The Many-Transfigurations theory

[drumdude]

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!

So many fine upstanding people testified to it, it must be true! Every last Whitmer descendant swore of it to their dying breath!

[Gadianton]

This is interesting:

https://ldsanswers.org/evidence-transfi ... ham-young/

While not one dissenting hand was raised at that conference, thousands today are leaving the Church believing that Brigham Young was not the Prophet Joseph’s legal successor. Was Brigham Heaven’s choice? 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.

wow

If the transformation was nothing more than a myth, the argument can easily be made that President Young merely wrestled the mantle away from Sidney Rigdon by popular vote.15 Where does that leave the Church today?

holy cats

Does Dan believe that absent the transfiguration, Brigham's only claim to authority was winning a popular vote?

[Kishkumen]

This is interesting:

https://ldsanswers.org/evidence-transfi ... ham-young/

While not one dissenting hand was raised at that conference, thousands today are leaving the Church believing that Brigham Young was not the Prophet Joseph’s legal successor. Was Brigham Heaven’s choice? 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.

wow

If the transformation was nothing more than a myth, the argument can easily be made that President Young merely wrestled the mantle away from Sidney Rigdon by popular vote.15 Where does that leave the Church today?

holy cats

Does Dan believe that absent the transfiguration, Brigham's only claim to authority was winning a popular vote?

In my opinion, the whole thing is a non-issue. The Q12 were certainly adequately authoritative to run the church that emerged from the assassination and fragmentation of Nauvoo. There is this immature need to have someone at the head of the organization that people can pretend is the modern equivalent to Joseph Smith. BY is the first link in that chain. If he was not that equivalent in his day, then how can the president of the LDS Church be today’s Joseph Smith? All of this is based on the false premise that such a head of the Church is needed. All that is needed is a president who holds all the keys. That does not make the person Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith was a dispensation head, according to LDS theology. Brigham Young obviously was not. They want him to be Joseph Smith because they need to capture that sense of uniqueness and transfer it onto Brigham. But, really, anyone who had all the keys of the priesthood would have been technically qualified to be president of the LDS Church.

If we want to get into real problems with the organization of the LDS Church, let’s discuss the lack of a Smith patriarch. As Brigham himself said, without a patriarch over the Church, the Church is not fully organized. The LDS Church is not fully organized as I type this post. It has been in this incomplete state for roughly forty years, and it will remain incompletely organized for the foreseeable future.

[Philo Sofee]

I guess it is important for LDS people to believe that Brigham Young was Joseph Smith’s successor, despite the fact that he did not see himself as such for some time. I think it is pretty obvious that he was not Smith’s successor. This does not mean he was not the leader of his community. It does not mean that he did not have legitimate authority.

Maybe no one was supposed to be Smith’s successor as “the Prophet.” The Gospel was restored. Job done.

None of this takes away from Young’s accomplishments. He was no Joseph Smith. He didn’t produce any inspiring revelations. He translated no ancient records. He did not restore the Gospel and the ordinances. He kept things going, and that was important enough.

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

None of the successors have done any of those things that Smith did. But hey, they know how to make a mountain load more of money than he did, so there is that consolation prize.

[drumdude]

I guess it is important for LDS people to believe that Brigham Young was Joseph Smith’s successor, despite the fact that he did not see himself as such for some time. I think it is pretty obvious that he was not Smith’s successor. This does not mean he was not the leader of his community. It does not mean that he did not have legitimate authority.

Maybe no one was supposed to be Smith’s successor as “the Prophet.” The Gospel was restored. Job done.

None of this takes away from Young’s accomplishments. He was no Joseph Smith. He didn’t produce any inspiring revelations. He translated no ancient records. He did not restore the Gospel and the ordinances. He kept things going, and that was important enough.

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

None of the successors have done any of those things that Smith did. But hey, they know how to make a mountain load more of money than he did, so there is that consolation prize.

That's a great point, Philo. They're really carrying on the treasure seeking mantle of Joseph.

[Philo Sofee]

None of the successors have done any of those things that Smith did. But hey, they know how to make a mountain load more of money than he did, so there is that consolation prize.

That's a great point, Philo. They're really carrying on the treasure seeking mantle of Joseph.

They're not doing it with sticks and stones,
they're doing it with stocks and phones.

[I Have Questions]

If we want to get into real problems with the organization of the LDS Church, let’s discuss the lack of a Smith patriarch. As Brigham himself said, without a patriarch over the Church, the Church is not fully organized. The LDS Church is not fully organized as I type this post. It has been in this incomplete state for roughly forty years, and it will remain incompletely organized for the foreseeable future.

I think you inherently pose a larger question here. Are members obligated to believe all of what Brigham Young espoused from the moment of his belatedly-claimed metamorphosis into Joseph Smith? Or can they legitimately pick and choose? And if they can, what is the criteria for what to reject? (It’s more of a general question rather than one addressed to you specifically Kishkumen)

Then there's the question about what constitutes a valid witness testimony...

[Kishkumen]

I just noticed this bit from another one of our threads:

A more efficient approach -- I'm watching it in real time over at the Peterson Obsession Board -- is to simply dismiss all the accounts, sight unseen, accompanied by snorts of derision and, among the higher organisms there, airy but factually-ungrounded theoretical explanations of why the accounts needn't be seriously considered.

It's conjured up an involuntary image in my mind of a ritual gathering of such folks: "By the great throbbing brain of Dumb-Dud!" goes the incantation. Dumb-Dud actually explained, a few weeks ago, that dissenting from His views indicates that the dissenter has the mental power of a "gnat." (The mightily engorged self-esteem is rather cute, in its way.)

I think they should be seriously considered, but I also think it is important to understand them in the context of the time in which they occurred. I seriously consider them as feelings of comfort that the Quorum of the Twelve would serve as the guardian of the Church now that Joseph Smith was gone. And Brigham Young was their president. This was a much better option than the other one they were presented that day: Sidney Rigdon. I would say that the Spirit moved the people to choose Brigham's argument over Sidney's. And that was the right choice.

What it does not indicate is that Brigham Young was Joseph Smith's successor. Indeed, one also must consider the claim that Brigham is Joseph Smith's successor in the context of the efforts Joseph Smith made to provide a successor. He did make such efforts, and they did not include Brigham Young. At best, one might argue that they included the Quorum of the Twelve, but even in this case there is a real question of context and intention.

It strikes me as odd that this should be such a contentious issue. It is not at all necessary, at least in my view, that the president of the LDS Church should be considered Joseph Smith's successor in every sense. It really isn't necessary for the proper organization of the LDS Church. What is necessary, it seems, is the right priesthood authority. The Q12 had the keys, so they reorganized the First Presidency. It did not take a Joseph Smith to fill the role of president.

Any experiences that made people feel that they should follow Brigham Young as the leader of the Twelve, which collectively served as the guardian of the church, ought to be understood in that light, not to press the argument that Brigham Young was the new Joseph Smith, which he obviously wasn't.

[Rivendale]

A couple of folks over at the Peterson Obsession Board finally noticed the Meridian article -- Dumb-Dud and the former Kerry Shirts, at least -- and have begun to chant their disagreement with it and their disdain for it. As of yet, they've shown no awareness of the actual argument, let alone any sign of having read and dealt with the research of Lynne Watkins Jorgensen, to which I called attention

Philo, did you legally change your name??

Dan has no response to pointing out how ridiculously childish his apologetic arguments are. Two Hills Cumorah. Two Watson letters. Two, three, four transfigurations of Brigham Young. Whatever it takes to jam that square peg into a round hole.

The apologetic tactics seem to support this age old claim.

the Mitt Romney campaign had contacted the Maxwell Institute to complain that the extreme Mormon apologetics of Peterson were hurting the Romney presidential campaign.

[Gadianton]

You make a sober case Reverend. DCP, Snuffer, Mormon bloggers, and others I've glanced at since you started the thread definitely aren't giving us the mature picture that you are.

My only quibble is that what you're saying amounts to Joseph having all the fun, and then passing down the lifeless bureaucracy that is the Church today to perpetuate until the end times. Miracles ceased just as they were getting started. But I think you are right that Joseph did everything that he intended to do to move the kingdom forward after he left. Now, this is the first time I've ever had this thought, but I think what you're saying is Joseph didn't set apart an explicit successor because -- well, how could he, the greatest thing in the world even greater than Christ, be followed up by anybody? That would be like asking who the successor to Donald Trump is. Donald Trump made America great, and after he's gone, Republicans can keep things going as he designated while deferring to his name evermore.

If that's the case, then the transfiguration has importance in the sense of perpetuating the magic of Joseph Smith -- the person who not only held the keys, but then never left a locked door unopened.