Transfiguration of Brigham Young

[drumdude]

It appears that we have an interesting development in Mormon history, right at our favorite blog comments section! This is exciting stuff:

At the meeting immediately following the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young ascended the makeshift stage and addressed the people and the mantle of the Prophet, Joseph, fell upon him. Pundits like to admonish us that the incident never happened, because it wasn't broadly mentioned until many years later.

I can't help but relate the two events as mentioned above: first, there was an apparent reluctance to share the spiritual event until the "time was right," and second, the people were in the midst of mindset reconciliation. In the case of the pioneers, they were preparing to flee for their very lives and they had more urgent things on their minds than their "nightly journal-entry" right at that moment.

One of my great-great grandfathers casually mentions the incident and describes how he was present as the mantle of Joseph fell upon Brigham. Knowing him to be a just and honorable man, I far better take his word on the unfolding of events than I would the apostates who would negate it because he didn't write it down immediately, but waited until shortly before his death when he compiled a very short autobiography of his life.

Not always are things easily discerned by "timeframe," especially years later when the "time is right" to once again discuss them. This does not make these events any less valid, any less true, nor any less miraculous.

Dan can hardly contain himself, and writes just 2 short hours later asking

Do you have a copy of your ancestor's mention of the incident?

I’m looking forward to apostates being owned by this potential bombshell.

[huckelberry]

It has not previously occurred to me to doubt that some people had this reported experience.

[¥akaSteelhead]

The are 0 contemporary sources for said transfiguration. It is a bit of Mormon folklore that developed over time, the first story some 13 years after the event, and not a transfiguration, but some transference of the mantle of authority.

http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/myth_creation.pdf

&&
--The Mantle of Joseph: Creation of a Mormon Miracle Reid L Harper, 35
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/view ... monhistory

[jfro18]

There is no contemporary records that Brigham transfigured into Joseph in any way. I would also argue that saying the "mantle" fell onto Brigham would be like saying "I knew that Brigham should be the one to lead the church going forward."

I can't think of any way that mantle would equate to transfiguration.

For anyone who is interested I have an overview about the transfiguration @ https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/transfiguration

I honestly think the transfiguration is one of the most important events in Mormonism and to some extent modern religion because we can see how it progresses over the years following the event.

[dastardly stem]

One of my great-great grandfathers casually mentions the incident and describes how he was present as the mantle of Joseph fell upon Brigham. Knowing him to be a just and honorable man, I far better take his word on the unfolding of events than I would the apostates who would negate it because he didn't write it down immediately, but waited until shortly before his death when he compiled a very short autobiography of his life.

Seatimer could use a primer on probability, I'd say.

Is it more likely the magical event took place changing one man's face to appear to be another man's face (and voice?)...or is it more likely that seatimer's just and honorable gr...great grandpa thought he saw something, got excited in the wake of others saying they saw something, and then convinced himself he saw a man's face changed to another man's? He's got a real problem in terms of being reasonable here. You can't take historic events, all too often as either/or (as if it's just a question of he saw it or he made it up), and you can't legitimize magical events because you really want to believe someone. His gr...great grandpa could have been just and honorable and yet mistaken, or could have been just and honorable and yet convinced himself following other people's excitement. It happens and has been demonstrated to have happened many times--we love convincing ourselves.

The problem he has is even if his grandpa and the other religious fanatics of his day and time wrote it down the night it happened, it'd still be insufficient evidence to support the claim. It'd still be more likely their religiously infatuated minds saw what they wanted to see or imagined something rather than BY's face actually changed into Joseph's. He has the same problem people have in trying to argue that the resurrection really happened and thinking history can verify it.

Not always are things easily discerned by "timeframe," especially years later when the "time is right" to once again discuss them. This does not make these events any less valid, any less true, nor any less miraculous.

Time frame isn't really the issue here. I mean it's part of it....but even if the time frame disappeared he still has a huge obstacle to overcome.

Anyway, I'd say, believe what you want.. Just don't expect anyone to think you are being reasonable.

[drumdude]

I mean, Joseph clearly thought he could read Egyptian. And plainly couldn't. This gives tremendous doubt to all Mormon miracle accounts. First vision, witnesses of the Book of Mormon, witnesses of this supposed "transfiguration."

Mormons back then had a magical worldview, which is why Dan tries so hard to denigrate the word "magic."

[drumdude]

There is no contemporary records that Brigham transfigured into Joseph in any way. I would also argue that saying the "mantle" fell onto Brigham would be like saying "I knew that Brigham should be the one to lead the church going forward."

I can't think of any way that mantle would equate to transfiguration.

For anyone who is interested I have an overview about the transfiguration @ https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/transfiguration

I honestly think the transfiguration is one of the most important events in Mormonism and to some extent modern religion because we can see how it progresses over the years following the event.

Excellent work, thank you. My feeling about Mormonism on the whole is the same, that it shows us how the sausage is made. The transfiguration is a very nice and tidy specific example in microcosm.

[drumdude]

Alas, Seatimer's account has come to naught. Here is the excerpt:

http://www.johnpratt.com/gen/8/z_pulsipher.html

At this time the mob expected we should rise and give them battle; we thought best not to do it. We just kept still and continued our work on the Temple, finished it and got our end. But at that time most of the 12 were absent on missions. Sidney Rigden, who aspired for the Presidency came and called the church together and presented his claim for the Presidency. But the 12 soon came home and appeared on the stand at the day appointed for choosing. Sidney made his plea. Brigham Young began to speak and at that time I sat with my back towards the stand as did others.

And when Brigham spoke he spoke with the voice of Joseph and we turned around to see Brigham speaking in Joseph's voice and behold Joseph's mantle had fallen on him. The people understood it in the same way. Brigham stood at the head of the twelve therefore the Church turned to him.

Persecution continually waxed against the Church. They thought it best to go to a more secluded land accordingly in January, 1846. I had notice to be ready at three days notice to leave on account of so many attempts to destroy the church. At length I had the notice and started with (a) good team the 2nd day of February, crossed the Mississippi River and went as far as Sugar Creek, till the cold weather broke.

Another account written long after the fact. And apparently of such momentous importance, that it deserved barely a mention between two much longer paragraphs about other subjects.

[Dr. Shades]

Pundits like to admonish us that the incident never happened, because it wasn't broadly mentioned until many years later.

Right. Like the Mopologists do when discussing the Spalding witnesses.

Knowing him to be a just and honorable man, I far better take his word on the unfolding of events than I would the apostates who would negate it because he didn't write it down immediately, but waited until shortly before his death when he compiled a very short autobiography of his life.

But somehow the exact opposite is claimed when it comes to the Spalding witnesses.

The hypocrisy is both infinite and disgusting.

[jfro18]

Another account written long after the fact. And apparently of such momentous importance, that it deserved barely a mention between two much longer paragraphs about other subjects.

Can you tell when it was written? From the dates at the end I wasn't sure, but it definitely seems like someone writing a lot of it after the fact as opposed to a live and ongoing journal.