Nature of Joseph Smith's First Vision

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

As you know I don't think private evidence is non-empirical. So that line of argument just doesn't work IMO.

I guess I didn't understand this point last time either.  I just don't understand how personal subjective experiences can be used as evidence and evaluated using the tools of scholarship.  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Certainly I agree one should look at contradictory evidence but I don't think it's as overwhelming as you clearly do. In particular I'm far from convinced that the purported anachronisms really are. And there's really not that many of even those if you are looking at content issues. The main ones are the nature of Satan, often taken to being too influenced by Milton, pre-Christian Christology (a messiah who saves from sin and death rather than just politically), pre-Christian mikvah for conversion, quotations of deutero (not trito interestingly) Isaiah, resurrection and a few others.

What about all of the protestant Christian theology around atonement and salvation that wasn't even part of the early 1st and 2nd century Christian message, let alone pre-exilic.  Pretty much every reference to Jesus is anachronistic in that sense.  Biblical scholars recognize that there aren't any explicit references to Jesus in the Hebrew Bible anyway, and even believing scholars recognize that at best you have symbolism and typology at work in the Messianic messages in the OT. 

The BoM has a detailed and specific understanding about Jesus that didn't exist during that time period anywhere in the world, and one that developed over many centuries of Christian theological evolution.  

 

[clarkgoble]

50 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I guess I didn't understand this point last time either.  I just don't understand how personal subjective experiences can be used as evidence and evaluated using the tools of scholarship. 

More or less I'm disagreeing with the idea that personal/private is inherently subjective. Right now I'm alone in my office but most of the statements I'd make about what's going on around me are objective not subjective. Of course part of that depends upon how you define objective and subjective. 

51 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What about all of the protestant Christian theology around atonement and salvation that wasn't even part of the early 1st and 2nd century Christian message, let alone pre-exilic.  Pretty much every reference to Jesus is anachronistic in that sense.

You'll have to flesh out more what you mean here. Outside of debates of whether the Book of Mormon has a purely penal theory of atonement I can't think of too much that is uniquely Protestant. And arguably some passages, like Mosiah 15 frequently misread as modalism, seem much more tied to Jewish mysticism. Perhaps some would argue post-exilic but even that's somewhat debatable. It seems to me that particularly in the small plates texts the atonement is primarily seen out of a typological reading of the Assyrian and prophesied Babylonian captivity in terms of both purity (sin) and death. So death is political captivity and sin is spiritual captivity taken along those political lines. That seems fairly unProtestant and arguably pretty unlike many strains of Roman era Christianity (although one could arguably see it in the apocalyptic tradition).

55 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Biblical scholars recognize that there aren't any explicit references to Jesus in the Hebrew Bible anyway, and even believing scholars recognize that at best you have symbolism and typology at work in the Messianic messages in the OT. 

Again not sure what you mean. In any case the explicit reference to Jesus in the Book of Mormon seems an unique vision of Nephi's. So we'd not expect it in the Hebrew Bible. The bigger point of contention is the notion of a Messiah. As I noted above what's most interesting in Nephi is how the political captivity and hope for a future political savior becomes typologically how they interpret death and sin. Now I don't want to deny there are elements of that in Protestantism, but it seems pretty unique.

So the real question is whether there was a concept of a political messiah to save Israel from Assyria or Babylon. If you have that then typologically I think the rest follows. Except the afore mentioned issue of penal atonement which I actually think is much more complex in the Book of Mormon than most take.

[Stargazer]

Getting to this late.

I voted "Something else".

This is because while a vision is a personal or private experience, in other words, someone standing ten feet behind Joseph wouldn't normally have seen or heard anything except Joseph's reactions.  HOWEVER, if it were the Lord's intent that that person standing there be a participant, he or she would have been included in the vision, in one sense or another.  Sidney Rigdon experienced at least one vision with Joseph Smith.  Paul's experience on the road to Damascus, as described by Luke in Acts 9:7, says that his traveling companions heard the voice, but didn't see anyone.  Later, when Luke actually quotes Paul in Acts 22:9, this comes out differently -- they saw the light but didn't hear a voice.  Regardless of the disagreement here, these people were permitted to participate in the vision, but not to the full extent.

So, I don't believe that there's an accidental "spillover" available for divine visions.  By divine intent, sure, but not accidentally.

 

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Getting to this late.

I voted "Something else".

This is because while a vision is a personal or private experience, in other words, someone standing ten feet behind Joseph wouldn't normally have seen or heard anything except Joseph's reactions.  HOWEVER, if it were the Lord's intent that that person standing there be a participant, he or she would have been included in the vision, in one sense or another.  Sidney Rigdon experienced at least one vision with Joseph Smith.  Paul's experience on the road to Damascus, as described by Luke in Acts 9:7, says that his traveling companions heard the voice, but didn't see anyone.  Later, when Luke actually quotes Paul in Acts 22:9, this comes out differently -- they saw the light but didn't hear a voice.  Regardless of the disagreement here, these people were permitted to participate in the vision, but not to the full extent.

So, I don't believe that there's an accidental "spillover" available for divine visions.  By divine intent, sure, but not accidentally.

 

Thanks for responding!

So you see it as a divine vision in which someone standing behind Joseph would have had to have been permitted by the Lord to have seen the vision as well?

As opposed to the Father and Son being physically present in which case someone standing behind Joseph would have needed to have had their vision blocked somehow by the Lord to prevent them seeing if it were not the Lord’s intent. 

Edited December 3, 2018 by rockpond

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

Thanks for responding!

So you see it as a divine vision in which someone standing behind Joseph would have had to have been permitted by the Lord to have seen the vision as well?

Yes. I'm pretty sure God can control the "guest list", as it were, for a vision.

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

As opposed to the Father and Son being physically present in which case someone standing behind Joseph would have needed to have had their vision blocked somehow by the Lord to prevent them seeing if it were not the Lord’s intent. 

I don't claim to know whether they were physically present as well as spiritually, or "only" spiritually so.  They could be both.  However, my opinion is that visions and personal revelations typically occur within the spirit of the person receiving them, and not within their physical corporality.  Note I say "typically."  I assume that God can do it any way He finds most appropriate.  I wouldn't try to defend this as the only "true" interpretation.  My evidence for it is somewhat thin, very subjective, and quite personal.  

I present to you the report of Christ's visit to the Nephites after His resurrection.  Everyone heard the voice proclaiming him.  What we don't know is whether the voice was "heard" not by their ears, but their spirits, or sent directly to their auditory circuits in their brains without passing through their ears.  So, whatever animals round about might not have heard a thing, or seen anything for that matter.  Like an email sent out to a list of individuals, no one else got it.  Or perhaps the voice was auditory AND spiritual.  

So I have an opinion about how visions and revelations are delivered, but I allow that I may be wrong.  

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yes. I'm pretty sure God can control the "guest list", as it were, for a vision.

I don't claim to know whether they were physically present as well as spiritually, or "only" spiritually so.  They could be both.  However, my opinion is that visions and personal revelations typically occur within the spirit of the person receiving them, and not within their physical corporality.  Note I say "typically."  I assume that God can do it any way He finds most appropriate.  I wouldn't try to defend this as the only "true" interpretation.  My evidence for it is somewhat thin, very subjective, and quite personal.  

I present to you the report of Christ's visit to the Nephites after His resurrection.  Everyone heard the voice proclaiming him.  What we don't know is whether the voice was "heard" not by their ears, but their spirits, or sent directly to their auditory circuits in their brains without passing through their ears.  So, whatever animals round about might not have heard a thing, or seen anything for that matter.  Like an email sent out to a list of individuals, no one else got it.  Or perhaps the voice was auditory AND spiritual.  

So I have an opinion about how visions and revelations are delivered, but I allow that I may be wrong.  

All good points.  If we take the 3 Nephi example one step further, Christ then visited the Nephites. I wonder if everyone here would agree that Jesus' visit to the Nephites was corporeal... that he was physically present with them?

I feel like in the church we do speak of 3 Nephi 11+ as a physical "visit" whereas with Joseph's First Vision we bounce between terminology:  vision, visitation, visit.  I guess we just don't have a lot of clarity on the nature of the First Vision.

[Stargazer]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

All good points.  If we take the 3 Nephi example one step further, Christ then visited the Nephites. I wonder if everyone here would agree that Jesus' visit to the Nephites was corporeal... that he was physically present with them?

I'm surprised to discover that I had forgotten something about that visit.

The Lord did, in fact, interact in physical ways with the people.  

3 Nephi 11:14 - "Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world."

And that the people did as he invited is also recorded.  

Now, was He physically present?  The words of the scripture say so, but did He have to be physically present for the people to feel Him physically?  I can't say.  For all I know we live in The Matrix, but one built by God, and we only think we're in physicality.  But I trust that God is not deceiving us: He says we're here physicality, so we must be. 

Well, in any case my own personal experiences are quite real to me, regardless.

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I feel like in the church we do speak of 3 Nephi 11+ as a physical "visit" whereas with Joseph's First Vision we bounce between terminology:  vision, visitation, visit.  I guess we just don't have a lot of clarity on the nature of the First Vision.

That much is certain.

[Lucian Hodoboc]

No to sound skeptical, but how can we be sure that it wasn't a hallucination? Did he bring any proof other than his writings?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I'm surprised to discover that I had forgotten something about that visit.

The Lord did, in fact, interact in physical ways with the people.  

3 Nephi 11:14 - "Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world."

And that the people did as he invited is also recorded.  

Now, was He physically present?  The words of the scripture say so, but did He have to be physically present for the people to feel Him physically?  I can't say.  For all I know we live in The Matrix, but one built by God, and we only think we're in physicality.  But I trust that God is not deceiving us: He says we're here physicality, so we must be. 

Well, in any case my own personal experiences are quite real to me, regardless.

That much is certain.

For you, reality is what you believe it is.

Even if you fell off a cliff you would have your own perception of the experience of falling off a cliff. if you were committing suicide perhaps you would be joyful at the final chance to leave this earth. If it was an accidental, you most certainly would be fearful.

If reality was so clear to everyone we would not have differences of opinion or differences in perception or difference in preferences.

We would all want to marry the same woman.

We would all have the same occupation.

We would all be in the same church or no church.

We would all vote alike or see voting as futile.

There would be no reason to disagree with each other.

I can think of no better evidence that reality is what we think it is than that.

in a war we will defend our beliefs to the death while the other guys are doing the same for different beliefs.

Think of the middle East. That is a perfect example. Reality is not the same for everyone.

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, Lucian Hodoboc said:

No to sound skeptical, but how can we be sure that it wasn't a hallucination? Did he bring any proof other than his writings?

I'm not sure Joseph ever even claimed that this experience was anything more than a vision.  If anyone has a historical reference that he thought of it as something more than a visionary experience, I would be interested in seeing it.  

Its primarily later tradition that built this experience up into something more than a visionary experience.  

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure Joseph ever even claimed that this experience was anything more than a vision.  If anyone has a historical reference that he thought of it as something more than a visionary experience, I would be interested in seeing it.  

Its primarily later tradition that built this experience up into something more than a visionary experience.  

I don't think that's true. A few were mentioned early on such as the touching of the eyes for him to see the father and son rather than just hear them. But they're third hand. If you mean unambiguous direct statements by Joseph, then it's not clear. Once you allow reports of what he told others then I think the evidence becomes stronger for a physical rather than purely mental vision ala D&C 76. But even there given the nature of third hand reports one can't say for sure.

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's true. A few were mentioned early on such as the touching of the eyes for him to see the father and son rather than just hear them. But they're third hand. If you mean unambiguous direct statements by Joseph, then it's not clear. Once you allow reports of what he told others then I think the evidence becomes stronger for a physical rather than purely mental vision ala D&C 76. But even there given the nature of third hand reports one can't say for sure.

The late third hand recollections are exactly what I mean by later tradition.  Joseph had ample opportunity to publicly craft the vision using whatever terms he felt expressed the experience best in his eyes.  Even with a greatly enhanced version in the 1838/39 account, it still doesn’t use terminology that would lead a person to believe the vision was something explicitly tangible in nature.  

Only later tradition reimagined it as something different.  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's true. A few were mentioned early on such as the touching of the eyes for him to see the father and son rather than just hear them. But they're third hand. If you mean unambiguous direct statements by Joseph, then it's not clear. Once you allow reports of what he told others then I think the evidence becomes stronger for a physical rather than purely mental vision ala D&C 76. But even there given the nature of third hand reports one can't say for sure.

 

So I guess that God can only fake seeing and not touching?

Why is a touch illusion "physical" while a sight illusion is not?

I don't see the distinction at all.   I mean perhaps Joseph smelled roses.  My grandmother had visions and she always smelled roses.   How is that different?

 

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So I guess that God can only fake seeing and not touching?

Why is a touch illusion "physical" while a sight illusion is not?

I don't see the distinction at all.   I mean perhaps Joseph smelled roses.  My grandmother had visions and she always smelled roses.   How is that different?

Typically when they were seeing something not there they had indicators they weren't there. Take D&C 76 for instance. However certainly in the early accounts before Joseph starts emphasizing handshakes to discern spirits the accounts are ambiguous. That's in place by 1839. It's worth noting that if Swedenborg is a context for all this (and it's hard to say how much Smith knew about Swedenborg's view of angels) that Swedenborg saw angels and materialized. "...the voices from the spirit-land that people desired were increasingly materialized and incarnated."

Now if you ask what he thought in the 1820's, then we don't really have much by way of data beyond what he talked of Moroni and then later John the Baptist. Clearly by 1832 though - the time of the first recorded first vision account. Indeed in the 1832 first vision account he also talks of Moroni saying, "being excedingly frightened I supposed it had been a dreem of Vision but when I considred I knew that it was not therefore I cried unto the Lord in the agony of my soul..." 

Now that's talking about Moroni but appears as an important context for the first vision a little earlier in the document. But certainly before around 1835 it's not entirely clear in his descriptions if these things are physical or not, although I think the 1832 account is telling. Those who think it really happened will say that the later materialist accounts describe these earlier accounts. Those who think it didn't really happened dismiss later understanding as transforming the original experiences.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So I guess that God can only fake seeing and not touching?

Why is a touch illusion "physical" while a sight illusion is not?

I don't see the distinction at all.   I mean perhaps Joseph smelled roses.  My grandmother had visions and she always smelled roses.   How is that different?

Why assume he was faking anything?

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Typically when they were seeing something not there they had indicators they weren't there. Take D&C 76 for instance. However certainly in the early accounts before Joseph starts emphasizing handshakes to discern spirits the accounts are ambiguous. That's in place by 1839. It's worth noting that if Swedenborg is a context for all this (and it's hard to say how much Smith knew about Swedenborg's view of angels) that Swedenborg saw angels and materialized. "...the voices from the spirit-land that people desired were increasingly materialized and incarnated."

Now if you ask what he thought in the 1820's, then we don't really have much by way of data beyond what he talked of Moroni and then later John the Baptist. Clearly by 1832 though - the time of the first recorded first vision account. Indeed in the 1832 first vision account he also talks of Moroni saying, "being excedingly frightened I supposed it had been a dreem of Vision but when I considred I knew that it was not therefore I cried unto the Lord in the agony of my soul..." 

Now that's talking about Moroni but appears as an important context for the first vision a little earlier in the document. But certainly before around 1835 it's not entirely clear in his descriptions if these things are physical or not, although I think the 1832 account is telling. Those who think it really happened will say that the later materialist accounts describe these earlier accounts. Those who think it didn't really happened dismiss later understanding as transforming the original experiences.

Why assume he was faking anything?

 

This is History with no answer to the question.

The point is whether or not part of the vision could include the sensation of feeling the eyes being touched as well as the sensation of seeing.

As always - our only access to what is "real" is through the senses.  I have no idea why this tautology is so hard to fathom.

"Faking" was a sarcastic way of pointing out the fallacy that because he felt a touch, then it was "real" and "physical" but if he only saw something, it must of been somehow less "real" and therefore "fake"

Can we answer the question instead of telling history?

Have you never had a dream in which someone touched you?  

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its primarily later tradition that built this experience up into something more than a visionary experience.  

"...more than a visionary experience"?  The OP actually seems to suggest that as a possibility -- with the option that if there had been an accidental witness he might have gotten a view of it.

The thing is, from the moment I heard about this vision, I imagined it as somewhat of a "live" experience.  In other words, the Father and the Son were physically present, although in glory, visible to Joseph's physical eyes.  Nobody told me that that was how it was.  It's more or less a natural assumption that one would make -- or at least I think it would be, because that's how it visualized to my mind.

Since then, however, while remaining open to the possibility that my initial imagined scenario was actually correct, I have come around to the notion of it having been entirely a spiritual experience, such that had anyone been accidentally present to witness the event they would only have seen Joseph reacting to what was being presented to him.

Like Paul said when he reported that a man he knew (probably himself) was caught up to the third heaven, he said "whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell".  He didn't know if he were there in his own body, or he was there only in spirit.  I don't think it matters, ultimately. 

Parenthetically, I'd worry if I were given an actual vision about something, since it would mean that I was about to be called to some difficult task.  Not that the Lord doesn't hand difficult tasks out without visions to go with them!

Edited December 4, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So I guess that God can only fake seeing and not touching?

I would not call a vision perceived only by the spirit "fake" seeing.  Or touching.

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why is a touch illusion "physical" while a sight illusion is not?

I don't see the distinction at all.   I mean perhaps Joseph smelled roses.  My grandmother had visions and she always smelled roses.   How is that different?

 

You mean she always smelled roses during the visions, or … ?   Perhaps you would not care to put it out in public, and if not, don't, but I'm curious what kind of visions did she have?

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Have you never had a dream in which someone touched you?  

I have.  It was as real as reality, too.  I remember the warmth and the pressure.  It was quite pleasant, and there was nothing about it that suggested anything other that corporeal reality. It was so real that it woke me up.

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

"...more than a visionary experience"?  The OP actually seems to suggest that as a possibility -- with the option that if there had been an accidental witness he might have gotten a view of it.

The thing is, from the moment I heard about this vision, I imagined it as somewhat of a "live" experience.  In other words, the Father and the Son were physically present, although in glory, visible to Joseph's physical eyes.  Nobody told me that that was how it was.  It's more or less a natural assumption that one would make -- or at least I think it would be, because that's how it visualized to my mind.

Since then, however, while remaining open to the possibility that my initial imagined scenario was actually correct, I have come around to the notion of it having been entirely a spiritual experience, such that had anyone been accidentally present to witness the event they would only have seen Joseph reacting to what was being presented to him.

Like Paul said when he reported that a man he knew (probably himself) was caught up to the third heaven, he said "whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell".  He didn't know if he were there in his own body, or he was there only in spirit.  I don't think it matters, ultimately. 

Parenthetically, I'd worry if I were given an actual vision about something, since it would mean that I was about to be called to some difficult task.  Not that the Lord doesn't hand difficult tasks out without visions to go with them!

In a society that isn't practiced in the ideas of visions and second sight, it makes complete sense that based on your culture and time period that you would make assumptions like this.  

But in Joseph's day, his views were informed by his cultural upbringing and he was steeped a different way of viewing things.  Think of all the years that he envisioned treasures under the earth that he could see with second sight.  Lucy Mack Smith recalled that he would describe the Nephites and their very dress in great detail.  Think about how Joseph and Sidney received D&C 76 as a joint revelation where they both were seeing and describing what they saw and then the other person said they saw the same.  

Joseph's world was a very different one than the world we've grown up in. 

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I have.  It was as real as reality, too.  I remember the warmth and the pressure.  It was quite pleasant, and there was nothing about it that suggested anything other that corporeal reality. It was so real that it woke me up.

It felt real subjectively, yes.  I get frustrated sometimes with these exchanges with MFB, because I think there is value in recognizing that a clear distinction exists between dreaming someone touches you, and someone actually touching you in the physical world.  Which seems obvious and not even necessary to point out, yet for some reason I feel compelled to point out this obvious distinction. 

I know he's not trying to push my buttons, and I'm grateful for MFB and all I've learned from our exchanges.  

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

It felt real subjectively, yes.  I get frustrated sometimes with these exchanges with MFB, because I think there is value in recognizing that a clear distinction exists between dreaming someone touches you, and someone actually touching you in the physical world.  Which seems obvious and not even necessary to point out, yet for some reason I feel compelled to point out this obvious distinction. 

I know he's not trying to push my buttons, and I'm grateful for MFB and all I've learned from our exchanges.  

Yes, there is a difference between dreaming of someone touching you and someone physically touching you... and that was the nature of my question as the OP.  I wasn’t trying to debate the reality of the First Vision (as some responders seemed to think) just the nature of the experience. 

 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, there is a difference between dreaming of someone touching you and someone physically touching you... and that was the nature of my question as the OP.  I wasn’t trying to debate the reality of the First Vision (as some responders seemed to think) just the nature of the experience. 

 

Well, I, at least, recognized that you were asking about the nature of it! 🙂 

I don't know if I want to get into it, because it's very esoteric, but here's what I might be going on:

Consider Special Relativity: "According to Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity, instantaneous action at a distance violates the relativistic upper limit on speed of propagation of information. If one of the interacting objects were to suddenly be displaced from its position, the other object would feel its influence instantaneously, meaning information had been transmitted faster than the speed of light." Einstein called this "spooky action at a distance" and didn't like it one little bit!

God is theoretically a long, long way away from the Earth.  Prayers to Him presumably must traverse a distance in excess of billions of light-years, as there is about 13.5 billion light-years between us and the edge of the visible universe, meaning that our prayers must traverse a distance potentially even further.  Certainly even further.  But God answers us (when he does) immediately, which requires that communication of information between us and God violates relativity.  You can say, God is omnipotent, but does omnipotence confer superphysicality (the ability to ignore the laws of physics)?  Maybe it does, but maybe it doesn't.  So how can God answer prayers if it doesn't?

Without getting into higher dimensions, how can thing conundrum be solved, especially how can it be solved using known physics?

The answer is quantum entanglement.

Your spirit resides with God, in his presence, an unguessable distance away from the Earth, and has been entangled with a particle embedded in your brain, either at conception or some time before your birth.  Everything that happens to your body, physically resident on Earth, is felt instantaneously with your spirit through the entanglement between you and your body.  So when you pray, your prayer is immediately presented to God who is in your spirit's immediate presence.  The answer is presented immediately to your spirit, and through your spirit to your body, via the entanglement.

Simple!

Or maybe not.  When you are thinking, is it your spirit that is thinking, or is it the brain in your body?  I argue that it is your spirit, but this is moderated by the entanglement, and the results of the thinking immediately imprint upon your brain.  So the record of the thought or prayer is recorded in both places.  What happens if you're in the middle of a nuclear explosion and your body is vaporized?  Are all those memories recorded in your brain  likewise vaporized?  Well, your brain is surely vaporized and made one with the blast, but everything is backed up, as it were, in your spirit.  So it's not lost -- and the particle that your spirit is entangled with? It is now freed to wander Earth as a disembodied association.  So there you (or, rather your entangled particle) are, still on Earth, but in the Spirit World, interacting with the rest of the entangled particles who were once part of a living body, but are no longer.

In this scenario, a vision need have no physicality at all, even if it feels like it does, since it could be something that is actually experienced by your spirit and only transmitted to your body by the entanglement.

This is why I was so intrigued by The Matrix films, since that was what was essentially going on, except in reverse.  

Or maybe I am completely wrong and none of this makes the least bit of sense.  

Edited December 4, 2018 by Stargazer

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Have you never had a dream in which someone touched you?  

Yes, but I could tell it was a dream. Dreaming of being touched and being touched aren't the same in terms of my experience.

Edited December 4, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Stargazer]

25 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You can say, God is omnipotent, but does omnipotence confer superphysicality (the ability to ignore the laws of physics)? 

Well, maybe...

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I would not call a vision perceived only by the spirit "fake" seeing.  Or touching.

You mean she always smelled roses during the visions, or … ?   Perhaps you would not care to put it out in public, and if not, don't, but I'm curious what kind of visions did she have?

1- No I agree but it seemed that someone was equating "real" with "physical" which somehow would be more "physical" if one touched the person perceived- therefore if it was only a being seen it could be a hallucination and therefore not "real".   My point is that it might just as well been a touch sensation "hallucination" - like perhaps mentally induced phantom pain, lucid dreaming etc.

My central point is always the same around here because it seems so hard to get across- that all we have of "reality" is sensation, and the difference between sense errors like seeing a mirage, and "reality" is in subsequent investigation.   A mirage, upon further investigation will produce no more water sensations.  But a vision of a being can only bear fruit in feelings of the heart, but that makes it no less "real"

2- Mary would speak to her, included was the smell of roses.  Her dead mother would also come for visits.  She had visions before members of the family died and would sometimes tell others but not the individual.   The rest is pretty private - I probably should not have brought it up.  She was an amazing woman- my great grandmother actually.  The women in the family in general seem to have a 6th sense about a lot of things.  But of course around here that is sexist talk so I won't go there.

Too bad we can no longer discuss the differences between men and women precisely when it seems no one understands the church's position on gender and spiritual issues.  We desperately need a theology of marriage but no, we cannot discuss it.

We just get to complain about the Proclamation but can't discuss it as a topic without World War III taking place.   Go figure.   The absurdity of political correctness!

Edited December 4, 2018 by mfbukowski