Did Jesus Really Visit America In The 19Th Century?

[inquiringmind]

Did the resurrected Christ ever actually visit America in the 19th century?

I mean, did Joseph (and others) actually see Him (the way the Apostles did on and after the day of the resurrection according to the Bible, and the way the 1rst century Nephites did according to the BOM), or did they only see visions of Him?

If they laid hands on them, Joseph and Oliver must have really seen Peter, James, and John, but what about Jesus?

Did anyone really see more than a holographic image, or a mental picture?

Was His body of flesh and bone really in the grove, or in the Kirtland Temple, or anywhere else here on earth in the 19th century?

[ERayR]

Did the resurrected Christ ever actually visit America in the 19th century?

I mean, did Joseph (and others) actually see Him (the way the Apostles did on and after the day of the resurrection according to the Bible, and the way the 1rst century Nephites did according to the BOM), or did they only see visions of Him?

If they laid hands on them, Joseph and Oliver must have really seen Peter, James, and John, but what about Jesus?

Did anyone really see more than a holographic image, or a mental picture?

Was His body of flesh and bone really in the grove, or in the Kirtland Temple, or anywhere else here on earth in the 19th century?

Those are questions that you will have to answer for yourself. Warning: they will not be answered by empirical evidence. Those are questions that are answered by personal revelation from the Holy Ghost. I can relate my answers to you but then you would still have to get your own confirmation. Bummer isn't it?

[inquiringmind]

I asked this question because I don't understand D&C 130:15,and I've tried looking at it from different angles.

Joseph didn't live to be 85.

Does that mean he wont see the face of the Son of Man?

But didn't he already see it in the grove?

Didn't he see it as soon as he got to paradise (even though he died way before he was 85)?

If he had lived to be 85, would Jesus have come back in the flesh in that generation?

Why would God tell him that if he lived to be 85 he would see the face of the Son of Man?

What did the "if" mean?

Was He talking about the second coming?

Was He saying that Joseph hadn't really seen Him, but would if he lived long enough (and did He somehow postpone His second coming because Joseph was killed by a mob)?

Any thoughts?

Edited January 12, 2013 by inquiringmind

[ERayR]

I asked this question because I don't understand D&C 130:15,and I've tried looking at it from different angles.

Joseph didn't live to be 85.

Does that mean he wont see the face of the Son of Man?

But didn't he already see it in the grove?

Didn't he see it as soon as he got to paradise (even though he died way before he was 85)?

If he had lived to be 85, would Jesus have come back in the flesh in that generation?

Why would God tell him that if he lived to be 85 he would see the face of the Son of Man?

What did the "if" mean?

Was He talking about the second coming?

Was He saying that Joseph hadn't really seen Him, but would if he lived long enough (and did He somehow postpone His second coming because Joseph was killed by a mob)?

Any thoughts?

D&C 130:15 refers to the coming of the Son of Man in his glory. As for the rest of the questions I haven't given much thought. I presume that as Joseph did not live in mortality to be 85 that we will not know or understand what was meant.

Will put this question on my list and when I get to it...

[inquiringmind]

Those are questions that are answered by personal revelation from the Holy Ghost. I can relate my answers to you...

So do you believe JS actually saw Jesus (Himself, bodily) in the grove, or the Kirtland Temple, or at some other time and place I've overlooked, or do you believe he only saw visions of Jesus?

Has Jesus visited this earth in His body of flesh bones since the first century?

You said you could relate your answers to me, what are your answers?

[cinepro]

Lorenzo Snow saw him in the Salt Lake Temple.

[inquiringmind]

Lorenzo Snow saw him in the Salt Lake Temple.

But was His body really there, or was it a vision?

And if it was there, was this something different from what happened in the grove (and is D&C 130:15 saying that if Joseph had lived long enough, he would have had one of these bodily visitations)?

P.S. When Joseph's experience in the grove is referred to as "the first vision," does the word "vision" imply that there was no bodily presence?

Edited January 12, 2013 by inquiringmind

[BCSpace]

Did the resurrected Christ ever actually visit America in the 19th century?

Yes. D&C 110:1-10. Compare with a similar pre-resurrection appearance in Ezekiel 1:26-28

Edited January 12, 2013 by BCSpace

[CV75]

Did the resurrected Christ ever actually visit America in the 19th century?

Yes. I know this from the D&C. How he did it, I don't know, but He did it enough to count as a bonafide visit.

[inquiringmind]

Yes. I know this from the D&C. How he did it, I don't know, but He did it enough to count as a bonafide visit.

I read that, and I don't see what makes you think this wasn't a vision.

Yes. I know this from the D&C. How he did it, I don't know, but He did it enough to count as a bonafide visit.

Are you referring to D&C 110:1-10 too?

The heading reads "Visions manifested to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery in the Temple at Kirtland, Ohio, April 3, 1836."

What makes you think Jesus was bodily present?

And if He was, and Joseph saw His face in1836, why would He tell him that he'd see His face if he lived to be 85?

Edited January 12, 2013 by inquiringmind

[DBMormon]

Those are questions that you will have to answer for yourself. Warning: they will not be answered by empirical evidence. Those are questions that are answered by personal revelation from the Holy Ghost. I can relate my answers to you but then you would still have to get your own confirmation. Bummer isn't it?

Good answer. I think you hit the nail on the head +1 ErayR

[inquiringmind]

So does anyone know if the word "vision" (as in "The First Vision," and as used in the heading of D&C 110) implies less than a personal, bodily, flesh and bone visitation?

[Kenngo1969]

Not that it should (will) make a fig's worth of difference to you, but yes, I believe God, the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared in the flesh (glorified, perfected, resurrected, immortal, but yes, in the flesh) to Joseph Smith. I believe that Christ, had He been disposed to do so, could have said (as He did on another occasion), "Handle me and see that it is I, myself. For a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." The purpose of the vision (OK, of the appearance, although I'm not sure why it makes a difference) was not to prove Christ's physical reality. Unlike Thomas, I don't think Joseph doubted that reality. Joseph was more interested in getting answers to his questions.

[Kenngo1969]

So does anyone know if the word "vision" (as in "The First Vision," and as used in the heading of D&C 110) implies less than a personal, bodily, flesh and bone visitation?

Is there any reason to doubt that it would entail "a personal, bodily, flesh and bone visitation"? If so, what is that reason, and why do you find it significant? (Personally, I don't believe that it would not entail "a personal, bodily, flesh and bone visitation. As I say, I believe that Christ, had He been disposed to do so, could have said, "Handle me and see that it is I, myself. For a spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see me have." But that wasn't the purpose of the visit: as I say, Joseph, unlike Thomas, didn't doubt the Savior's physical reality.

[inquiringmind]

Not that it should (will) make a fig's worth of difference to you

Actually it does make a difference to me.

, but yes, I believe God, the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared in the flesh (glorified, perfected, resurrected, immortal, but yes, in the flesh) to Joseph Smith. I believe that Christ, had He been disposed to do so, could have said (as He did on another occasion), "Handle me and see that it is I, myself. For a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." The purpose of the vision (OK, of the appearance, although I'm not sure why it makes a difference) was not to prove Christ's physical reality. Unlike Thomas, I don't think Joseph doubted that reality. Joseph was more interested in getting answers to his questions.

Alright.

But if it was a bodily appearance, why is it always called (every time I've seen it referred to in Church literature) "the first vision"?

Is there any reason to doubt that it would entail "a personal, bodily, flesh and bone visitation"?

The fact that it's called a "vision" seems to imply, to me, that it wasn't a bodily visitation.

I think of a vision more or less as a waking dream.

That seems to be the same way the author of the book of Acts thought of it, because when he describes how Peter's chains fell off him, and he was led out of a prison by an angel while guards slept, he says that Peter thought it was a vision before he realized he was really free.

If the grove was a bodily visitation, why is it called a "vision"?

Edited January 12, 2013 by inquiringmind

[pogi]

Actually it does make a difference to me.

Alright.

But if it was a bodily appearance, why is it always called (every time I've seen it referred to in Church literature) "the first vision"?

Because it sounds better than "the first sighting".

[inquiringmind]

Because it sounds better than "the first sighting".

So "vision" doesn't imply something like a waking dream?

Then why didn't Peter catch on to what was happening here sooner?

And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me. And he went out, and followed him; and wist not that it was true which was done by the angel; but thought he saw a vision. When they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city; which opened to them of his own accord: and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him. And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews. And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying. And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, named Rhoda. And when she knew Peter's voice, she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in, and told how Peter stood before the gate.And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then said they, It is his angel.But Peter continued knocking: and when they had opened the door, and saw him, they were astonished. (Acts 12:7-16.)

[Calm]

Not that it should (will) make a fig's worth of difference to you, but yes, I believe God, the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared in the flesh (glorified, perfected, resurrected, immortal, but yes, in the flesh) to Joseph Smith. I believe that Christ, had He been disposed to do so, could have said (as He did on another occasion), "Handle me and see that it is I, myself. For a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." The purpose of the vision (OK, of the appearance, although I'm not sure why it makes a difference) was not to prove Christ's physical reality. Unlike Thomas, I don't think Joseph doubted that reality. Joseph was more interested in getting answers to his questions.

And we do not know everything that went on in the encounter. Perhaps this did occur but Joseph felt no need to report it because of the previous scriptural reports. Perhaps he felt it would be too selfpromoting to claim he had actually touch the Christ and felt his wounds or perhaps it was such an extremely personal moment, he felt it inappropriate to share such with others.

[inquiringmind]

And we do not know everything that went on in the encounter. Perhaps this did occur but Joseph felt no need to report it because of the previous scriptural reports. Perhaps he felt it would be too selfpromoting to claim he had actually touch the Christ and felt his wounds or perhaps it was such an extremely personal moment, he felt it inappropriate to share such with others.

But where did Joseph (or anyone else) say that Christ's presence was a physical reality, and why is it called a "vision" (which Acts 12 seems to imply isn't a physical reality, and is something Peter wrongly thought he was seeing when he actually was delivered from a prison)?

Edited January 13, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Did the resurrected Christ ever actually visit America in the 19th century?

I mean, did Joseph (and others) actually see Him (the way the Apostles did on and after the day of the resurrection according to the Bible, and the way the 1rst century Nephites did according to the BOM), or did they only see visions of Him?

If they laid hands on them, Joseph and Oliver must have really seen Peter, James, and John, but what about Jesus?

Did anyone really see more than a holographic image, or a mental picture?

Was His body of flesh and bone really in the grove, or in the Kirtland Temple, or anywhere else here on earth in the 19th century?

Why not...he established his Church here. BTW...more than once.

[Calm]

From Webster's 1828:

4. In Scripture, a revelation from God; an appearance or exhibition of something supernaturally presented to the minds of the prophets, by which they were informed of future events. Such were the visions of Isaiah, of Amos, of Ezekiel, &c.

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

A revelation may be "in person" or may be "appearance" only as in the second part of the definition, thus I don't think one can tell solely by the use of the word "vision" what was going on, such visions may have been physical as well as spiritual or solely presented to the minds of the recipients. One can only really tell if there are others present who report not seeing the vision at the same time unless the person specifies one way or the other (which IIRC does not usually happen).

[Calm]

My question is "does it matter"? If Christ visited me in a vision to instruct me, is that somehow less of an experience than if he came and sat upon my couch to speak to me?

[inquiringmind]

From Webster's 1828:

4. In Scripture, a revelation from God; an appearance or exhibition of something supernaturally presented to the minds of the prophets, by which they were informed of future events. Such were the visions of Isaiah, of Amos, of Ezekiel, &c.

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

A revelation may be "in person" or may be "appearance" only as in the second part of the definition, thus I don't think one can tell solely by the use of the word "vision" what was going on, such visions may have been physical as well as spiritual or solely presented to the minds of the recipients. One can only really tell if there are others present who report not seeing the vision at the same time unless the person specifies one way or the other (which IIRC does not usually happen).

So Joseph didn't know (and we don't know) if he ever really saw Jesus face to face (in the flesh.)

Could that make sense of D&C 130:15?

Could Jesus have been saying that if His Father allowed Joseph to live to 85, He'd come to him personally (as the second Comforter)?

My question is "does it matter"?

Yes.

If D&C 130:15 is inspired scripture, and it explains what Christ was talking about there, yes it matters.

Edited January 13, 2013 by inquiringmind

[pogi]

So Joseph didn't know (and we don't know) if he ever really saw Jesus face to face (in the flesh.)

I have done a little digging and found quite a bit of evidence to my surprise that it may actually have been a vision and not a visitation in the flesh.

Orson Pratt's published version of the first vision and Smith's Wentworth letter account, both said that his "mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded, and I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision."

Joseph's brother William's account stated that when Joseph first saw the light above the trees in the grove, he fell unconscious for an undetermined amount of time.

Even in the official account, Joseph states that "when I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven." JSH 1:20

Joseph later said, "I have actually seen a vision.." (JSH 1:25) It's interesting that he didn't say I actually saw them, he said, I have actually seen a vision.

I can see why one would wonder if he actually saw them in the flesh or in a heavenly vision. Though, I have always believed that he saw them in the flesh. It's hard to let go of that belief, but I remain open to the possibility.

Edited January 13, 2013 by pogi

[Sevenbak]

I think a better question would be "Was Joseph Transfigured during the First Vision?"

No mere mortal can behold God without some kind of change. Does that make some kind of vision? Sure. Was it real in the flesh, you bet!

I think 3 Nephi describes the process pretty well. The 3 Nephites couldn't tell if they were in or out of the body during their beholding of "the things of God".

“And whether they were in the body or out of the body, they could not tell; for it did seem unto them like a transfiguration of them, that they were changed from this body of flesh into an immortal state, that they could behold the things of God” (3 Ne. 28:15)