Seeing God with mortal eyes

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

Our scriptures record almost no physical visitations to anyone – at least, almost none that are written clearly as physical visitations.

My reading of the scriptures says that seeing God with Physical/mortal eyes is basically impossible. One must be “quickened by the spirit” or see with “spiritual eyes”. It is a spiritual event, physical photoreceptors will be of no use.

This is my understanding as well. Hence, the First Vision is just what it says it is – a vision.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Orson wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

Our scriptures record almost no physical visitations to anyone – at least, almost none that are written clearly as physical visitations.

My reading of the scriptures says that seeing God with Physical/mortal eyes is basically impossible. One must be “quickened by the spirit” or see with “spiritual eyes”. It is a spiritual event, physical photoreceptors will be of no use.

This is my understanding as well. Hence, the First Vision is just what it says it is – a vision.

I wrote a little on this, here. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/methought-i-saw-lehis-dream/

Both Lehi and Alma begin explaining their visions with “methought I saw”. If you met your friend for lunch and told a story about it, you wouldn’t begin it saying “methought I met my friend.” My theory here is that this gives us insight into Joseph’s visions.

[Anonymous]

LDS scripture tools help clarify…bible dictionary of God has this:

God can be known only by revelation. He must be revealed or remain forever unknown (Mosiah 4:9). God first revealed Himself to Adam (Moses 5–6) and has repeatedly made Himself known by revelation to chosen patriarchs and prophets since that time. The present translation of John 1:18 and 1 Jn. 4:12 is misleading, for these say that no man has ever seen God. However, the scriptures state that there have been many who have seen Him. The JST corrects these items to show that no one has seen God except through faith and also that Jesus Christ is the only Way to God (JST John 1:19 [Appendix or John 1:18 note c]; JST 1 Jn. 4:12 [1 Jn. 4:12 note a]). God the Father and His Son have been manifested by voice, sight, or otherwise at various times, as at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16–17), the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–, to Stephen (Acts 7:55–56), and to the Nephites (3 Ne. 11:7). The Father and the Son personally visited Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove in the spring of 1820 near Manchester, New York, in the opening of the dispensation of the fulness of times (JS—H 1:11–20).

That still leaves the “quickened by the spirit” possible for sight. But I’m not sure I see that is necessary.

I do think many like to believe God is so amazing and so perfect and so holy that He would be too amazingly perfect to behold, so we couldn’t stand it in our present form. I think some people like that form of god…an all powerful, too amazing to see with eyes – kind of God to worship.

[Anonymous]

The Book of Moses also adds some insight:

Moses 1:2

Quote:

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.

Moses 1:9-11

Quote:

And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that his glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth. And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man; and he said unto himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed. 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.

Comparing to something in JSH :

JSH 1:20

Quote:

…When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was…

And of course the BoM has several of these experiences where people go into comas and the like when they have profound religious experiences. I believe this is called being “slain in the spirit.”

churchistrue wrote:

Both Lehi and Alma begin explaining their visions with “methought I saw”. If you met your friend for lunch and told a story about it, you wouldn’t begin it saying “methought I met my friend.” My theory here is that this gives us insight into Joseph’s visions.

That is interesting. The way I’ve heard it described, people usually take god’s physical presence as a given. Under those rules the person isn’t seeing god with their natural eyes, they are seeing god with their spiritual, transfigured eyes. The explanation became, you can see god if you are transfigured. Methinks that this would indicate that the concept of seeing god with spiritual eyes (a vision) coexisted with the transfiguration theory.

Doctrine and Covenants 110 can lend perspective as well.

Quote:

The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened. We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us;

The focus is on the mind and the eyes. What’s interesting is what follows.

Quote:

After this vision closed, the heavens were again opened unto us; and Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys

The vision closed. Moses appeared. Keys were committed (traditionally through the laying on of hands, something more tangible than a vision?).

Quote:

After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed. After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us,

Elias and Elijah ( :crazy: ) appeared to confer keys but their appearances were referred to as visions.

I don’t suspect I’d know what they meant by visions and appearances even if I could cross examine them, much less from a historic record. I believe there was some other thread where we discussed whether there’s a big difference between a physical visitation vs. a vision (i.e. does it really matter?) so I won’t rehash that here.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

The Book of Moses also adds some insight:

Moses 1:2

Quote:

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.

Moses 1:9-11

Quote:

And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that his glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth. And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man; and he said unto himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed. 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.

Comparing to something in JSH :

JSH 1:20

Quote:

…When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was…

And of course the BoM has several of these experiences where people go into comas and the like when they have profound religious experiences. I believe this is called being “slain in the spirit.”

churchistrue wrote:

Both Lehi and Alma begin explaining their visions with “methought I saw”. If you met your friend for lunch and told a story about it, you wouldn’t begin it saying “methought I met my friend.” My theory here is that this gives us insight into Joseph’s visions.

That is interesting. The way I’ve heard it described, people usually take god’s physical presence as a given. Under those rules the person isn’t seeing god with their natural eyes, they are seeing god with their spiritual, transfigured eyes. The explanation became, you can see god if you are transfigured. Methinks that this would indicate that the concept of seeing god with spiritual eyes (a vision) coexisted with the transfiguration theory.

Doctrine and Covenants 110 can lend perspective as well.

Quote:

The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened. We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us;

The focus is on the mind and the eyes. What’s interesting is what follows.

Quote:

After this vision closed, the heavens were again opened unto us; and Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys

The vision closed. Moses appeared. Keys were committed (traditionally through the laying on of hands, something more tangible than a vision?).

Quote:

After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed. After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us,

Elias and Elijah ( :crazy: ) appeared to confer keys but their appearances were referred to as visions.

I don’t suspect I’d know what they meant by visions and appearances even if I could cross examine them, much less from a historic record. I believe there was some other thread where we discussed whether there’s a big difference between a physical visitation vs. a vision (i.e. does it really matter?) so I won’t rehash that here.

Great info. Very interesting. I hope you don’t mind if I steal errrr borrow this logic for a future article. If you can find the link to that other thread, I’d love to read it.

[Anonymous]

Previous discussion of first vision: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5123&hilit=first+vision” class=”bbcode_url”>http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5123&hilit=first+vision

[Anonymous]

churchistrue wrote:

Great info. Very interesting. I hope you don’t mind if I steal errrr borrow this logic for a future article. If you can find the link to that other thread, I’d love to read it.

I don’t mind, I’d be curious to see where you go with it.

Here’s another thread: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6106” class=”bbcode_url”>http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6106

[Anonymous]

Gerald wrote:

Would a testimony stating “I haven’t seen God but that doesn’t alter my belief in Him one way or another” be problematic? It’s probably the kind of testimony many members have.

It has been several years but my memory says in G. Prince’s biography of Pres. McKay, when asked directly if he had seen the savior DOM replied “no, but I have heard his voice many times.” I know some members don’t want to hear this, their idea of a prophet requires a personal vision, but here we have an account that he said it.

Over time my views on “seeing God” has changed. Some may say my bar has lowered, but it has had the effect of taking me from the position of being extremely skeptical that anyone could see God, to feeling it is probably fairly common. The difference is I don’t imagine seeing and talking to God as a physical experience of one man talking to another. The primary takeaway will be an overwhelming sense of love, and that may come from dreaming about encountering the savior for example. When it is a powerful experience I would call it “seeing God.”

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

Gerald wrote:

Would a testimony stating “I haven’t seen God but that doesn’t alter my belief in Him one way or another” be problematic? It’s probably the kind of testimony many members have.

It has been several years but my memory says in G. Prince’s biography of Pres. McKay, when asked directly if he had seen the savior DOM replied “no, but I have heard his voice many times.” I know some members don’t want to hear this, their idea of a prophet requires a personal vision, but here we have an account that he said it.

Over time my views on “seeing God” has changed. Some may say my bar has lowered, but it has had the effect of taking me from the position of being extremely skeptical that anyone could see God, to feeling it is probably fairly common. The difference is I don’t imagine seeing and talking to God as a physical experience of one man talking to another. The primary takeaway will be an overwhelming sense of love, and that may come from dreaming about encountering the savior for example. When it is a powerful experience I would call it “seeing God.”

Thanks for sharing Orson. I could say that I have heard the voice of God or the Savior as well – but I don’t think I have ever heard it directly. I have heard Him in the words of others, and I have heard Him in music. And not all angels are from another realm, some of them are in our own wards and stakes.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

It has been several years but my memory says in G. Prince’s biography of Pres. McKay, when asked directly if he had seen the savior DOM replied “no, but I have heard his voice many times.”

I wonder how many of those times It was saying “that’s not what I meant and you know it.”

[Anonymous]

NightSG wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

It has been several years but my memory says in G. Prince’s biography of Pres. McKay, when asked directly if he had seen the savior DOM replied “no, but I have heard his voice many times.”

I wonder how many of those times It was saying “that’s not what I meant and you know it.”

I bet never. I don’t believe DOM was a purposeful deceiver and I don’t believe he taught things he thought to be incorrect. I believe the same for his peers. FWIW, I think McKay sometimes gets a bad rap and was more progressive than most people think and that much of what he tried to do was reversed by his more conservative successors. If you believe God corrects us in this life, I think you’d have to believe He does so gently and with great long suffering. I think he doesn’t use hammer when a napkin will do. (I personally don’t believe God corrects us in this life, I think he lets us exercise full agency without interference – even for prophets.)

[Anonymous]

David O. McKay was wonderful, and he was as honest as they come.

[Anonymous]

There is a history in the church of using nuanced language to maintain and out and disclaimers if ever challenged about certain claims people at the top KNOW to be true. But the membership believes a mystical version of the truth — and the Apostles and Prophets do nothing to correct or clarify the myth. It’s as if they see perpetuation of the myth as good for the faith of the members so they skirt around it, use language which is ambiguous enough that it can be qualified, etcetera. Here are some examples.

1. Missionary discussions published that say “Our goal is to become like God”. Left without qualification, most people would think this is fine — we are trying to be charitable, kind, and righteous like God. But WE know it means we are trying to achieve godhood, even when we teach it. We don’t outright say this, talk about creating worlds, and having the same creative power as God and our own offspring as gods, but give the watered down version that is acceptable to the average ear.

2. Most of the membership believe “no one is paid”. We are a completely “lay ministry”. Yet the people at the top and the mission presidents KNOW this is not true. Yet they do nothing to correct the myth of the unpaid ministry. This is again, because I think they consider it good for the faith and commitment of the members to believe we are different in that way, that there is no profit or self-interested motive AT ALL for serving in the church. Credit: Uchdorft did once say that “no local leaders are paid”, which to me was the closest I’ve ever heard a GA come to being open about it. And even then, it was a passing comment.

3. The First Presidency letter of 197X,generally regarded as the official statement about tithing indicates that tithing is 10% of income, and that no one is justified in saying more than this. Also, ‘that each person should work out with the Lord was is a full tithe. This last sentence is not present in our manuals. Everyone believes its gross or net, but the wiggle room regarding the indvidual’s interpretation of income is left out of the official record.

So, taken with this backdrop of selective information sharing and nuanced language, I question if any of them have actually seen Christ. And if they have, if that vision is simply a dream, something they believe they saw, but didn’t, or just inspiration or something they assumed given the attendance of the Holy Ghost at certain times in their lives.

I don’t rule out the idea that some of the Apostles have seen Christ, but when they won’t talk about it, even privately, I have trouble NOT lumping that in with the three points above. I dont’ fully trust what they say given the white half-truths we hear, particularly if they think it is good for us to believe the myth.

[Author]

Posts