In The Grove?

[Log]

Anyways, the distinction I'm actually trying to draw was summarized in this post from way back when.

And, having said my piece, I'm out.

[DWhitmer]

The BoM uses the present tense, so also therefore do I.

You did not give the background so that readers could understand the context. Jesus explained the focus of his earthly ministry was to the House of Israel, however your interpretation infers forever. There's no context for that view nor a second witness to back it up. On the other hand, we have the BoM and first hand accounts of many people.

[Why limit Christ???]

Also, you're 2 pages too late with your reference to the First Vision.

A whole two pages? I read aaaalllll those pages and find that the First Vision still applies to the OP, no offense.

Anyways, the distinction I'm actually trying to draw was summarized in this post from way back when. [which said in part:

There does seem to be two types of manifestations described in the scriptures: visions and visits. Jesus' visit to the Nephites, for example, has never, so far as I am aware, been described as a vision. He was physically there and they touched Him.

When Stephen saw God, on the other hand, his experience was visionary in that no one else present, presumably, saw what he saw.

This, and the fact that it is unlikely that Heaven was physically located directly above him (and situated at such an angle that he could see the throne of God), suggests that he was

not seeing things with his physical eyes

but rather seeing a distant far-off place with his spiritual eyes. This is not to minimize the experience of Stephen, but clearly there is a difference between a vision and an actual physical visit.

That's limiting how it could have been. Was it also possible that just as God descended "in a pillar" to commune with Moses that God also opened the heavens and extended a pillar only over Stephen?

[volgadon]

Anyways, the distinction I'm actually trying to draw was summarized in this post from way back when.

And, having said my piece, I'm out.

As I said, not a very strong position. Pretty much, what you've done is assert that all those instances refer to visions taking place in the heavens (a "distant far off place"), when that is clearly not the case in most of them. You then decrie as irrelevant positions that you don't agree with, or ignore them entirely, treating yours as unassailable fortresses. I'll be happy to discuss the points in detail.

Edited May 19, 2012 by volgadon

[zerinus]

3 Nephi 15:

21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

22 And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching.

23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and 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.

24 But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me.

These would preclude the kinds revelations or manifestations of God or Jesus Christ that Joseph Smith did receive, such as in the Sacred Grove, or in the Kirtland Temple for example; because in all of those he both saw as well as heard them speak. That scripture refers to the Gentiles prior to their conversion, as made clear in verse 22. Therefore the central plank of his argument seems to be absent.

Edited May 19, 2012 by zerinus

[Log]

As I said, not a very strong position. Pretty much, what you've done is assert that all those instances refer to visions taking place in the heavens (a "distant far off place"), when that is clearly not the case in most of them.

Wow - not only do you put words in my mouth ("the heavens [are] (a "distant far off place")"), then by virtue of this false presentation of my position you then assert I'm wrong. That is a very curious method of "discussion." But then, by your own words, you see this "discussion" as a game to be "won". However, if my position is "not very strong," then why do you have to falsely attribute words to me that I did not say?

Why not go whole hog and accuse me of stating a belief in infant baptism, and put such a statement in my mouth? That would surely be an even easier "discussion" to "win."

N.B. - Any time the phrase "the heavens" occurred in my previous posts in this thread, it was a direct citation from someone else. I also made no claims to any kind of "distance," even if Snoopy did. As the song goes, "How Far is Heaven?" Answer: It can be as close as you want; it's just "not here."

You then decrie as irrelevant positions that you don't agree with

No, I decry as irrelevant citations that are irrelevant to the claims I make.

or ignore them entirely,

How else should irrelevancies be treated?

treating yours as unassailable fortresses. I'll be happy to discuss the points in detail.

I wish you had discussed the points in detail when I invited you to. However, you chose to simply cite the irrelevant D&C 67 as though it had any impact on my claim that Joseph nowhere claimed to have seen Jesus and Father in anything other than a heavenly vision - that would be your post #39. Then you had the temerity to call me obtuse.

As I've said, my piece has been said. Let the readers come to their own conclusions. I am done "discussing" this with you.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Log

[Log]

You did not give the background so that readers could understand the context. Jesus explained the focus of his earthly ministry was to the House of Israel, however your interpretation infers forever.

"The Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice." That's a universal negation, and context is irrelevant.

[Why limit Christ???]

Father limits Christ.

A whole two pages? I read aaaalllll those pages and find that the First Vision still applies to the OP, no offense.

I had already cited 3 different versions of the First Vision to illustrate that it was a heavenly vision, not a physical visitation, on page 1.

That's limiting how it could have been. Was it also possible that just as God descended "in a pillar" to commune with Moses that God also opened the heavens and extended a pillar only over Stephen?

You're free to read the scriptures in any way you wish.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Log

[volgadon]

"The Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice." That's a universal negation, and context is irrelevant.

As you have him on your ignore list, I'll post what Zerinus wrote.

3 Nephi 15:

21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

22 And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching.

23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and 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.

24 But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me.

These would preclude the kinds revelations or manifestations of God or Jesus Christ that Joseph Smith did receive, such as in the Sacred Grove, or in the Kirtland Temple for example; because in all of those he both saw as well as heard them speak. That scripture refers to the Gentiles prior to their conversion, as made clear in verse 22. Therefore the central plank of his argument seems to be absent.

[volgadon]

I wish you had discussed the points in detail when I invited you to. However, you chose to simply cite the irrelevant D&C 67 as though it had any impact on my claim that Joseph nowhere claimed to have seen Jesus and Father in anything other than a heavenly vision - that would be your post #39.

So, a passage from the Lord, given to Joseph Smith, explaining details of the visionary experience is somehow irrelevant to the visionary experiences of Joseph Smith?

Then you had the temerity to call me obtuse.

Actually, I said I don't believe you are that obtuse. While not especially a compliment, it is not the same as calling you obtuse.

[volgadon]

Wow - not only do you put words in my mouth ("the heavens [are] (a "distant far off place")"),

Your post #42 on that thread would indicate that you consider heaven not to be on this earth, so how is "a distant far off place" an inaccurate description of your position?

Edited May 19, 2012 by volgadon

[volgadon]

I agree Joseph saw him while Joseph (or, at least, his body) was in the grove; the Lord was not in the grove, but in heaven.

A gentle CFR.

And I agree that Joseph saw him in Kirtland - but the Lord was not in Kirtland; he was in heaven, and Joseph was looking into heaven - where the Lord was standing on a paved work of gold.

The paved work of gold proves too much.

For starters, D&C 110:2 depicts Christ as standing on the pulpit, not in the heavens. The paved work of gold has at least two functions here. One is to represent the heavenly realm, the other, more important function is to act as a divider between Christ's glory and holiness and the profane, impure world. In the heavens Christ would not have needed that.

[volgadon]

Christ -- one of an infinite plurality of corporeal Gods of flesh and bones -- would not, then, have to "physically" stand in front of Joseph in order for Joseph to receive a "physical" vision sent from God into his mind. There's (currently?) no way to reproduce in a lab Joseph's brain state during these particular historical events, so one would have to be very unscientific to dismiss his records of his subjective experience as mere imagination or hallucinations despite the inability to offer a falsifiable hypothesis amenable to reproducible experimentation. It's a historical claim, not a scientific one; moreover, it's a historical claim that resists many of the scientific methods we've developed to peripherally confirm other types of historical events. (Archaeology, geology, etc.)

Very well put. I'd love to run my post by you as well, if you don't mind.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Sure thing, man.

[mfbukowski]

(Edit: Well, hrmph! I didn't see all the replies made while I was typing. My bad!)

Warning: idiosyncratic hobby-horse-of-mine semantic quibble alert! (The following is not meant as a criticism of your post, volgadon; I'm using it as a jumping-off point because I think there's some cool stuff about this topic which can be considered by digging into things a little more thoroughly.)

Personally, I think the too-prevalent notion of a dichotomy between "spiritual" and "physical" is a false one. That is, everything we are able to perceive is "physical" (otherwise it would not be capable of interacting with us physical beings) but all classes of things are physical in different ways, different forms. (Maybe: all things are spiritual, but not all things are intelligences which can be adopted into the family of the Gods. All squares and rectangles are quadrilaterals, but rectangles are not squares.)

Light is a physically-existing "thing", but it is a different type of "thing" than, say, a rock. They are structured in different ways, and therefore are perceived differently by us primates. We can't just reach out into a beam of light and ball it up in our hands like we could with wet sand, but that doesn't mean that the light is not physical; in a similar way, water is physical, but it behaves much differently than stone. We are not able to perceive bacteria with our "natural eyes", but they are still physically-real things.

I would extend this to "visions." "Visions" must be physically-real events which happen in our shared causal universe. Our present civilization does not currently possess the technological capacity to fully replicate the mechanisms which are necessary to produce the transmission of neurological information we term "visions", but at root there must still be an underlying "materialist" explanation for them or they would not be able to interact with our brains. We're still taking painful baby steps in this direction, but I think there's interesting stuff going on that shows promise:

[media=]

(Hah, on that second vid I got the Sergio Sanchez "I'm a Mormon" ad, talking about how there is no conflict between being a man of science and a man of faith. Appropriate!)

The point is, even our tentative studies on related issues allow us to at least conceive of a rational possibility for the direct-to-mind reception of images and audio, despite our current inability to transmit such signals ourselves. (And the subjective, visceral nature of the communication perhaps helps to account for why the common worldwide religious archetypes are based in ritualistic musical words and primal images such as trees and fruits,

.) (This speculation has great import on Joseph's translation process, even.)

Christ -- one of an infinite plurality of corporeal Gods of flesh and bones -- would not, then, have to "physically" stand in front of Joseph in order for Joseph to receive a "physical" vision sent from God into his mind. There's (currently?) no way to reproduce in a lab Joseph's brain state during these particular historical events, so one would have to be very unscientific to dismiss his records of his subjective experience as mere imagination or hallucinations despite the inability to offer a falsifiable hypothesis amenable to reproducible experimentation. It's a historical claim, not a scientific one; moreover, it's a historical claim that resists many of the scientific methods we've developed to peripherally confirm other types of historical events. (Archaeology, geology, etc.)

(Relying on the mere "probability" of, say, schizophrenia, to disprove such visions is untenable, since the very point at issue is whether or not they were hallucinations) Clarke noted that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; Brother Brigham said that there is no such thing as a miracle, except to those who do not understand.

Currently, we do not understand the physics of how the First Vision went. But I get no warm'n'fuzzies from contemplating the sheer mysteriousness of God. What gives me hope is the few tentative indications we have that we can learn, we can do our reproducible experimentation, and we can eventually understand how all these unexplained events could have happened.

(Egad, this is such a sci-fi geek post. )

I of course know the difference between spiritual and physical, but I think there is a serious epistemological problem here about how we KNOW which is which- since in both cases we are dealing with "what our mind tells us"

That was reflected in that video you posted elsewhere in which Ostler spoke about light entering the eyes- and that all reality is- for each of us- in some way subjective.

That was certainly Kirkegaard's position, and that of some other philosophers, most notably other fideists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

So I think that distinctions between physical and spiritual, at least from an epistemological point of view are pretty ambiguous to the point of being indistinguishable and of virtually no importance. They are both "real".

But that's just me

[mfbukowski]

The fact that was one of the requirements of a prophet should satisfy the curious.

The following account describes the physical aspect, then the spiritual:

At first, he was severely tempted by the powers of darkness, which endeavored to overcome him; but he continued to seek for deliverance, until darkness gave way from his mind, and he was enabled to pray in fervency of the spirit, and in faith.

And while thus pouring out his soul, anxiously desiring an answer from God, he at length, saw a very bright and glorious light in the heavens above; which, at first, seemed to be a considerable distance. He continued praying, while the light appeared to be gradually descending towards him; and as it drew nearer, it increased in brightness and magnitude, so that, by the time that it reached the tops of the trees, the whole wilderness, for some distance around was illuminated in a most glorious and brilliant manner. He expected to have seen the leaves and boughs of the trees consumed, as soon as the light came in contact with them; but perceiving that it did not produce that effect, he was encouraged with the hope of being able to endure its presence. It continued descending slowly, until it rested upon the earth, and he was enveloped in the midst of it. When it first came upon him, it produced a peculiar sensation throughout his whole system; and immediately, his mind was caught away, from the natural objects with which he was surrounded; and he was enwrapped in a heavenly vision, and saw two glorious personages, who exactly resembled each other in their features or likeness

. (Orson Pratt’s,

An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions

.)

Sounds rational, but that's a false formula. God walked with Adam in the Garden, was that experience a "vision" also?

The key is present tense; you should have said: "Jesus only manifested himself..." The BoM states clearly that Jesus himself would minister to the Gentiles in the last days who were upon ancient BoM lands. Thus, Christians before J.Smith, and after him - including now - have been ministered to by the Savior.

That's expected from Mormons who haven't a clue what the baptism of fire is, and yet the BoM is full of examples of the reality of God's glory and the affect is has upon the body and soul.

Among Christians are many testimonies if one is so inclined to learn.

The accounts of God interacting with Moses are profuse and make for a wonderful study of how it was done, which has many similarities to what Pratt described of J.Smith's encounter.

Thanks for the warnig. I found that statement indeed to be idiotic.

Sorry to hear that. Try prayer with a hint of meditation and a dash of humility until the lack of the "warm-n-fuzzies" becomes an unquenchable fire in your soul.

The final element that deserves mention (for those still reading) is the reason God came down - to start His work - the "Work of the Father."

I want to compliment you for your humble Christian tone.

I want to be just like you!

[mfbukowski]

I will give you my honest take on this thing between Log and Volgadon, for what it's worth.

The bottom line is that I think that all the scriptures cited can be INTERPRETED as pointing either to a physical presence or a vision.

In fact, last night I read D&C 67 as being speaking "clearly" about spiritual manifestations.

But re-reading it this morning, I think it can be taken either way.

The passage in 3rd Nephi that depends upon the definition of who is a "gentile"- because the savior said he only shows himself physically to non-gentiles. So specifically was Joseph a gentile or not? He was of the tribe of Ephraim- was that literal or adopted? Was the savior speaking only about the situation at that time, or did it change when the gospel was taken to the gentiles?

But the bottom line is that for me this becomes an epistemological issue.

And whatever it is that DWhitmer is selling- it could be pure gold and I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole with his attitude. Whatever it is, it's not "Christianity" at least as the savior preached it.

[mbh26]

So I think that distinctions between physical and spiritual, at least from an epistemological point of view are pretty ambiguous to the point of being indistinguishable and of virtually no importance. They are both "real".

How would this be different from James Muir's vision of the Apocalrock? I believe all this was real to him as well.

[CASteinman]

So I think that distinctions between physical and spiritual, at least from an epistemological point of view are pretty ambiguous to the point of being indistinguishable and of virtually no importance. They are both "real".

I don't agree or disagree -- either way. I just do not know. I do not reject that they were there. I do not reject that they were not there.

But on a different matter: Thanks for those videos. The first one was truly fascinating. It is very impressive work that they did.

[mfbukowski]

How would this be different from James Muir's vision of the Apocalrock? I believe all this was real to him as well.

I think God uses all kinds of devices to give us revelation, even staring into fires. Who knows what happened on that mountain with Moses and the burning bush?

I think the Book of Abraham papyri were essentially patterns that Joseph saw which he "translated" - a "real" ancient record- translated by the power of God through pure revelation, catalyzed by the papyri.

As far as James Muir- he saw what he saw. God teaches each of us in his own way- if his revelations are "genuine" (for him) then God is teaching him perhaps in the way James needs to be taught. On the other hand, maybe it is a hallucination. It is not for us to judge someone else's understanding of the spirit, but to make sure we are secure in our own testimonies, just as people dispute the Book of Abraham as "genuine". You either have a personal testimony or you don't.

[inquiringmind]

3 Nephi 15:

21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

22 And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching.

23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and 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.

24 But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me.

These would preclude the kinds revelations or manifestations of God or Jesus Christ that Joseph Smith did receive, such as in the Sacred Grove, or in the Kirtland Temple for example; because in all of those he both saw as well as heard them speak. That scripture refers to the Gentiles prior to their conversion, as made clear in verse 22. Therefore the central plank of his argument seems to be absent.

I just dropped back in, and I haven't read every post, but I still don't understand why any Mormon would assume Joseph was a gentile when the BOM says he would be of the seed of Joseph of Egypt?

Wouldn't that make him a Jew (Israelite, or Hebrew)?

[mfbukowski]

I just dropped back in, and I haven't read every post, but I still don't understand why any Mormon would assume Joseph was a gentile when the BOM says he would be of the seed of Joseph of Egypt?

Wouldn't that make him a Jew (Israelite, or Hebrew)?

It has been said that the first rabbi to move into the Salt Lake valley commented that this was the only place on earth where he would be called a "gentile", and indeed I have heard that usage a lot, meaning anyone who is a "non-member".

http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/020208/valued.shtml

So who's a "gentile"?

[zerinus]

I just dropped back in, and I haven't read every post, but I still don't understand why any Mormon would assume Joseph was a gentile when the BOM says he would be of the seed of Joseph of Egypt?

Wouldn't that make him a Jew (Israelite, or Hebrew)?

Yes, it would.