Imaginary vision versus physical visitation

[Anonymous]

“Early Mormonism and the Magic World View” by D. Michael Quinn is excellent for this topic.

[Anonymous]

This discussion begs the question:

What of the visitation (or vision?) of Christ at the Kirtland Temple in D&C 110? Actual visit, vision, neither, both?

[Anonymous]

baldzach wrote:

This discussion begs the question:

What of the visitation (or vision?) of Christ at the Kirtland Temple in D&C 110? Actual visit, vision, neither, both?

Or what about the angel who was going to destroy JS if he did not seek out other wives? How about Peter, James and John or John the Baptist? If the 1st vision was only in JS spiritual eyes what about the rest with the laying on of hands? I don’t know the answers but maybe it’s time to ask those questions?

[Anonymous]

church0333 wrote:

baldzach wrote:

This discussion begs the question:

What of the visitation (or vision?) of Christ at the Kirtland Temple in D&C 110? Actual visit, vision, neither, both?

Or what about the angel who was going to destroy JS if he did not seek out other wives? How about Peter, James and John or John the Baptist? If the 1st vision was only in JS spiritual eyes what about the rest with the laying on of hands?

My opinion is everything would fall under the “spiritual sight” umbrella. Say for example you are conversing with someone who resides on the other side of the veil (ordinations, etc. included) — if another mortal walks past you while you’re having the conversation they will not see who you’re talking to because they cannot see through the veil. You also cannot “see” through with your mortal eyes, thus the spiritual sight.

Martin Harris was quoted as saying something like “I saw it just as you see a city through the mountain.” The lack of mortal vision is no problem when the vision is laid before you, the sight is internal and you feel with your whole being that it is real.

[Anonymous]

I guess if you have not had that kind of experience the it would be hard to understand and accept as truth. I think maybe that is my problem but then again I hope that God will understand my lack of belief in some of these things.

[Anonymous]

Church0333, I completely agree that most see it as a physical visit by two beings. Here’s a selection of descriptions from across LDS.org/Mormon.org:

Quote:

Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ Appeared to Joseph Smith…

…God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ appeared to him and told him that the true …

…When Joseph Smith was a young man Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ came and told him which church to join.

…

This vision of Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ was the beginning of Joseph Smith’s …

…Here, God the Father and His resurrected Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph Smith to commence the …

He followed the admonition of James in the New Testament and prayed. Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to …

… In a miraculous vision, Joseph was visited by Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father — and was told by Christ to not join …

…visited by God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ…

These are all copied off page 1 of a google search for “Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ visited Joseph Smith” (without quotation marks) so naturally the results will be skewed towards phrases like that.

But I agree that often the emphasis is on them going to Joseph.

[Anonymous]

Thanks mackay11 for that. Verbs like visited, appeared, came and told, and the resurrected Christ appeared sure seems like more than seeing things with spiritual eyes. I think that we need to have faith in God but I think we also need faith in the church to be honest and tell us what happened and if they don’t know then they need to admit that. Maybe to some that is how it appears but at this point it doesn’t appear that way to me. That doesn’t mean I don’t see the good that the church brings into many of the members lives but the rose colored glasses have diffinitely fallen off.

[Anonymous]

church0333 wrote:

Thanks mackay11 for that. Verbs like visited, appeared, came and told, and the resurrected Christ appeared sure seems like more than seeing things with spiritual eyes. I think that we need to have faith in God but I think we also need faith in the church to be honest and tell us what happened and if they don’t know then they need to admit that. Maybe to some that is how it appears but at this point it doesn’t appear that way to me. That doesn’t mean I don’t see the good that the church brings into many of the members lives but the rose colored glasses have diffinitely fallen off.

I take it less as a question of honesty and far more a question of assumptions.

I don’t think church leaders are being dishonest. I don’t think they are trying to manipulate us and falsely represent what happened. I think they have made an assumption about what happened and have never thought a need to challenge that assumption.

I’ve no real idea of whether the vision was a physical visit, a spiritual manifestation in his mind/spiritual eyes or a figment of his imagination. I do believe he was sincere about having a significant witness of deity.

In 1947 the First Presidency had a letter exchange with a professor on the question of black people and the priesthood. There’s a line in a letter from the FP that I will probably remember for a very long time. When I read it, it hit my me like a load of bricks:

Quote:

“From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.”

Two things stand out here.

– The FP had their facts wrong: Black people were entitled to the Priesthood in “the days of the Prophet Joseph.” They also believed it to be a doctine of the church (not a practice)

– The FP (and perhaps all the leaders before them) had never questioned the “doctrine” of denying black people the “full blessings of the Gospel.”

They had never questioned it. Never.

I’m sure many of our leaders have been taught, in good faith, that the vision was a physical visit. And I’d imagine they’ve never questioned it. Just repeated it. I don’t think that makes them dishonest. Just subject to assumptions. I don’t think we’re any more immune to it either.

I suppose that begs the question of how a prophet operates and declares doctrine. It’s part of what’s changed my perspective away from a traditional view.

[Anonymous]

church0333 wrote:

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.

I think the problem is also that leaders of the past have gone out of their way to make the vision the “make or break” question that we should base our testimonies on. President Hinckley seems to be especially fond of this approach:

Quote:

“As I see it, there are four great foundation stones on which this Church stands, irremovable. The first, the great First Vision, the visit of the Father and the Son to the boy Joseph Smith, the opening of the heavens in this the dispensation of the fulness of times, the great bringing together of all of the work of God in all the past dispensations throughout the history of the world. The curtain was parted with that First Vision, and it stands as an absolute fundamental in the Church and its history and its well-being.

Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, August 1998

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/08/excerpts-from-recent-addresses-of-president-gordon-b-hinckley?lang=eng

Quote:

“We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith… Upon that unique and wonderful experience stands the validity of this Church.”

In all of recorded religious history there is nothing to compare with it. The New Testament recounts the baptism of Jesus when the voice of God was heard and the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove. At the Mount of Transfiguration, Peter, James, and John saw the Lord transfigured before them. They heard the voice of the Father, but they did not see Him.

“Why did both the Father and the Son come to a boy, a mere lad? For one thing, they came to usher in the greatest gospel dispensation of all time, when all of previous dispensations should be gathered and brought together in one.”

It is easy to see why people do not accept this account. It is almost beyond comprehension. And yet it is so reasonable… Can they legitimately deny the need for an appearance of the God of heaven and His resurrected Son in this very complex period of the world’s history?”

“That They came, both of Them, that Joseph saw Them in Their resplendent glory, that They spoke to him and that he heard and recorded Their words—of these remarkable things we testify. I knew a so-called intellectual who said the Church was trapped by its history. My response was that without that history we have nothing. The truth of that unique, singular, and remarkable event is the pivotal substance of our faith.”

Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith,” October 2002 General Conference

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/10/the-marvelous-foundation-of-our-faith?lang=eng

This type of approach was used by Elder/President Hinckley. The ‘Cornerstones of our faith’ message was first being used 30 years ago at the 1984 conference:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1984/10/the-cornerstones-of-our-faith?lang=eng

It’s one influencial person’s rhetoric that has subsequently permeated other members’ and leaders’ approaches to teaching the principle. It’s natural that people will learn from the way they are taught by their leaders. I hope that a more moderate and inclusive approach that seems to be starting to come into some talks will influence the rhetoric of the next 30 years.

[Anonymous]

The issue for me is that visions are not transferable. When someone has a vision it may have great meaning to them. It may be real or imagined. It may be a grand vision or something simple. But it is their vision not mine. It has value to them not me. The mistake is when others attempt to use their vision to compel someone else to behave in a certain way, or pay them money, or believe without being able to reproduce that vision for others. In this way Joseph’s vision has no more validity to others than a hundred other claims of visions to others that we discount as delusion.

If god were to want you to know or believe something he would need to give you the vision also. Then you would have confirmation. Short of that I think there should be no expectation that one person should chart their course in life based on the supernatural claims of another.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

The issue for me is that visions are not transferable. When someone has a vision it may have great meaning to them. It may be real or imagined. It may be a grand vision or something simple. But it is their vision not mine. It has value to them not me. The mistake is when others attempt to use their vision to compel someone else to behave in a certain way, or pay them money, or believe without being able to reproduce that vision for others. In this way Joseph’s vision has no more validity to others than a hundred other claims of visions to others that we discount as delusion.

If god were to want you to know or believe something he would need to give you the vision also. Then you would have confirmation. Short of that I think there should be no expectation that one person should chart their course in life based on the supernatural claims of another.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You do have a point there. Joseph went to the grove to ask a personal question pertaining to his own faith, and that question was answered. It really could have been nothing more than that and really not have any implication for the rest of us, I suppose. Food for thought.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

The issue for me is that visions are not transferable. When someone has a vision it may have great meaning to them. It may be real or imagined. It may be a grand vision or something simple. But it is their vision not mine. It has value to them not me. The mistake is when others attempt to use their vision to compel someone else to behave in a certain way, or pay them money, or believe without being able to reproduce that vision for others. In this way Joseph’s vision has no more validity to others than a hundred other claims of visions to others that we discount as delusion.

If god were to want you to know or believe something he would need to give you the vision also. Then you would have confirmation. Short of that I think there should be no expectation that one person should chart their course in life based on the supernatural claims of another.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree, which is why I think it’s far more important to evaluate Joseph Smith on the doctrine he left us than the visions he claimed to have. His visions are, in my view, nothing more than his motivation. His content and theology is what we have to evaluate. I like a lot of it. I discard some of it.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

The issue for me is that visions are not transferable. When someone has a vision it may have great meaning to them. It may be real or imagined. It may be a grand vision or something simple. But it is their vision not mine. . . . I think there should be no expectation that one person should chart their course in life based on the supernatural claims of another.

I agree 100%. In church discussions I back up my view on this point with the oft repeated advice that we are to seek our own testimony and not rely on the words of another. What most active members have a hard time grasping is how some people really don’t get a spiritual witness that they feel comfortable placing their full weight on. To some (like me) it feels like a weak branch and I am more comfortable keeping most of my “weight” on something that feels more solid.

[Anonymous]

If a vision is internal, it is not necessarily imaginary. I think we miss that aspect. The whole point of a vision is that it comes from outside the person.

[Anonymous]

Summary in my own words, since I’m too lazy to look it up right now:

Quote:

Harry Potter: Is this all in my head?

Dumbledore: Yes, but that doesn’t make it any less real.

I agree completely that visions are not transferable – but neither are any kind of impressions or insights, like an inventor’s wild idea that ends up working or a scientist’s ability see correctly how to make a desired result occur. Sometimes, something as “simple” as being able to read something symbolically or figuratively is not transferable. Conscience is not transferable to a psychopath. My wife’s ability to remember in color in not transferable to me.

I like the Church’s insistence on people getting their own witness, although I believe there are lots of people who can’t get the type of witness that most members assume is available to everyone. I would say it’s important for each person to get their own reason, no matter the nature of that reason – and I think almost everyone I know would accept that wording if I had the chance to discuss it in person with them. After all, we also speak of not living off of borrowed light – and that means, at the most basic level, that not relying on the “transferable” is fundamental.

I just wish we valued more openly and truly any reason – and I think there is more than one current apostle who gets that and agrees (and is teaching it).

[Author]

Posts