Transcription
If you are like me, you grew up hearing about the miracle of John Taylor's watch. The story I remember hearing is that as he was falling out of the window at Carthage, someone outside shot at him. The ball struck his pocket watch and pushed him back into the room. Although this story was told for over 150 years, we now know that it didn't happen. Extensive testing done at the Church History Museum and by private individuals confirmed that there is no way that watch was shot. In Volume 1 of *Saints*, it now states that John Taylor smashed his watch by falling against the windowsill.
Paul H. Dunn was a popular General Authority and author of 28 books. He was well liked for his dramatic and inspiring stories. The problem is many of the stories were embellished or just not true at all. Dunn was exposed and later apologized to the church members for the deception. Some might suggest that it isn't important if these stories are true, that they promote faith regardless. But what is the definition of faith? Alma 32:21 tells us that faith is in things which are true. So can a story really be faith-promoting if it isn't true?
B.H. Roberts was challenged for leaving out certain faith-promoting stories in his comprehensive history of the church. This was his response: “Suppose your youth received 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 myths 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?” He has a good point here. We have plenty of true stories that promote faith without perpetuating the myths. With this in mind, let's take a look at the story of the Transfiguration of Brigham Young.
On August 8, 1844, an outdoor meeting was held with over 5,000 Saints in attendance. Sydney Rigdon, the first counselor in the First Presidency, spoke in the morning, and Brigham Young spoke in the afternoon. Sydney offered himself up as a guardian for the church and as a spokesman for Joseph from beyond the veil. He brought up his qualifications as the last member of the First Presidency and said how he had been with Joseph from the beginning, even seen visions with him. Brigham countered that the Twelve had the authority to run the church and called into question the loyalty of Sydney. Brigham then asked, “Do you want the church properly organized, or do you want a spokesman to be chief cook and bottle washer?” While the crowd had been supportive of Sydney in the morning, they were now persuaded by Brigham's argument in favor of the Twelve. When he asked for a vote to sustain the Twelve in their calling, it went overwhelmingly in his favor.
Now, the story I have been told is that a miraculous occurrence happened during the speech of Brigham Young—that thousands of Saints witnessed a transformation where he appeared and sounded like Joseph Smith. But did this really happen, or is it another example of Mormon mythology? Historians give the most weight to first-hand contemporary accounts. Many in Nauvoo were avid journal keepers, so it should be easy to find accounts of this miraculous event if it indeed happened. Wilford Woodruff was one such record keeper. His many diaries have been preserved and are accessible online, and they are the record we have of many of Joseph’s sermons and other events in early church history. On August 8, 1844, he wrote over 2,000 words in his diary. He was present for at least the afternoon meeting when Brigham Young spoke. He records in detail the events of the day but mentions nothing about anything unusual or miraculous.
Zina Huntington, who later became one of Brigham’s wives and third President of the Relief Society, was also one who attended the meeting and wrote about it in her diary. Her August 8th entry reads: “I went to meeting in the afternoon. Thanks be to Him who reigns on high. The majority of the Twelve are here. Brigham Young spoke, and the church voted that the Twelve should act in the office of their calling next to Joseph or the three First Presidents.” Again, nothing about anything miraculous. Willard Richards, Heber C. Kimball, and Brigham Young himself also made journal entries on this day that recorded nothing out of the ordinary.
We also have in the historical record two letters written from Nauvoo in the days following the conference that both failed to mention any such occurrence. The first is from Brigham Young to his daughter, Valet: “Through the great anxiety of the church, there was a Conference held last Thursday, 8th of August 1844. The power of the priesthood was explained and the order thereof, on which the whole church lifted up their voices and hands for the Twelve to move forward and organize the church and lead it as Joseph led it, which it is our indispensable duty to do. We shall organize the church as soon as possible.” Surely he would have included with this explanation a miracle if one had occurred in a letter. The next day, in a letter to her mother in Massachusetts, Sarah Scott summarized the meeting: “The 12 were appointed to take charge of all the concerns of the church, both spiritual and temporal. Brigham Young said if he had been here he wouldn’t have consented to give Joseph up, and he would be damned if he would give himself up to the law of the land; he would see them all in Hell first.” There is again no mention of a miraculous transformation.
And if thousands of church members had indeed witnessed such a miracle, what do we make of these two articles printed in the *Times and Seasons*? First is this letter from the Twelve, a week after the meeting: “You are now without a prophet present with you in the flesh to guide you. Let no man presume for a moment that Joseph Smith’s place will be filled by another, for remember he stands in his own place and always will.” Then this article in September: “Great excitement prevails throughout the world to know who shall be the successor of Joseph Smith. In reply we say, be patient, be patient a little till the proper time comes, and we will tell you all. Great wheels move slow. At present we can say that a special Conference of the church was held in Nauvoo on the 8th, and it was carried without a dissenting voice that the Twelve should preside over the whole church, and when any alteration in the presidency shall be required, seasonable notice will be given.” The *Times and Seasons* also posted a letter from Wilford Woodruff written October 11, 1844, about the August 8th meeting. Like his journal, it doesn’t mention anything about a Transfiguration.
We also have this rather lengthy speech given by Orson Hyde to the High Priest Quorum on April 27, 1845. Can you imagine sitting through this meeting? The speech contains 34 pages of arguments against Sydney Rigdon becoming president of the church and was printed up by John Taylor and distributed. You would think somewhere in there would be mention of the miraculous occurrence that convinced the entire church that God had chosen Brigham Young and the Twelve, but no, nothing of the sort.
In 1978, it was thought that the first fairly contemporary journal account had been located when the George Lobb Journal was published. Now, when Brigham Young arose to address the congregation, his voice was the voice of Brother Joseph, and his face appeared as Joseph’s face. And should I not have seen his face but heard his voice, I should have declared that it was Joseph. This journal was purported to have been written between 1845 and 46. However, it was found to be a copy of the original journal made decades later, and you guessed it, the original journal doesn’t mention anything about the Transfiguration. In fact, a noted expert in Brigham Young materials, Ronald K. Esplin, says this about the Transfiguration story: “Though there are no contemporary records, the number of later retellings, many in remarkable detail, argues for the reality of some such experience.”
It is true that there are many later retellings. In 1996, *BYU Studies* magazine published an article entitled “The Mantle of the Prophet Joseph Passes to Brother Brigham: A Collective Spiritual Witness.” The article includes 57 first-hand accounts of the Transfiguration. To help make sense of these many accounts, I organize them by the date they were recorded. Three of the accounts were later reminiscences written at an unknown date and are not included in the timeline. A few others that I marked in purple also do not have the exact time recorded, but other information in the record helps to place these accounts at least after certain dates. More than a third of the accounts were not recorded until after 1900—55 to 70 years later. Let’s look first at these six early accounts, which would be very convincing if they indeed contain the Transfiguration story. Four of these accounts mention a mantle. This is a clear reference to the story in the Old Testament of Elijah’s mantle falling upon Elisha and with it a prophetic calling. Even today, people use this term to indicate the transfer of responsibility of a calling. Two of these accounts were published without the author being named. The first reference, on the 2nd of September 1844, reported that at the special meeting on the afternoon of the 8th of August, Brigham Young explained matters so satisfactorily that every Saint could see that Elijah’s mantle had truly fallen upon the Twelve. The second reference, a letter written and published in October, said, “Who can’t see that the mantle of the Prophet has fallen on Brigham Young and the Twelve?” However, this letter was referring to the October 1844 conference, not the meeting in August. The third was a poem written by Miss Eliza R. Snow, published in February of 1845, entitled “To President Brigham Young”: “Thou hast gained, like Elisha, a rich behest, For the mantle of Joseph seems to rest upon thee, While the spirit empowered, Divine, That inspired his heart is inspiring thine.” Wilford Woodruff also mentions a mantle in a letter about the August 8th meeting to the British Saints, published in the *Millennial Star* in 1845: “It was evident to the Saints that the mantle of Joseph had fallen upon him. The road that he pointed out could be seen so plainly that none need err therein. The spirit of wisdom and counsel attended all his teachings. He struck upon accord with which all hearts beat in unison.” Well, each of these mention a mantle. I think we must acknowledge that it would only be by looking backwards with a certain lens that we would think this was talking about a physical transformation. Before this and since the idea of a mantle falling has nothing to do with appearance or the sound of a voice, we have two other possible early accounts. This letter was written in Nauvoo by Henry and Catherine Brook to Leonard and Mary Pickle on November 15th of that year. They write, “The Brigham Young favors Brother Joseph both in person and manner of speaking more than any person ever you saw.” Looks like another one. However, it doesn’t seem as though this resemblance influenced them spiritually, as the Brooks joined a different break-off group than Brigham’s. But let’s set this one aside for now and come back to it. Lastly, we have this statement from William Burton’s diary in May of 1845: “But there Joseph and Hiram Smith’s places were filled by others much better than I once suppose they could have been. The spirit of Joseph appeared to rest upon Brigham.” Again, looking back one might say this is evidence of the Transfiguration, but it doesn’t really mention anything of the sort, and it is written almost a year later, not specifically about the August 8th meeting. In fact, Burton wasn’t even in Nauvoo on that date; he was on a mission. I’m not sure I would use these six examples as actual accounts of a Transfiguration, but let’s compare them to some of the more descriptive accounts given decades later.
“People raised from their seats en masse and exclaimed, ‘Joseph has come! He is here!’ I and my little companion of the day, being small of stature, stood up on the benches that we too might behold the wonderful transformation. He was present and saw Brigham Young come into the Bowery where the Saints had assembled. He, as well as hundreds of others, arose to his feet and felt sure that Joseph had been resurrected. President Brigham Young addressed the Saints, and I saw his face illuminated and appear as the face of Joseph.” “I saw in the Transfiguration of Brigham Young the tall, straight, and portly form of the Prophet Joseph Smith, clothed in his sheen of light covering him to his feet, but the ring of his voice will never cease from my memory as he uttered aloud the words, ‘If you wish to know who is the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is I.’” This last one is especially interesting to me, considering that this is what Brigham Young actually said that day: “No man can stand at our head who is the head—the Twelve. If one thousand rise up and say they have the Prophet Joseph’s shoes, I know they are imposters.” So how do we go from having no contemporary journal entries and vague references about mantles to these kind of accounts? When did all of this start?
In 1856, Wilford Woodruff and George A. Smith completed the *History of Joseph Smith*, which includes a record of the August 8th meeting. There is no mention of a mantle, a Transfiguration, or a physical similarity between Brigham and Joseph. But just one year later, we have the first public account—well, sort of. In July of 1857, Brigham Young gave a talk. In the talk, he refers to a talk given earlier in the conference by Albert Carrington. Carrington is an interesting character; he was a personal secretary to Brigham Young for over 20 years and later became a member of the Twelve and the First Presidency until he was excommunicated for adultery while serving as mission president in England. We don’t actually have a record of his talk, just what Brigham Young said about it: “Brother Carrington’s testimony proves to you that men’s eyes are liable to be deceived. It may appear strange to some that he could not tell me from Joseph Smith when I was speaking in the stand in Nauvoo during the October Conference of 1844. Somebody came along and passed a finger over his eyes, and he could not see anyone but Joseph speaking until I got through addressing the congregation.” Thank you. I would really love to have the original words of Carrington. Did you notice, though, he said this happened during the October Conference of that year, not at the August meeting? Despite that, this appears to be the first public mention of a Transfiguration. You can see that just about every confirmed account came after this one.
Wilford Woodruff, despite five previous mundane accounts of the day, suddenly, in 1872, is bearing this witness of the Transfiguration: “Every man and every woman in that assembly, which perhaps might number thousands, could bear the same testimony. His face was that of Joseph Smith; the mantle of Joseph had fallen upon him; the power of God that was upon Joseph Smith was upon him; he had the voice of Joseph, and it was the voice of the shepherd.” Our other avid journaler, Zina Huntington Young, also has new recollections 33 years after the fact: “President Young was speaking; it was the voice of Joseph Smith, not that of Brigham Young; his very person was changed; the mantle was truly given to another; there was no doubting this in the minds of that vast assembly; all witnessed the Transfiguration; and even today thousands bear testimony thereof. I closed my eyes; I could have exclaimed, ‘I know that is Joseph Smith’s voice!’”
In 1870, George Q. Cannon wrote a biography entitled *Joseph Smith the Prophet*. He gives an account of the August 8th meeting and the Transfiguration: “If Joseph had risen from the dead and again spoken in their hearing, the effect could not have been more startling than it was to many presents at that meeting. It was the voice of Joseph himself, and not only was it the voice of Joseph which was heard, but it seemed in the eyes of the people as though it was the very person of Joseph which stood before them. A more wonderful and miraculous event than that was wrought that day in the presence of that congregation.” We never heard of this account. It is often used as an eyewitness account, but it is doubtful whether the 17-year-old Cannon was present himself at the meeting. He never states that he was there, and in 1882 he makes this statement while giving the account: “It is probable that there are some here today who were present on that occasion, and they could—they, I doubt not, could, if necessary, bear witness that the power of God was manifested at that time to the joy and satisfaction of the Saints.” This makes it sound more like he is just telling the story he has heard from others and was not one who could personally bear witness.
John D. Lee also gave a stirring account of that day: “Just then Brigham Young arose and roared like a young lion, imitating the style and voice of Joseph the Prophet. Many of the Brethren declared that they saw the mantle of Joseph fall upon him. I myself, at the time, imagined that I saw and heard a strong resemblance to the Prophet in him and felt that he was the man to lead us until Joseph’s legal successor should grow up to manhood, when he should surrender the presidency to the man who held the birthright.” I find this fascinating for two reasons: First is the idea that the Twelve were just temporarily in charge of the church until Joseph’s legal successor came of age, presumably his son, Joseph Smith III. But the other thing that makes this interesting is that John D. Lee wasn’t even in Nauvoo on that date; he didn’t return until 12 days later. I wish I could say that this was the only account of this type, but it’s not. Orson Hyde also testified about the Transfiguration on August 8th: “His words went through me like electricity. ‘Am I mistaken,’ said I, ‘or is it really the voice of Joseph Smith?’ There were the features, gestures, and even the stature of Joseph before us in the person of Brigham. And though it may be said that Brigham Young is a mimic and can mimic anybody, I would like to see the man who can mimic another in stature who has about four or five inches higher than himself.” Perhaps when he gave this account in General Conference of 1869, he wasn’t aware that faithful journal keeper Wilford Woodruff had recorded that Orson hadn’t returned to Nauvoo until the 13th—five days after the meeting in question. However, I do feel like this account gives us a possible clue to this mystery. Were you aware that Brigham Young was a talented mimic? This account reminded me of something Mark Twain wrote in his book *Roughing It*: “One of the last things which Brigham Young had done was to appear in the pulpit dressed to personate the worshiped and lamented Prophet Smith and confer the prophetic succession.” Granted, this book wasn’t written until 1870, so it’s possible Twain based this off stories he had heard during his visit to Salt Lake. On the other hand, maybe there is some truth to this idea. Could Brigham have used his talent for mimicry to sway a crowd full of heartbroken and confused members?
Let’s look at some other accounts. We do have this one account back before the first public telling. Emily Hoyt started a journal in 1851. The first part of the journal contains reminiscences of the previous several years; then she continued with dated entries. This makes it fairly convincing that the account was written around that time: “But the God of Heaven sent President B. Young home just in time and clothed him not with the mantle of Elijah, but the spirit and power which had rested on Joseph. I was an eye and ear witness. The manner of reasoning, the expression of the countenance, the sound of the voice thrilled my whole soul. I knew that Joseph was dead, and yet I often startled and involuntarily looked at the stand to see if it was not Joseph. It was not; it was Brigham Young.” Look at how she describes this: His manner, expression, and sound of his voice were like Joseph, but when she looked up, it was Brigham Young. Is this how mimicry would be described? Quite possibly. Let’s look at the wording of some other accounts: “Not only did the voice of Brigham sound like that of Joseph, but the very gestures of his right hand when he was saying anything very positive reminded me of Joseph. It seemed as if Joseph himself were speaking, his voice and gestures being exactly like those of the martyred Prophet.” “It was Joseph’s voice and Joseph’s gestures throughout the entire discourse.” “Then President Brigham Young began to speak. I jumped up to look and see if it was not Brother Joseph, for surely it was his voice and gestures.” “It seemed that the voice in every gesture was like Joseph.” Every one of these accounts mentions his voice and gestures. To me, this sounds a lot more like an impersonation than a Transfiguration. And look at John D. Lee’s account; he actually says Brigham imitated the style and voice of Joseph. Of course, he wasn’t actually there, but coming from Brigham’s adopted son, it says a lot.
That he used this wording. Do we have any other examples of Brigham imitating Joseph? It is documented that Brigham borrowed Joseph's favorite horse and rode through the streets in his Nauvoo Legion uniform, as Joseph had often done after Ford appointed him Lieutenant General of the Nauvoo Legion in September of 1844.
When I first made this timeline, I could see that just about every verified account came after the first public telling. That made me wonder: did everyone else make up their stories? Were they lying? Or did they start remembering something that didn't actually happen? But as I have taken a closer look and considered the idea of Brigham being a skilled impersonator, I am leaning toward another theory. Remember this early letter by Henry and Catherine Brooks? They comment how much Brigham favors Joseph. This wasn't written in reference to the August 8th meeting specifically and did not influence them to follow Brigham Young to Utah. But maybe it was an indicator of Brigham using this skill to subtly influence public opinion in Nauvoo during the confusion over who would lead the church. Perhaps those who knew Brigham best were accustomed to him using this skill and when hardly have pointed it out or written it down. Others may not even have been aware it was happening, explaining why it wasn't recorded in their journals or letters, other than a few vague references.
By the end of the 19th century, these vague references had morphed into a Transfiguration, complete with illumination and the power of God, confirming to all that Brigham was the next leader of the church. How did this happen? The telling of Carrington in 1857 seems to be the first public mention of a resemblance. The next public telling I can find is Orson Hyde's 1869 account. I don't know how much the story was discussed over that 12 years, but by this point and afterward, the focus of the story is on the extrapolation. Hyde, who wasn't actually there, recounts in detail the Transfiguration and then gives his interpretation of what this means: "and it went through me with the thrill of conviction that Brigham was the man to lead this people, and from that day to the present there has not been a query of Doubt upon my mind with regard to the Divinity of his appointment. I know that he was the man selected of God to fill the position he now holds." [Music] George Q. Cannon concludes his telling: "the Lord gave his people a testimony that left no room for doubt as to who was the man he had chosen to lead them." Wilford Woodruff ends his account: "there was a reason for this in the mind of God. It convinced the people; they saw and heard for themselves, and it was by the power of God."
Journal accounts written after this start including testimonies of knowing Brigham was the rightful successor. It was plain to all that here was the man upon whom the Lord had bestowed the necessary authority to act in the midst in Joseph's stead. "I knew who was to be the next prophet of the Lord and who was to lead the Saints that they might never doubt that Brigham was the chosen leader of the church." There was no doubt in the hearts of the Saints from that moment on who was to be their inspired leader and evidence to the people that God had chosen Brigham Young as successor to the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. While members may have noticed the resemblance in voice and gestures previously, I think this conclusion was later suggested to them in those public testimonies. But why? What would be the motivation for this?
Twenty-five years later, when Brigham Young left for the West in 1846, less than half of the approximate 17,000 Saints in Nauvoo and surrounding areas went with him, and a lot of those were converts recently arrived from England. Many others stayed in Nauvoo, returned to previous homes and religions, or joined other break-off groups. This included Emma and her children, as well as Lucy Mack Smith and her children. In 1852, a conference was held to begin the process of reorganizing the church in the Upper Midwest. By 1860, the RLDS church was officially organized with Joseph Smith III at its head. The obvious mission field for this newly organized church was the Brighamite church in Utah, and in 1863, the RLDS church began officially sending out missionaries. Many of the members, including some who had followed the Twelve to Utah, had assumed that Joseph's son would take over the church when he came of age. I'm sure many others had a great affection for Emma and Lucy Mack and wondered why they had stayed in Nauvoo. By 1864, the RLDS church had established a branch with over 300 members in Salt Lake City. In 1866, Joseph and Emma's son Alexander traveled to Utah himself and was well received—well, mostly well received. A month later, Brigham Young gave a talk in conference where he referenced Alexander's visit and talked about the family of the Prophet Joseph. Included in that talk were these remarks: "The Twelve Apostles would have been exceedingly glad if the prophet's family had come with us when we left Nauvoo; we would have fed them on milk and honey. Emma is naturally a very smart woman; she is subtle and ingenious; she has made her children inherit lives to my certain knowledge. Emma Smith is one of the damnedest liars I know on the Earth; yet there is no good thing I would refuse to do for her if she would only be a righteous woman." Brigham recounted the story about Emma trying to poison Joseph and said that Joseph had told her that she was a child of hell and literally the most wicked woman on the earth, and there was no one more wicked than she; twice she undertook to kill him, he said.
I think it is clear that Brigham felt threatened by Joseph Smith's wife and children. Can the existence of another Mormon church whose Prophet was the son of Joseph Smith Jr.? It was also a concern for many that Brigham had become the leader of the church by the voice of the people. Orson Hyde, in the October 1860 conference, said: "It has been said by some that Brigham was appointed by the people and not by the voice of God." George Buchanan also pointed this out in October of 1882. There were many who, after the prophet's death, were not disposed to accord Brigham Young the same rights, the same authority, the same gifts that they were willing to accord the Prophet Joseph Smith. In fact, after the death of Joseph and Hiram, a new First Presidency wasn't organized for over three years, and even then with opposition for many of the Twelve. The August 8th meeting simply sustained the Twelve, not Brigham Young himself, like the later accounts suggest. In addition, the RLDS church was found to be the legal successor to the church that Joseph Smith had started in two important lawsuits: the Kirtland Temple suit and the Temple Lot case, further calling into question the legitimacy of the Brighamite church.
I can see why a miracle might have been invented and embellished to shore up authority claims of both Brigham Young and the LDS church in Utah. I know that I personally was told this story many times when I was young as evidence that Brigham was the rightful successor to Joseph. So what are we to make of all this? Can we prove that a Transfiguration didn't happen? Of course not; it's pretty hard to prove that an event didn't occur. But we can judge that it is not probable based on the lack of contemporary evidence and the fabricated tellings. We can look at the accounts and form theories of how and why the story evolved from vague statements of resemblance to dramatic Heavenly manifestations. We can recognize that there are other possible explanations. But to me, the most important thing to consider when looking at faith-promoting stories is to examine the fruits. So we might ask: does this purported miracle point you to God? Does it motivate you to repent and come unto Jesus? Or does it point you to men and their authority? Faith can only be in something that is true. So let's resist the temptation to embellish stories or testify of things that we didn't really witness or experience. It can only damage testimonies when they are shown to be untrue and give people a false understanding of faith. And when we hear such stories, let's examine them for both truth and good fruits. [Music]