Nature of Joseph Smith's First Vision

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

I refer you back to my earlier comment:

"7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
            8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter." D&C 131:7-8

Physical beings and spiritual beings consist of matter.  I accept the scripture that clarifies that spirit beings are of a more refined matter than physical beings.  How do you understand the difference between spiritual and physical beings? Do the scriptures help your understanding? If so, please provide your reference.  Thanks.

I don't have a reference for a scripture that improves my understanding.  I accept that spiritual beings consist of some type of matter.

My question is do you believe that the Father and Son appeared in the sacred grove as spiritual beings or as physical beings?

[pogi]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't have a reference for a scripture that improves my understanding.  I accept that spiritual beings consist of some type of matter.

My question is do you believe that the Father and Son appeared in the sacred grove as spiritual beings or as physical beings?

I think that is a false dichotomy.  I don't think that they appeared "in the garden" as physical or spiritual beings.  I think they appeared in Joseph's mind as a vision while he was unconscious on the ground.  If I have a dream of God inspired by God, am I actually seeing his spiritual or physical being?  I would say no. My understanding after studying the accounts is that it was a revelation/vision that was impression on Joseph's mind.   

Edited December 26, 2018 by pogi

[Meerkat]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't have a reference for a scripture that improves my understanding.  I accept that spiritual beings consist of some type of matter.

My question is do you believe that the Father and Son appeared in the sacred grove as spiritual beings or as physical beings?

As clear as I can explain my belief, which I believe is also supported by Doctrine and Covenants 131:7-8, a spiritual being is also a physical being of refined elements. 

I believe it was a physical appearance because Joseph Smith said "Just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.
                17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air."

He didn't say "I dreamed." That's why I believe it was a physical appearance.  I understand it could have been a vision, as could have Moroni because a conduit opened up in the ceiling without damaging the roof.  My belief is that it was all refined matter that actually did appear.  I don't think such a belief has any bearing on my salvation.

Edited December 27, 2018 by Meerkat

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

He didn't say "I dreamed." That's why I believe it was a physical appearance.

Rhetorically at the time there was what were called "spiritual eyes" and there's an argument Joseph was part of that cultural tradition. In that case the question is whether it was a physical appearance like a normal human being or spiritual eyes which was seeing something more metaphorically. i.e. like a day dream

This matters a great deal not just because of the First Vision but also because of the witnesses for the Book of Mormon. Vogel and a few others have argued that the witnesses didn't see the physical plates but just spiritual plates with this inner visions. I think they saw the real plates, but again one has to deal with the rhetoric of the era so it's not as clear cut as it might appear at first glance. A few of the witnesses tried to distinguish the vision from such spiritual eyes, but often in later accounts. (Sorry - references not handy. It's Christmas.)

Edited December 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Meerkat said:

As clear as I can explain my belief, which I believe is also supported by Doctrine and Covenants 131:7-8, a spiritual being is also a physical being of refined elements. 

I believe it was a physical appearance because Joseph Smith said "Just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.
                17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air."

He didn't say "I dreamed." That's why I believe it was a physical appearance.  I understand it could have been a vision, as could have Moroni because a conduit opened up in the ceiling without damaging the roof.  My belief is that it was all refined matter that actually did appear.  I don't think such a belief has any bearing on my salvation.

“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.” (JS-H 1: 25)

It is interesting to me that here (and likewise as he describes Paul’s experience in the preceding verse – “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 …the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had …and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him...”) Joseph equates a vision with reality, associating and even integrating it with at least two physical senses, one spiritual sense (glory--the brighter counterpart to the "marvelous power as [he] had never before felt in any being"), and knowledge. He also mentions an "actual being from the unseen world."

Would a person standing 10 feet away have the same experience? I think it depends on the person. I can easily envision an event being both visionary and actual at the same time.

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by CV75

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, Meerkat said:

I refer you back to my earlier comment:

"7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
            8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter." D&C 131:7-8

Physical beings and spiritual beings consist of matter.  I accept the scripture that clarifies that spirit beings are of a more refined matter than physical beings.  How do you understand the difference between spiritual and physical beings? Do the scriptures help your understanding? If so, please provide your reference.  Thanks.

It's not entirely clear what D&C 131 means. Made worse by the fact it's actually just taken from pretty fragmentary notes by William Clayton. There's a lot going on there.

On the one hand it seems very, very similar to folk traditions of spirits. That is they are gaseous like mist. You still see this in popular treatment of ghosts. So it's not that they aren't material anymore than a cloud isn't material. They're just fine. In that sense spirits are just fine in that they aren't hard to touch. There's nothing special about that. It's more akin to water vapor (which is invisible) and then the condensation of water vapor into tiny droplets such as in a cloud or in the steam coming off a boiling kettle. 

The other possibility is that Joseph was reading about Tertullian at the time. There are strong indications that some of Orson Pratt's views come from Tertullian, although nothing definitive. Tertullian was a Stoic. The Stoic view of spirts was that they were interpenetrating fluids. While we tend to think in terms of atoms, the Stoics thought in terms of fluids. (As opposed to the Epicurians from whom we got atomic theory) In Stoicism the breath of life is a mixture of the elements air and fire - both as fluids. This spirit organizes both the individual as well as the universe. A human spirit is actually a fragment of the soul of God. Tertullian used this to explain the Trinity. Orson Pratt's view of God and the universe is largely the same as Tertullian's (and probably largely lifted from him) except that he makes the fluids as made up of atoms. 

In the Stoic reading we have Joseph and his associates starting to break with a more platonic conception of God and spirits towards this more materialist model. It's worth noting that the prior year's "Try the Spirits" seems to already be moving in a Stoic direction. (Although this may be ghost written -- possibly by Phelps)

Quote

In tracing the thing to the foundation, and looking at it philosophically, we shall find a very material difference between the body and the spirit; the body is supposed to be organized matter, and the spirit, by many, is thought to be immaterial, without substance. With this latter statement we should beg leave to differ, and state that spirit is a substance; that it is material, but that it is more pure, elastic and refined matter than the body; that it existed before the body, can exist in the body; and will exist separate from the body, when the body will be mouldering in the dust; and will in the resurrection, be again united with it. 

The final issue is the "purer eyes" part. That gets us both into the 19th century tradition of spiritual eyes which often was described as pure eyes - particularly in the Calvinist tradition.  "...whosoever hath a pure heart, he doth also know God with the pure eyes of his mind, so often as he doth show himself. Neither can Satan otherwise delude us, save only when, through the wickedness of our heart, our judgment is corrupt and our eyes blinded, or at least bleared through our own slothfulness." (Commentary on Acts 2:22-24)

This of course goes back to Augustine. "For that is a pure heart which is a single heart: and just as this light cannot be seen except with pure eyes; so neither is God seen, unless that is pure by which He can be seen." Augustine is talking Platonism though and in particular a platonic light very similar to D&C 93. So we may be talking about a kind of inner site of things unseen that's been translated from a platonic context into a materialist or perhaps Stoic one.

An other possibility is a quasi-scientific one in which we're simply talking about something like dark matter that weakly interacts with regular matter. Presumably some sense that does interact would be necessary to see such entities. (Thus far science isn't sure what dark matter is) An other possibility is that there's an other dimension or level of reality which is the spirit world. That is if our eyes were opened (made pure) we'd see that we're surrounded by spirits. In this view the spirit world is literally here all around us.

Edited December 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

I think that is a false dichotomy.  I don't think that they appeared "in the garden" as physical or spiritual beings.  I think they appeared in Joseph's mind as a vision while he was unconscious on the ground.  If I have a dream of God inspired by God, am I actually seeing his spiritual or physical being?  I would say no. My understanding after studying the accounts is that it was a revelation/vision that was impression on Joseph's mind.   

I wasn’t intending to setup a false dichotomy... just attempting to understand Meerkat’s answer.

But, I appreciate your answer to the OP question. I tend to believe that way as well... that it was a vision in his mind. 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Meerkat said:

As clear as I can explain my belief, which I believe is also supported by Doctrine and Covenants 131:7-8, a spiritual being is also a physical being of refined elements. 

I believe it was a physical appearance because Joseph Smith said "Just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.
                17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air."

He didn't say "I dreamed." That's why I believe it was a physical appearance.  I understand it could have been a vision, as could have Moroni because a conduit opened up in the ceiling without damaging the roof.  My belief is that it was all refined matter that actually did appear.  I don't think such a belief has any bearing on my salvation.

He didn’t use the word “dream” but Joseph did refer to it as a vision. 

While I agree with you that our exact belief/understanding of the nature of the First Vision won’t have any bearing on our salvation, I’m still curious about your “refined matter” comments.

Do you believe that the Father and the Son have resurrected/perfected physical bodies?

Are their physical bodies made of refined matter?

[Meerkat]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

An other possibility is a quasi-scientific one in which we're simply talking about something like dark matter that weakly interacts with regular matter. Presumably some sense that does interact would be necessary to see such entities. (Thus far science isn't sure what dark matter is) An other possibility is that there's an other dimension or level of reality which is the spirit world. That is if our eyes were opened (made pure) we'd see that we're surrounded by spirits. In this view the spirit world is literally here all around us.

You may be right.  I also believe the spirit world, with regard to ancestors, is around us.  That is a pleasant thought to me.

Edited December 27, 2018 by Meerkat

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Meerkat said:

You may be right.  I also believe the spirit world, with regard to ancestors, is around us.  That is a pleasant thought to me.

In order to see God, our mortal system must be quickened. I understand this to mean that, when we are quickened, both our spiritual and physical senses operate outside the telestial realm and this constitutes, both literally and relatively a vision (interacting spiritually and physically with people and things outside the norm of telesial life), but terrestrial and celestial people and things are still quite physical. Anyone seeing what Joseph saw would have to be likewise quickened. 

The trained eye can often see actual things very clearly that others cannot see even thought hey are right in front of them. These experts are not having a vision, but they do have enhanced vision. This enhanced vision is more than a function of their power of sight, but of many other brain and life processes going on, and which have been going on for some time. Once pointed out, the less trained eye will say something like, "My eyes were opened," or given vision, which is akin to having a vision.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Rhetorically at the time there was what were called "spiritual eyes" and there's an argument Joseph was part of that cultural tradition. In that case the question is whether it was a physical appearance like a normal human being or spiritual eyes which was seeing something more metaphorically. i.e. like a day dream

This matters a great deal not just because of the First Vision but also because of the witnesses for the Book of Mormon. Vogel and a few others have argued that the witnesses didn't see the physical plates but just spiritual plates with this inner visions. I think they saw the real plates, but again one has to deal with the rhetoric of the era so it's not as clear cut as it might appear at first glance. A few of the witnesses tried to distinguish the vision from such spiritual eyes, but often in later accounts. (Sorry - references not handy. It's Christmas.)

Vogel uses this false dichotomy yet again to confuse people with sophistry

Science vs spirit.

Sigh. 

Lets just argue about something productive like Angels and pinheads.

Actually this alleged problem was really about the same issue- whether or not Angels take up physical space

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

17 hours ago, Meerkat said:

I believe it was a physical appearance because Joseph Smith said "Just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.
                17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air."

He didn't say "I dreamed." That's why I believe it was a physical appearance.  I understand it could have been a vision, as could have Moroni because a conduit opened up in the ceiling without damaging the roof.  My belief is that it was all refined matter that actually did appear.  I don't think such a belief has any bearing on my salvation.

Not to argue with you, but to share another possible interpretation of these events - it is true that he didn't say "I dreamed" but he also didn't say "God visited me"; it was never termed a "visitation", but rather he said, "I had seen a vision".  It just seems like unusual language to use for an actual physical visitation of another person.  One certainly wouldn't say "I had seen a vision of my friend in the woods", if one actually physically saw his friend in the woods.  

He did say "I saw two personages...", but that really could go either way as both a visitation and a vision are both acts of seeing (but in different ways), so we have to take it in context of the rest of the narrative.  But first, lets address how the word "vision" is used in scripture.  I think a good parallel example to Josephs experience is Peter's vision. 

Here is Peter's account:

Quote

 

9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

Acts 10

 

Now compare this with Joseph's accounts:

Quote

 

1832
while in <the> attitude of calling upon the Lord  [parallel to Peter praying]<in the 16th year of my age> a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me [Peter also saw the heavens open] and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me [God also spoke to Peter]

1835
and I saw many angels in this vision [Peter saw many beasts - it wasn't just the Father and Son in vision for Joseph]

1838
I saw a pillar <of> light exactly over my head above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually [the vision "descended on Peter as well] until it fell upon me...
When I came to myself again I found myself lying on <my> back looking up into Heaven [this suggests he was in a trance or dream-like state like Peter]

I asked the personages who stood above me in the light [Peter also spoke to God in vision]

1842
call upon the Lord, while fervently engaged in supplication my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded [again, suggesting a trance-like state, unaware of his surroundings like Peter], and I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision...[they both call it "a vision"]

 

In both cases, each individual was awake, alert, and praying to God when the vision dawned on them.  It also appears clear that in both cases they were in a trance-like state as their awareness of the natural world around them is replaced with a dream-like vision, and Joseph actually used the words "when I came to myself again" which says a lot.  He then says "I found myself lying on my back..,"  That is also telling.  This is convincing evidence that he was in a dream-like or trance-like state if he was not even aware of his own surroundings or that he was lying on the ground.  This is corroborated in two different accounts (including one from the official version) so that is strong corroborating evidence that he was not aware of his actual physical surroundings in vision, but that his "mind was taken away" in vision. They both saw the heaven's open with the vision descending down upon them.  An God actual spoke to both of them in vision and revealed new information, and both Peter and Joseph were able communicate back to God - in other words, there was a two-way conversation in both cases.  I also find the the 1835 account telling where Joseph states that "I say many angels in this vision".  That, to me, does not sound like an actual visitation of many angels to the grove of trees.  Likewise, Peter saw many beasts in his vision, but they were not actual visitations of beasts. 

Also consider Lehi vision.  Why should we suppose that Joseph's use of the word "vision" is different? 

Anyways, just some things to ponder on. 

Edited December 27, 2018 by pogi

[CV75]

21 hours ago, pogi said:

Not to argue with you, but to share another possible interpretation of these events - it is true that he didn't say "I dreamed" but he also didn't say "God visited me"; it was never termed a "visitation", but rather he said, "I had seen a vision".  It just seems like unusual language to use for an actual physical visitation of another person.  One certainly wouldn't say "I had seen a vision of my friend in the woods", if one actually physically saw his friend in the woods.  

He did say "I saw two personages...", but that really could go either way as both a visitation and a vision are both acts of seeing (but in different ways), so we have to take it in context of the rest of the narrative.  But first, lets address how the word "vision" is used in scripture.  I think a good parallel example to Josephs experience is Peter's vision. 

Here is Peter's account:

Now compare this with Joseph's accounts:

In both cases, each individual was awake, alert, and praying to God when the vision dawned on them.  It also appears clear that in both cases they were in a trance-like state as their awareness of the natural world around them is replaced with a dream-like vision, and Joseph actually used the words "when I came to myself again" which says a lot.  He then says "I found myself lying on my back..,"  That is also telling.  This is convincing evidence that he was in a dream-like or trance-like state if he was not even aware of his own surroundings or that he was lying on the ground.  This is corroborated in two different accounts (including one from the official version) so that is strong corroborating evidence that he was not aware of his actual physical surroundings in vision, but that his "mind was taken away" in vision. They both saw the heaven's open with the vision descending down upon them.  An God actual spoke to both of them in vision and revealed new information, and both Peter and Joseph were able communicate back to God - in other words, there was a two-way conversation in both cases.  I also find the the 1835 account telling where Joseph states that "I say many angels in this vision".  That, to me, does not sound like an actual visitation of many angels to the grove of trees.  Likewise, Peter saw many beasts in his vision, but they were not actual visitations of beasts. 

Also consider Lehi vision.  Why should we suppose that Joseph's use of the word "vision" is different? 

Anyways, just some things to ponder on. 

Another thing to consider, perhaps:

It is more accurate for someone seeing an object via electron microscopy to say he had seen a vision, or that his perception was quickened, than to say he had seen the actual object with his natural eyes, especially since light is not even used. Any assisted perception is not direct perception. Similarly, psychotropic drugs facilitate emotional. intellectual and mental perception or "vision." So, an “actual vision” does easily translate into seeing and hearing “two Personages” who “did in reality speak to [him].” A state of having a vision is similar to paying attention and focusing, and the more assistance received in doing that, the more removed one is from his original, "natural" state.

After using the electron microscope, we come to ourselves again and see the world in a more accustomed wavelength. When I first saw an electron microscope image, I too was so impressed I could say I was (figuratively) in a trance-like state.

Edited December 28, 2018 by CV75

[clarkgoble]

On 12/27/2018 at 10:02 AM, pogi said:

It also appears clear that in both cases they were in a trance-like state as their awareness of the natural world around them is replaced with a dream-like vision, and Joseph actually used the words "when I came to myself again" which says a lot.

Hard to say much here unless you unpack what you mean by "trance-like."

[pogi]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Hard to say much here unless you unpack what you mean by "trance-like."

It is the word used in acts 10 to describe Peter's state of being during the vision. It is also used in other passages to describe a visionary experience in Acts 22:17; Numbers 24:4, 16; Daniel 8:18; 10:9.  I don't know if it is possible to know exactly what is meant in that passage, but by comparing the narrative of each of their experiences, it appears they were both in a similar state of being. 

It was a visual/auditory dream-like experience where they seem to be awake and alert in the vision (like a lucid dream almost) however they are not awake and alert to their physical surroundings.  

Here are some definitions of "trance" from a couple different bible dictionaries that seem to capture both Joseph's and Peter's experiences:

Quote

Easton's Bible Dictionary

(Gr. ekstasis, from which the word "ecstasy" is derived) denotes the state of one who is "out of himself." Such were the trances of Peter and Paul, Acts 10:10; 11:5; 22:17, ecstasies, "a preternatural, absorbed state of mind preparing for the reception of the vision", (Comp. 2 Corinthians 12:1-4). In Mark 5:42 and Luke 5:26 the Greek word is rendered "astonishment," "amazement" (Comp. Mark 16:8; Acts 3:10).

Quote

 

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
TRANCE

trans (ekstasis): The condition expressed by this word is a mental state in which the person affected is partially or wholly unconscious of objective sensations, but intensely alive to subjective impressions which, however they may be originated, are felt as if they were raevelations from without. They may take the form of visual or auditory sensations or else of impressions of taste, smell, heat or cold, and sometimes these conditions precede epileptic seizures constituting what is named the aura epileptica. The word occurs 5 times in the King James Version, twice in the story of Balaam (Numbers 24:4, 16), twice in the history of Peter (Acts 10:10; Acts 11:5), and once in that of Paul (Acts 22:17). In the Balaam story the word is of the nature of a gloss rather than a translation, as the Hebrew naphal means simply "to fall down" and is translated accordingly in the Revised Version (British and American). Here Septuagint has en hupno, "in sleep" (see SLEEP, DEEP). In Peter's vision on the housetop at Joppa he saw the sail (othone) descending from heaven, and heard a voice. Paul's trance was also one of both sight and sound. The vision on the Damascus road (Acts 9:3-9) and that recorded in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 were also cases of trance, as were the prophetic ecstasies of Saul, Daniel and Elisha, and the condition of John in which he says that he was "in the Spirit" (Revelation 1:10).

The border line between trance and dream is indefinite: the former occurs while one is, in a sense, awake; the latter takes place in the passage from sleep to wakefulness. The dream as well as the vision were supposed of old to be channels of revelation (Job 33:15). In Shakespearean English, "trance" means a dream (Taming of the Shrew, I, i, 182), or simply a bewilderment (Lucrece, 1595).

https://biblehub.com/topical/t/trance.htm

 

Interesting that it is described as a state of one being "out of himself".  Joseph used almost identical language when he said, "when I came to myself again...".  These definitions also describe becoming "unconscious of objects" surrounding them but "intensely alive to the subjective impressions".  That describes Joseph's experience exactly.  He again uses almost the exact same language when he said "my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded" .  One translation of the word simply means "to fall down" - interesting that Joseph found himself on his back after the vision.  Other definitions describe "raptures of joy" or "ecstasy" - interesting when we compare that to Joseph's experience, stating "it presently rested down upon me and filled me with joy unspeakable", a feeling he reports lasted for several days in one account.  These definitions of "trance" seem to align with Joseph's narrative quite well. 

Edited December 29, 2018 by pogi