What about those stories?

[Anonymous]

I think it’s a good question that calls upon another question. Do you personally believe that the Heavens are opened? Do you believe that angels can speak to menkind?

Old-Timer wrote:

I know that’s true of my own strongest experiences – and I’ve had some really strong, really difficult to dismiss experiences.

Many people in the church and of other faiths in the last millennium have testified of having heavenly messengers, visit them, most of them were family members from beyond the grave. They came to warn, comfort, support or reveal. Can those accounts be denied?

In the time of Joseph Smith it was common to say God and Jesus were one, and they were a spirit.

Why proclaim something completely different? Why would Joseph Smith say that he saw 2 separate Beings, with glorified bodies of flesh and bones?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Why would Joseph Smith say that he saw 2 separate Beings, with glorified bodies of flesh and bones?

He didn’t say he saw Beings with glorified bodies of flesh and bone. He simply said he saw them. The concept of an embodied Godhead was a progression in understanding / doctrine that developed over time – ironically, due mostly to a reading and interpretation of the Bible and subsequent experiences with the laying on of hands (again, whether that happened in vision or visitation form).

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

Why would Joseph Smith say that he saw 2 separate Beings, with glorified bodies of flesh and bones?

He didn’t say he saw Beings with glorified bodies of flesh and bone. He simply said he saw them.

Joseph Smith wrote:

and I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision and saw two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features, and likeness, surrounded with a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noon-day.

From The Wentworth Letter

Quote:

and saw two glorious personages, who exactly resembled each other in their features or likeness.

From Orson Pratt account, first published account of first vision. Published in a pamphlet in 1840 titled “An interesting account of several remarkable visions”.

JS History 1:17 wrote:

When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air.

Indeed Joseph Smith didn’t say anything then about them having glorified bodies of flesh and bones, but later on in D&C he says:

D&C 130:22 wrote:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

[Anonymous]

RMsister wrote:

I think it’s a good question that calls upon another question. Do you personally believe that the Heavens are opened? Do you believe that angels can speak to menkind?

Absolutely. Not a smidgen of a question in my mind.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Tom. That is one thing of which I have absolutely no doubt.

[Anonymous]

I have no doubt about it either. I am quite convinced that the angels are ministering to millions of folks – the Dalia Lama for sure – but not just religious leaders. I think that it is happening to many many common people as well.

Did you catch Hollands reference to “administrating angels in conference today? he said, that the brethren will be uncomfortable, but he considered those folks who talked at conference to be angels sent from heaven.

[Anonymous]

The way such things are worded in the LDS Church often have a context of idolatry to them, but taken out of that context, I agree 100% with the idea that they are angels of heaven.

[Anonymous]

So, the first vision, the Kirtland temple visions, John the baptist, Peter James and John were all “spiritual visions?”

I think most church members belive that they were as real as Jesus coming down from the heavens to visit the Nephites after his resurection. They all went one by one and touched him! If that is true, why have resurected beings traded in their flesh and bones for spirits? Are they too busy on Kolob to come in person?

[Anonymous]

Fatherof4husbandof1 wrote:

So, the first vision, the Kirtland temple visions, John the baptist, Peter James and John were all “spiritual visions?”

I don’t know about “all” being spiritual only, but I do think they were real, involving the personal presence of Christ, John, Peter, James and John. Either way.

Fatherof4husbandof1 wrote:

I think most church members belive that they were as real as Jesus coming down from the heavens to visit the Nephites after his resurrection.

Exactly. Do you see how you are equating ‘real’ with ‘physical’? Why is that?

Fatherof4husbandof1 wrote:

They all went one by one and touched him! If that is true, why have resurected beings traded in their flesh and bones for spirits? Are they too busy on Kolob to come in person?

Have they? (traded, I mean)

Maybe I’m off base, but your comments strike me as coming from a place of confusion about what is real and what is literal and what is not and how that can or cannot still be real. Perhaps that bit about Kolob was a result of frustration?

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

HiJolly wrote:

doug wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

I don’t think the angels, God and Christ were physical, but I don’t *know* they weren’t …

I can’t even begin to reject Christ appearing to Joseph Smith. No can do.

I think you’re saying something important here, but I’m not sure what. Maybe I just need a nap.

I’m saying that I can’t discount a vision of Christ to Joseph, but if it *was* a vision, I’m not sure it was physical like Joseph described. It could still be *real*, even if it wasn’t physical.

Spiritual eyes work just like physical ones. There is no discernible difference to the vision center of the mind.

HiJolly

Okay. I assumed it was something like that. FWIW, I think that is more or less how I see things. I recognize or believe that metaphysical ‘truths’ are by their very nature subjective. I know that this is a bit like arguing about the proverbial tree falling in the forest, but whether Joseph had a ‘real’ visitation, a ‘spiritual’ one that he could not distinguish from a ‘real’ one, or something else entirely makes no difference if I believe that something happened, and that that belief has meaning to me in the sense that it comples me to action. In the end it all comes down to what I choose to believe, what God reveals to me personally. This seems to be a recurring theme, and appropriately so.

I spent last evening in the company of a ‘guru’ who teaches yoga (of various forms), and also had someone speak to me in tongues and I may actually have understood part of it. I think I’m getting pretty good at appreciating other viewpoints. For some reason, though, I have a hard time appreciating my own, or at least what used to be my own.

I spent the weekend variously listening to or trying to ignore conference. Overall, I didn’t have anything major to complain about, but I can’t help being annoyed by the matter-of-fact tone. I know I should expect that, of course. Subjectivity, or at least admitting to it, is not a part of our culture. Making a distinction between reality, and the perception of reality was never a strong point of the church, but I find it vaguely offensive to my tenuous new-found independence. Maybe maintaining the charade is an essential element.

[Author]

Posts