The 'transfiguration of Brigham Young' and the New Testament

[jfro18]

The other day I was reading about the transfiguration of Brigham Young and I obviously don't believe it happened largely due to the lack of contemporary evidence and the fact that it never really took off as a story until about 13 years later.

But it got me thinking that in deconstructing Mormonism it is harder and harder to keep any of my Christian beliefs intact.

If groupthink 13 years later can cause Brigham Young's speech to church members to evolve from a typical debate speech to literally changing in sound/look/appearance to Brigham Young, what does that tell us about the New Testament gospels all written 60-70+ years later?

Don't get me wrong - I don't take Biblical stories literally and try to focus on the overall lesson, so it's nothing earth shattering for me, but it certainly explains why the four gospels have inconsistencies (they all crafted the narrative for the purpose of those they were writing for), and explains how a story that evolves with groupthink could have so many miracles that we know just don't happen.

Just wondering if anyone else ever had that kind of a connection when you are deconstructing Mormonism and then you start making the connections to the Bible in general (or any other faith based belief) and it really just starts falling like dominoes?

[1smartdodog]

It all fell apart at the same time. The best I can do now is realize that I do not know. Hence I spent little energy trying to know things that are unknowable.

I study more science stuff now. More fascinating and detailed than trying to decide if RMN is talking to god




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Palerider]

If groupthink 13 years later can cause Brigham Young's speech to church members to evolve from a typical debate speech to literally changing in sound/look/appearance to Brigham Young, what does that tell us about the New Testament gospels all written 60-70+ years later?

......it certainly explains why the four gospels have inconsistencies (they all crafted the narrative for the purpose of those they were writing for), and explains how a story that evolves with groupthink could have so many miracles that we know just don't happen.

I see what you're saying. But it does make some sense to personalize or tailor a true story for the audience you're dealing with. There's nothing saying you can't go back and revisit other aspects as the congregation grows in knowledge.

In his letters, Paul addressed the problems he encountered rather rather than write one letter that would fit all sizes.

The other aspect of this is the promise given in John 14: 25-26:

"25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

I don't expect the Biblical scriptures to be perfect. I only expect them to contain the necessary information to lead one to salvation.

The third side of this discussion is that it's kind of difficult to find a smoking gun for Mormonism although there are some issues that come very close. And we're only 200 years away from that time period. And the record keeping was significantly better in Joseph's time than in Biblical times.

So although scholars may draw conclusions regarding Christianity from what little is there to study, for my own part I prefer to reserve judgement on something that happened 2000 years ago.

[jfro18]

I don't expect the Biblical scriptures to be perfect. I only expect them to contain the necessary information to lead one to salvation.

The third side of this discussion is that it's kind of difficult to find a smoking gun for Mormonism although there are some issues that come very close. And we're only 200 years away from that time period. And the record keeping was significantly better in Joseph's time than in Biblical times.

So although scholars may draw conclusions regarding Christianity from what little is there to study, for my own part I prefer to reserve judgement on something that happened 2000 years ago.

I agree with all of this, and as I said before I take the Bible more figuratively than literally so this isn't some massive change in paradigm.

But I think that when you see how quickly a story can go from an everyday event to a miracle in 13 years and from there spread across Mormonism to having people claim to see it that weren't even there, it makes me wonder how the story of Jesus changed in those ~60-70 years before the gospels started being written about him.

It just made me think of all the times I heard people say once you deconstruct Mormonism it's hard to fall back on traditional Christianity, and it was one of the first times where I really thought that was right... but like I said I can still take value in the lessons as well as knowing that these writings are 1000s of years which allows a lot more benefit of the doubt.

[Linked]

My faith transition was more about God and dogmatic religion in general than the mormon church. So I stopped believing in both the christian miracles and the mormon specific miracles equally (and Islamic and Jewish and Hindu and Zoroastrian). But like the OP mentioned as I learned about the real history behind the mormon miracles I thought that 2000 years is a long time for similar history to be behind christian miracles.

[Palerider]

But I think that when you see how quickly a story can go from an everyday event to a miracle in 13 years and from there spread across Mormonism to having people claim to see it that weren't even there, it makes me wonder how the story of Jesus changed in those ~60-70 years before the gospels started being written about him.

I think what you are describing here is precisely what happened in the case of Brigham and his "transfiguration". Even now Mormonism is loaded with mythology that travels up and down the Morcor grapevine with great abandon.

Even though I believe the Gospels to have been written earlier than the 60-70 years after Christ that you give them (I think there is evidence to show that they were written closer to within 30 years of His ascension, so "Q" would have been written even earlier than this.) That doesn't mean that mythology didn't attempt to creep in.

The fact that numerous other "gospels" (gospel of Thomas, gospel of Mary, gospel of Judas, etc.) were rejected however, tells me that there was a concerted effort not to allow these false gospels and myths to contaminate the accuracy of the Synoptic Gospels that had "relatively" confirmed provenance.

All that being said; Christianity comes down to a leap of faith. And I know there are Mormons who would say, "Well, why does Christianity get a pass from Palerider while Mormonism doesn't? And I would have to reply that there is enough evidence (actually more than enough) to show the duplicity that exists in Mormonism. Sad but true.

And since I prefer Truth over all other good principles, I would say that if there is ever incontrovertible evidence found that shows Christianity was a fake, then I would be obligated to re-evaluate my own feelings in that regard. Till then I have to go with my heart.

[Mad Jax]

If it can be possible to take place, I lost my faith in God independent of the church. I was pretty inactive when I realized my reasons for believing in anything supernatural were really bad reasons, and that unless I had good reasons to do so it made no sense to accept any of these claims. One of these was the fact that none of this is really based off of anything that historians can confirm, and I'd known this since I was a kid. In fact, what makes me really suspicious is that the Catholic church has some pretty detailed records going back all the way up to the time period that these events were supposed to take place, and then before that... only the new testament. About 100 years time which should be the very most important period and yet they have these pieced together bits of papyrus written in Aramaic as the only records. It never felt like that added up for me.

[moksha]

The other day I was reading about the transfiguration of Brigham Young and I obviously don't believe it happened largely due to the lack of contemporary evidence and the fact that it never really took off as a story until about 13 years later.

A good hoax can be fun, but I think the authors should have admitted to it like the creators of the Kinderhook plates eventually did. They could have said, "Ha, ha! Made you believe". The transfiguration claimers could have had their joke and perhaps those taken in by this hoax could have been a bit wiser when the next "miracle" story came down the pike.

When hoaxes are not revealed, you have a bunch of AM radio talk show listeners all excited about the tale of the Donkey Faced Boy they read about in the National Inquirer. That, in turn, makes them even more susceptible to Rush and Glenn making their ridiculous claims on the radio. Pretty soon they are neglecting their cats and buying more aluminum foil. Not a pretty picture.

[græy]

But it got me thinking that in deconstructing Mormonism it is harder and harder to keep any of my Christian beliefs intact.

If groupthink 13 years later can cause Brigham Young's speech to church members to evolve from a typical debate speech to literally changing in sound/look/appearance to Brigham Young, what does that tell us about the New Testament gospels all written 60-70+ years later?

This has all fallen apart for me too. Some early (as in from high school days on up - 20+ years) shelf items for me were OT stories/miracles. The flood could never have been global. You couldn't fit the worlds insects into the ark, let alone mammals, birds, reptiles, etc. and food to feed them. The Adam and Eve time line never made sense. The tower of Babel story doesn't explain languages and cultures. None of it added up.

I chose to accept a local flood and assumed the timelines didn't add up because I had not studied them enough. There were so many incredibly intelligent people who believed, it would probably all make sense once I really studied it a bit.

But then I did study. Suddenly mormonism's faith-promoting stories fell apart. Which paved the way for the OT stories to be nothing buy myth and legend intended to bind an early tribal identity. An increased understanding of the formation of the NT brought the same scrutiny to those stories.

Now, I no longer accept the miracles as anything more than coincidences. Some people do seem to inexplicably recover from cancer, and similar healings have likely occurred throughout history. Other miracles stories really are nothing but fable.

I still hold on to the gospel of love as taught by Christ because I do genuinely feel good reaching out to and serving others. But that is really all I can claim these days. Did Christ perform miracle healings? He probably did, to the same extent as other healers of his day, and even the faith healers of our modern age. Through sheer dumb luck and coincidence he may have even seemed to bring a couple of people back from death. But its hard to say that is any more real or miraculous than the spontaneous "healings" we sometimes see and can't fully explain today outside of the realm of "priesthood authority."

[Rob4Hope]

I'm more into archeology now than ever, and with the knowledge of the Younger Dryas event and the flooding that ensued AFTER the warming (which was cataclysmic flooding bye the way), I can see some truth in the myths. The time-line given in the bible TOTALLY misses the mark from archeology. When my shelf crashes from the LDS perspective and I saw duplicity over and over (as PaleRider indicated), I've become more pragmatic and skeptical.

I think there was a flood. Global?..probably not. IN the timeframe of the Bible?...impossible. It would have left a record. But big enough to have caused serious affects on what life was around?...YES!

As for Brigham Young's transfiguration? I use to believe that story, and when I think back on it now, I realize how much I wanted to grab hold of something, anything, to help me believe. I wanted to be sure. Why?...because then I could just believe what I was told and I didn't have to "prove all things, hold fast that which is good (or true)".

I was an easy succor for the con. Having been burned and loosing years of my life and a marriage, I am not so easy prey anymore!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas