scooby Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 It occurred to me that, as far as I know, nobody has ever reported touching Jesus in the history of the restoration. Am I mistaken? That seems strange, given that physical contact was a profound and prominent characteristic of both His Biblical and Book of Mormon post-resurrection appearances. One would think that given the significance of the restoration that Jesus would be even just a little physical. Instead, he is described only in "vision"—seemingly far removed from the vivid portrayals of touching and bread-breaking in the scriptures. Why?
Deborah Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 Interesting question. One reason we haven't read of it is it may not have been recorded or reported. However, I think the simpler answer is that as far as the early disciples knew Jesus was dead. Feeling the wounds in his hands and feet was evidence to they who knew him that he was indeed resurrected. As for the BOM record he revealed himself to a whole people who also were waiting for the resurrected Jesus. I'm not sure that it would have been necessary in Joseph's day given the acceptance of Christ being resurrected. Just one way of looking at it.
altersteve Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 I was talking to a friend of mine about this just the other day actually. I think it did happen, except Joseph simply didn't record it. Seeing the Savior is one thing, but being able to touch Him would have been an experience far beyond sacred.
ldsfaqs Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 If it did happen, Joseph would have likely reported it in his reporting of the event. Thus, I don't think it happened.I think it's possible the "reason" it didn't happen that way, is because when Christ appeared the Father also was with him.I mean, when you have both the Father and the Son appearing to you, note in the form of ministering Angels, not as standing on the ground beings, it's likely not necessary or appropriate for Christ to have touched Joseph.Interesting question, but I don't think it really means anything. I think the experience overall was enough for Joseph to know the "realness" of it.We do however know that other resurrected beings did in fact touch Joseph and others.
Rivers Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 Did Joseph ever describe Jesus having the nailprints in His hands and feet?
Helorum Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 "Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and also the prints of the nails in my hands and feet" (D&C 6:37). [Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, April 1829] 3
Log Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 ...They understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost.
ebeddoulos Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 I find it interesting that the post-resurrection visions of Paul (Acts 9:3-8; Acts 22:6-11; Acts 26:12-18) and John (Book of Revelation) fail to mention if they had touched the wounds of Christ.I know that Thomas touched the wounds (John 20:24-29) as apparently did the other apostles (Luke 24:36-40). Since Joseph received pretty much the same command ("Behold the wounds..." D&C 6:37 as did the ancient apostles ("Behold my hands and my feet..." Luke 24:39) perhaps a case may be had for the prophet Joseph to have touched the wounds as well. 1
scooby Posted July 3, 2011 Author Posted July 3, 2011 Since Joseph received pretty much the same command ("Behold the wounds..." D&C 6:37 as did the ancient apostles ("Behold my hands and my feet..." Luke 24:39) perhaps a case may be had for the prophet Joseph to have touched the wounds as well.D&C 6 was given by the Urim and Thummim. "Behold" in the context of a dictated revelation probably means to "direct or fix the mind" (http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/word/behold) as opposed to actually visually setting eyes upon as was undoubtedly the case in Luke 24:39.
scooby Posted July 3, 2011 Author Posted July 3, 2011 Was my post too obscure?The most immediate problem with suggesting that Joseph Smith did not at any time hear the voice of Christ is that he did. Also, the issue of whether Joseph was or was not a gentile is a matter of murkiness in my mind. Best I can tell he was a gentile of the lineage of Joseph.
Log Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) The most immediate problem with suggesting that Joseph Smith did not at any time hear the voice of Christ is that he did. In pondering the vision in the Kirtland temple, it seems unclear that this is the case - it appears Christ manifested through the power of the Spirit, rather than simply appearing in physical form as he did to the Nephites. Also, the issue of whether Joseph was or was not a gentile is a matter of murkiness in my mind. Best I can tell he was a gentile of the lineage of Joseph.He was certainly a Gentile in the sense under discussion. Edited July 3, 2011 by Log
scooby Posted July 3, 2011 Author Posted July 3, 2011 Fair points. Interesting perspective. It would of course mean that Jesus never actually spoke to or appeared to Joseph in the flesh. If true, it's a little disappointing to be honest.
altersteve Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 Jesus absolutely personally spoke to Joseph in the flesh, on a few occasions at least. To deny it would be to deny one of the fundamental aspects of the Restoration. 1
Storm Rider Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 It occurred to me that, as far as I know, nobody has ever reported touching Jesus in the history of the restoration. Am I mistaken? That seems strange, given that physical contact was a profound and prominent characteristic of both His Biblical and Book of Mormon post-resurrection appearances. One would think that given the significance of the restoration that Jesus would be even just a little physical. Instead, he is described only in "vision"—seemingly far removed from the vivid portrayals of touching and bread-breaking in the scriptures. Why?You seem to see problems where none exist. At the time of Christ in the Bible not everyone needed to feel the wounds in his flesh. You have created a universal standard that does not exist. Further, we know that Jesus commanded many different people not to reveal all that he said or did with them. No need to create a dragon out of straw.
Log Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) Jesus absolutely personally spoke to Joseph in the flesh, on a few occasions at least. To deny it would be to deny one of the fundamental aspects of the Restoration.In all the recorded visions that I see in the D&C, including the First Vision (though not in the D&C), I don't see Christ appearing in simple physical form walking on the earth as he did with the Nephites; they are all seemingly heavenly visions, including the one in Kirtland. Edited July 3, 2011 by Log
altersteve Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) In all the recorded visions that I see in the D&C, including the First Vision (though not in the D&C), I don't see Christ appearing in simple physical form walking on the earth as he did with the Nephites; they are all seemingly heavenly visions, including the one in Kirtland.So does that mean that Jesus wasn't physically there in the Sacred Grove and in the Kirtland Temple? When the three witnesses saw the angel and the plates and heard the voice of God, were the angel and the plates not really there? If the plates weren't physically there, then what were they touching? What about Nephi's prophetic vision in First Nephi? Was the angel he was with not really there? And how about Moses' vision recorded in the Book of Moses? Was Heavenly Father not really there "in the flesh" speaking to him? Or when Stephen saw the Father and the Son before he was killed, were they not really there? Likewise with the vision of Christ that Paul had on the road to Damascus. And what about Mary's vision of Gabriel when she was told that she was to give birth to the Messiah?See the point? All of these experiences were very real, and so were Joseph's visions. Just because it's a "heavenly vision" does not mean it's nothing physical. Edited July 3, 2011 by altersteve
Doctor Ninja Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 Fair points. Interesting perspective. It would of course mean that Jesus never actually spoke to or appeared to Joseph in the flesh. If true, it's a little disappointing to be honest.No need to be disappointed for the 1st vision was real and a physical event. Not only did Joseph Smith have a physical experience with satan (almost to his demise), but also saw and heard two Personages who stood above him in the air pointing to the Other.It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! My linkI would rather take Joseph Smith's words of his own personal account, than that of the critic's interpretations.They even try to discount the 15 witnesses in the same way. "They never physically touched the plates, it was all a dream or their imaginations".
Doctor Ninja Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 In all the recorded visions that I see in the D&C, including the First Vision (though not in the D&C), I don't see Christ appearing in simple physical form walking on the earth as he did with the Nephites; they are all seemingly heavenly visions, including the one in Kirtland.Priesthood Keys are bestowed by the laying on of hands onto the individual. Are you saying the Lord and countless others (Moses, Elijah, Elias etc..) did not lay their physical hands on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland temple? How about Peter, James and John restoring the priesthood? No hands again?
Log Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 Priesthood Keys are bestowed by the laying on of hands onto the individual. Are you saying the Lord and countless others (Moses, Elijah, Elias etc..) did not lay their physical hands on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland temple? How about Peter, James and John restoring the priesthood? No hands again?Here's the challenge: find a single recorded instance of the Lord laying his physical hands on Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery. Ball's in your court.
Log Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) No need to be disappointed for the 1st vision was real and a physical event. Not only did Joseph Smith have a physical experience with satan (almost to his demise), but also saw and heard two Personages who stood above him in the air pointing to the Other.Sigh. Were They standing in the grove when Joseph saw and heard Them? The earliest account of the First Vision suggests not.I would rather take Joseph Smith's words of his own personal account, than that of the critic's interpretations.So, then, let's go to Joseph Smith's words. http://eldenwatson.net/harmony.htm#32Please also see my challenge to you specifically, Dr. Ninja, immediately prior to this post. Edited July 3, 2011 by Log
Deborah Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 find a single recorded instance of the Lord laying his physical hands on Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery. And if there isn't what does that mean? It doesn't necessarily mean he didn't. To me it doesn't matter either way.
Doctor Ninja Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 Here's the challenge: find a single recorded instance of the Lord laying his physical hands on Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery. Ball's in your court.There is none that I know of. Argumentum ad ignorantiam is your ball. How then did Joseph Smith receive all the keys of the Priesthood?So the Lord showed Himself physically throughout the ages to His prophets, but He decided to withhold Himself from Joseph Smith (arguably one of the greatest prophets to ever live) and for the last inning of the salvation of man.
Doctor Ninja Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 Sigh. Were They standing in the grove when Joseph saw and heard Them? The earliest account of the First Vision suggests not.I am not following you. Are you saying that because They weren't walking in the grove, but hovering over Joseph Smith, it wasn't a physical manifestation?
Log Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 And if there isn't what does that mean? It doesn't necessarily mean he didn't. To me it doesn't matter either way.It means there is no documentary evidence, that I am aware of at this time, to establish that Joseph saw the Lord with his natural eyes as the Nephites did; it means that as far as I know, the documented sightings by Joseph took place in a context which would seemingly preclude physical contact because the Lord in each case was apparently in heaven. It doesn't have to matter to anyone; of course, lack of documentary evidence is not documentary evidence of lack. It is entirely possible there were undocumented physical contacts between Joseph and the Lord, but to assert that it did happen is to go beyond the publicly known evidence.
Recommended Posts