of Julius Caesar getting the Senate to proclaim him dictator for life. Caesar had consolidated his power long before then. I would say that BY consolidated his power before he ever stood up to speak in Nauvoo following Sidney Rigdon's futile appeal to be made the "guardian" of the church. It was already a done deal at that point in time. BY had been working "behind the scenes" ever since he returned to Nauvoo following the death of Joseph Smith. Say what you want about the guy and his ideology, he was one shrewd politician.

[_ludwigm]

BY ...
Say what you want about the guy and his ideology, he was one shrewd politician.

Agree.
His followers were sometimes less shrewd, sometimes less politicians, sometimes only simple administrators.
None of them were real spiritual leaders, as the Pope or the Dalai Lama are.


------------------------------
The list of prophets shows something mixture of "by right of birth" and "by right of power". The members of FP+12 select the next by birth, or by loyality (=power). Then comes the celestial lottery: god kills those who are not able to lead his empire.

by the way I see some parallel - even this will be moved to offtopic...

Mayor Indbur – successively the third of that name – was the grandson of the first Indbur, who had been brutal and capable; and who had exhibited the first quality in spectacular fashion by his manner of seizing power, and the latter by the skill with which he put an end to the last farcical remnants of free election and the even greater skill with which he maintained a relatively peaceful rule.

Mayor Indbur was also the son of the second Indbur, who was the first Mayor of the Foundation to succeed to his post by right of birth – and who was only half his father, for he was merely brutal.

So Mayor Indbur was the third of the name and the second to succeed by right of birth, and he was the least of the three, for he was neither brutal nor capable – but merely an excellent bookkeeper born wrong.

Indbur the Third was a peculiar combination of ersatz characteristics to all but himself.

To him, a stilted geometric love of arrangement was "system," an indefatigable and feverish interest in the pettiest facets of day-to-day bureaucracy was "industry," indecision when right was "caution," and blind stubbornness when wrong, "determination."

And withal he wasted no money, killed no man needlessly, and meant extremely well.

[_Maureen]

I'm not sure if anyone has added these podcasts to this thread but here are two from Rational Faiths about Kirk Caudle.

http://rationalfaiths.com/kirk-caudle-part-1/

http://rationalfaiths.com/kirk-caudle-r ... le-part-2/

M.

[_Nevo]

I'm not sure if anyone has added these podcasts to this thread but here are two from Rational Faiths about Kirk Caudle.

http://rationalfaiths.com/kirk-caudle-part-1/

http://rationalfaiths.com/kirk-caudle-r ... le-part-2/

Interesting. So in addition to questioning Brigham Young's "transformation" in August 1844, Caudle says he also "mentioned the Fanny [Alger] situation with students." And then attempted to direct them to Brian Hales's site for further reading. And this while teaching a religion course that was supposed to be based exclusively on the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets and apostles. I can see why it didn't work out.