The Transfiguration of Brigham Young

[inquirringmind]

Was Brigham Young transfigured on August 8, 1844?

[log]

No contemporary source says he was.

[FoxMammaWisdom]

There is a good thread about this here somewhere supporting the conclusion that he was not.

[Lance]

-

[inquirringmind]

Thank you.

[Silas]

I have an ancestor who was at the meeting and said that he saw it happen. I believe him.

[log]

I have an ancestor who was at the meeting and said that he saw it happen. I believe him.

But did he say it at the time, or was it many years afterwards?

[Silas]

Doesn't matter to me, he was an honest man and I believe him. Beyond that though, record keeping being what it was it is not surprising to me that you don't see a lot of accounts until years later when people are well settled in Utah. I'm also not concerned at all that some at the meeting did not perceive the change, or that some only report hearing his voice changing, still some report nothing more than a calming assurance of the Lord's will. Spiritual experiences are like that, people vary in their ability to receive the spirit, and not everyone needed a spiritual manifestation to know that Brigham was to lead the church. Some of them understood (by paying attention to Joseph's teachings and the scriptures) that there is no presidency without the president and that the twelve are equal in authority to the first presidency and so were to lead the church in the absence of the first presidency. Hence as President of the twelve there was no doubt at all (for many church members) that Brigham Young was to lead lead the church.

I have been in meetings where some saw angels, some felt an out pouring of the spirit and others perceived nothing at all. I don't think that those who saw angels were dishonest because not everyone saw them. I also wouldn't think them dishonest if they did not feel comfortable discussing the event until years afterwards. These things are spiritual manifestations and spiritual manifestations are not the same for everyone, hence they don't lend themselves well to academic analysis.

[iamse7en]

There is a good thread about this here somewhere supporting the conclusion that he was not.

This is the good thread, but I would argue it strongly supports the conclusion that he WAS.

No contemporary source says he was.

I'll first state that you do not need contemporary evidence to make a strong argument for validation that an event occurred. This need is overstated quite a bit. Nonetheless, you actually do have contemporary evidence supporting a this event, though they're not explicit as the hundreds of retrospective accounts. You have Times and Seasons, the Henry and Catharine Brooke letter, Arza Hinckley diary, and the William Burton diary. These sources were laid out by Quinn. The ex-believer/humanist Van Wagoner tries to discount these sources as not explicit enough, but they fit the pattern later described by at least 121 witnesses, and all together paint a very persuasive mosaic. While it's true some people got carried away with their recollections, perhaps even one who may not have even been there, you'd have to say each of the 130 or so eyewitnesses were liars.

I have an ancestor who was at the meeting and said that he saw it happen. I believe him.

I do as well. My great-great-great grandmother Cordelia Morely Cox (an almost plural wife of JS) was there and left a later account. I too believe her, mostly because it is confirmed by strong contemporary accounts and 121+ retrospective accounts.

[log]

I tend to side with Van Wagoner in that the contemporary references are not explicit enough, from what you posted. And the later recollections occur in the era of much lying in Mormon history.

Stories about Santa Claus are told even today.

How long after the wondrous manifestations at Kirtland were the accounts thereof published?

[briznian]

I'll weigh in with some anecdotal evidence...

I was the ward clerk some years back. The Bishop felt that it was time to choose a new Young Men's president for the ward. As the bishopric was discussing names the whittled the list down to 3 or 4 individuals who they felt might be right. The bishop led the room in prayer over each name. When a certain person was prayed over he stopped. The others in the room looked around in amazement and asked if everybody "felt that". I felt nothing. I didn't see or hear anything. Yet clearly they were literally physically moved.

It is quite possible that some people present actually did SEE a transfiguration of Brigham Young into Joseph Smith while others at the same meeting didn't see anything at all. As has been pointed out, nothing of note was written down until decades later. The Times & Seasons newspaper neglected to report on it. I feel therefore that we probably shouldn't teach it as fact since none of us can point to any clear evidence of it happening. I'll let BH Roberts fill in the rest:

Suppose your youth receive their impressions of church history from "pictures and stories" and build their faith upon these alleged miracles [and] shall someday come face to face with the fact that their belief rests on falsehoods, what then will be the result? Will they not say that since these things are myth and our Church has permitted them to be perpetuated ... might not the other fundamentals to the actual story of the Church, the things in which it had its origin, might they not all be lies and nothing but lies?
Truman G. Madsen, Defender of the Faith: The B. H. Roberts Story (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980), 363.

[Hyrcanus]

This is really hard topic to reach a conclusion on. Here are is a non-exclusive list of issues:

- What exactly does the transfiguration discussed mean? Bodily transformed into Joseph? A spiritual experience on the part of the viewers? Both? Something else?
- How many people need to witness it for it to count? Does one person having the experience count?
- Could Satan have caused some people to see the transfiguration in order to lead them away?
- Could Satan have caused some people to NOT see the transfiguration in order to lead them away?
- Does contemporary sourcing need to be present to confirm a spiritual experience?
- Is your personal preference on the matter influencing your view on this?

The conclusion I've come to is that trying to unwind past spiritual experiences of others isn't fruitful. The question that is actually trying to be answered is whether the Prophetic mantle and authority passed to Brigham. That isn't a question that is decided by reading witness accounts of that day, that is a matter decided by seeking our own spiritual witness. I usually dislike answers like that, but when it comes to evaluating the spiritual experiences of others, it really is the only solution.

I'm undecided on the matter personally, not that it should have any bearing.

[log]

The question that is actually trying to be answered is whether the Prophetic mantle and authority passed to Brigham.

The scriptures say there is only one way.

D&C 43
1 O hearken, ye elders of my church, and give ear to the words which I shall speak unto you.

2 For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand.

3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.

5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;

6 And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.

7 For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.

If one takes this at face value, the question of succession is answered.

[inquirringmind]

The others in the room looked around in amazement and asked if everybody "felt that". I felt nothing. I didn't see or hear anything. Yet clearly they were literally physically moved.

Were you the only one in the room who didn't feel, or see, or hear anything?

[briznian]

Neither me nor the executive secretary who was also present felt anything.

Edit for spelling.