Did Jesus Really Visit America In The 19Th Century?

[CV75]

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)

I think it is because Their personages were attended by an extraordinary level of spiritual enlightenment.

[Bart Burk]

Why not? He visited people in Europe.

For a list:

http://en.wikipedia....Century_visions

Some links to a few of the people who saw Jesus:

http://en.wikipedia....rie_of_St_Peter

http://en.wikipedia...._Martha_Chambon

http://en.wikipedia....i/Gemma_Galgani

http://en.wikipedia....i/Maria_Pierina

http://en.wikipedia....lian_of_Norwich

People have been receiving visions of Jesus and Mary ever since Jesus' resurrection. God has never stopped revealing Himself through Jesus, Mary and other saints since the time of the resurrection. Only the Protestants declared the heavens closed and miracles ceased. The Church from the time of Christ down to our own day has continually seen miracles and visions in every century, not just the 19th century.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Bart Burk

[Darren10]

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:

First off, I do not think that you would necessarily see the First Vision had you been walking by. Theis is from the LDS bible Dictrionary regarding seing God:

The present translation of John 1:18 and 1 Jn. 4:12 is misleading, for these say that no man has ever seen God. However, the scriptures state that there have been many who have seen him. The JST corrects these items to show that no sinful man has ever seen God, and also that Jesus Christ is the only Way to God.

God

There's also this when Nephi and Lehi in Chapter 5 of the Book of Helaman "conversed" with a being they saw:

36 And it came to pass that he turned him about, and behold, he saw through the cloud of darkness the faces of Nephi and Lehi; and behold, they did shine exceedingly, even as the faces of angels. And he beheld that they did lift their eyes to heaven; and they were in the attitude as if talking or lifting their voices to some being whom they beheld.

Here's a direct indication that a heavenly messanger may appear to a chosen two but the masses could not see the messanger. Also, would you be rady to see the Father and the Son had you walked by the Sacred Grove at the moment they appeared to Joseph Smith? I really do not think I would be thus I'd rather *not* see them if anything out of fear for my soul.

[inquiringmind]

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?

You want to know why I find it difficult to believe that The Father and The Son were actually, physically present before Joseph in 1820?

Because if they did, the only way I could make any sense of Jesus later telling Joseph that he would see His face IF he lived to be 85 is if He were talking about His second coming (which didn't happen when Joseph would have been 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.

Joseph (who was still alive at the time) speculated that the voice might have been telling him that He'd have a personal visitation at age 85 (if he lived that long, or that he'd see the face of The Son of man after he died at age 85.

The first interpretation makes some sense to me, but would seem to be ruled out if he already had a personal visitation in 1820?

And the second interpretation seems ruled out by the fact that Joseph didn't live to be eighty five.

According to Joseph, the voice said that he'd see the face of The Son of Man if he lived to be 85.

So if the voice was speaking of Joseph seeing Christ's face AFTER DEATH only IF he lived to be 85, and Joseph didn't live to be 85, wouldn't this interpretation put Joseph in the terrestrial or telestial kingdom?

Edited January 16, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Ahab]

You want to know why I find it difficult to believe that The Father and The Son were actually, physically present before Joseph in 1820?

Because if they did, the only way I could make any sense of Jesus later telling Joseph that he would see His face IF he lived to be 85 is if He were talking about His second coming (which didn't happen when Joseph would have been 85.)

You got it. He was talking about his second coming. That doesn't mean he never saw the face of Jesus before that, though.

Even if only in a vision, Joseph saw the face of Jesus in the 'First Vision', even if Jesus only sent something like a holographic image of himself then, He also saw his face at other times, too. I think you should just think about this some more.

[inquiringmind]

You got it. He was talking about his second coming. That doesn't mean he never saw the face of Jesus before that, though.

Even if only in a vision, Joseph saw the face of Jesus in the 'First Vision', even if Jesus only sent something like a holographic image of himself then, He also saw his face at other times, too. I think you should just think about this some more.

If it's talking about the second coming, we should be living in the millennium (because the second coming should have happened around 1880), and if it's a conditional promise that Joseph would see God's face (after he died) IF he lived to be 85, he should have lived to be 85 (unless he was a fallen prophet, who lost his exaltation.)

The only way it makes any sense (from an LDS pov) is if Joseph never saw Jesus in person, but would have IF he lived to be 85.

Even if only in a vision, Joseph saw the face of Jesus in the 'First Vision.'

I've seen an image of Thomas Monson's face on BYU T.V., but I've never seen his face in person.

Weren't there O.T prophets who had visions of God after Moses?

But didn't God say (somewhere in Deuteronomy, I think) that if he rose up any prophets after Moses He would speak to them in visions or dreams, but would not speak to them face to face (as He had done with Moses)?

I'm sure that passage is there somewhere, and it would seem to imply that there's some difference between a vision and a bodily presence.

[Ahab]

If it's talking about the second coming, we should be living in the millennium (because the second coming should have happened around 1880), and if it's a conditional promise that Joseph would see God's face (after he died) IF he lived to be 85, he should have lived to be 85 (unless he was a fallen prophet, who lost his exaltation.)

The only way it makes any sense (from an LDS pov) is if Joseph never saw Jesus in person, but would have IF he lived to be 85.

I don't remember the actual words of Joseph, or of the Lord, but he was basically saying that if Joseph lived to be 85 (meaning as a mortal 85 year old man), Joseph would then see the second coming of our Lord as an 85 year old mortal man.. Joseph was interested in knowing when the Lord was going to return, and he kept asking the Lord about it, so the Lord gave him that answer.

From our Lord's answer this is what I understand of the possible outcomes:

1) If Joseph lived to be an 85 year old mortal man, then Joseph would see the second coming of our Lord, with Joseph then being an 85 year old man.

2) If Joseph didn't live to become an 85 year old mortal man, then the condition would not have been met and our Lord was not going to be returning at that time. Our Lord said he would be returning at that time if Joseph became an 85 year old man, so if Joseph didn't meet that condition then our Lord didn't have to come then.

I've seen an image of Thomas Monson's face on BYU T.V., but I've never seen his face in person.

I know what you mean, but you actually have seen his face. Not in person, but an image of his face which is an express image of his person, or how he would appear in person, with what you saw being his actual face or what his face looked like at the time that image was taken.

Weren't there O.T prophets who had visions of God after Moses?

Yes, many.

But didn't God say (somewhere in Deuteronomy, I think) that if he rose up any prophets after Moses He would speak to them in visions or dreams, but would not speak to them face to face (as He had done with Moses)?

So the question should be, What did the Lord mean when he said that, or what did the prophets mean who said the Lord had said that.

I'm sure that passage is there somewhere, and it would seem to imply that there's some difference between a vision and a bodily presence.

There is a difference, but whether someone sees his face in an image or "in person" they're still seeing his face.

[canard78]

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

But is the Bible Dictionary doctrine? Most of these (plus the recently tweaked Book of Mormon introduction) were added in the 1981 version and were not received by common consent. They are reference material. Useful, but not doctrine as far as I'm aware. Did Joseph ever say that the first vision was a physical manifestation, in the flesh? Surely he would be the safer 'source?'

[canard78]

You want to know why I find it difficult to believe that The Father and The Son were actually, physically present before Joseph in 1820?

Because if they did, the only way I could make any sense of Jesus later telling Joseph that he would see His face IF he lived to be 85 is if He were talking about His second coming (which didn't happen when Joseph would have been 85.)

Joseph (who was still alive at the time) speculated that the voice might have been telling him that He'd have a personal visitation at age 85 (if he lived that long, or that he'd see the face of The Son of man after he died at age 85.

The first interpretation makes some sense to me, but would seem to be ruled out if he already had a personal visitation in 1820?

And the second interpretation seems ruled out by the fact that Joseph didn't live to be eighty five.

According to Joseph, the voice said that he'd see the face of The Son of Man if he lived to be 85.

So if the voice was speaking of Joseph seeing Christ's face AFTER DEATH only IF he lived to be 85, and Joseph didn't live to be 85, wouldn't this interpretation put Joseph in the terrestrial or telestial kingdom?

Unless I've missed it in another post, you've kind of skipped the most important bits in my post. There's nothing in the actual verse to show that he would see his face for the first time at 85 (nor for the last time).

[Darren10]

But is the Bible Dictionary doctrine? Most of these (plus the recently tweaked Book of Mormon introduction) were added in the 1981 version and were not received by common consent. They are reference material. Useful, but not doctrine as far as I'm aware. Did Joseph ever say that the first vision was a physical manifestation, in the flesh? Surely he would be the safer 'source?'

No, not doctrine but it is officially endorsed by the First Presidency and Quorum ofthe Twelve so that makes it highly reliable. I think it is commonly understood that the first Vision was the *actual* physical *visitation* of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith. Can you honestly imagine any of the apostles (including the president ofthe Church) saying otherwise?

[canard78]

No, not doctrine but it is officially endorsed by the First Presidency and Quorum ofthe Twelve so that makes it highly reliable. I think it is commonly understood that the first Vision was the *actual* physical *visitation* of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith. Can you honestly imagine any of the apostles (including the president ofthe Church) saying otherwise?

I can't, but that doesn't make it so. Joseph Smith made some erroneous presumptions about BoM geography and aboriginal identities. That's fed many other assumptions that even crept into the BoM intro (principal ancestors now among the ancestors etc).

Assumptions aren't always correct. Assumptions were made about why blacks were denied the priesthood. They turned out to be incorrect.

Leaders might assume a physical visit or preach it to aid the simplifying of the teaching process, just like they have hugely simplified their depictions of the translation process.

Physical manifestation is not a required belief for Mormons. A spiritual or mental am manifestation still teaches us the nature of God and still acts to answer Joseph question of churches to join.

If Joseph didn't call it physical, why should a 1981 commentary on it be more accurate?

[Darren10]

I can't, but that doesn't make it so. Joseph Smith made some erroneous presumptions about BoM geography and aboriginal identities. That's fed many other assumptions that even crept into the BoM intro (principal ancestors now among the ancestors etc).

Whatever errors Joseph Smith made regarding Book of Mormon geography and aboriginal identities is fine with me. Not much of either has been revealed by God. But I think Joseph Smith knows something about the First Vission as well as subsequent prophets. Namely, if we can dig deeper into my mind and understanding, living apostles need to be "special witnesses" just as much today as the original twelve (plus one replacement) were in the older times. This means that they *must* know that Jesus is indeed the Christ, the Son of the Living God and they must know this from first-hand experiences. To me, this means that apostles today (The First Presidency and Quroum of the Twelve) witness Jesus Christ first-hand through Christ physically visiting them. So, just as much as Joseph Smith knows about the first vision, so do living apostles today. Having such an experience I think naturally gives them deep nsight as to the First Vission and its nature. Perhaps it has not been revealed explicitly to anyone whether or not Christ physically apeared (in flesh and bone) to Joseph Smith but that is how it is understood to be, even by living apostles. Furthermore, I'm of the mindset that this is the true mannerby which God works: to do thing physically in order to teach things spiritually.

Assumptions aren't always correct. Assumptions were made about why blacks were denied the priesthood. They turned out to be incorrect.

You dont know that they were incorrect and though I tend to agree with you that, yes, there were some incorrect asumtions made regarding blacks and the priesthood, I do not know that for sure.

Leaders might assume a physical visit or preach it to aid the simplifying of the teaching process, just like they have hugely simplified their depictions of the translation process.

That's a big simplification but, again, I agree that we do not know for sure.

Physical manifestation is not a required belief for Mormons. A spiritual or mental am manifestation still teaches us the nature of God and still acts to answer Joseph question of churches to join.

That is true that physical manifestations are not required for belief in God nor to join His true church. however, Joseph beleived before going ot the grove to pray. From that belief came greater knowledge. The magnitude of that greater knowledge, I think, had to do with him, Joseph Smith Jr., to become the firstl iving apostle of our modern times. He must *know* that Jesus is the Christ. Also, we as mormons do believe that God will not, even cannot, withold Himself behind the veil of eternal truth to those who are faithful to Him.

Moroni narrates in Ether 12:

7 For it was by faith that Christ showed himself unto our fathers, after he had risen from the dead; and he showed not himself unto them until after they had faith in him; wherefore, it must needs be that some had faith in him, for he showed himself not unto the world.

8 But because of the faith of men he has shown himself unto the world, and glorified the name of the Father, and prepared a way that thereby others might be partakers of the heavenly gift, that they might hope for those things which they have not seen.

Then conitues and say:

19 And there were many whose faith was so exceedingly strong, even before Christ came, who could not be kept from within the veil, but truly saw with their eyes the things which they had beheld with an eye of faith, and they were glad.

I'd include joseph Smith Jr. as having such faith. His faith was such that God dd not withold Himself from Joseph Smith adnd the Father and the Son "personally visited" Joseph Smith. That createdthe beginnings of the retoration by reestablishing apostles on the earth.

If Joseph didn't call it physical, why should a 1981 commentary on it be more accurate?

Don't know why Joseph Smith did not call the First Vision a "personal visitation" but the fact that living apostles would and do is just fine for me.

[canard78]

Whatever errors Joseph Smith made regarding Book of Mormon geography and aboriginal identities is fine with me. Not much of either has been revealed by God. But I think Joseph Smith knows something about the First Vission as well as subsequent prophets. Namely, if we can dig deeper into my mind and understanding, living apostles need to be "special witnesses" just as much today as the original twelve (plus one replacement) were in the older times. This means that they *must* know that Jesus is indeed the Christ, the Son of the Living God and they must know this from first-hand experiences. To me, this means that apostles today (The First Presidency and Quroum of the Twelve) witness Jesus Christ first-hand through Christ physically visiting them. So, just as much as Joseph Smith knows about the first vision, so do living apostles today. Having such an experience I think naturally gives them deep nsight as to the First Vission and its nature. Perhaps it has not been revealed explicitly to anyone whether or not Christ physically apeared (in flesh and bone) to Joseph Smith but that is how it is understood to be, even by living apostles. Furthermore, I'm of the mindset that this is the true mannerby which God works: to do thing physically in order to teach things spiritually.

I'd be (sincerely) interested to see a reference to the most recent prophet or apostle to make the same statement that Joseph made of seeing Jesus face to face. Lorenzo Snow did too (but by then he already had a perfect knowledge that Jesus is the Christ:

1836 he "knelt to pray and immediately received an answer to his prayers. “That will never be erased from my memory as long as memory endures,” he later declared. “… I received a perfect knowledge that there was a God, that Jesus, who died upon Calvary, was His Son, and that Joseph the Prophet had received the authority which he professed to have."

1898 President Snow went to the Salt Lake Temple and prayed. In answer to his prayer, he was visited by the Lord Himself. President Snow later testified that he “actually saw the Savior … in the Temple, and talked with Him face to face.”

http://www.lds.org/m...o-snow?lang=eng

I said: Assumptions aren't always correct. Assumptions were made about why blacks were denied the priesthood. They turned out to be incorrect.

You replied: You dont know that they were incorrect and though I tend to agree with you that, yes, there were some incorrect asumtions made regarding blacks and the priesthood, I do not know that for sure.

Elder McConkie said he was incorrect:

"There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things.... All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

Elder Oaks said the General Authorities were incorrect: "Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it. ...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.

Elder Holland said the general authorities were incorrect: "One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ..."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Understanding_pre-1978_statements

That's a big simplification but, again, I agree that we do not know for sure.

That is true that physical manifestations are not required for belief in God nor to join His true church. however, Joseph beleived before going ot the grove to pray. From that belief came greater knowledge. The magnitude of that greater knowledge, I think, had to do with him, Joseph Smith Jr., to become the firstl iving apostle of our modern times. He must *know* that Jesus is the Christ. Also, we as mormons do believe that God will not, even cannot, withold Himself behind the veil of eternal truth to those who are faithful to Him.

Moroni narrates in Ether 12:

I'd include joseph Smith Jr. as having such faith. His faith was such that God dd not withold Himself from Joseph Smith adnd the Father and the Son "personally visited" Joseph Smith. That createdthe beginnings of the retoration by reestablishing apostles on the earth.

Don't know why Joseph Smith did not call the First Vision a "personal visitation" but the fact that living apostles would and do is just fine for me.

The man who had the actual vision not say it was a physical, in-the-flesh visit, I don't see the need to have to believe that either. If Joseph had a vision that convinced him that Jesus is the Christ, a vision that he would never deny, the physicality of the event is immaterial.

Edited January 16, 2013 by canard78

[CV75]

Weren't there O.T prophets who had visions of God after Moses?

But didn't God say (somewhere in Deuteronomy, I think) that if he rose up any prophets after Moses He would speak to them in visions or dreams, but would not speak to them face to face (as He had done with Moses)?

I'm sure that passage is there somewhere, and it would seem to imply that there's some difference between a vision and a bodily presence.

There is often a difference between a vision and a bodily presence, but at times there need not be.

It is quite likely that Joseph Smith saw the Father and Son in such a way as to permit physical contact between Them and Joseph if They wanted, yet he did not touch Them, nor They he (as far as we are told--who knew what transpired in those moments between JS-H 15 and 16). So he could have seen the Savior’s physical face in the sacred grove. This experience still qualifies as a vision because a) technically, he did not touch Them but only saw and heard Them; b) he beheld Their indescribable glory, which in mortal terms can rightly be described as a vision; and c) he was spiritually enlightened as a result of the experience.

How this relates to D&C 130: Verse 11 does not specify a date for his question having been asked in prayer; presumably due to lack of specificity it was well before April 2, 1843.

Let’s assume he thus prayed earnestly prior to the time Section 45 was written (March 7, 1831). That was praying quite a bit about the timing of the coming of the Son of Man is evidenced by the topic being addressed in connection with his study of Matthew 24, about which he received some instruction in verses 60-61 (and see Joseph Smith--1). This subject seems to have continued to have been on his mind often during this period, as reflected by the use of the term “Son of Man” in connection with revelations involving the Second Coming between March 1831 and November 1831 (see sections 49, 58, 61, 63-65 and 68).

It is reasonable to surmise that he was told before March 7, 1831 that if he would live until 85 years of age, he would “see the face of the Son of Man”—either in context of the Second Coming “or to some previous appearing,” or upon death and thus see the face of the Son of Man. None of this precludes his having seen the face of the Son of Man before such a time, such as in the First Vision.

Numbers 12 addresses the issue of speaking to prophets in dreams and visions and to Moses face to face. It is not about future prophets, but those among the Israelites at the time, such as Miriam and Aaron were. Further, D&C 107:91-92 shows that any LDS Chuch president is to be like unto Moses.

[Tacenda]

Maybe the saints took "the vision" too far. What if it got so out of hand, JS had to just go with it, because he believed it really was God/Jesus. Just with spiritual eyes but true nonetheless. With all the different versions of the "First Vision", could this be plausible? Did JS let other's believe it was physical eyes instead of spiritual eyes because he knew that it was truth? And didn't want people to not believe, because it was spiritual only? Or has it been believed to be spiritually all along and the latter culture needed it to be physical?

Edited January 16, 2013 by Tacenda