Nature of Joseph Smith's First Vision

[rockpond]

This nature of Joseph Smith's First Vision was raised and discussed in another thread.  Was it a dream?  Some form of physical visitation?  How are we defining "vision"?  So, here is how I'd like to phrase the question:  If someone had been standing 10 feet behind Joseph Smith, would they have also seen God the Father and/or Jesus Christ?  (This assumes "all else equal"... meaning: please ignore the fact that if another person had been there, the First Vision likely would have been postponed by Joseph Smith or God.) 

[Hamba Tuhan]

I think that the Father and the Son could have been physically present, but it was still a vision: a person standing 10 feet away would not have seen them. That's certainly been my experience with visions anyway.

[kllindley]

18 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think that the Father and the Son could have been physically present, but it was still a vision: a person standing 10 feet away would not have seen them. That's certainly been my experience with visions anyway.

Agreed. The other person seeing or not seeing doesn't have any impact on the reality of the visitation. 

[Gray]

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This nature of Joseph Smith's First Vision was raised and discussed in another thread.  Was it a dream?  Some form of physical visitation?  How are we defining "vision"?  So, here is how I'd like to phrase the question:  If someone had been standing 10 feet behind Joseph Smith, would they have also seen God the Father and/or Jesus Christ?  (This assumes "all else equal"... meaning: please ignore the fact that if another person had been there, the First Vision likely would have been postponed by Joseph Smith or God.) 

Maybe a better question is, would a video camera have picked it up?

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Maybe a better question is, would a video camera have picked it up?

Would a video camera have picked up Joseph and Sidney's vision of the Three Degrees of Glory? They were in a room full of observers who didn't see what the two of them were seeing, and yet they both saw it so clearly that Sidney could describe it to Joseph. Philo Dibble's eyewitness account:

Quote

The vision which is recorded in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants [D&C 76] was given at the house of “Father Johnson,” in Hiram, Ohio, and during the time that Joseph and Sidney were in the spirit and saw the heavens open, there were other men in the room, perhaps twelve, among whom I was one during a part of the time—probably two-thirds of the time, —I saw the glory and felt the power, but did not see the vision.

The events and conversation, while they were seeing what is written (and many things were seen and related that are not written,) I will relate as minutely as is necessary.

Joseph would, at intervals, say: “What do I see?” as one might say while looking out the window and beholding what all in the room could not see. Then he would relate what he had seen or what he was looking at. Then Sidney replied, “I see the same.” Presently Sidney would say “what do I see?” and would repeat what he had seen or was seeing, and Joseph would reply, “I see the same.”

This manner of conversation was reported at short intervals to the end of the vision, and during the whole time not a word was spoken by any other person. Not a sound nor motion made by anyone but Joseph and Sidney, and it seemed to me that they never moved a joint or limb during the time I was there, which I think was over an hour, and to the end of the vision.

Joseph sat firmly and calmly all the time in the midst of a magnificent glory, but Sidney sat limp and pale, apparently as limber as a rag, observing which, Joseph remarked, smilingly, “Sidney is not used to it as I am.”

Visions are visions. They don't make sense until one sees for her- or himself.

The use of the word glory twice in the above is interesting. I think we sometimes forget the original and primary meaning of this word. Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language provides the following as the first definition: 'Brightness; luster; splendor'. People could argue that what he meant was a metaphorical brightness, and the word certainly includes this option, but I suspect -- again based on personal experience -- that he was using the word literally.

Would such glory show up on a video recording? I have no idea, but I doubt it.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

 

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

Agreed. The other person seeing or not seeing doesn't have any impact on the reality of the visitation. 

 

I wasn’t asking the question in an attempt to prove or disprove the First Vision.  It isn’t about the reality of it but the nature of it. 

 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think that the Father and the Son could have been physically present, but it was still a vision: a person standing 10 feet away would not have seen them. That's certainly been my experience with visions anyway.

If they were physically present what would have kept the person 10 feet away from seeing them?

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If they were physically present what would have kept the person 10 feet away from seeing them?

I don't know. Anything I could say in response would be pure conjecture. This is just based on personal experience that visions are definitely 'visionary'.

[The Nehor]

Not a dream. Not something that happened in his head. Don't know about the rest.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't know. Anything I could say in response would be pure conjecture. This is just based on personal experience that visions are definitely 'visionary'.

For me, what you are describing is a “visitation”... in the sense that you believe they were physically present.  But for me, that would also mean that anyone else there would have also been able to see them. 

Visitation is most certainly a word that has been used to describe the event. 

But then you also use the word vision.  For me, that implies something different than physical presence... such as this definition: “an experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance, or as a supernatural apparition”

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

For me, what you are describing is a “visitation”... in the sense that you believe they were physically present.

Actually, I used the word could intentionally. They could have been there physically. What, though, does that even mean in regards to exalted Beings who are, in some sense or another, omnipresent? I don't know.

Do people, for example, have interactions with angels that include physical contact? Yes, absolutely. Would a camera record that interaction? Again, I don't know, but -- based on personal experience -- I doubt it in certain instances. Almost certainly in others.

When Nephi was caught up to a high mountain, what did his family members see? Did they see him physically taken away? Did they see him sleeping? I don't know. And I think I'm in good company. How many times in scripture do prophets say things like 'methinks I saw' or 'I dreamt a dream, or in other words, I saw a vision'?

Edited October 31, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Duncan]

It's interesting when he said in his 1838 account he said, "when the light rested upon me" then he said he saw two personages. I've interpreted that like the writer of Hebrews did when they said, "cloud of witnesses" (Heb. 12:1) so it would seem a light descended first and then Joseph said he saw two personages and was brought into their presence

Edited October 31, 2018 by Duncan

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

This nature of Joseph Smith's First Vision was raised and discussed in another thread.  Was it a dream?  Some form of physical visitation?  How are we defining "vision"?  So, here is how I'd like to phrase the question:  If someone had been standing 10 feet behind Joseph Smith, would they have also seen God the Father and/or Jesus Christ?  (This assumes "all else equal"... meaning: please ignore the fact that if another person had been there, the First Vision likely would have been postponed by Joseph Smith or God.) 

Compare a couple of visions in Acts: 

(A)  In Acts 9:3-8, On the road to Damascus, a light from heaven shone upon him and he fell to the earth;  a voice from heaven said: ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?’ And Saul said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus, Whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.’ The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul arose from the ground and when his eyes were opened he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus.

The same vision is described in Acts 22:6-11, but there it says that those with him saw the light, but did not hear the voice.  A direct contradiction.

(B)  In Acts 9:10-17, Ananias has a vision of the Lord instructing him to cure Saul of his blindness, etc.

The lesson is that there is no reason why bystanders should actually be aware of the true nature of a vision, unless the Lord wishes it.  An additional lesson is that human accounts of such visions are not without fault.

 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Actually, I used the word could intentionally. They could have been there physically. What, though, does that even mean in regards to exalted Beings who are, in some sense or another, omnipresent? I don't know.

That's a good question.  We believe that God and Jesus have physical bodies.  Were those bodies there, in the grove, or were they using their omnipresent abilities to appear there (not as corporeal beings)?

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Do people, for example, have interactions with angels that include physical contact? Yes, absolutely. Would a camera record that interaction? Again, I don't know, but -- based on personal experience -- I doubt it in certain instances. Almost certainly in others.

Do angels have physical bodies?

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

When Nephi was caught up to a high mountain, what did his family members see? Did they see him physically taken away? Did they see him sleeping? I don't know. And I think I'm in good company. How many times in scripture do prophets say things like 'methinks I saw' or 'I dreamt a dream, or in other words, I saw a vision'?

I think that they would have seen him sleeping.  I don't think he was physically carried up to the mountain.  But that's just my personal belief.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We believe that God and Jesus have physical bodies.  Were those bodies there, in the grove, or were they using their omnipresent abilities to appear there ...?

Are these actually two exclusive options?

Quote

Do angels have physical bodies?

Some do. They eat with us, lay hands on us, etc.

Quote

I think that they would have seen him sleeping.  I don't think he was physically carried up to the mountain.  But that's just my personal belief.

And I actually suspect your belief is probably as informed as Nephi's.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Compare a couple of visions in Acts: 

(A)  In Acts 9:3-8, On the road to Damascus, a light from heaven shone upon him and he fell to the earth;  a voice from heaven said: ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?’ And Saul said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus, Whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.’ The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul arose from the ground and when his eyes were opened he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus.

The same vision is described in Acts 22:6-11, but there it says that those with him saw the light, but did not hear the voice.  A direct contradiction.

(B)  In Acts 9:10-17, Ananias has a vision of the Lord instructing him to cure Saul of his blindness, etc.

The lesson is that there is no reason why bystanders should actually be aware of the true nature of a vision, unless the Lord wishes it.  An additional lesson is that human accounts of such visions are not without fault.

 

I agree with all that.  For me, both of those accounts describe visions (visions in which their was no physical presence of the Lord) so there is no reason why a bystander would need to see the Lord, in that case.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Are these actually two exclusive options?

Well, since I described a physical presence (as one option) and a non-physical presence (as the other option) than, yes, they are mutually exclusive options.

Edited October 31, 2018 by rockpond

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Well, since I described a physical presence (as one option) and a non-physical presence (as the other option) than, yes, they are mutually exclusive options.

But are they really, or is this a distinction without a difference, made possible only because we've imbibed a later version of the same Western dualism that robbed Jesus of His physical body in the early centuries of the Christian era?

[JAHS]

Joseph Smith stated that without the ordinances and authority of the priesthood no man can see the face of God and live (D & C 84:21, 22). 
Any other person living at the time would not have had the priesthood.  So how could Joseph Smith have seen God when he didn't have the priesthood yet? 
There are also other scriptural passages which indicate a person must have qualities other than the priesthood to see God.
The Doctrine & Covenants states: "No man hath seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God". 
At the time of the First Vision, what was required to see God was humility, faith, and the spirit of God.
There could have been someone like that standing there at the time but I think this vision was only meant to be seen by Joseph Smith and no one else.
He was the one God chose as a prophet to restore the gospel and God requires most all other men on the earth to beleive in Him through faith.
There was also most likely a transfiguration that took place on Joseph's body that changed him to a condition where he could see God  like what happened with Moses
when He spoke with God "face to face" (Gen. 32: 30, Ex. 33: 11) Soon after Moses' call, for example, he was transfigured so that he could withstand God's power; he later wrote:
"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." (Moses 1:11).  Someone standing nearby would not have been transfigured.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

But are they really, or is this a distinction without a difference, made possible only because we've imbibed a later version of the same Western dualism that robbed Jesus of His physical body in the early centuries of the Christian era?

I believe that God and Jesus can be spiritually present wherever they want to be.  They can appear to whomever they wish to appear.  But I don't think they can be somewhere, physically present, while also simultaneously not be physically present there.

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Joseph Smith stated that without the ordinances and authority of the priesthood no man can see the face of God and live (D & C 84:21, 22). 
Any other person living at the time would not have had the priesthood.  So how could Joseph Smith have seen God when he didn't have the priesthood yet? 
There are also other scriptural passages which indicate a person must have qualities other than the priesthood to see God.
The Doctrine & Covenants states: "No man hath seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God". 
At the time of the First Vision, what was required to see God was humility, faith, and the spirit of God.
There could have been someone like that standing there at the time but I think this vision was only meant to be seen by Joseph Smith and no one else.
He was the one God chose as a prophet to restore the gospel and God requires most all other men on the earth to beleive in Him through faith.
There was also most likely a transfiguration that took place on Joseph's body that changed him to a condition where he could see God  like what happened with Moses
when He spoke with God "face to face" (Gen. 32: 30, Ex. 33: 11) Soon after Moses' call, for example, he was transfigured so that he could withstand God's power; he later wrote:
"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." (Moses 1:11).  Someone standing nearby would not have been transfigured.

Yes, it appears to break a rule. Either there is an exception clause somewhere or there was something unique about Joseph. I suspect the latter.

[The Nehor]

In response to the poll it is also worth noting that in more then one visionary experience the receiver was unsure whether they were in their own body or not and if they could not distinguish something that seems pretty basic how can we guess at them?

[Judd]

I believe it was literal and that they were physically present — that it was not simply a spiritual manifestation or a dream or something just in his head. Whether or not that can be recorded with video or seen by anyone else, I have no idea. I think what you’re struggling with is wondering how it could be possible for God and Christ to be physically present without being seen or observed. That would go against our elementary, contemporary understanding of physics, but I’m confident the God of the universe has a more vast understanding of those workings than our current empirical observations.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Judd

[carbon dioxide]

Our natural eyes can not see spiritual things unless God allows us to.  This is why the spirits of the dead are all around us but we can not see them unless God gave us permission and allowed some change to come upon us to allow us to see them.  So no a person standing 10 feet behind Joseph would not have seen the Father or the Son unless they were transfigured or some change came upon the person to allow them to see the Father.  It is not a dream.  All of us dream and we know what a dream is and what it is not.  Joseph had many dreams in his life and he never characterized the vision as a dream.   We dream when we go to sleep.  Joseph does not say he fell asleep before the vision occurred.  He was awake and aware of his surrounding.

Edited October 31, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Our natural eyes can not see spiritual things unless God allows us to.  This is why the spirits of the dead are all around us but we can not see them unless God gave us permission and allowed some change to come upon us to allow us to see them.  So no a person standing 10 feet behind Joseph would not have seen the Father or the Son unless they were transfigured or some change came upon the person to allow them to see the Father.  It is not a dream.  All of us dream and we know what a dream is and what it is not.  Joseph had many dreams in his life and he never characterized the vision as a dream.   We dream when we go to sleep.  Joseph does not say he fell asleep before the vision occurred.  He was awake and aware of his surrounding.

So you feel they were spiritually present but not physically present?