Seeing Christ with Physical Eyes

[Navidad]

I am not sure I have this right based on the comments about Christ appearing to people . . . The LDS perspective is that there are no prerequisites or pattern for those who see or hear Christ. Christ is fully human and fully divine - therefore He is fully human and divine - therefore He is fully Spirit and corporeal and as a side He has a human soul - mind, will, emotion as well. The LDS perspective is typically when He decides to physically reveal Himself to humanity, He does so by hiding or cloaking his corporeality which would cause Him to be only seen or heard by the intended person, not others in the area, room, or vicinity?  Therefore we could not expect there to be tangible evidence of His presence except to the intended person. The intended person then sees or hears Christ via his or her physical organs - eyes and ears - not via the ability of the mind (as different from the brain)? For example I can close my eyes and see my wife. I can sit here while she is still asleep and hear her voice in my mind. I am not using my physical ears and ears, but I can create a reality where she is "with me" as I type this.

Does Christ have to physically leave heaven (or whatever term you prefer to use  for the dwelling place of the Father) in order to be seen in a vision here on earth? I understand completely the concept that Christ "can." I am trying to sort through how it works when He "does." Assuming that He "does" from time to time. I guess I ask based on my belief that the mind is both connected to our physiology (brain for instance) and yet somehow separate from it. I find a discussion of theophanies and hierophanies to be fascinating. It is the perfect conjuncture of the physical, psychological, and spiritual/theological. In my adult life I have been an advocate for a tripartite view, that humans are soul, body, and spirit. I can't get my head around the idea that it is all body (neurons, brain, etc.) Beyond what has been offered so far, is there a body of LDS-originated literature on the subject of theophanies and hierophanies (visions and the like). I ask because the concept seems much more prominent, and dare I say uncommonly common in LDS practice than in that of other Christian faiths. Or is there scholarly literature in the LDS library on the tripartite, bipartite debate? Thanks so very much.

Edited August 24, 2022 by Navidad

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure I have this right based on the comments about Christ appearing to people . . . The LDS perspective is that there are no prerequisites or pattern for those who see or hear Christ. Christ is fully human and fully divine - therefore He is fully human and divine - therefore He is fully Spirit and corporeal and as a side He has a human soul - mind, will, emotion as well. Typically when He decides to physically reveal Himself to humanity, He does so by hiding or cloaking his corporeality which would cause Him to be only seen or heard by the intended person, not others in the area, room, or vicinity?  Therefore we could not expect there to be tangible evidence of His presence except to the intended person. The intended person then sees or hears Christ via his or her physical organs - eyes and ears - not via the ability of the mind (as different from the brain)? For example I can close my eyes and see my wife. I can sit here while she is still asleep and hear her voice in my mind. I am not using my physical ears and ears, but I can create a reality where she is "with me" as I type this.

Does Christ have to physically leave heaven (or whatever term you prefer to use  for the dwelling place of the Father) in order to be seen in a vision here on earth? I understand completely the concept that Christ "can." I am trying to sort through out it works when He "does." Assuming that He "does" from time to time. I guess I ask from my belief that the mind is both connected to our physiology (brain for instance) and yet somehow separate from it. I find a discussion of theophanies and hierophanies to be fascinating. It is the perfect conjuncture of the physical, psychological, and spiritual/theological. In my adult life I have been an advocate for a tripartite view, that humans are soul, body, and spirit. I can't get my head around the idea that it is all body (neurons, brain, etc.) Beyond what has been offered so far, is there a body of LDS-originated literature on the subject of theophanies and hierophanies (visions and the like). I ask because the concept seems much more prominent, and dare I say uncommonly common in LDS practice than in that of other Christian faiths. Or is there scholarly literature in the LDS library on the tripartite, bipartite debate? Thanks so very much.

This is kind of hard to understand for me as you are using terminology that isn't normal for me.  But I'll try my best.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

The LDS perspective is that there are no prerequisites or pattern for those who see or hear Christ.

So, we have several examples of people seeing Christ: Paul (yes, you disagree with it but we don't), Stephan, Joseph Smith, and various other church leaders and members as mentioned earlier.  What did Paul do to receive a visit?  He was killing saints.  What did Joseph Smith do to receive a visit?  He was called to be the first prophet of this dispensation.  What's the commonality between those two visits?  Christ needed to visit them to move forward His work.  So, Christ can appear to anyone to further His work.  There's things that we can do to increase the chance of receiving a visit but there's nothing that will guarantee a visit.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Typically when He decides to physically reveal Himself to humanity, He does so by hiding or cloaking his corporeality which would cause Him to be only seen or heard by the intended person, not others in the area, room, or vicinity?

Saying He "hides his corporeality" sounds like His corporeality is separate from His person.  Christ can't lay aside His physical body.  Anywhere He goes, His physical body goes with Him.  Just as I can't walk outside of my house without my physical body.  The only time I can be separated from my physical body is when I die.  But after resurrection, the physical body and the spirit body are joined together permanently and they never separate again.

So, He isn't "hiding his corporeality" when He decides to show Himself to just one person and not the others.  He is hiding Himself.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Therefore we could not expect there to be tangible evidence of His presence except to the intended person.

We have stories of resurrected or translated beings interacting with humans.  This includes Christ with His apostles and the visitors to Abraham.  In those cases, they ate food.  So there would be leftover food from what they ate.  There can be tangible evidence.  But it depends on the situation.  When Christ showed Himself to Mary at the tomb, was He touching the ground or floating above it.  If He was touching the ground, then Mary might have been able to find footprints or leaves/grass out of place.

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Does Christ have to physically leave heaven (or whatever term you prefer to use  for the dwelling place of the Father) in order to be seen in a vision here on earth?

I would say the possible options are: our spirit is taken to view Him where He is located, our physical body (plus spirit) is taken to view Him where He is located, He physically comes during the visit, or He does some sort of "zoom call" where we can see Him.  I think we have examples of all of those in the scriptures.

By the way, I would say that visits of God, Christ, and resurrected beings are all similar in our beliefs.  So if a scriptural account has someone seeing God, Christ, or a resurrected being, then that same situation applies to all of them.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

The LDS perspective is that there are no prerequisites or pattern for those who see or hear Christ.

This reminded me of a brush with a Christian community that I had while I was in the Army. One of the guys in my unit was a member of The Way International, and he talked about his organization to those of us who were Christian and would listen. They didn't seem to have a "church", actually, nor did they have church buildings, but instead met in private homes in small groups. Me and the guy I roomed with in the barracks went to the guy's house one night for a "service" in which, among other things, he spoke in tongues and had his wife interpret for him. There was available a series of classes that taught how to do things like speak in tongues and give prophecies. They did have prerequisites, as colleges do, for attending the various available classes. 

I suppose that they did not have a class for being able to see or hear Christ. But your sentence above made me think of them for the first time in many years.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure I have this right based on the comments about Christ appearing to people . . . The LDS perspective is that there are no prerequisites or pattern for those who see or hear Christ. Christ is fully human and fully divine - therefore He is fully human and divine - therefore He is fully Spirit and corporeal and as a side He has a human soul - mind, will, emotion as well. Typically when He decides to physically reveal Himself to humanity, He does so by hiding or cloaking his corporeality which would cause Him to be only seen or heard by the intended person, not others in the area, room, or vicinity?  Therefore we could not expect there to be tangible evidence of His presence except to the intended person. The intended person then sees or hears Christ via his or her physical organs - eyes and ears - not via the ability of the mind (as different from the brain)? For example I can close my eyes and see my wife. I can sit here while she is still asleep and hear her voice in my mind. I am not using my physical ears and ears, but I can create a reality where she is "with me" as I type this.

Does Christ have to physically leave heaven (or whatever term you prefer to use  for the dwelling place of the Father) in order to be seen in a vision here on earth? I understand completely the concept that Christ "can." I am trying to sort through out it works when He "does." Assuming that He "does" from time to time. I guess I ask from my belief that the mind is both connected to our physiology (brain for instance) and yet somehow separate from it. I find a discussion of theophanies and hierophanies to be fascinating. It is the perfect conjuncture of the physical, psychological, and spiritual/theological. In my adult life I have been an advocate for a tripartite view, that humans are soul, body, and spirit. I can't get my head around the idea that it is all body (neurons, brain, etc.) Beyond what has been offered so far, is there a body of LDS-originated literature on the subject of theophanies and hierophanies (visions and the like). I ask because the concept seems much more prominent, and dare I say uncommonly common in LDS practice than in that of other Christian faiths. Or is there scholarly literature in the LDS library on the tripartite, bipartite debate? Thanks so very much.

Just actually read the scriptures.

We are materialists, not Cartesian dualists. 

D&C 131:6

"6 It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.
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."

No difference between matter and spirit.

Remember brother Einstein?  

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

This is kind of hard to understand for me as you are using terminology that isn't normal for me.  But I'll try my best.

So, we have several examples of people seeing Christ: Paul (yes, you disagree with it but we don't), Stephan, Joseph Smith, and various other church leaders and members as mentioned earlier.  What did Paul do to receive a visit?  He was killing saints.  What did Joseph Smith do to receive a visit?  He was called to be the first prophet of this dispensation.  What's the commonality between those two visits?  Christ needed to visit them to move forward His work.  So, Christ can appear to anyone to further His work.  There's things that we can do to increase the chance of receiving a visit but there's nothing that will guarantee a visit.

Saying He "hides his corporeality" sounds like His corporeality is separate from His person.  Christ can't lay aside His physical body.  Anywhere He goes, His physical body goes with Him.  Just as I can't walk outside of my house without my physical body.  The only time I can be separated from my physical body is when I die.  But after resurrection, the physical body and the spirit body are joined together permanently and they never separate again.

So, He isn't "hiding his corporeality" when He decides to show Himself to just one person and not the others.  He is hiding Himself.

We have stories of resurrected or translated beings interacting with humans.  This includes Christ with His apostles and the visitors to Abraham.  In those cases, they ate food.  So there would be leftover food from what they ate.  There can be tangible evidence.  But it depends on the situation.  When Christ showed Himself to Mary at the tomb, was He touching the ground or floating above it.  If He was touching the ground, then Mary might have been able to find footprints or leaves/grass out of place.

I would say the possible options are: our spirit is taken to view Him where He is located, our physical body (plus spirit) is taken to view Him where He is located, He physically comes during the visit, or He does some sort of "zoom call" where we can see Him.  I think we have examples of all of those in the scriptures.

By the way, I would say that visits of God, Christ, and resurrected beings are all similar in our beliefs.  So if a scriptural account has someone seeing God, Christ, or a resurrected being, then that same situation applies to all of them.

Substance theology goes back to Aquinas and the pagan Greeks, with multiple substances, one substance becomes another, swapping appearances while retaining substances, etc and around it goes, bread becoming flesh while still appearing to be bread, etc.

Both science and scripture show this to be erroneous, the paradigm has changed

Edited August 24, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

This is kind of hard to understand for me as you are using terminology that isn't normal for me.  But I'll try my best.

So, we have several examples of people seeing Christ: Paul (yes, you disagree with it but we don't), Stephan, Joseph Smith, and various other church leaders and members as mentioned earlier.  What did Paul do to receive a visit?  He was killing saints.  What did Joseph Smith do to receive a visit?  He was called to be the first prophet of this dispensation.  What's the commonality between those two visits?  Christ needed to visit them to move forward His work.  So, Christ can appear to anyone to further His work.  There's things that we can do to increase the chance of receiving a visit but there's nothing that will guarantee a visit.

Saying He "hides his corporeality" sounds like His corporeality is separate from His person.  Christ can't lay aside His physical body.  Anywhere He goes, His physical body goes with Him.  Just as I can't walk outside of my house without my physical body.  The only time I can be separated from my physical body is when I die.  But after resurrection, the physical body and the spirit body are joined together permanently and they never separate again.

So, He isn't "hiding his corporeality" when He decides to show Himself to just one person and not the others.  He is hiding Himself.

We have stories of resurrected or translated beings interacting with humans.  This includes Christ with His apostles and the visitors to Abraham.  In those cases, they ate food.  So there would be leftover food from what they ate.  There can be tangible evidence.  But it depends on the situation.  When Christ showed Himself to Mary at the tomb, was He touching the ground or floating above it.  If He was touching the ground, then Mary might have been able to find footprints or leaves/grass out of place.

I would say the possible options are: our spirit is taken to view Him where He is located, our physical body (plus spirit) is taken to view Him where He is located, He physically comes during the visit, or He does some sort of "zoom call" where we can see Him.  I think we have examples of all of those in the scriptures.

By the way, I would say that visits of God, Christ, and resurrected beings are all similar in our beliefs.  So if a scriptural account has someone seeing God, Christ, or a resurrected being, then that same situation applies to all of them.

Thanks for the great reply. I would simply like to clarify that I don't disagree that Paul saw Christ on the road to Damascus. I am simply not sure what he saw. I believe the accounts are inconsistent. Having said that I must conclude I am not sure exactly what he saw. Nothing I could say about it with any certainty. Thanks again for your kind reply.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

This reminded me of a brush with a Christian community that I had while I was in the Army. One of the guys in my unit was a member of The Way International, and he talked about his organization to those of us who were Christian and would listen. They didn't seem to have a "church", actually, nor did they have church buildings, but instead met in private homes in small groups. Me and the guy I roomed with in the barracks went to the guy's house one night for a "service" in which, among other things, he spoke in tongues and had his wife interpret for him. There was available a series of classes that taught how to do things like speak in tongues and give prophecies. They did have prerequisites, as colleges do, for attending the various available classes. 

I suppose that they did not have a class for being able to see or hear Christ. But your sentence above made me think of them for the first time in many years.

Hi. In case you are interested The Way International still exists, pretty much as your described it. It is non-denominational and always has been. They still focus on teaching, home Bible studies and services. Their headquarters is either in Ohio or Kansas. As far as I know they own a big ranch in Colorado where they do a lot of youth work and Bible teaching. It is not easy to pinpoint where they fall on the theological spectrum because I don't think they have a big statement of faith. I may be wrong on that.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Just actually read the scriptures.

We are materialists, not Cartesian dualists. 

D&C 131:6

"6 It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.
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."

No difference between matter and spirit.

Remember brother Einstein?  

 

Probably a good subject for another thread! I can't get my head around "No difference between matter and spirit." I gave up carpentry because my material hammer did too much damage to my material thumb too often! 

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Probably a good subject for another thread! I can't get my head around "No difference between matter and spirit." I gave up carpentry because my material hammer did too much damage to my material thumb too often! 

Study physics

[webbles]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

Christ is fully human and fully divine - therefore He is fully human and divine - therefore He is fully Spirit and corporeal and as a side He has a human soul - mind, will, emotion as well

I'm pretty sure the terminology "fully human and fully divine" is something you'd rarely hear at church.  I used https://www.lds-general-conference.org/ to search all general conference messages for "fully human" or "fully divine" and it found no matches.

I would say the reason for that is we see humanity as part of divinity.  We are the same species as God and Christ.  Since we are human, then they are human as well.  "Human" might be the wrong name for species as it includes "God" but its the closest thing in English.  So, Christ doesn't have a "human side", He is human.  He doesn't have a "spirit side" because a human has a spirit.  This division between "human", "divine", "spirit" is just not something we believe.

I hope that makes sense.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Probably a good subject for another thread! I can't get my head around "No difference between matter and spirit." I gave up carpentry because my material hammer did too much damage to my material thumb too often! 

The material interaction between the hammer and your thumb only has meaning because your person (soul) is connected spirit and element. Without that connection between two types of material, you would have no distinction between that which is less fine and pure and that which isn’t, and thus no basis upon which to base or avoid a vocation, which is a spiritual enterprise.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I'm pretty sure the terminology "fully human and fully divine" is something you'd rarely hear at church.  I used https://www.lds-general-conference.org/ to search all general conference messages for "fully human" or "fully divine" and it found no matches.

I would say the reason for that is we see humanity as part of divinity.  We are the same species as God and Christ.  Since we are human, then they are human as well.  "Human" might be the wrong name for species as it includes "God" but its the closest thing in English.  So, Christ doesn't have a "human side", He is human.  He doesn't have a "spirit side" because a human has a spirit.  This division between "human", "divine", "spirit" is just not something we believe.

I hope that makes sense.

It makes sense. It is a complex issue. I receive it as such. I don't really agree that we and God are of the same species, but I know that teaching is important to the Saints. So I will simply honor it and move on. I am not a fan of apologetics on either side of difficult issues. Polemics leave me uninterested. I am interested in visions, dreams and such. They are a ubiquitous human experience that reach far beyond Christianity. When I did my mission in an animist part of Africa, visions were plentiful. Almost all founders of differing faiths and religions had visions including those who founded Anabaptism which morphed into one expression that became the Mennonites. Thanks for communicating with me on these issues with reason and respect. I really appreciate that. I hope I do the same. Best.

[Navidad]

57 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The material interaction between the hammer and your thumb only has meaning because your person (soul) is connected spirit and element. Without that connection between two types of material, you would have no distinction between that which is less fine and pure and that which isn’t, and thus no basis upon which to base or avoid a vocation, which is a spiritual enterprise.

Wow that was heavy! So are most members of the LDS church tripartites (body, soul, and spirit connected- but separate) or bipartites (body, and soul-spirit)? Never heard this discussed in the ward. Inquiring minds need to know! Thanks.

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Wow that was heavy! So are most members of the LDS church tripartites (body, soul, and spirit connected- but separate) or bipartites (body, and soul-spirit)? Never heard this discussed in the ward. Inquiring minds need to know! Thanks.

Terminology may vary between individuals, but I believe the general run of the church looks at it as bipartite. 

Body + Spirit = Soul.

Still, some members may see "soul" and "spirit" as equivalent.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The material interaction between the hammer and your thumb only has meaning because your person (soul) is connected spirit and element. Without that connection between two types of material, you would have no distinction between that which is less fine and pure and that which isn’t, and thus no basis upon which to base or avoid a vocation, which is a spiritual enterprise.

I see no need to postulate two types of anything nor then needing to define how they interact by creating some type of connection.

There are gentle breezes and there are tornados.  Velocity is the only difference.

Colors it is said are similar, with frequencies of the same "energy" making the difference

One might argue that TV presents an illusion and is not "real" or a different kind of reality, when we know it is just a different frequency of energies we see as "reality".

To me it is a mass of confusion, which phrase may mean something different to LDS old timers than what it means today

Edited August 24, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Terminology may vary between individuals, but I believe the general run of the church looks at it as bipartite. 

Body + Spirit = Soul.

Still, some members may see "soul" and "spirit" as equivalent.

 

Wow, I like that. I have never heard of the concept that Body + Spirit = Soul. I think that will preach! Now you have given me something to think about all evening! Take care

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Wow that was heavy! So are most members of the LDS church tripartites (body, soul, and spirit connected- but separate) or bipartites (body, and soul-spirit)? Never heard this discussed in the ward. Inquiring minds need to know! Thanks.

I don't think different forms of the same thing renders them separate things. Like faith and knowledge, which I see as simply two forms of the same thing (experience). We can speak of them as separate, but in the end, when we have been filtered through mortality -- i.e., pure -- we will see they are same thing, to paraphrase D&C 131:7-8. We can also put labels on things which I think turn out to be more often constrictive than not, but are often part of the developmental experience, which is why it takes so long!

[Calm]

Just now, CV75 said:

I don't think different forms of the same thing renders them separate things. Like faith and knowledge, which I see as simply two forms of the same thing (experience). We can speak of them as separate, but in the end, when we have been filtered through mortality -- i.e., pure -- we will see they are same thing, to paraphrase D&C 131:7-8. We can also put labels on things which I think turn out to be more often constrictive than not, but are often part of the developmental experience, which is why it takes so long!

It is like splitting our mind into ego, superego, and id. The division is nonexistent, it is just convenient in talking about different aspects of the same thing. 

[Stargazer]

37 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Wow, I like that. I have never heard of the concept that Body + Spirit = Soul. I think that will preach! Now you have given me something to think about all evening! Take care

Color me surprised! But you're welcome!

Surprised you hadn't heard that before, I mean.

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I see no need to postulate two types of anything nor then needing to define how they interact by creating some type of connection.

There are gentle breezes and there are tornados.  Velocity is the only difference.

Colors it is said are similar, with frequencies of the same "energy" making the difference

One might argue that TV presents an illusion and is not "real" or a different kind of reality, when we know it is just a different frequency of energies we see as "reality".

To me it is a mass of confusion, which phrase may mean something different to LDS old timers than what it means today

Yes, these experiences inspire us to build storm shelters, hire interior decorators and tell the kids it's just a movie. Distinguishing, assigning meaning and doing something about them are all experiences. God did it first when He said "Let there be light" and there was light, and He saw it, and it was good, but if it wasn't the same stuff as the  darkness anyway, why would He need to divide them?

[CV75]

Kind of changes the meaning of being "added upon" -- not adding things we are not, just adding more of what we are (I'll introduce another item: glory).

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I have never heard of the concept that Body + Spirit = Soul. I think that will preach!

In case they're useful, here are some passages.

D&C 88:15-16:

Quote

And the spirit and the body are the soul of man. And the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul.

Abraham 5:7:

Quote

And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man’s spirit), and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

2 Nephi 9:13:

Quote

O how great the plan of our God! For on the other hand, the paradise of God must deliver up the spirits of the righteous, and the grave deliver up the body of the righteous; and the spirit and the body is restored to itself again, and all men become incorruptible, and immortal, and they are living souls ...

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, these experiences inspire us to build storm shelters, hire interior decorators and tell the kids it's just a movie. Distinguishing, assigning meaning and doing something about them are all experiences. God did it first when He said "Let there be light" and there was light, and He saw it, and it was good, but if it wasn't the same stuff as the  darkness anyway, why would He need to divide them?

Divide them? It's the concept of more and less - it's  math, and a definition, not a "division".  There was still starlight and moonlight.  It's like hot vs cold- how is that a division?

It was a useful ("good/sweet/") semantic change/definition.

 

^{Gen 1:5 -altered-}And God CALLED the light Day, and the darkness he CALLED Night. And the evening and the morning were (NAMED) the first " day".

Edited August 25, 2022 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Divide them? It's the concept of more and less - it's  math, and a definition, not a "division".  There was still starlight and moonlight.  It's like hot vs cold- how is that a division?

It was a useful ("good/sweet/") semantic change/definition.

 

^{Gen 1:5 -altered-}And God CALLED the light Day, and the darkness he CALLED Night. And the evening and the morning were (NAMED) the first " day".

Yes, it was fundamentally the same stuff, hence it could be divided and named different things.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yes, it was fundamentally the same stuff, hence it could be divided and named different things.

What we need to understand is that we cannot know if it's "fundamentally the same stuff" or not, only how we describe it.