The First Vision and Moroni’s Visits

[Anonymous]

One other thing…

Doctrine and Covenants 129. What is the point of this revelation if visitations are not assumed? The section doesn’t refer to specific events but it would imply that some events are visitations, even if it is a spirit doing the visiting.

I don’t intend to say whether the events were visions or visits; I’m more pointed at determining how these events were taught to other people.

[Anonymous]

I do agree, Nibbler, that some of the events could have been actual visitations while others were visions. I think the first vision account is especially clear, though, that it was a vision.

I have thought about adding this to the thread about what essays I’d like to see – I would like to see one about the three and the eight witnesses.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

One other thing…

Doctrine and Covenants 129. What is the point of this revelation if visitations are not assumed? The section doesn’t refer to specific events but it would imply that some events are visitations, even if it is a spirit doing the visiting.

I hope the devil’s angels don’t read that section…they could wreck the whole system!! 😈

But seriously…there does seem to be the mindset from Joseph on the literal nature of the things he was involved in. That makes it even more interesting. Because as Terryl Givens says, he is taking the most difficult path to take in these claims he is making.

[Anonymous]

I’m starting to feel like the conclusion is similar to what was discussed in the you should have known better thread. People that were taught (or feel like they were taught) that the first vision was a visitation probably can’t imagine the scenarios where someone else in the church was only exposed to teachings that the first vision was just that, a vision. People that were taught that the first vision was a vision probably can’t imagine the scenarios where someone else in the church was only exposed to teachings that the first vision was a visitation.

What I can say is that I was only ever exposed to the teaching that it was a true visitation. I was exposed to similar teachings as Eternity4me, the FV was what helped us finally understand that god had a body of flesh and bone. I also heard that the FV was one of the very, very few occurrences where god, not Jesus/Jehovah, actually visited man, it was more special because of this. Etc.

Any other interpretations outside of a literal visitation only came after the wheels of a faith crisis were set in motion.

I now find myself curious. Does it matter whether it was a vision or a visitation? Is one more believable than the other?

[Anonymous]

I believe all of it to be visions or seen with spiritual eyes and this includes IMO the golden plates.

I believe there is convincing evidence that at least some of the incidents sometimes claimed to be visitations are actually seem to more closely resemble visions.

Of course there is the First Vision and the visit of Moroni to the bedside of JS.

There are also the “amusing recitals” JS gave to his family about Nephite culture before he received the plates:

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

I believe that JS recieved this information through visions of the events described in the BOM.

JS wrote concerning the bedside visit of Mornoni:

Quote:

I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people was made known unto me: I was also told where there was deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgement [abridgment] of the records of the ancient prophets that had existed on this continent. The angel appeared to me three times the same night and unfolded the same things. After having received many visits from the angels of God unfolding the majesty, and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days, on the morning of the 22d of September A. D. 1827, the angel of the Lord delivered the records into my hands.

Times and Seasons 3 no. 9 (1 March 1842), 707.

JS says that he was “shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people was made known unto me” I believe this to be further evidence of vision rather than a visitation at his bedside.

The latter part of the same quote referenced JS receiving “many visits from the angels of God unfolding the majesty, and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days” and this is before getting access to the plates themselves. Who were these angels?

Quote:

Elder George Q. Cannon named two of these angels as, probably, Alma and Nephi. (Journal of Discourses, 13:47.)

Elder John Taylor also identified “Mormon, Moroni, Nephi, and others of the ancient Prophets who formerly lived on this Continent” as visitors. (Journal of Discourses, 17:374.) Speaking at Ephraim, Utah, in 1879, Elder Taylor said the Nephite twelve disciples also came to Joseph.

Elder Orson Pratt, in a personal letter to John Christensen of Brigham City, testified:

“The prophet often received visits from Nephi, Moroni, Peter, James, John (the beloved), John (the Baptist), Elijah, Moses, the three Nephites, etc. etc.”

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/08/book-of-mormon-personalities-known-by-joseph-smith?lang=eng

I believe that these visits too were visionary in nature. Otherwise, how many different messengers of God would it take to get this restoration ball rolling? Did they all have priesthood keys to impart?

If I had to I could also do a seperate paragraph or two about the witnesses of the plates and indications that they were seen with “spiritual sight.”

The vision of the cave at hill cumorah is what really seals it in my mind. Now we are talking about an entire room full of artifacts and the final resting place of the golden plates. There has been no discovery of void in the hill, though some have tried. Geologically this hill could not sustain a natural cave. “The geologic unlikelihood of a cave existing within the hill such as the one described suggests that the experience related by the various witnesses was most likely a vision, or a divine transportation to another locale (as with Nephi’s experience in 1 Nephi 11:1).” (FAIR Wiki) If the Gold Plates were physical then it sure throws a wrench into the interpretation to have them returned to Moroni through a visionary experience.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology/Hill_Cumorah

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1412&index=6

To further complicate matters – JS and his contemporaries spoke of visions and such as though they were physical events using such terms as vision and visitation interchangeably. There was a sense that the spiritual world was real/tangible and was just below the surface of what is perceived by our natural eyes.

In conclusion, I believe that there is compelling evidence that at least some of visitations were actually visions. If we can assume that the nature of the visits and/or communication from God was consistent then it is not unreasonable to assume that all visitations were in fact visions.

[Anonymous]

I honesty don’t care much – for one simple reason (to which Roy alluded in his last comment):

The people of that time didn’t distinguish often between visions and visitations. “Early Mormonism and the Magic Worldview” (D. Michael Quinn) does an excellent job of describing that mindset and, imo, is an important work for anyone who struggles to understand how differently people in that time and place viewed spiritual things.

With that in mind, Joseph might have been “visited” by any number of “divine beings” without any of them actually being there in real flesh and bone as we think of visits now. More importantly, Joseph could have believed he was visited by any number of divine beings, and talked about visits rather than visions, even if the actual events were different in nature as we would describe them now. Even the mentions of physical contact would fit this framework and would have been completely consistent with how those things were described in that time and place.

Personally, I heard the belief growing up that the First Vision proves God has a body of flesh and bone – but I recognized early that the account itself doesn’t make or support that claim. I believe the physicality of God was something that Joseph learned / saw / postulated / whatever as he had other visions AND, just as importantly, as he studied the Bible more intently. That concept (God as a physical, tangible entity) is distinctly Biblical, and I think Joseph (and those who followed him, even more so) retroactively reinterpreted his First Vision to be a visitation once the doctrine of a corporeal God became key to Mormon theology.

[Anonymous]

Well, the other issue is that the restoration of the PH (Aaronic anyway) is clearly presented as a literal visit with laying on of hands.

[Anonymous]

Amen, Roy! Well done.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Frankly I didn’t expect this much response, and I am a bit surprised at the responses. The idea of the First Vision, especially, being a physical event is more pervasive than I expected. As I said earlier, I once believed this, too, but it was while studying scripture prior to my faith crisis that I realized it wasn’t and I figured it was part of the maturing of my faith and just something I learned or understood better. I assumed most people believed as I did or were in my former state of just having not really examined it or thought about it (which was the case with my missionary son). I was agnostic about the event during my faith crisis. As part of my transition, I am able to see it more as Ray has explained – just because it was not physical does not mean “physical things” (like priesthood ordination) could not have taken place. I also believe that some of the visits could have been visions while others were not. And, of course, I could be wrong altogether. Ray also makes a good point in that the idea is viewed in context of LDS doctrine that God does have a body, which is contrary to the belief of most of Christianity. Isn’t it also possible that John was right and no man has seen God?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Isn’t it also possible that John was right and no man has seen God?

Yes, it’s possible – but the only way to make it consistent with our scriptural canon is to see all appearances of God as visions and not visitations. I have no problem with that (none, whatsoever), but I know most members would have a huge problem with it. The most common response I have heard is that the quote in question is a great example of “as far as it it translated correctly” – which, frankly, is a really good, practical solution for Biblical things we don’t want to accept. It’s one of my favorite aspects of Mormon doctrine – and I mean that seriously, since it allows us to let go of past stuff we don’t want to accept.

I just wish we had the same attitude about ALL of our scriptural canon – even as it leads to the concept that living prophets are more important than dead ones (which I accept, in general theory, since I believe in the critical importance of theological evolution) and the difficulties that can cause (when living prophets teach things that later have to be ignored or repudiated, just like we have to do with prophets from the past).

[Anonymous]

I’d like to get back to the question: What difference does it make whether some event was a visitation or a vision? Does one carry more weight than another? How do people’s interpretations of the FV change when looking at it as a visitation? A vision?

To that I could add: Can someone that is seeing something even be 100% sure whether what they are seeing is a vision or a visitation?

When I went to the Grand Canyon one of the impressions I had was that it looked like a painting! It overwhelmed my senses and the experience strained the plausibility of what I was seeing. It was real, I was there, but the sight of it… Looking at pictures? Big whoop, but a vision isn’t exactly a picture is it? A vision of the Grand Canyon or a visit to the Grand Canyon. I think what’s more important is conveying that same level of awe I think either a vision or a visitation might suffice in that department.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

What difference does it make whether some event was a visitation or a vision? Does one carry more weight than another? How do people’s interpretations of the FV change when looking at it as a visitation? A vision?

There can be differences.

For one…you have to start with how different people are. It can matter greatly for one person who might feel fuzzy, fluffy, spiritual nuance talk lessens the value or truth claims. But as you can see on this board, there are many people do not need to see things literally or physically to have value or truth. So the first element to recognize is that it can matter, or not, from person to person.

From there, it is interesting to me to consider if it even mattered to those who were experiencing them, verses those who were documenting and retelling it, verses those that are analyzing it hundreds of years later. I really think that is an important factor. Because I get the impression many who were having sacred experiences did not distinguish between vision or visitation, translation or transmission, spiritual or physical, matter or spirit. They just blended much of that together in their best efforts to be closer and closer to God.

Finally…I might add, I believe it is part of our teaching that having things physical or visitations be real, is not taught as a greater “proof” or stronger testimony. How many times in church do you hear it said, “Laman and Lemuel saw the angel tell them not to beat up Nephi, but they never converted their hearts. True conversion is a spiritual witness, not a physical one.” ??? I hear that a lot, and I take it to heart.

I understand that many view the First Vision as a visitation, and need those physical elements such as plates or angel’s bodies that you can shake hands with, or Christ eating honeycombs…and that helps them frame things in their mind and gives their testimony comfort.

I frankly don’t see any importance to the distinction, and leave the mysteries of God to the spiritual realm, and can have faith in either/or.

But the difference does mean something to some people, and not to others (like me).

nibbler wrote:

Can someone that is seeing something even be 100% sure whether what they are seeing is a vision or a visitation?

No. I don’t think so. Miracles are predicated on faith. And earth life sensing things through mortal and imperfect bodies mean we can see things that don’t exist, or believe we saw things that didn’t ever happen, or see things differently, from different points of view. It is why eye witnesses to a crime are not always reliable in court cases.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I’d like to get back to the question: What difference does it make whether some event was a visitation or a vision? Does one carry more weight than another? How do people’s interpretations of the FV change when looking at it as a visitation? A vision?

I really liked Heber’s answers to this question. For me, I would frame this question in relation to the events depicted in the book and movie, “heaven is for real.”

A 4 year old Colton has something similar to a near death experience – though he was never clinically dead (an important distinction for some people). He gains accurate information about his parents wearabouts and activities while he was on the operating table. He “visits” heaven and meets his miscarried sister and his grandfather that he had limited/no information on previously. He describes angels as having wings. Colton also claimed that he personally met Jesus riding a rainbow-colored horse and sat in Jesus’ lap when angels sang songs to him. He also says he saw Mary (the mother of Jesus) kneeling before the throne of God and at other times standing beside Jesus. Perhaps the biggest event is that Colton concurs with another young NDE recipient on what Jesus looks like.

The picture of Colton’s Jesus can be found here: http://shroudstory.com/2011/02/23/akianes-jesus-heaven-is-for-real-and-the-man-in-the-turin-shroud/

What difference might it make if young Colton had a vision or a visitation. What should we infer about the appearance of angels, the mode of transportation of Jesus, the status of the virgin Mary in heaven, or Jesus’s hair and eye color based on Colton’s experience?

How is this similar or different than the experience of Joseph in the Sacred Grove?

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

For one…you have to start with how different people are. It can matter greatly for one person who might feel fuzzy, fluffy, spiritual nuance talk lessens the value or truth claims. But as you can see on this board, there are many people do not need to see things literally or physically to have value or truth. So the first element to recognize is that it can matter, or not, from person to person.

True, but we’re the ones attempting to split hairs. What difference might it make to us hair splitters? For me, once it comes under the microscope it all starts to come out in the wash.

[Anonymous]

I really like this discussion. Visitation or vision? Either way Joseph Smith had to see Heavenly Father and Jesus with spiritual eyes, however it happened. What I didn’t consider, though, was the witnesses seeing the Golden Plates with spiritual eyes. Interesting way to do it!

[Author]

Posts