- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have heard it said that in the 1800s, the words “vision” and “dream” were essentially synonymous. I looked up the word “vision” in some old copies of Merriam Webster’s dictionary, and one of the definitions is “something imagined to be seen, though not real.” But it’s a secondary definition, and it doesn’t mean that usage was commonplace or that it was the usage Joseph Smith intended. It also doesn’t mention “dream” in the definition at all. http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?action=search&word=vision&resource=Webster%27s Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1828) wrote:1. The act of seeing external objects; actual sight.
Faith here is turned into vision there.
2. The faculty of seeing; sight. Vision is far more perfect and acute in some animals than in man.
3. Something imagined to be seen, though not real; a phantom; a specter.
No dreams, but visions strange.
4. In Scripture, a revelation from God; an appearance or exhibition of something supernaturally presented to the minds of the prophets, by which they were informed of future events. Such were the visions of Isaiah, of Amos, of Ezekiel, &c.
5. Something imaginary; the production of fancy.
6. Any thing which is the object of sight.
Does anyone have other information to support that idea? Did Joseph Smith ever explicitly claim that his heavenly visitors were physically present?
Quote:Did Joseph Smith ever explicitly claim that his heavenly visitors were physically present?
No, he did not make that claim. If you read the official account, it seems clear to me that the First Vision was exactly that – a vision. Whether it was a dream or some other type of experience, it clearly was not a visitation in the classic sense of that word. (I also see Moroni’s “visit” in the same way, for various reasons. I see a vision, not a visitation.)
I would caution about the use of “imaginary vision” only because of the negative connotations we place on the word “imaginary” (and even “imagine”). Imagination (the ability to picture something that can’t be seen at the time) is unique to humans (as far as we know) and part of what I see as “divine” – and it is the heart of faith (both in religious and practical terms – like what drives great scientists and inventors). Take away imagination (or make it a negative thing), and we lose much of what makes us different than all other animals on the planet.
Finally, I don’t know if you’ve read it already, but I recommend highly “Early Mormonism and the Magic World View” by D. Michael Quinn. Excellent treatise on the mindset of the early saints and the time period, in general.
Curtis wrote:I would caution about the use of “imaginary vision” only because of the negative connotations we place on the word “imaginary” (and even “imagine”).
I hesitated over using the word “imaginary” because of that, but I figured people on this board are thick-skinned and open-minded enough to get it. It’s the term used in the dictionary definition that best fit the idea I was thinking about from a historical point of view. I would never use that word to describe Joseph’s vision outside this forum.
Curtis wrote:Finally, I don’t know if you’ve read it already, but I recommend highly “Early Mormonism and the Magic World View” by D. Michael Quinn. Excellent treatise on the mindset of the early saints and the time period, in general.
That book is on my to-read list (which is already way too long).By the way, congrats on your 10,000th post, Curtis!
:clap: I don’t have any concrete evidence to support your definition, however a careful reading of Joseph Smith’s accounts of the first vision does not seem to indicate there was anything physical. I believe if he wanted us to know it was physical he would have said so, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he made mention of something like feeling the nail prints. There is no such mention of anything physical, and like Curtis, I see Moroni’s visits as very much the same. While we have less detail about them, Joseph never makes any mention of touching him or him doing anything physical. I also think in the scriptures the words vision and dream are used interchangeably. In my own private internal dictionary, dreams happen when one is asleep or otherwise unconscious while visions happen while one is awake. These definitions don’t fully hold up in the scriptures though. So if you asked the average member if JS vision was with his spiritual eyes or his physical eyes, what would they say? Apologists also have theorized that the story of the trip inside the hill Cumorah (to see the room full of records and the sword of Laban) was either a vision or being transported to a different place as the hill is not hollow and does not contain the things mentioned. I also remember Lucy Mack telling about how JS knew incredible details about the Nephites through visions. It would seem that he saw in vision how they lived, the buildings that they built, transportation, domesticated animals, mode of warfare, etc.
The following is from FAIR:
Quote:From Lucy’s 1845 manuscript, we read:
Now said he[,] Father and Mother the angel of the Lord says that we must be careful not to proclaim these things or to mention them abroad For we do not any of us know the wickedness of the world which is so sinful that when we get the plates they will want to kill us for the sake of the gold if they know we had
them…by sunset [we] were ready to be seated and give our atten undivided attention to Josephs recitals…From this time forth Joseph continued to receive instructions from time to time and every evening we gathered our children togather [together]…In the course of our evening conversations Joseph would give us some of the most ammusing [amusing] recitals which could be immagined [imagined]. he would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent their dress their man[n]er of traveling the animals which they rode The cities that were built by them the structure of their buildings with every particular of their mode of warfare their religious worship as particularly as though he had spent his life with them…The angel informed him at one time that he might make an effort to obtain the plates the <22nd of the> ensueing september…[4] Lucy Mack Smith simply said in her autobiography that her son told the family about information connected with the angel and the Book of Mormon plates (see Anderson, ed., Lucy’s Book, 345). Lucy told the same information to Wandle Mace about seven years prior to producing her 1845 autobiography and clarified that this information was connected with the Book of Mormon “Nephites” and was shown to her son by vision.
In Joseph Smith’s own official history he confirmed that he learned this information through the power of visions (Times and Seasons, vol. 3, no. 9, 1 March 1842, 707) and Oliver Cowdery made note of the same thing (Messenger and Advocate, vol. 1, no. 7, April 1835, 112). Thus, the origin of the stories mentioned by Joseph’s mother in her autobiography was a heavenly one—she was not even remotely implying that her son was a teller of tall tales.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/%22Amusing_recitals%22_of_ancient_American_inhabitants My current belief is that none of it was tangible or that everything was vision. There are a few pieces of evidence that contradict my theory but I believe that the preponderance of the evidence supports my position.
Maybe JS didn’t need to “translate” the golden plates. Maybe he already knew the history of the BOM characters because he had been shown in vision their beginning and their end. JS certainly wouldn’t have been the first to receive such a sweeping vision of the rise and fall of entire nations.
I think we tend to discount and dismiss anything that seems irrational to us, and visions fit that category now – unlike back in Joseph’s day and area. They were accepted as legitimate back then, and were quite common – especially given the difference in medication use compared to now. I believe if Joseph had been born in the last 40 years or so, his story would have been very different – but I believe that is the same when talking about any “visionary” person in history. I know I have to be careful sharing even things as “minor” as impressions and things I “hear” in my mind. Generally speaking, we just don’t see things anywhere near the same way as people in the past did.
I had forgotten about the story of going into the cave in Cumorah. Sheesh. I’ve been disconnected for too long. Roy wrote:My current belief is that none of it was tangible or that everything was vision. There are a few pieces of evidence that contradict my theory but I believe that the preponderance of the evidence supports my position.
Which pieces of evidence are you talking about? I’m not demanding citations, I just want to understand your comment better.Curtis wrote:I think we tend to discount and dismiss anything that seems irrational to us, and visions fit that category now – unlike back in Joseph’s day and area. They were accepted as legitimate back then, and were quite common – especially given the difference in medication use compared to now.
True. Opium use was fairly common back then, for one. It was given for a huge range of illnesses, even for babies.I’ve recently been drawing a comparison with peter’s vision in acts to take the gospel to the Gentiles. Few members would argue against the following:
– The sheet and animals were not real. They were not living creatures transported to float in the air above Peters house.
– Peter’s neighbours, if sat out on their roofs or passing in the street, would not have been able to see the sheet/animals.
Peter’s vision was something that happened for him. That doesn’t mean it was fake/made up or him being delusional. If God can make our “bosoms burn,” I see no reason why he can’t create images in our mind.
I believe Joseph did have a vision in 1820. I believe it was a moving and spiritual experience that answered his questions and started him on the road to the prophet he became. I don’t necessarily believe that there was anyone physically in the grove visiting him. If someone else had been passing through the grove I think they would have seen nothing more than a boy lying on the ground.
But that doesn’t have to mean he didn’t have an interaction with deity. I believe he did.
Whether JS had a physical vision or a vision in his mind, I think the intent of the church is to have most people think that is was a real in the flesh experience. All the movies show it that way, the talks in GC deals in it that way and I am not aware of it ever being discussed any other way at church. If the leaders even mentioned that it probably didn’t happen in the flesh, it might be different but I think the intent is pretty clear. According to the law, the intent is what really matters. Is the intent of the church to deceive? I hope not but at this stage I don’t know. I don’t think that it is intent of the missionaries, and when I served it wasn’t my intent, but I did tell everyone that it was an in the flesh experience and that is what I believed. Maybe it not that important, but why can’t we know which way it happened? Curtis, I trust that you did have experiences that are special to you and so have I and probably many more of us and some of them we just can’t explain but we aren’t telling the world to bet their eternal salvation on those experiences but with out something to back up what we lave learned. Maybe it does come down to more prayers, more scripture reading and more obendience.
church0333 wrote:So if you asked the average member if JS vision was with his spiritual eyes or his physical eyes, what would they say?
I think, as you state in your followup post, that the vast majority of members believe God and Jesus were actually physically present in the grove that day. I used to believe that myself. There is a small dichotomy in doctrine, however, because the church also teaches that one of the reasons for temples is to give God a “dwelling place” or place he can visit on earth because the rest of the world is not holy enough. I have heard apologetic responses to this, however, that seem to be good enough for most members.
I’m not actually sure the church is meaning to deceive anybody in this respect, though. I think lots of doctrines and beliefs of the church are simply repeated (parroted) because that’s what people have been taught. Even GAs do this (with unsettling frequency). IMO, that is the case here. We need one of the honest reformers to point out in GC that it is possible the first vision was just that – a
vision. Although my perception of what happened in the sacred grove has changed, I do continue to believe that Joseph Smith did have a profound spiritual experience there and I do believe he saw and heard God – if only in a vision. Whether there was a physical presence there other than Joseph makes no difference to me in relation to the weight of the event. I don’t believe Joseph lied about the experience and I believe that this experience is part of what makes him a prophet.
I don’t think that the word “imaginary” is helpful here. If it was a genuine vision, even internal, it didn’t come from inside himself. My readings of the early 1800’s give me the impression that the spiritual people of the time had a concept of “spiritual sight” that differed from “physical sight” and was somewhat taken for granted. If I recall correctly personal testimonies of Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris reflect this concept. Also I can see it in a few places such as: Quote:Moses 1:
1 The words of God, which he spake unto Moses at a time when Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain,
2 And he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence.
. . . .
11 But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but
not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him. Quote:Testimony of three witnesses:
“…And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God,
and not of man.”
In my opinion the power of man would have shown the plates by means of regular physical sight, the way men show objects to one another.With a little effort we could dig up more examples but I think it is safe to assume some sort of “spiritual sight” was a regular expectation of the day. I would also say we don’t speak of visions much in our day largely because we have lost this idea of spiritual sight.
church0333 wrote:So if you asked the average member if JS vision was with his spiritual eyes or his physical eyes, what would they say?
I think the most interesting question would be: “If an unrelated observer was walking through the sacred grove at the time when Joseph received his first vision – would they have seen anything?”
I have asked this question to several members, and the majority that I talked to don’t think the observer would have seen anything out of the ordinary.
Orson wrote:My readings of the early 1800’s give me the impression that the spiritual people of the time had a concept of “spiritual sight” that differed from “physical sight” and was somewhat taken for granted. If I recall correctly personal testimonies of Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris reflect this concept.
…
With a little effort we could dig up more examples but I think it is safe to assume some sort of “spiritual sight” was a regular expectation of the day. I would also say we don’t speak of visions much in our day largely because we have lost this idea of spiritual sight.
Orson, that makes a lot of sense to me. If I could do my topic title over, I would say “spiritual vision vs physical visitation.” I would personally love to see more examples. Any idea where to look?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.