Nature of Joseph Smith's First Vision

[rockpond]

49 minutes ago, Judd said:

I believe it was literal and that they were physically present — that it was not simply a spiritual manifestation or a dream or something just in his head. Whether or not that can be recorded with video or seen by anyone else, I have no idea. I think what you’re struggling with is wondering how it could be possible for God and Christ to be physically present without being seen or observed. That would go against our elementary, contemporary understanding of physics, but I’m confident the God of the universe has a more vast understanding of those workings than our current empirical observations.

I'm not struggling with it.  I think that if they were physically present and someone else was in the grove with Joseph, they would have witnessed the same thing.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not struggling with it.  I think that if they were physically present and someone else was in the grove with Joseph, they would have witnessed the same thing.

If Jesus could heal the blind, I think he could manage to render someone temporarily unable to see, even in such a way they don't realize they can't see (interfere not with the eye, but the optic nerve).  After all, he was able to disappear as desired as a mortal and resurrected depending on how one interprets the verses.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

If Jesus could heal the blind, I think he could manage to render someone temporarily unable to see, even in such a way they don't realize they can't see (interfere not with the eye, but the optic nerve).  After all, he was able to disappear as desired as a mortal and resurrected depending on how one interprets the verses.

Is it possible for Him?  Yes, I agree.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I think that if they were physically present and someone else was in the grove with Joseph, they would have witnessed the same thing.

Was the Lord physically present when he touched the 16 stones prepared by the Brother of Jared, in your opinion? If so, what does this verse mean: 'And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord'?

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

I agree with all that.  For me, both of those accounts describe visions (visions in which their was no physical presence of the Lord) so there is no reason why a bystander would need to see the Lord, in that case.

Ah, but you are ignoring the light and sound of the voice in the case with Saul, and you could just as well ignore the voice and dove at the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist.  Whether the light, voice, or dove are seen and heard is completely dependent upon the will of the Lord.  If he wishes to allow witnesses to see and hear, then it will happen.  There is no need to place arbitrary restrictions upon the Lord.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Ah, but you are ignoring the light and sound of the voice in the case with Saul, and you could just as well ignore the voice and dove at the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist.  Whether the light, voice, or dove are seen and heard is completely dependent upon the will of the Lord.  If he wishes to allow witnesses to see and hear, then it will happen.  There is no need to place arbitrary restrictions upon the Lord.

Light and sound could have been visionary, rather than actually there. 

But I do understand that the Lord can control what people witness.

in any case, is your answer to the OP question that God and Jesus were physically present (but that a bystander would not have seen them)?

[Gray]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Would a video camera have picked up Joseph and Sidney's vision of the Three Degrees of Glory? They were in a room full of observers who didn't see what the two of them were seeing, and yet they both saw it so clearly that Sidney could describe it to Joseph. Philo Dibble's eyewitness account:

Visions are visions. They don't make sense until one sees for her- or himself.

The use of the word glory twice in the above is interesting. I think we sometimes forget the original and primary meaning of this word. Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language provides the following as the first definition: 'Brightness; luster; splendor'. People could argue that what he meant was a metaphorical brightness, and the word certainly includes this option, but I suspect -- again based on personal experience -- that he was using the word literally.

Would such glory show up on a video recording? I have no idea, but I doubt it.

Yes, I agree. A visionary experience is by definition something internal and subjective to the person experiencing it, rather than an external, objective experience.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Was the Lord physically present when he touched the 16 stones prepared by the Brother of Jared, in your opinion? If so, what does this verse mean: 'And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord'?

That event was prior to Jesus’ mortal life and resurrection, so no, he was not physically present as he had not yet received a physical body.  The Lord explained to the Brother of Jared that what he had seen was his spirit. 

[Kevin Christensen]

Joseph Smith states this in the Wentworth Letter account of the vision:

Quote

I retired to a secret place in a grove and began to call upon the Lord, while fervently engaged in supplication my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded, and I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision and saw two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features, and likeness, surrounded with a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noon-day.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/church-history-1-march-1842/1

Seems like Joseph's descriptions should enter in to the discussion.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[HappyJackWagon]

If Egon, Venkman, and Ray were standing beside Joseph, aimed their proton wands, and were able to avoid crossing the streams, would they have been able to capture God in one of these?

 

Happy Halloween!  

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Light and sound could have been visionary, rather than actually there. 

But I do understand that the Lord can control what people witness.

in any case, is your answer to the OP question that God and Jesus were physically present (but that a bystander would not have seen them)?

My answer was number 3, Other.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes, I agree. A visionary experience is by definition something internal and subjective to the person experiencing it, rather than an external, objective experience.

I remember years ago walking along a sidewalk just outside the Los Angeles County Jail in downtown L.A.  A colleague was coming toward me and was talking.  I thought that she was talking to me.  I was mistaken.  She had a bluetooth in her ear and a very small mike projecting out along her cheek.  I had never seen one before, but quickly realized my mistake.  A real, objective experience was taking place.  I couldn't hear the other end of that conversation, but that did not in any way make it less real.

LDS theology, like science, is entirely naturalistic.  It assumes a monistic, natural universe, with explicable systems, even if they are beyond human ken.  You unnecessarily attribute visions to supernatural events or processes.  Why?

[CV75]

I think it depends on who the person is. There was one ("some actual being from the unseen world"), who was kicked off the premises. There could have been others present who were more supportive, but Joseph evidently did not discern or mention them unless the 1835 account counts (angels also appeared).

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I remember years ago walking along a sidewalk just outside the Los Angeles County Jail in downtown L.A.  A colleague was coming toward me and was talking.  I thought that she was talking to me.  I was mistaken.  She had a bluetooth in her ear and a very small mike projecting out along her cheek.  I had never seen one before, but quickly realized my mistake.  A real, objective experience was taking place.  I couldn't hear the other end of that conversation, but that did not in any way make it less real.

LDS theology, like science, is entirely naturalistic.  It assumes a monistic, natural universe, with explicable systems, even if they are beyond human ken.  You unnecessarily attribute visions to supernatural events or processes.  Why? 

I don't attribute them to the supernatural. Visions are a natural part of the human experience. A sizeable percentage of the population experiences them. Whether there is anything external to the mind going on in any particular vision is unknowable. Personally I don't think God literally sends communications to anyone, but that doesn't mean people don't really experience visions.

[mfbukowski]

Does anybody standing 10 feet behind me see what I can see?

No, because I am in the way.

Do you see the same colors I do and notice the same things? Do you feel what I feel and interpret what we see the same way?

If only I see something you do not see, does that make it "unreal"?  Who's perceptions determine reality?

The question is not well thought out

 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Does anybody standing 10 feet behind me see what I can see?

No, because I am in the way.

Do you see the same colors I do and notice the same things? Do you feel what I feel and interpret what we see the same way?

If only I see something you do not see, does that make it "unreal"?  Who's perceptions determine reality?

The question is not well thought out

 

The question doesn't have anything to do with the reality of the First Vision.  It is just meant to explore the nature of it...

Was it a visitation of two physical beings, actually present in the Sacred Grove?

Was it a dream being experienced within Joseph's mind?

Was it some kind of spiritual vision in which they appeared to be floating in front of him but they weren't physically there?

I'm curious how people understand it.  Do you want to weigh in?

[Glenn101]

The only answer I have is that I don't know. I suspect that Christ or an angel could appear to one person in the flesh in the midst of a crowd and only the person selected to receive the vision see them. But I don't know. The Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph in his room among several of his sleeping brothers three times, filling the room with light and conversed with Joseph at length without awakening those brothers. Was Moroni physically there? I suspect that he was, but I don't know. An interesting question, but something I won't lose any sleep over.

As far as spiritual experiences, visions, etc. being completely subjective, I am not so sure. When Moroni showed the plates to the witnesses they all seemed to have experienced the same thing. There were no wildly differing versions by the different witnesses.

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

Honestly, I think Joseph Smith experienced some kind of mystical experience during his early years.   He may have had multiple experiences like this during his life.  I know many people who've had spiritual experiences in their lifetime, and I don't know of any way to quantify what those experiences are in any kind of objective sense.  They are subjective experiences.

I've also read accounts of people who've experienced alien abductions, demonic possessions, experiences with ghosts and or beings from another world.  Until I see credible evidence to support that something objectively measurable can be recorded and evaluated, the only logical conclusion for me to make about all these claims is that they are purely psychological phenomena.   

There hasn't been one shred of credible evidence to support any of these claims as being something more than psychological and subjective experience.  

All that said, the experiences people have are very real and powerful for the individuals who experience them, and I try to be respectful of the people that make these claims on an individual basis. 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

The only answer I have is that I don't know. I suspect that Christ or an angel could appear to one person in the flesh in the midst of a crowd and only the person selected to receive the vision see them. But I don't know. The Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph in his room among several of his sleeping brothers three times, filling the room with light and conversed with Joseph at length without awakening those brothers. Was Moroni physically there? I suspect that he was, but I don't know. An interesting question, but something I won't lose any sleep over.

As far as spiritual experiences, visions, etc. being completely subjective, I am not so sure. When Moroni showed the plates to the witnesses they all seemed to have experienced the same thing. There were no wildly differing versions by the different witnesses.

Glenn

I agree that ultimately it doesn't really matter if there was a physical visitation or some kind of spiritual vision/dream-like event. The only reason it IS a big deal is because the church seems to make it one by redefining the vague term "vision" as a "visitation". I'm not sure why it would be important for it to be a visitation versus vision? What is gained by it being a visitation? There wasn't any kind of physical interaction. Joseph didn't touch God or Jesus. He saw and heard them. Yet because it was a "visitation" there seems to be greater import given to it and bigger claims regarding the corporeal nature of God. The community of Christ has famously moved away from the "visitation" description in favor of a "spiritual experience". Over the years I've heard many members use this as evidence that Community of Christ lost it's way, yet their description of a "spiritual experience" seems reasonable and removes the need to even discuss whether or not it was a vision or a visitation...because it doesn't really matter

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Honestly, I think Joseph Smith experienced some kind of mystical experience during his early years.   He may have had multiple experiences like this during his life.  I know many people who've had spiritual experiences in their lifetime, and I don't know of any way to quantify what those experiences are in any kind of objective sense.  They are subjective experiences.

I've also read accounts of people who've experienced alien abductions, demonic possessions, experiences with ghosts and or beings from another world.  Until I see credible evidence to support that something objectively measurable can be recorded and evaluated, the only logical conclusion for me to make about all these claims is that they are purely psychological phenomena.   

There hasn't been one shred of credible evidence to support any of these claims as being something more than psychological and subjective experience.  

All that said, the experiences people have are very real and powerful for the individuals who experience them, and I try to be respectful of the people that make these claims on an individual basis. 

Dude. There's tons of physical evidence. Haven't you seen the Conjuring movies, or the Exorcist?  

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't attribute them to the supernatural. Visions are a natural part of the human experience. A sizeable percentage of the population experiences them. Whether there is anything external to the mind going on in any particular vision is unknowable. Personally I don't think God literally sends communications to anyone, but that doesn't mean people don't really experience visions.

I agree with you in part.  I wouldn't say that its unknowable to determine if anything external is being communicated from some other intelligence to a human mind.  Instead I would say that as of today, we don't have any empirical evidence to support the claim that something external is being communicated.  But I do think it should be knowable, if there is something happening there should be a way for humans to at some point observe what is happening and the mechanics for how its happening.  According to the cosmology of Mormonism, God works through natural means, but just has a greater understanding than us.  

I guess if I were taking a faithful believer's approach, I would say that God is hiding the mechanics of how these communications occur, so that he can keep the test of mortality fair for everyone. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

That event was prior to Jesus’ mortal life and resurrection, so no, he was not physically present as he had not yet received a physical body.

So spirits don't have a physical presence? How then are they visible?

[hope_for_things]

43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Does anybody standing 10 feet behind me see what I can see?

No, because I am in the way.

Do you see the same colors I do and notice the same things? Do you feel what I feel and interpret what we see the same way?

If only I see something you do not see, does that make it "unreal"?  Who's perceptions determine reality?

The question is not well thought out

While this is strictly true in a 100% objective accuracy sense, everyone will have a slightly different interpretation of events that occur, there is a level of agreement that typically can be arrived at when people are queried about group experiences.  Especially if the witnesses are close to the action and interviewed quickly after the experience before they have a chance to discuss the experience with others.  

Accuracy declines as distance increases between the observer and the action as well as when the length of time between the event and the accounting of the even by the witness is recorded. 

But that doesn't mean all perceptions are equally removed from "reality".  Some are more accurate representations than others in an objective sense.  

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Dude. There's tons of physical evidence. Haven't you seen the Conjuring movies, or the Exorcist?  

Good point, on Hallows Eve I'm blaspheming.  Its going to be a rough night tonight!  

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that ultimately it doesn't really matter if there was a physical visitation or some kind of spiritual vision/dream-like event. The only reason it IS a big deal is because the church seems to make it one by redefining the vague term "vision" as a "visitation". I'm not sure why it would be important for it to be a visitation versus vision? What is gained by it being a visitation? There wasn't any kind of physical interaction. Joseph didn't touch God or Jesus. He saw and heard them. Yet because it was a "visitation" there seems to be greater import given to it and bigger claims regarding the corporeal nature of God. The community of Christ has famously moved away from the "visitation" description in favor of a "spiritual experience". Over the years I've heard many members use this as evidence that Community of Christ lost it's way, yet their description of a "spiritual experience" seems reasonable and removes the need to even discuss whether or not it was a vision or a visitation...because it doesn't really matter

Hmm...  I think it does matter, at least in this sense.   If God does exist as an actual being, and if humans do continue to live after they die and these humans have some sense of physical form and actually can visit living humans to give them special authority and keys in the way that Joseph Smith claims, then I think it would matter.  Isn't the church making a very bold claim with respect to all of this history.  They are claiming something that isn't just subjective and mystical is happening.  They are claiming a transaction occurred and that this transaction grants special powers to the leaders of the church.  Its a pretty bold claim if you think about it.  

To give another analogy.  What if a group of UFO believers were claiming that aliens visited them and gave them futuristic technology that is far more advanced than anything earthlings are able to comprehend.  And this UFO group is using this technology to communicate with other worlds and even travel to distant planets.  If this was real I think it would matter a great deal.  

What do you think?