Daniel Peterson wrote
an article in the Deseret News (published September 5, 2013)
tacitly refuting Denver Snuffer's claim that the “transfiguration”
of Brigham Young into Joseph Smith was exaggerated or contrived. I
was impressed with Bro. Peterson rendition of the event.
However,
digging deeper into the sources he cited, I was saddened to discover
Bro. Snuffer's account, more than likely, is the more honest,
accurate one. This morning I wrote a “rebuttal” to Bro.
Peterson's article in the “comment” section of the Church-owned
Deseret News, but, apparently, my submission was not “accepted”.
(I was constrained, coincidentally, to two hundred words or less!)
Thank
you, Bro. Peterson, for your well-written piece. Very inspiring!
However,
Sis. Jorgensen's paper deserves careful scrutiny. It glosses over
many damning discrepancies in the "faith-promoting witnesses"
she cites. Richard S. Von Wagoner's paper "The Making of a
Mormon Myth: The 1844 Transfiguration of Brigham Young" reveals
that several LDS leaders -- including Elder Orson Hyde, as president
of the Quorum of the Twelve -- claimed to be an "eye witness"
to this event and spoke of the "transfiguration" in glowing
terms, when, in fact, these leaders weren't even there! Their
"testimonies", quite frankly, are nothing short of lies and
embellishments, akin to the stories told by Elder Paul H. Dunn.
How
very sad.
It
seems the tale simply "grew" organically from the
collective sentiments, personal impressions, heart-felt yearnings and
-- perhaps -- even spiritual sensitivities of those present (and,
apparently, even of those who weren't!). Could several people have
simply "seen" (or "remembered") what they
"wanted" to see or remember?
I
would have said much more. (But, alas, 200 words is not enough!) Both
Jorgensen's
paper and Von
Wagoner's research reveal that Snuffer is indeed correct: there
will always
be opposing “witnesses”. Two sides to every story. Differing
accounts. Reasons to believe and disbelieve.
It is given to us to choose. We
have agency.
Joseph
Smith was so “believing”, he even
believed in things that
weren't
true. (Was this a defect in
his character?) He also
believed
in things that were
true, even when
they could not be seen except with
the “eye of faith”.
We
tend to err on the side of
not believing. We
don't believe until we see. (And,
even then, we sometimes still
don't believe!)
So which is worse? To
disbelieve until we see (and
since we cannot see everything that
truly is), therefore not
believe
all that could and should
be believed? Or to believe
all that is true (and
even some that isn't) because we are
willing to believe even what
we cannot
see?
One
practice leads
to greater
knowledge, even
by faith. The other doesn't. One is preferred
by God. The other isn't. One will make you (sometimes)
look like
a fool. The other will make
you, in fact,
a fool.
Dumbo's
misplaced belief in a feather inspired him to fly. So was his faith
misplaced? Christ mixed dirt with saliva
and anointed a blind man's eyes with the salve, allowing
him to see. Was this
earthy ointment what healed
him? Or
was it the power of Christ?
Was the
man's faith
misplaced?
Sometimes
believing
in something that isn't
allows (or enables) us to
have faith in something that
is. It is better to
err on the side of “believing”, like
a child, even
in fairy tales.
Otherwise,
the whole world might
remain
blind.
