Did Jesus Really Visit America In The 19Th Century?

[halconero]

Yes.

[CV75]

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

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?

He is resurrected. Whether He visited in person, in Spirit, by telephone, by Skype, by vision, or any other way, it is a visit, and His body was present, somewhere to do so, and so was present in some fashion via visit.

One can always see another's face again and again, expect to in the future, and under different sets conditions, including if one should live to be 85 years old.

[ERayR]

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"?

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"?

Your confusion seeps to be because of your misconception of what a vision is. That which is seen in a vision is not necessarily incorporeal.

vi·sion

[vizh-uh n] Show IPA

noun

1.

the act or power of sensing with the eyes; sight.

2.

the act or power of anticipating that which will or may come to be: prophetic vision; the vision of an entrepreneur.

3.

an experience in which a personage, thing, or event appears vividly or credibly to the mind, although not actually present, often under the influence of a divine or other agency: a heavenly messenger appearing in a vision. Compare hallucination ( def 1 ) .

4.

something seen or otherwise perceived during such an experience: The vision revealed its message.

5.

a vivid, imaginative conception or anticipation: visions of wealth and glory.

[inquiringmind]

"...an experience in which a personage, thing, or event appears vividly or credibly to the mind, although not actually present" ???

Edited January 13, 2013 by inquiringmind

[ERayR]

"...an experience in which a personage, thing, or event appears vividly or credibly to the mind, although not actually present" ???

Sorry I got in a hurry and all the definition didn't post.

The most common usage is:

1.

the act or power of sensing with the eyes; sight.

[longview]

"...an experience in which a personage, thing, or event appears vividly or credibly to the mind, although not actually present" ???

Maybe you should consider a clue found in the scriptures cited in this thread plus Cinepro's link to Pres. Snow's experience in the temple. A pavement of pure gold under the feet but hovering 3 feet above the ground. Most likely the gold pavement was not really there but an amazing projection of some kind. A solid holography?

[Darren10]

To answer this question simply, yes, both the Father and the Son did coporeally appear to Joseph Smith in a "vision". Joseph Smith said he had "seen a vision".

see

¹ /si/ Show IPA verb, saw, seen, see·ing.

verb (used with object)

1. to perceive with the eyes; look at.

2. to view; visit or attend as a spectator: to see a play.

3. to perceive by means of computer vision.

4. to scan or view, especially by electronic means: The satellite can see the entire southern half of the country.

5. to perceive (things) mentally; discern; understand: to see the point of an argument.

I think defeinition #2 applies to the First Vision. Joseph Smith *saw* a vision meaning his physical presence viewed, "spectated" a sight or "vision" like at "a play". When I "see" a play I am typically watching actual people perform. I think in Joseph Smith's time the word "seen" would carry this precise meaning. I do not think Joseph Smith ever indicated he "thought" he saw God though in Lehi's humility, I think he could have said as much, but to me Joseph Smith Junior was adamant about what he "saw" abnd knew it was real. As real as he and everybody else he spoke to were real.

As to why the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith I think reading the official account of the event is very useful. Bold mine:

[quote

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Edited January 13, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Here's verses 24-25 (bold mine - key words placed in red):

24 However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise.

25 So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.

[CV75]

So I can only conclude that in any of the several definitions and uses of "vision", it involves at least one pair of physical bodies: one to see with and one to be seen by; one body that produces and transmits the communication and one that receives it. Even in the case of a “waking dream” that is produced by the Lord and received by a believer, both have physical bodies and both are involved.

[TAO]

BTW, there is some clarification on the age issue somewhere I believe. If I remember right, Joseph wasn't sure if it meant that if he lived to 85, he'd see Christ, or if it meant that he'd die before he was 85, and thus, see his face, or something along those lines.

[inquiringmind]

BTW, there is some clarification on the age issue somewhere I believe. If I remember right, Joseph wasn't sure if it meant that if he lived to 85, he'd see Christ, or if it meant that he'd die before he was 85, and thus, see his face, or something along those lines.

That doesn't really clarify anything, because D&C 130:15 says "if you live to be 85, you will see the face of The Son of Man."

And if it's talking about seeing Him after death, the implication would seem to be that Joseph wouldn't see His face after death if he didn't live to be 85.

A much better explanation is that it's talking about actually seeing His face here on earth, in person, Joseph only saw Him in vision, and if Joseph had lived to be 85, he would have seen Him in person while in mortality.

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.

Bold mine, key words placed in red.

Edited January 13, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Kenngo1969]

He is resurrected. Whether He visited in person, in Spirit, by telephone, by Skype, by vision, or any other way, it is a visit, and His body was present, somewhere to do so, and so was present in some fashion via visit.

God is a technophile! Who knew?!

[Tacenda]

What of the other visionaries at the time JS had his? I believe it was Strang and a woman and her name escapes me? Can they have also had a physical manifestation? Or in vision/mind only?

[Jude2]

I’ll take a stab at this one;

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

I believe because the second coming is open ended and mankind is making a choice . If the world had accepted Joseph as a prophet of God he would have lived to the age of 85 and then the second coming would have happen peacefully.

But since the world rejected him and still do it’s choosing a more violent end time.

[halconero]

That doesn't really clarify anything, because D&C 130:15 says "if you live to be 85, you will see the face of The Son of Man."

And if it's talking about seeing Him after death, the implication would seem to be that Joseph wouldn't see His face after death if he didn't live to be 85.

A much better explanation is that it's talking about actually seeing His face here on earth, in person, Joseph only saw Him in vision, and if Joseph had lived to be 85, he would have seen Him in person while in mortality.

Bold mine, key words placed in red.

On Thursday my friend Roni said, while talking about a girl I asked out a couple of times, "if you go to the CES broadcast on Sunday you'll see Julia there."

Well, I had seen Julia that night. I then ran into her on campus on Saturday. She called and we're planning on saving seats together at the broadcast tonight...where I'll see her, like Roni said.

Do I need to extend the metaphor further? Or can I leave to go hit on a cute girl while simultaneously listening the Silver Fox, Dieter F. Uchtdorf?

[daz2]

I wonder why it is called the "First Vision", rather than the "First Visitation"? It doesn't matter to me whether there was a physical appearance, or some other why of appearing. What mattered is the message. (I apologize if someone already asked this; I did not read all the intervening comments)

[CV75]

What of the other visionaries at the time JS had his? I believe it was Strang and a woman and her name escapes me? Can they have also had a physical manifestation? Or in vision/mind only?

Nothing is a "vision only"-- in some cases, the sender and receiver is the same person (obviously with a physical body doing the sending and receiving), and in other cases, the sender is only a spirit. From Jesus' perspective, however, I would think He knows He has a body and that a vision He sends forth counts as a physical maniifestation or visit.

I think when we dovetail into matters that are "gnolaum" there is not real designation between physical and spiritual, or whether the occurrence is on a temporal or eternal level.

[inquiringmind]

I’ll take a stab at this one;

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

I believe because the second coming is open ended and mankind is making a choice . If the world had accepted Joseph as a prophet of God he would have lived to the age of 85 and then the second coming would have happen peacefully.

But since the world rejected him and still do it’s choosing a more violent end time.

That's interesting.

Thank you.

[blackstrap]

On our farm years ago there was a large thin rock sticking out of the ground,sort of like a dish partly buried in the sand. My father told me that " every time this rock smells fresh bread, it turns over " . Now, it that statement true or false ?

It would be useful to read the rest of the revelation to see if one can discern God's attitude on the matter.

Edited January 14, 2013 by blackstrap

[blackstrap]

The Brother of Jared 'saw' the pre-mortal Christ.He did not see the actual physical body because Christ didn't have one yet. The apostles 'saw' the resurrected Christ as did many others and there is no indication that they were transformed in order to do so. The Nephites 'saw' the resurrected Christ for several days and again no indication of transformation. BUT , when Moses 'saw' God he had to be transformed. After the transformation he was able to speak to God face to face as one man speaketh with another. Was God physically present when that happened? The scriptures seem to indicate that whenever God appears,anyone who 'sees' Him must be transformed.There would be little reason the think that a transformation would need to be done in order for a dream to happen.

[canard78]

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.

Very fair summary. I had always grown up believing they had physically been hovering in the grove. That if he'd reached out, he would have touched them. That if I had been walking by, I would have seen them too.

The quotes above suggest that this is more like a vision in the terms of Peter's vision in Acts 10. An image seen that has an impact on behaviour and knowledge. No-one I know of has suggested there was a literal blanket with animals floating by his house:

Did Joseph say anywhere that this was a literal, physical visit - or is a Peter style 'visualisation' more accurate?

[canard78]

That doesn't really clarify anything, because D&C 130:15 says "if you live to be 85, you will see the face of The Son of Man."

And if it's talking about seeing Him after death, the implication would seem to be that Joseph wouldn't see His face after death if he didn't live to be 85.

A much better explanation is that it's talking about actually seeing His face here on earth, in person, Joseph only saw Him in vision, and if Joseph had lived to be 85, he would have seen Him in person while in mortality.

Bold mine, key words placed in red.

The full scripture says:

14 I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the^acoming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:

15 Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore ^alet this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.

16 I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.

17 I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.

Firstly... this was written in 1843, a long time after Joseph had put his first vision in writing several times. Joseph clearly didn't consider this to be a contradiction of anything else he had written and didn't feel the need to clarify it.

It also doesn't say: thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man for the first time.

There's no reason to say this statement means either 'the first time thou shalt see...' or 'the next time thou shalt see...' - so the question becomes somewhat mute either way. It also doesn't mean "in vision" or "in the flesh." If I see Obama's face on TV, I've still seen his face. How else will I see it. If someone says "if you turn on the TV on saturday afternoon 'thou shalt see the face of Obama' then I still see his face.

Finally, I take the whole passage to be more a little of God's humour. "Stop bothering me son, come back later. Fine... I'm not going to make you stick it out past 85." What does Joseph then speculate in vs 16-17. Well on one token he was right... he did die and we presume after dying he did see his face.

The question of whether the First Vision was a physical visit and the question of what the Lord meant in D&C 130 are not dependent on each other. When you read the words in each they sit as as independent statements.

Out of interest, and it's a sincere question, was this asked because you've been reading the D&C as part of being an investigator (am I right in thinking you're not baptised?) or have you read something online or been asked some questions from non-LDS associates who are challenging you on some of the church's history and origins? It's not to cast doubt on your motives. I think it's better to get some of these questions out of the way before making a commitment you might be considering, especially if they might bother you later.

[Darren10]

Bold mine, key words placed in red.

Lol - I'm glad to see tha you're copying walking in the steps of my genius.

Are you to say that being overwhelmed by the power of Satan was real and tangible, tha the power of Satan was actually uon Joseph Smith but the visitation of the Father and the Son was only a mental vision something? That the Father and the Son weren't actually there in front of Joseph Smith only appearing as such?

I say that they were actually, physically, ther flesh and bones and all were present before Joseph Smith and that there was a divine purpose in actually appearing before him. Just my having laid out my reasons for why I think they were actually, physically, present before Joseph Smith, could you lay out your reasons for them to *not* physically appear before Joseph Smith?

[Darren10]

Here's from the LDS Bible Dictionary regarding God (bold mine - key words placed into red)

The Father and the Son personally visited Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove, in the spring of 1820, near Manchester, New York, in the opening of the dispensation of the fulness of times (JS—H 1:11–20).

[Nofear]

Finally, I take the whole passage to be more a little of God's humour. "Stop bothering me son, come back later. Fine... I'm not going to make you stick it out past 85." What does Joseph then speculate in vs 16-17. Well on one token he was right... he did die and we presume after dying he did see his face.

That's my take as well. God knew full well the Second Coming wasn't going to happen in the 1800's. God also knew full well when Joseph was going to die (see D&C 129:9 for example). Policy is to keep the timeframe a secret. So God gives Joseph an answer that makes no commitment that would be realized and asserts no real information but apparently was enough to get Joseph to stop pestering God about the subject. Well that and Joseph was specifically instructed to stop this line of inquiry. This is a great example and gives some wonderful insight into the character of God and the human-God relationship.