Your Vision Of The First Vision

[volgadon]

Exactly, completely, I'm there with you. It was a mystical experience. And with your depth of understanding of these from the literature, it's pretty hard to pull of into words what a mystical experience is all about.

A mystical experience doesn't negate a literal, physical visitation, which is my point. Also, when Joseph came to, I would consider that a passage from the heightened "mystical" perception to the mundane, every day one.

Edited August 19, 2012 by volgadon

[happy]

I believe it was a real physical event. I also believe the version currently published by the Church is the correct one as revealed by God to our modern prophets. I think the Church is under no obligation to discuss or publish the rest. The others could have been rough drafts, ones written out of fear because he didn't know how to describe the events without persecution.... Who knows.

I also believe that if you start second guessing this stuff, you open the doors to more stuff being downgraded. Why not Jesus being a nice symbol. That becomes a true slippery slope.

[wayfarer]

A mystical experience doesn't negate a literal, physical visitation, which is my point. Also, when Joseph came to, I would consider that a passage from the heightened "mystical" perception to the mundane, every day one.

I don't preclude the possibility of a physical even either, but that it was a mystical experience leaves open the possibility if it being physical or not. there is no proof either way of a physical event, but there is evidence of a mystical experience.

[Tacenda]

Algonquin Indian shamans inhabiting the region from the Atlantic seaboard running north through eastern and central Canada and south to the Ohio River are known to have used both Datura plant and Amanita Muscaria mushroom in their religious ceremonies. (http://www.erowid.or.../g141-150.shtml)

I'm of the opinion that he quite possibly used something to induce the vision and was seeking answers to unanswered questions about the religions surrounding him and he was asking for forgiveness also.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Tacenda

[happy]

Algonquin Indian shamans inhabiting the region from the Atlantic seaboard running north through eastern and central Canada and south to the Ohio River are known to have used both Datura plant and Amanita Muscaria mushroom in their religious ceremonies. (http://www.erowid.or.../g141-150.shtml)

I'm of the opinion that he quite possibly used something to induce the vision and was seeking answers to unanswered questions about the religions surrounding him and he was asking for forgiveness also.

That's an unnessesary supposition. Your adding layers that have no value. Is there a reason you need to add science into your faith? This has always fustrated me. Like people who need natural explanations for the parting of the red sea. The point is it was supposed to be a good ol' maricle. That's it, no scientific or naturalistic explanation like low tides, or drought. But here you are adding drugs or whatnot to Joseph's vision and frankly I find it offensive.

[KevinG]

Yeah the guy who gave us the World of Wisdom was into hallucinogenic drugs.

[Duncan]

Algonquin Indian shamans inhabiting the region from the Atlantic seaboard running north through eastern and central Canada and south to the Ohio River are known to have used both Datura plant and Amanita Muscaria mushroom in their religious ceremonies. (http://www.erowid.or.../g141-150.shtml)

I'm of the opinion that he quite possibly used something to induce the vision and was seeking answers to unanswered questions about the religions surrounding him and he was asking for forgiveness also.

and do you have evidence for this?

[Tacenda]

and do you have evidence for this?

Just my opinion, no concise evidence of it, I had read an article about it once and it stayed with me.

[wayfarer]

Just my opinion, no concise evidence of it, I had read an article about it once and it stayed with me.

Yes, I read the same information, and it might be a good idea for you to forget that article -- it probably doesn't apply.

You likely read this on an anti-mormon site hypothesizing that Joseph drugged his wine, using evidence that Joseph was in an area where such things were done. The far-fetched hypothesis even sites a book: "Joseph Smith and Herbal Medicine", John Heinmann, 1980. But in this book, Heinmann says that Joseph Smith preached against using herbal medicines, including datura, preferring priesthood healing instead. True, this indicates he knew of datura, but advised against it. This is a non-proof if ever I saw one.

Having studied cognitive processes in detail, hallucinogens alter the conscious/nonconscious boundary in a way that does not allow for reasoned control of the experience -- they're quite dangerous. It's an artificial vision, and in my opinion, completely lacking in spiritual validity.

Through meditation and prayer, one achieves a unity of mind necessary for revelation. Joseph Smith's first vision demonstrates so much that is accurate to a revelatory experience, it makes a good model for understanding. Like the other person said above, it's not a necessary layer to add to this equation.

Edited August 19, 2012 by wayfarer

[Tacenda]

Yes, I read the same information, and it might be a good idea for you to forget that article -- it probably doesn't apply.

According to "Joseph Smith and Herbal Medicine", John Heinmann, 1980, Joseph Smith preached against using herbal medicines, including datura, preferring priesthood healing instead. True, this indicates he knew of datura, but advised against it.

Having studied cognitive processes in detail, hallucinogens alter the conscious/nonconscious boundary in a way that does not allow for reasoned control of the experience -- they're quite dangerous. It's an artificial vision, and in my opinion, completely lacking in spiritual validity.

Through meditation and prayer, one achieves a unity of mind necessary for revelation. Joseph Smith's first vision demonstrates so much that is accurate to a revelatory experience, it makes a good model for understanding. Like the other person said above, it's not a necessary layer to add to this equation.

I think it was different in those days, than nowadays. Have you ever heard that cocaine was actually an ingredient in Coke at one time?

Also, the quote below about Steve Jobs taking acid, like Steve (sort of) getting a vision through natural methods such as the Datura plant and mushrooms may do something to facillitate and free up your mind to expand beyond this world. These are my own thoughts on the matter. I don't discount that JS experienced actual spiritual experiences at all.

http://www.thefix.co...nt-and-lsd-9143

"But equally suggestive, at least to us, is a quote from Steve Jobs to New York Times reporter John Markoff, who interviewed him for his 2005 book What the Doormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer. Speaking about his youthful experiments with psychedelics, Jobs said, "Doing LSD was one of the two or three most important things I have done in my life." He was hardly alone among computer scientists in his appreciation of hallucinogenics and their capacity to liberate human thought from the prison of the mind. Jobs even let drop that Microsoft's Bill Gates would "be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once." Apple's mantra was"Think different." Jobs did. And he credited his use of LSD as a major reason for his success."

Edited August 19, 2012 by Tacenda

[Alan]

I have never really been comfortable with the notion that the first vision was a literal visitation of the Father and the Son in woods. Mainly for 2 reasons.

1. It is always called the first vision.

2. Joseph himself states that "when I came to myself I found myself laying on my back".

We are therefore talking about a visionary experience rather than a physical visitation, in my view.

[altersteve]

Although, I'm not sure if we have "evangelists" or "pastors" in the church as currently organized.

We do. Only we call them "patriarchs" and "bishops."

[wayfarer]

We do. Only we call them "patriarchs" and "bishops."

unfortunately, the greek words do not mean what patriarchs and bishops do. An evangelist is a preacher -- more akin to a missionary than a patriarch. A bishop is an overseer, and very much does that in our wards, plus the role of Judge in Israel -- something that a Pastor is not and cannot be. we don't have people who are dedicated to compassionate service and counseling alone -- that is what a "Pastor" is.

Trying to stretch the meaning of Paul's writings to exactly fit our current church structure doesn't really work. That said, there is considerable early Christian evidence that our structure is more correct than any other Christian church -- i.e. recommends for priesthood holders, the role of "Bishop" was indeed the overseer of the church in a given geography (and thus not a pastor), and that role had a temporal purpose as well in managing offerings and logistical purposes. The truth is our church structure is basically consistent with early christianity, but not perfectly so, and it evolves over time. I am both a Seventy and a High Priest, but I have never been in any of the currently organized quorums of Seventy -- go figure.

[volgadon]

unfortunately, the greek words do not mean what patriarchs and bishops do. An evangelist is a preacher -- more akin to a missionary than a patriarch. A bishop is an overseer, and very much does that in our wards, plus the role of Judge in Israel -- something that a Pastor is not and cannot be. we don't have people who are dedicated to compassionate service and counseling alone -- that is what a "Pastor" is.

Trying to stretch the meaning of Paul's writings to exactly fit our current church structure doesn't really work. That said, there is considerable early Christian evidence that our structure is more correct than any other Christian church -- i.e. recommends for priesthood holders, the role of "Bishop" was indeed the overseer of the church in a given geography (and thus not a pastor), and that role had a temporal purpose as well in managing offerings and logistical purposes. The truth is our church structure is basically consistent with early christianity, but not perfectly so, and it evolves over time. I am both a Seventy and a High Priest, but I have never been in any of the currently organized quorums of Seventy -- go figure.

St. Ignatius of Antioch used bishop and shepherd interchangeably.

[Robert F. Smith]

I believe it was a real physical event. I also believe the version currently published by the Church is the correct one as revealed by God to our modern prophets. I think the Church is under no obligation to discuss or publish the rest. The others could have been rough drafts, ones written out of fear because he didn't know how to describe the events without persecution.... Who knows.

I also believe that if you start second guessing this stuff, you open the doors to more stuff being downgraded. Why not Jesus being a nice symbol. That becomes a true slippery slope.

Of course all the versions of the First Vision are "correct" at the time and in the circumstances and purposes for which they were given, not simply the "official" 1838 version which we have in our Scriptural canon. Moreover, the LDS Church is in the process of publishing all of the versions which exist in the Joseph Smith Papers Project. This includes five accounts by Joseph himself:

1. Joseph Smith Letterbook, 1832, in the hand of Frederick G. Williams and Joseph Smith

2. Joseph Smith Journal, Nov 9, 1835

3. Joseph Smith Journal, Nov 14, 1835

4. Pearl of Great Price, JS-H 1838-1939

5. for George Barstow History 1842 (Wentworth Letter reproduced for 1843 Rupp History)

In addition to those we have plenty of hearsay accounts:

A. Orson Pratt pamphlet published in Scotland in 1840, which was also used by Orson Hyde in his 1842 German translation

B. Levi Richards Diary 1843

C. David Nye White Pittsburgh Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA, 1843

D. Alexander Neibaur Journal May 24, 1844

For a full discussion of these accounts and their historical context, see Steven C. Harper, A Seeker’s Guide to the Historical Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, online at http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-12-number-1-2011/seekers-guide-historical-accounts-joseph-smiths-first-vision , and his book forthcoming from Deseret Book (2012), Joseph Smith's First Vision: A Seeker's Guide.

[volgadon]

I don't preclude the possibility of a physical even either, but that it was a mystical experience leaves open the possibility if it being physical or not. there is no proof either way of a physical event, but there is evidence of a mystical experience.

The physical aspect of mystical experiences is often left out in popular usage, but if you look into actual descriptions- theoretical and experience- it is rather important.

[volgadon]

I have never really been comfortable with the notion that the first vision was a literal visitation of the Father and the Son in woods. Mainly for 2 reasons.

1. It is always called the first vision.

2. Joseph himself states that "when I came to myself I found myself laying on my back".

We are therefore talking about a visionary experience rather than a physical visitation, in my view.

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,vision

[Tacenda]

delete

Edited August 20, 2012 by Tacenda

[Libs]

I honestly don't know what Joseph Smith experienced. I tend to think it was probably more of a vision, than a real encounter. In other words, if someone were passing by that field, when he was having the vision, they would not have seen, what he was seeing.

[Robert F. Smith]

wayfarer, on 18 August 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

Although, I'm not sure if we have "evangelists" or "pastors" in the church as currently organized.

altersteve, on 19 August 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

We do. Only we call them "patriarchs" and "bishops."

unfortunately, the greek words do not mean what patriarchs and bishops do. An evangelist is a preacher -- more akin to a missionary than a patriarch. A bishop is an overseer, and very much does that in our wards, plus the role of Judge in Israel -- something that a Pastor is not and cannot be. we don't have people who are dedicated to compassionate service and counseling alone -- that is what a "Pastor" is.

Trying to stretch the meaning of Paul's writings to exactly fit our current church structure doesn't really work. That said, there is considerable early Christian evidence that our structure is more correct than any other Christian church -- i.e. recommends for priesthood holders, the role of "Bishop" was indeed the overseer of the church in a given geography (and thus not a pastor), and that role had a temporal purpose as well in managing offerings and logistical purposes. The truth is our church structure is basically consistent with early christianity, but not perfectly so, and it evolves over time. I am both a Seventy and a High Priest, but I have never been in any of the currently organized quorums of Seventy -- go figure.

volgadon, post #39, said:

St. Ignatius of Antioch used bishop and shepherd interchangeably.

LDS Church structure, organization, and terminology are quite malleable, in keeping with changing needs and earthly circumstances, in line with the purposes which they fulfill. Only the priesthood has permanent, eternal significance, and the Church is merely an appendage to the priesthood.

That being said, it is also true that terms such as Hebrew paqid, mebaqqer "overseer, supervisor" = Greek episkopos "overseer, bishop" (Old English biscop), or Hebrew ro'e "shepherd, pastor" = Greek poimen "shepherd, pastor" (as in Poimandres), both describe functions filled by the modern Roman Catholic parish priest as well as by the regular LDS ward bishop (to be distinguished from the fully temporal successors of Edward Partridge as Presiding Bishops of the Church and their far flung representatives within the Welfare system).

The function of such ward bishops as both supervisors and pastors of their flock is complicated further by their Levitical function as President of the Aaronic priesthood in the ward -- all such rolls can be subsumed under the authority of a qualified, literal descendant of Aaron (a kohen, as specified in D&C 68:15-20, 107:13-17,69-76), who may serve without counselors!!

The organization and officers at Qumran, in the Jewish synagogue, and in the early Christian Church are virtually identical.¹ As the late William F. Albright said, "we discover that the institution of overseers or superintendents (episkopoi, our bishops) in Timothy and Titus, as well as in the earliest extra-biblical Christian literature, is virtually identical with the Essene institution of mebaqqerim . . . ."²

--------------------

¹James Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992); Raymond Brown in J. Charlesworth, ed., John and Qumran (1972), enlarged as John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Crossroad, 1990); and compare Nibley, Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity, Works XV (FARMS/Deseret, 2005); Maxine Grossman, in Levine & Brettler, eds., The Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010), 570-571.

² Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2^nd ed. (1957), 23. Benoit agrees with Albright that the Christian episcopos of the 3^rd century A.D. Didascalia (Syriac) is very similar to the Essene mebaqqer.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I honestly don't know what Joseph Smith experienced. I tend to think it was probably more of a vision, than a real encounter. In other words, if someone were passing by that field, when he was having the vision, they would not have seen, what he was seeing.

I agree that passers-by might see nothing except Joseph, but why would that mean that a vision is not a real encounter?

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, I did not say that "Lucid Dreams" are the gold standard for revelation, but rather, that the process of revelation naturally works through mind and heart, as you so effectively point out in Richard G. Scott's exceptional conference address. It is that talk that motivated me to understand more fully the process of revelation as it works through all of us.

. . . . . . .

My view, again, is that these events are absolutely real and divine. The fact that god operates in this world according to the natural laws of this world is one of the greatest gifts of understanding given by Joseph Smith in the restoration of the gospel.

Without for the moment getting into the exotica of transpersonal psychology, the limbic system of Broca's Brain, and Abraham Maslow, let me simply suggest a few notions about the etiology of LDS revelation:

In evaluating Joseph Smith’s revelations, BYU Professor Grant Underwood recently said that Joseph was "not God’s secretary." He was "not a human fax machine." He was not "a puppet." Instead, Joseph articulated the revelations from his own mental and cultural universe. There was a "divine-human symbiotic relationship." Revelation was an experience, the text of which bears record, i.e., a revelation is an interior insight, which can then be clothed in human language.¹

Whether these revelations were actual, objective experiences, or merely mystical, intuitive, subjective experiences (perhaps even spiritual ecstasy) is a major issue, since the latter can easily be explained as delusional or imaginary – a feature perhaps of the limbic system of the brain. Underwood, however, maintains that these revelatory experiences of Joseph Smith are actual and objective in nature:

Orson Pratt, "Joseph . . . received the ideas from God, but clothed those ideas with such words as came to his mind" (Minutes of the School of Prophets, Salt Lake Stake, Dec 9, 1872, Church Historical Department Archives.).

John A. Widtsoe, Improvement Era, 40 (Oct 1937), 600-601, "Seldom are divine revelations dictated to man. . . . Instead, ideas are impressed upon the mind of the recipient, who then delivers the ideas in his own language."

In fact, for example, all available descriptions of Joseph’s translation technique for the Book of Mormon can be explained as generic and processual: Joseph uses something akin to a teleprompter or light emitting diode (LED) with psychofeedback, i.e., the seer-stone is something like a crystalline virtual-state transducer with a light-emitting diode (LED) display, i.e., a semi-conductor which emits visible electromagnetic radiation in response to stimulating voltage, while the "glasses" or "spectacles" were like dual counterparts with liquid crystal display (LCD). See my 1980 "Translation of Languages," updated version online at http://www.scribd.co...on-of-Languages .

-------------------------------

¹Underwood, BYU Education Week lectures, August 16 - 17, 2012.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Yeah the guy who gave us the World of Wisdom was into hallucinogenic drugs.

Hey, it was good enough for Carlos Castaneda, The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge (1968) -- his published PhD dissertation in anthroplogy at UCLA.

[Libs]

I agree that passers-by might see nothing except Joseph, but why would that mean that a vision is not a real encounter?

It wouldn't. I didn't mean that it wasn't a real encounter with God. Just that it wasn't a "physical" encounter. At least, not earthly physical.

That was just speculation on my part, anyway. I really don't know the exact nature of the encounter.

[Robert F. Smith]

Algonquin Indian shamans inhabiting the region from the Atlantic seaboard running north through eastern and central Canada and south to the Ohio River are known to have used both Datura plant and Amanita Muscaria mushroom in their religious ceremonies. (http://www.erowid.or.../g141-150.shtml)

I'm of the opinion that he quite possibly used something to induce the vision and was seeking answers to unanswered questions about the religions surrounding him and he was asking for forgiveness also.

Yes, and someone even suggested that Joseph had a Lenni-Lanape nanny as a child (that is a Delaware-Algonkian nanny),¹ and another that Joseph conceived of the Iroquois as the Lamanites and that the Moundbuilders/Susquehannocks were the Nephites whom they destroyed.²

I commented above on the hallucinogenic factors.

----------------------------

¹ Ake V. Strom, "Red Indian Elements in Early Mormonism," Temenos, 5 (1969), 120-168, online at http://ojs.tsv.fi/index.php/temenos/article/view/6398 .

² John A. Price in Indian Historian, 7/3 (Summer 1974), 35-40.